Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News
Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News |
- You first have to know the meaning of the word
- Making sense of nonsense
- What else is unconstitutional in Malaysia?
- Open Letter to Hasan Ali
- Rights and liberties
- Let’s get this straight
- Have they been bought?
- Cure the cause, not the symptoms
- Can I know your stand?
- Philosophy as taught by Universiti Teknologi Mara (UiTM) (UPDATED with Chinese Translation)
| You first have to know the meaning of the word Posted: 22 Nov 2011 07:39 PM PST Give me atheist leaders any time. As Karl Marx said, "The first requisite for the happiness of the people is the abolition of religion." And as Lenin said, "There are no morals in politics; there is only expedience. A scoundrel may be of use to us just because he is a scoundrel." NO HOLDS BARRED Raja Petra Kamarudin
Unbridled civil rights 'recipe for disaster', say BN MPs (The Malaysian Insider) - Barisan Nasional MPs today defended the new laws regulating public assembly, saying that it showed progress and guaranteed more freedom compared to previous legislation. BN leaders argued that the Peaceful Assembly Bill was favourable to "all parties", and said the restrictions were necessary to keep society in check. "Civil rights groups have to understand, unbridled rights is a recipe for disaster," Umno MP Datuk Abdul Rahman Dahlan told The Malaysian Insider. "Dissenting views must be heard, and it is included in the spirit of the law. The government has shifted its approach from a position of absolute power to advisory," the Kota Belud MP said. Citing the Police Act as an example, Abdul Rahman said new regulations were an improvement of the old Act. He said the new laws did not require anyone to apply for a permit from the police, only a formal notification. "You have to compare the new law to Section 27 of the Police Act. Some people are now complaining about the need to notify the police. "That is needed for their protection, if you don't inform the police how can they protect you if anything happens?" asked the BN backbencher. Datuk Wan Junaidi Wan Jaafar said the new assembly law showed progress and that the government had satisfied the needs of all Malaysians. "You want to have your right to a demonstration at Jalan Tuanku Abdul Rahman, but people who live there also have their rights. "The law is more relaxed, and gives more work to the police," said the Dewan Rakyat Deputy Speaker. (READ MORE HERE) *********************************** The small-minded Barisan Nasional leaders are foaming at the mouth screaming about how more freedom, democracy and civil rights are being allowed Malaysians. Yes, these are people who are leaders, Members of Parliament, Malaysia's lawmakers, many who are even beneficiaries of a tertiary education, and supposedly very religious people. But I personally know uneducated fishermen and farmers who can think and talk better than these people. And trust me on this because for 20 years I lived amongst fisherman and farmers and was the Chairman of the residents' committee and of the local mosque, 70-80% who were fishermen and farmers. So I DO know how they think and talk. To these Barisan Nasional people, civil rights is just about freedom to hold demonstrations (subject to the police allowing it to be held) and more freedom to speak your mind (as long as you do not criticise the Rulers, the religious department, the Malays, Islam, the Prime Minister's wife, government leaders, or touch on whatever the government may consider 'sensitive issues' -- and the government will determine what constitutes 'sensitive issues'). See how narrow the concept of civil liberties and freedom is to these people? And they will determine what can and cannot be done and said. This, as Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad and Lee Kuan Yew said, is called 'guided democracy'. And this is what Malaysia and Singapore practices. Actually, civil liberties or civil rights extend to more than just 'controlled demonstrations' and 'limited freedom of speech'. There are many things under the ambit of civil liberties. And this is something these so-called educated government leaders from both the government and opposition do not understand. And that is why we need to line them all up against the wall and shoot them dead, figure of speech of course, although literally would not be such a bad idea as well. When we talk about civil rights we must look beyond just demonstrations and freedom of speech (although that would be a good start). For example, the right to clean and interrupted water supply is also your civil right. And are Malaysians being given this? I wrote about this back in 2000 (see the ADDENDUM below) so I do not need to repeat what I have already said. Denying the people of Kelantan clean water (and this has been prevalent since long before Merdeka) is a violation of their civil rights. Of course, if the Kelantanese were to kick out PAS and vote Umno into power then the state will be given the water it needs. This is blackmail. In the meantime how many Kelantanese need to die of Cholera and other water-borne diseases? Umno is prepared to allow Kelantanese to die just to punish them and blackmail them into voting for Umno. Yes, Umno, is the largest Islamic party in the world, so claims Umno. And 97-98% of the Kelantanese people are Muslims. But it is okay for Muslims to kill Muslims for political considerations. And Umno has the gall to laugh at the state government for not being able to provide the Kelantanese with clean water. 1. Incumbent upon PAS government to provide quality water in Kelantan: Mustapa (READ HERE) 2. BN can resolve Kelantan water problem in five years (READ HERE) 3. Kelantan hospital faces dire water shortage (READ HERE) 4. Water problem in Kelantan getting worse (READ HERE) 5. 30 schools and 30,000 students hit by water woes (READ HERE) As I have always said, we must be very careful with people who foam at the mouth and scream about Islam. These would normally be the biggest hypocrites. The more they talk about Islam the more we need to guard against them. I never trust anyone who always talks about religion, whether they are Jews, Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists or whatever. Since time immemorial, people have been killed in the name or religion by people who claim to be doing God's work. Show me all those war criminals and mass murderers and I will show you people who have a religion. Okay, maybe some will now say that Stalin was an atheist. Actually, he was not an atheist. He did have faith. It is just that he was not a religionist. And there is a big difference between a religionist and those who believe that there is a God (theist). You can believe in God without being a religionist, which was what Stalin was. Anyway, that is not the issue. The issue is many so-called religionists who foam at the mouth when they talk about their religion do not understand what civil rights means and have no respect for civil liberties. And this violates the so-called religion that they profess and try to preach to us. Give me atheist leaders any time. As Karl Marx said, "The first requisite for the happiness of the people is the abolition of religion." And as Lenin said, "There are no morals in politics; there is only expedience. A scoundrel may be of use to us just because he is a scoundrel." *********************************** ADDENDUM Killing the Kelantanese with no water When the Anwar Ibrahim poisoning crisis erupted late last year, Mahathir pooh-poohed the whole matter by saying that Malays do not murder for political ends. Not quite true! Samad Goal was murdered in Kota Bharu - head split open with an axe. The "old timers" tell me, while he was giving a speech during a political rally. Dato Tahar was murdered - I was told, shot all over his body. Some people tell me Dr Burhanuddin Hilmi was poisoned. And those are only the ones I know about. And they were all murdered for political reasons. Yes, Malays DO murder for political ends. Is Mahathir now killing off the Kelantanese, his political rivals, by denying them water? This is what Mahathir said recently, "However, the Kelantan government could not even ensure clean water for its people. When you turn on the tap, you get coffee instead''. To Mahathir it is all a big joke - something to laugh about. The Kelantan opposition government cannot even provide clean water for its people. Mahathir thinks it is so funny. Mahathir added that the Kelantan State government was seeking help from the Federal Government to overcome its water woes. "They are asking for 600 million Ringgit from us. If we have that kind of money, we will put it to good use". Yes, that's right. If the Federal Government had 600 million Ringgit they would put it to good use. They would not give it to the Kelantan State government to provide water to its 1,500,000 people. That is not good use for the money. 600 million Ringgit can build an F1 racetrack. Foreigners can use the track to enjoy themselves. 600 million Ringgit can also build a beautiful tower in the middle of Kuala Lumpur. That is better use for the money. Water for 1,500,000 people in Kelantan is definitely NOT good use. Kelantan has been facing a water shortage problem for the last 20 or 30 years - long before the opposition took over the State. In 1990, the state fell to the opposition. The Federal Government then suddenly decided to cancel the plan to spend 600 million Ringgit to improve the water supply in the State. The members of the Kelantan Branch of the Housing Developers Association met the Minister-in-Charge of the State, Anwar Musa, to discuss the water problem with him. These developers could not hand over their houses to their buyers as there was no water supply and they were losing money because of it. Anwar Musa told the developers, if they wanted water, they would have to vote in the Barisan Nasional the next general election. As long as the State was under the opposition they would get no water. Then the Federal Government announced they were giving Kelantan State the 600 million Ringgit they required. There was much rejoicing. Kelantan, at last, would be getting water. Then, when everyone's hopes were high, the Federal Government announced they would not, after all, give the State the money. All hopes were dashed. Then it was announced the State would be given the money, but the Federal government would control it and decide how it is used. Then they said the State would not get the money. This is a cruel game to play on 1,500,000 people who have not seen clean water for two generations. You build up their hopes, then you dash it again, just to see the smiles on their faces get wiped off. Today, Kelantan is suffering from a Cholera outbreak. Mahathir is a medical man. He knows how and why Cholera is spread. Does Mahathir announce the water embargo on Kelantan is off? Does Mahathir now give them the 600 million Ringgit promised and un-promised so many times? No! Instead, TV3 parades people before their cameras to show them condemning the Kelantan Government for not being able to overcome the State water woes. The water woes were there long before the opposition took over the State. It is not the opposition government's fault. They inherited the problem when they took over a State that already had no water. This is a cruel game to play on the people of Kelantan. It is not funny, and Mahathir should wipe that smirk of his face. People are dying in Kelantan. And it's all because they have no water. And they have no water because the Federal Government is trying to bring the State to its knees. Was it not Mahathir who condemned the US for its embargo on Iraq? Was it not Mahathir who said the embargo is causing the deaths of thousands of innocent children? Was it not Mahathir who called the Americans murderers for doing this? Does Mahathir not see he is now killing innocent Kelantanese by denying them water? Is Mahathir so sure those dead from Cholera voted for the opposition? What if they did not? What if they did not vote at all? What if they are children and babies who are not even voters yet? Mahathir, are you not a Malay? Are not the Kelantanese Malays? Did you not say Malays do not murder for political ends? Mahathir, stop killing off innocent children and babies! Stop the Cholera epidemic in Kelantan! Give Kelantan the water they need! Give them the water they have been waiting generations for. Most importantly of all, Mahathir, stop gloating. Wipe that smirk off your face. It is not as funny as you think. Denying the Kelantan people water does not prove how incapable the opposition is in running the State. It just proves you would gladly resort to murdering innocent babies just to defeat a political rival. May God have mercy on you, Mahathir, for all those deaths in Kelantan! Raja Petra Kamarudin (28 September 2000)
|
| Posted: 21 Nov 2011 08:01 PM PST So, YB, are you going to now issue a statement saying that you made an error and that only anal and oral sex are crimes whereas gay relationships are not a crime according to Malaysian law? And if people live together as gay couples and only kiss, hug, touch, rub against each other, masturbate each other, but as long as there is no anal or oral sex, then the government can't do anything about it? NO HOLDS BARRED Raja Petra Kamarudin
Malaysia Today: First of all, Yang Berhormat, thank you so much for agreeing to this interview. Yang Berhormat: I am always happy to talk to the media, even opposition media like Malaysia Today, which never reports the truth and always twists and distorts what we say. MT: Well, YB, we are here today so that you can clarify what you actually said and which you claim has been misreported. You can also take this opportunity to clarify government policy and clear whatever misconceptions or wrong perceptions the public may have. And I promise you, YB, Malaysia Today will report exactly what you said without any editing. YB: Thank you. That is very comforting to hear. First of all, I want the readers to know that I never said that homosexuality is against the Federal Constitution. I said it is against the law. MT: Yes, that is now very clear. In fact, earlier today, Malaysia Today published your clarification and rebuttal. So we are not really as unfair as some allege, YB. YB: Good. And thank you. At least Malaysia Today allows both sides of the story, not like some other opposition newspapers that only report bad things about the government. MT: Actually Malaysia Today is not a newspaper and neither is it opposition owned. Malaysia Today is a sounding board for Malaysians to express their unhappiness with both the government and the opposition. Anyway, that is not the point, YB. What we want to talk about today is your statement regarding homosexuality being against the law. You quoted the section of the law regarding sodomy. It talks about sodomy, not about homosexuality. That section of the law does not say that homosexuality is a crime. It only says that sodomy is a crime. YB: It is automatic. If it involves homosexuality then automatically it involves sodomy. MT: But, YB, that section of the law also makes it a crime for a husband and wife to have anal sex. So heterosexual anal sex also attracts a 20-year jail sentence, even if it is between legally married couples. Why did YB not also stress on this fact: that husbands and wives can also get sent to jail, not just homosexuals? YB: We are not concerned about married couples and what they do in the privacy of their bedrooms. We are only concerned about what homosexuals do in the privacy of their bedrooms. MT: But that is beside the point, YB. It is still the law that married couples who indulge in anal sex can be sent to jail for 20 years, until such a time that this law is amended and stipulates that anal sex is a crime only for those who indulge in same-sex relationships. YB: How can we control what married people do in their bedrooms? It is impossible to monitor what people do in the privacy of their bedrooms. MT: Yet the government wants to monitor what non-married people or gay couples do in the privacy of their bedrooms. How are you going to do this? YB: Well…I….I…. MT: Never mind, YB. Let's move on. The law says that anal sex is a crime. It does not say that homosexuality is a crime. What happens if two people of the same sex live as husband and wife but they do not indulge in anal sex? How can you arrest and charge them? YB: How can they live together but not have sex? MT: They can always indulge in oral sex, YB. YB: You mean they live together as a married couple and just talk about sex? I don't believe that. MT: No, YB, I don't mean oral sex as in talking about sex. I mean….well, you know YB…..lick, lick, suck, suck. YB: Oh, that oral sex! Oral sex is also a crime. It is also punishable by 20 years jail, even if between husbands and wives. MT: Okay, YB, you may be thinking of homosexual relationships as just being between two men. What if the homosexual relationship is between two women? Are you still going to say that it is a crime since there is no sodomy or anal sex involved? And take note, YB, that section of the law you are talking about makes it a crime to indulge in anal sex, not to be a homosexual. YB: Well, if it is two women, then they probably have oral sex. So that means it is also a crime. MT: So, it is the sex act that is the crime then. Being homosexual or living as a gay couple is not a crime. Is that right, YB? YB: Well….yes, that is right. MT: So, YB, are you going to now issue a statement saying that you made an error and that only anal and oral sex are crimes whereas gay relationships are not a crime according to Malaysian law? And if people live together as gay couples and only kiss, hug, touch, rub against each other, masturbate each other, but as long as there is no anal or oral sex, then the government can't do anything about it? YB: Well…I…..I…. MT: Never mind, YB, let's move on. Let us now talk about non-Muslims, in particular Evangelists, preaching or propagating Christianity to Muslims, which has been an issue of late. YB: Yes, according the Constitution that is wrong. So the government can take action. MT: Okay, agreed. According to Article 11(4) of the constitution, it says: "State law and in respect of the Federal Territories of Kuala Lumpur and Labuan, federal law may control or restrict the propagation of any religious doctrine or belief among persons professing the religion of Islam." But what about if that person may have been born a Muslim but he later leaves Islam. That means you are technically no longer propagating to Muslims but to ex-Muslims. YB: There is no such thing as ex-Muslims. Once you are born a Muslim or you convert to Islam then you are a Muslim forever until the day you die. MT: But what are the criteria to be a Muslim? YB: I don't understand. MT: Is it not compulsory that you believe in one God, Allah, and accept Muhammad as the last Prophet, the Quran as God's word, and the belief in the Afterlife, and so on? And if you reject this doctrine then your akidah would be demolished and you would cease to be a Muslim? YB: Yes, your akidah is important in Islam. If your akidah is defective then you are no longer a Muslim. MT: So, if a Muslim says he does not believe that Muhammad is the last Prophet or he says he doubts that the Quran is from God but was in fact written by Muhammad's people then he ceases to be a Muslim since he no longer has akidah. YB: Yes. MT: So where is the crime then if the Evangelists preach or propagate Christianity to these people since technically they are not Muslims any longer? YB: Well….I….I….but still we can't allow it. They may be ex-Muslims according to Islam but we still regard them as Muslims and will arrest them and send them for religious rehabilitation to try to bring them back to the right path. MT: So the government regards them as non-Muslims or ex-Muslims but will not allow them to be non-Muslims or ex-Muslims and will arrest them and rehabilitate them and that is why Christians can't preach to them or propagate Christianity to them? YB: Yes, that is correct. MT: Thank you, YB. We hope with this clarification Malaysians can now better understand how the mind of the Malaysian government works.
|
| What else is unconstitutional in Malaysia? Posted: 20 Nov 2011 04:45 PM PST
Minister in the Prime Minister's Department Datuk Seri Jamil Khir Baharom said it is unconstitutional for a person to be homosexual in Malaysia. "In reality, in the country's constitution it is not allowed, including sections 377(a), (b), (c) and (d) which prohibit sexual relations between two men," said Jamil, who is in charge of Islamic affairs and head of the Malaysian Department of Islamic Development (Jakim). NO HOLDS BARRED Raja Petra Kamarudin
Actually, if the minister really wants to follow the Federal Constitution of Malaysia, there are many more things that are unconstitutional, and being a homosexual is certainly not one of them although he can argue that it is against the law. But then, being against the law (meaning: it constitutes a crime) does not make it unconstitutional. For example, raping your own mother or sodomising your own father is also a crime. But that does not make them unconstitutional. So is robbing a bank, murdering your wife, cheating on your income tax, taking bribes, misusing public funds to pay for your wife's lavish shopping, etc. They are all crimes but can't quite be called unconstitutional. The minister, being not that intelligent and downright ignorant, as most Malaysian ministers are, does not appear to know the difference between what is unconstitutional and what is a crime. Anyway, if you refer to some of the Articles in the Constitution below, you can see that there are many practices and policies in Malaysia that are unconstitutional (and at times opposed to Islam as well). Maybe my learned minister would like to talk about these as well. Detaining someone without due process of the law is unconstitutional as per Article 5. And to use 'emergency laws' that waive the need for due process is unconstitutional when Malaysia is not facing any emergency and whatever emergency it did face in the past (such as The Emergency, May 13, Konfrontasi, etc.) have now ended (which means the emergency laws no longer apply). This is like still using WW1 or WW2 emergency laws when WW1 and WW2 have ended a long time ago. Discrimination, quotas, preferences, etc., based on race or religion is unconstitutional as per Article 8. You can argue that the New Economic Policy (NEP) overrides the Constitution but Article 4 does not allow this. Anyway, the NEP was not a law passed by Parliament and that is why it is called 'the aspirations (hasrat) of the NEP'. It is merely an aspiration and not a law. Hence, to force Malaysians to comply with the NEP violates the Constitution. Asking for the citizenship of any Malaysian to be withdrawn is unconstitutional as per Article 9. So Umno should stop asking for the citizenship of Ambiga and others to be withdrawn. Malaysians have the liberty to express their opinion as per Article 10 even if they wish to opine that religion is bullshit, God does not exist, or that the monarchy is outdated and corrupt and should be abolished in favour of a Republic of Malaysia. Opinions are allowed and expressing them is not a crime. Malaysians have the liberty to believe in any religion they want to or to reject religion totally under Article 11. Even if they wish to reject all forms of religion and become atheists, that is their constitutional right. The only thing the Constitution forbids is to propagate these beliefs to Muslims. However, if that person has declared that he/she no longer believes in God, then that would make him/her an apostate and, technically, that person would no longer be a Muslim. Therefore, propagating to ex-Muslims would not constitute a crime since they have on their own freewill become apostates. Setting up institutions of learning exclusive to any one race is unconstitutional according to Article 12. Therefore, UiTM, according to the constitution, must open its doors to all races (but whether they would want to enter UiTM is another matter altogether). Yes, if you want to talk about what is unconstitutional then let us talk about what is unconstitutional. And being gay is not one of them. The above, however, are. But does the minister understand this? Most likely not! Or else he would not have been made a minister. Instead, he would have become a Blogger like me. ****************************************** PART II - FUNDAMENTAL LIBERTIES Article number: 4 • (1) This Constitution is the supreme law of the Federation and any law passed after Merdeka Day which is inconsistent with this Constitution shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be void. • (2) The validity of any law shall not be questioned on the ground that - • (a) it imposes restrictions on the right mentioned in Article 9 (2) but does not relate to the matters mentioned therein; or • (b) it imposes such restrictions as are mentioned in Article 10 (2) but those restrictions were not deemed necessary or expedient by Parliament for the purposes mentioned in that Article. • (3) The validity of any law made by Parliament or the Legislature of any State shall not be questioned on the ground that it makes provision with respect to any matter with respect to which Parliament or, as the case may be, the Legislature of the State has no power to make laws, except in proceedings for a declaration that the law is invalid on that ground or - • (a) if the law was made by Parliament, in proceedings between the Federation and one or more States; • (b) if the law was made by Legislature of a State, in proceedings between the Federation and that State. • (4) Proceedings for a declaration that a law is invalid on the ground mentioned in Clause (3) (not being proceedings falling within paragraph (a) or (b) of the Clause) shall not be commenced without the leave of a judge of the Supreme Court; and the Federation shall be entitled to be a party to any such proceedings, and so shall any State that would or might be a party to proceedings brought for the same purpose under paragraph (a) or (b) of the Clause.
Article number: 5 • (1) No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty save in accordance with law. • (2) Where complaint is made to a High court or any judge thereof that a person is being unlawfully detained the court shall inquire into the complaint and, unless satisfied that the detention is lawful, shall order him to be produced before the court and release him. • (3) Where a person is arrested he shall be informed as soon as may be of the grounds of his arrest and shall be allowed to consult and be defended by a legal practitioner of his choice. • (4) Where a person is arrested and not released he shall without unreasonable delay, and in any case within twenty-four hours (excluding the time of any necessary journey) be produced before a magistrate and shall not be further detained in custody without the magistrate's authority: Provided that this Clause shall not apply to the arrest or detention of any person under the existing law relating to restricted residence, and all the provisions of this Clause shall be deemed to have been an integral part of this Article as from Merdeka Day. • (5) Clauses (3) and (4) do not apply to an enemy alien.
Article number: 8 • (1) All persons are equal before the law and entitled to the equal protection of the law. • (2) Except as expressly authorized by this Constitution, there shall be no discrimination against citizens on the ground only of religion, race, descent or place of birth in any law relating to the acquisition, holding or disposition of property or the establishing or carrying on of any trade, business, profession, vocation or employment. • (3) There shall be no discrimination in favour of any person on the ground that he is a subject of the Ruler of the State. • (4) No public authority shall discriminate against any person on the ground that he is resident or carrying on business in any part of the Federation outside the jurisdiction of the authority. • (5) This Article does not invalidate or prohibit - • (a) any provision regulating personal law; • (b) any provision or practice restricting office or employment connected with the affairs of any religion, or of an institution managed by a group professing any religion, to persons professing that religion; • (c) any provision for the protection, wellbeing or advancement of the aboriginal peoples of the Malay Peninsula (including the reservation of land) or the reservation to aborigines of a reasonable proportion of suitable positions in the public service; • (d) any provision prescribing residence in a State or part of a State as a qualification for election or appointment to any authority having jurisdiction only in that State or part, or for voting in such an election; • (e) any provision of a Constitution of a State, being or corresponding to a provision in force immediately before Merdeka Day; • (f) any provision restricting enlistment in the Malay Regiment to Malays.
Article number: 9 • (1) No citizen shall be banished or excluded from the Federation. • (2) Subject to Clause (3) and to any law relating to the security of the Federation or any part thereof, public order, public health, or the punishment of offenders, every citizen has the right to move freely throughout the Federation and to reside in any part thereof. • (3) So long as under this Constitution any other State is in a special position as compared with the States of Malaya, Parliament may by law impose restrictions, as between that State and other States, on the rights conferred by Clause (2) in respect of movement and residence.
Article number: 10 • (1) Subject to Clauses (2), (3) and (4) - • (a) every citizen has the right to freedom of speech and expression; • (b) all citizens have the right to assemble peaceably and without arms; • (c) all citizens have the right to form associations. • (2) Parliament may by law impose - • (a) on the rights conferred by paragraph (a) of Clause (1),such restrictions as it deems necessary or expedient in the interest of the security of the Federation or any part thereof, friendly relations with other countries, public order or morality and restrictions designed to protect the privileges of Parliament or of any Legislative Assembly or to provide against contempt of court, defamation, or incitement to any offence; • (b) on the right conferred by paragraph (b) of Clause (1), such restrictions as it deems necessary or expedient in the interest of the security of the Federation or any part thereof, or public order; • (c) on the right conferred by paragraph (c) of Clause (1), such restrictions as it deems necessary or expedient in the interest of the security of the Federation or any part thereof, public order or morality. • (3) Restrictions on the right to form associations conferred by paragraph (c) of Clause (1) may also be imposed by any law relating to labour or education. • (4) In imposing restrictions in the interest of the security of the Federation or any part thereof or public order under Clause (2) (a), Parliament may pass law prohibiting the questioning of any matter, right, status, position, privilege, sovereignty or prerogative established or protected by the provisions of Part III, article 152, 153 or 181 otherwise than in relation to the implementation thereof as may be specified in such law.
Article number: 11 • (1) Every person has the right to profess and practice his religion and, subject to Clause (4), to propagate it. • (2) No person shall be compelled to pay any tax the proceeds of which are specially allocated in whole or in part for the purposes of a religion other than his own. • (3) Every religious group has the right - • (a) to manage its own religious affairs; • (b) to establish and maintain institutions for religious or charitable purposes; and • (c) to acquire and own property and hold and administer it in accordance with law. • (4) State law and in respect of the Federal Territories of Kuala Lumpur and Lubuan, federal law may control or restrict the propagation of any religious doctrine or belief among persons professing the religion of Islam. • (5) This Article does not authorize any act contrary to any general law relating to public order, public health or morality.
Article number: 12 • (1) Without prejudice to the generality of Article 8, there shall be no discrimination against any citizen on the grounds only of religion, race, descent or place of birth - • (a) in the administration of any educational institution maintained by a public authority, and, in particular, the admission of pupils or students or the payment of fees; or • (b) in providing out of the funds of a public authority financial aid for the maintenance or education of pupils or students in any educational institution (whether or not maintained by a public authority and whether within or outside the Federation). • (2) Every religious group has the right to establish and maintain institutions for the education of children in its own religion, and there shall be no discrimination on the ground only of religion in any law relating to such institutions or in the administration of any such law; but it shall be lawful for the Federation or a State to establish or maintain or assist in establishing or maintaining Islamic institutions or provide or assist in providing instruction in the religion of Islam and incur such expenditure as may be necessary for the purpose. • (3) No person shall be required to receive instruction in or take part in any ceremony or act of worship of a religion other than his own. • (4) For the purposes of Clause (3) the religion of a person under the age of eighteen years shall be decided by his parent or guardian.
|
| Posted: 17 Nov 2011 08:29 PM PST That is all I want to say, Yang Berhormat Datuk. I am sorry if I sound very blunt and abrasive but that is how I do things and even Tuanku can tell you that I spare no one, not even Sultans. I just hope that my message gets through to you so that you can spare me the agony of having to launch a campaign to send you into retirement in a most unceremoniously and inglorious manner. NO HOLDS BARRED Raja Petra Kamarudin
Yang Berhormat Datuk Dr Hasan Haji Mohamed Ali, I trust you still remember me. We first met probably ten years or so ago in the royal town of Kelang. I thought I should write to you because I feel, as a member of Kerabat Selangor, it is my duty to save Pakatan Rakyat Selangor, PAS Selangor, the Selangor Malays, and you, further embarrassment. Furthermore, it is my duty as a cousin to His Highness the Sultan to raise this issue as it is my personal opinion you are putting Tuanku in a very dicey situation with your continued irrational antics. I say this because if Tuanku were to remain silent it would be perceived as Tuanku is not upholding Islam when it his duty as head of religion in Selangor to do so and, on the other hand, if Tuanku responds to your so-called revelations it would make Tuanku appear outdated, small-minded, easily-manipulated, hypocritical, and much more. Sometimes I wonder whether all your so-called revelations are done in good faith or whether there is an element of mala fide with a hidden agenda to force Tuanku into a corner so that if Tuanku responds Tuanku is damned and if Tuanku does not respond Tuanku is also damned. I have a deep-rooted suspicion that this is a conspiracy to embarrass the monarchy and put it under attack so that there would come a time when people would question the relevancy of the monarchy and ask whether Malaysia is better off as a republic. I am aware that many Islamists such as you favour an Islamic republic over what you perceive as a corrupt and un-Islamic monarchy. I would not be surprised if this is a very subtle plan to bring down the monarchy. I am fully aware that you are a politician standing on the platform of Islam and that makes you a politician, period. I, for one, do not consider you a theologian because, if you were, you would not become a politician. You would instead serve God rather than serve your own very personal and narrow interest of seeking power. Politics is dirty. So it would be very difficult to serve God when your motivation is the quest for power. You need to be un-Islamic and do many things contradictory to Islam if you want to gain power. That is the reality of the situation. Clean or Islamic politics are as rare as virgin prostitutes. If you were to resign from PAS and retire from politics then maybe what you say would sound credible. Now I can only assume that you have a dark and hidden agenda for what you are doing. Yang Berhormat Datuk, let me be blunt. In politics, you serve the devil, not God. That is the bottom line and there are no two ways about it. And you, Yang Berhormat Datuk, are worse than a 'normal' politician. At least normal politicians are honest about their dishonesty. You exploit God's name while doing the devil's work. We must not forget you were once a Director of BTN, the government-owned propaganda and brainwashing arm that is the cause of much of Malaysia's racial problems today. In other words, if you were really motivated by Islam, and if your agenda was to serve God, you would have distanced yourself from BTN. How can a man of the cloth be involved in racism and discrimination, the very thing that the Prophet Muhammad forbade in his sermon in Arafah the final year of his life? Yang Berhormat Datuk, the world has changed. You need to drag yourself screaming and kicking into the real world and not remain stuck in a world of fantasy that you appear to have difficulty extricating yourself from. Today, people talk about human rights, freedom, and civil liberties. I know it is a hard concept to grasp for someone like you who feels that the world must dance to your tune and live the life as you see it. But that is the reality of what is happening in the world today and is something that can't be avoided and something you cannot prevent. Today, people no longer accept faith based on dogma but demand faith based on reasoning. In fact, faith itself has been placed under the microscope and people no longer accept faith based on theological arguments but expect tangible evidence to support belief. Actually, Yang Berhormat Datuk, this is not a Muslim problem. This problem is not confined to just Islam. This is a universal problem faced by all religions the world over. You will be surprised that in Iran, the seat of the Islamic Revolution of 1979 that changed the way the world perceives Islam and triggered what historians 100 years from now will call 'The Period of Islamic Revival', Muslims are leaving Islam in droves. Even Iran has to accept this fact and there is nothing the mullahs can do about it. I have personally met Iranians who scoff at religion as old wives' tales, folklore, myths, and so on. We have to accept one very basic fact: and that is humankind today is free-spirited, is able to contemplate and rationalise issues, and is brave enough to take a stand based on what they believe is the truth. In this type of situation you can only explain but you will have to allow them to decide what they wish to accept and what they wish to reject. You can no longer force them to accept what you consider to be the truth. They will decide the truth and falsity of the information and will come to their own conclusion and decision. So, Yang Berhormat Datuk, it is time you toned down your religious rhetoric. You are beginning to look like a court jester. No one takes what you say seriously any longer. In fact, if you were to conduct a poll, the majority being polled would vote that you are a Trojan horse working for Umno whose job is to hurt Pakatan Rakyat. Please rest assured I am not in the least concerned about your image, if you still have some left. My concern is Tuanku. If you continue this way you are going to place Tuanku in jeopardy. Tuanku just can't ignore you considering you are the EXCO Member in charge of Islam. However, if Tuanku were to act on your so-called revelations, it would not augur well for Tuanku. That is all I want to say, Yang Berhormat Datuk. I am sorry if I sound very blunt and abrasive but that is how I do things and even Tuanku can tell you that I spare no one, not even Sultans. I just hope that my message gets through to you so that you can spare me the agony of having to launch a campaign to send you into retirement in a most unceremoniously and inglorious manner. RAJA PETRA BIN RAJA KAMARUDIN
|
| Posted: 16 Nov 2011 08:05 PM PST Yes, many of you were probably wondering why of late the tone of my articles have been different. Why don't I write about corruption and the sexual misconduct of government leaders like I used to? Well, there is a time for that and there is a time to talk about a coherent opposition if we seriously want to see a change of government. And now is the time to talk about a coherent opposition so that we can realise our dreams of seeing a change of government. NO HOLDS BARRED Raja Petra Kamarudin
What do you understand regarding rights and liberties? I know each of us has a different understanding of rights and liberties and many are still grappling with the issue and are trying to come to terms with what are rights and liberties and what are actually the reverse of this. If, for instance, your neighbour breaks into your home with a gang of four, robs you, gang-rapes your wife and forces you and all your children to watch, and then murders your entire family, would this not also be considered his right and liberty? I mean, in his mind and that of his gang, you are an enemy (because, although you are a Malaysian-born Chinese, you have an American citizenship) and your country, the United States, has just attacked a Muslim country and the mullahs of that country have issued a fatwah that spilling American blood is halal (kosher). So, all they are doing is to uphold their religious beliefs and since Malaysia has declared itself an Islamic country then the needs of Islam comes first. We, of course, have to now talk about morality and the laws of the land. No doubt, the hypothetical scenario above makes absolute sense from the jihadist point of view. But then we need to also take into consideration the issue of morality and the laws of the land. Morally, it is wrong to rob, rape and murder, never mind what your religious beliefs may be and never mind what you may perceive as the religiously-correct thing to do. These are universally accepted moral values and which must override religious considerations. But then what if you strongly believe that religion must instead override universal moral values and not vice versa? Don't you have a right to practice your religious beliefs even though they may violate universally accepted moral values? This is a debate that has split the religionists and the moralists since time immemorial and was why the term 'moral relativism' was coined. Moral relativism is basically the concept of morals being relative -- relative to time, region, norms of that particular society, religious values, and so on. For example, hundreds of years ago, baptising pagan babies and then bashing their heads against a rock to send them straight to heaven was morally correct. Even the Pope thought it was a great way to save the souls of pagan babies: meaning, doing them a great favour. Okay, now we come to the laws of the land. What if the laws of the land say that you have freedom of choice? Does this freedom of choice extend to all and sundry or are certain things excluded? For example, when there is a contradiction between the laws of the land and religious laws, which overrides which? And what happens when the third factor, moral values, contradicts both the laws of the land as well as religious laws? Which of the three would apply? As you can see, this is not an easy problem to solve. We have moral values, religious values, and the laws of the land. And sometimes not all three are on the same page. So what values do we adopt? Do we use our conscience as our guide (moral values)? Do we look to God for the answer (religious values)? Or do we become law-abiding citizens (follow the laws of the land)? The laws of the land are not always morally or religiously correct. For example, detention without trial is legal in Malaysia. That is a law passed by Parliament. So what's wrong if the government detains you without trial on mere suspicion that you may (or may not) have done something wrong or, even if you have not done anything wrong yet, you may (or may not) be planning to do something wrong in the future (and the ISA is a preventive law so it is legally correct to detain you on mere suspicion that you may or may not be planning to do something wrong in future). Okay, we can argue that both moral and religious values are opposed to detention without trial as well as preventive detention. We don't care what the law says. Anyway, the law is an ass, as the saying goes. So we must oppose the ISA on grounds that it is both morally and religiously wrong. But would this not make you an immoral person? You have no respect for the law that has been passed by Parliament. And Parliament has the power to pass laws. And the party that wins the majority seats in an election gets to form the government and decides its policies. And, since the voters have given the mandate to the government, are you not morally wrong in not respecting the wishes of the voters? In short, it is morally wrong for you to oppose the government that does things through the proper legal process when they have received the mandate from the voters to do so, even if what the government does is wrong. Can you, the minority, oppose the will of the majority? If the answer is 'yes', then democracy is morally and religiously wrong? But is it? So, there are two contradicting moral values here. One is your interpretation of what is moral based on universal moral values, or based on religious values, and the other is the moral value regarding the legitimate right of the government to pass laws (even bad laws) in Parliament. So, whose moral values take precedence: your morals values or the moral values of the voters who gave the government the mandate to pass bad laws in Parliament? Not an easy puzzle to figure out, is it? And this is why we face difficulties in galvanising a coherent opposition front. Some of us look at things from the point of view of universal moral values. Some apply religious values. And some respect the laws of the land (if not the country would suffer anarchy and mob rule) even if those laws are draconian and repressive until such a time when Parliament repeals those laws though the proper legal process. I apply universal moral values even if my values may oppose religious values or the laws of the land. This may make me a bad Muslim (heretic, apostate, etc.) or an anarchist (who does not respect the law of the land). So be it. If it is wrong from the universal moral value point of view then I will oppose if even if religion or the law of the land endorses it. And I strongly believe that the opposition front, too, has to agree on and adopt universal moral values as its platform for reforms. If not we will never see a coherent opposition front. Are the opposition leaders brave enough to do this? If they are not then the opposition will always remain the opposition and will never get to form the federal government. That is the long and short of it all. The opposition will never win the confidence of the voters if each of the parties in the opposition front speaks on different pages. They must all speak on the same page. Yes, many of you were probably wondering why of late the tone of my articles have been different. Why don't I write about corruption and the sexual misconduct of government leaders like I used to? Well, there is a time for that and there is a time to talk about a coherent opposition if we seriously want to see a change of government. And now is the time to talk about a coherent opposition so that we can realise our dreams of seeing a change of government. And are you, the readers of Malaysia Today, also ready to talk about this? Or are you only interested in reading articles about the sleaze of those who walk in the corridors of power? I can do that as well but rest assured that that is not going to help see a change in government or else it would have happened back in March 2008.
|
| Posted: 15 Nov 2011 06:34 PM PST Well, there you have it. So don't give me that crap that Islam is not compatible to human rights and then quote the apostasy issue as the example. These are all figments of your imagination and of those Muslims foaming at the mouth because they want to prevent Muslims from leaving Islam. NO HOLDS BARRED Raja Petra Kamarudin
As much as I hate talking about religion, unfortunately, I just can't avoid doing so seeing that the future of the opposition coalition rides on Pakatan Rakyat coming to an agreement on matters related to Islam. And one such matter is the Pakatan Rakyat policy on apostasy (whether it is allowed for Muslims and what laws will Pakatan Rakyat formulate in response to this). In two earlier articles (Can I know your stand? and Cure the cause, not the symptoms) I talked about civil society action and human rights issues (such as The Universal Declaration of Human Rights). Some responded by saying that this cannot happen in Malaysia. And the reason it cannot happen, they argue, is because Islam is a hindrance to human rights. Of course, these people are looking at things from only one perspective -- the perspective of apostasy and the belief (not fact) that Islam forbids it and punishes apostates. Not only non-Muslims but also Muslims themselves consider this to be true. Actually, that is a matter of opinion and your opinion does not make it correct. And as much as you may think that your opinion is right, I will profusely disagree with you. First, let us talk about the issue of apostasy. In Islam, apostasy is defined as the rejection of Islam in either words or deeds. According to Islam, you would become an apostate if you convert to another religion, deny the existence of God (become an atheist), reject Muhammad as the prophet, mock God or any of the prophets (meaning: Prophets of the Jews and Christians), idol worship, reject the Shariah (some scholars would disagree with this on grounds that the Shariah is man-made and not from God), or permit behaviour that is forbidden by the Shariah (such as adultery, gambling, drinking, bribery, etc.). The Qur'an itself does not prescribe any punishment for apostasy and scholars differ on its punishment. Punishment ranges from execution (based on the interpretation of certain Hadith -- and note that not all Muslims accept Hadith) to no punishment at all. In medieval times, several Sunni schools of Islamic jurisprudence ruled that apostasy is punishable by death. Other scholars, however, had different views. People such as Ibrahim al-Nakha'i and Sufyan al-Thawri rejected the death penalty and prescribed indefinite imprisonment until repentance. The Hanafi jurist Sarakhsi also called for different punishments between the non-seditious religious apostasy and that of a seditious and political nature (meaning: high treason). According to Wael Hallaq, apostasy laws are not derived from the Qur'an. In modern times, some Islamic scholars such as Gamal Al-Banna, Taha Jabir Alalwani, and Shabir Ally, opposed the death penalty for apostasy. 'Qur'an-alone' Muslims (what Malays would call the 'Anti-Hadith' group) do not support any punishment whatsoever on grounds that verses from Qur'an advocate free will and no compulsion. So there you have it. To argue that The Universal Declaration of Human Rights cannot be applied to Malaysia because Islam does not allow apostasy and puts to death apostates is not true. That is a mere opinion, not a fact, and different scholars have different opinions. The fact that different scholars have different opinions means it is not carved in stone. If it were then there would be no room whatsoever for differences of opinion. For example, 'thou shalt not commit adultery' is carved in stone. So there would be no difference of opinion here. All scholars would be unanimous in their view regarding this issue. Okay, let's move on. Assuming you cannot accept the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights because, as you say, it is a Western or un-Islamic document, and if you insist on an Islamic Declaration of Human Rights, we have that too. (Read the full text of the 5 August 1990 Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam here). The Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam of 1990 has 25 Articles as opposed to 30 Articles in The Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948. Nevertheless, there are some very interesting Articles that do not hinder the implementation of human rights in Malaysia Of course, the critics can always argue that there are some grey areas or ambiguities in the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam. These would probably be the parts that say: ethical values and the principles of the Shari'ah, in accordance with the tenets of the Shari'ah, provided it is not contrary to the principles of the Shari'ah, etc. Nevertheless, look at it in its entirety and not just look at half a sentence. You will see that if the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam is implemented, then many things currently being practiced in Malaysia would now have to come to an end. For example, you cannot prevent someone from marrying because of his/her religion, you cannot detain someone without trial, you have a right to express your opinion (so no sedition or criminal defamation laws), the Prime Minister or Menteri Besar need not be Malay, there must be no Malay-only institutions of higher learning and no one can be denied an education because of his/her race or due to quota restrictions, you can oppose the government if it does something wrong, you cannot spy on what someone is doing in the privacy of his/her home (so no sex spies), there must be no Bumiputra-only shares and property, and much, much more. Some interesting points to note would be: 19 (a). All individuals are equal before the law, without distinction between the ruler and the ruled. (So you can criticise the Sultans). 19 (e). A defendant is innocent until his guilt is proven in a fast trial in which he shall be given all the guarantees of defence. (So Anwar Ibrahim would walk a free man). 18 (b). Everyone shall have the right to privacy in the conduct of his private affairs, in his home, among his family, with regard to his property and his relationships. It is not permitted to spy on him, to place him under surveillance or to besmirch his good name. The State shall protect him from arbitrary interference. (So what I do in my bedroom is my business and you can't force your way into my home to spy on me). 10. Islam is the religion of true unspoiled nature. It is prohibited to exercise any form of pressure on man or to exploit his poverty or ignorance in order to force him to change his religion to another religion or to atheism. (It does not say you cannot leave Islam on your own freewill or that you will be put to death if you do). 9 (b). The seeking of knowledge is an obligation and provision of education is the duty of the society and the State. (So UiTM cannot be a Malay-only institution). 5 (b). The society and the State shall remove all obstacles to marriage and facilitate it, and shall protect the family and safeguard its welfare. (So you can't prevent inter-religious marriages). 3 (b). It is prohibited to cut down trees, to destroy crops or livestock, to destroy the enemy's civilian buildings and installations by shelling, blasting or any other means. (So there goes the indiscriminate logging in East Malaysia). Well, there you have it. So don't give me that crap that Islam is not compatible to human rights and then quote the apostasy issue as the example. These are all figments of your imagination and of those Muslims foaming at the mouth because they want to prevent Muslims from leaving Islam.
|
| Posted: 15 Nov 2011 04:48 PM PST In short, it is okay to be a loose cannon if you are from Barisan Nasional. In fact, many people like Barisan Nasional loose cannons. They think that Barisan Nasional loose cannons are cute creatures. But they do not like the Pakatan Rakyat loose cannons. Pakatan Rakyat loose cannons are not cute creatures. They are traitors, turncoats, Trojan horses, etc. NO HOLDS BARRED Raja Petra Kamarudin
Kinabatangan MP Datuk Bung Mokhtar Radin is raising hell regarding the National Feedlot Centre (NFC) quarter billion Ringgit scandal. He, plus some other Barisan Nasional leaders, have asked for the resignation of Women, Family and Community Development Minister Datuk Seri Shahrizat Abdul Jalil. Minister in the Prime Minister's Department Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz, in turn, has said that overseas Malaysians should be allowed to exercise their right to vote. This is in contradiction to what other Barisan Nasional Ministers have said about the same matter. Well, Bung Mokhtar and Nazri Aziz are not called loose cannons for nothing. They are amongst the most vocal of the Barisan Nasional Members of Parliament who have in the past triggered uproars in Parliament (go see the videos on Youtube). They would not hesitate to scream at their opponents, in a most un-parliamentary manner may I add, and show a clenched fist in a gesture of challenging their opponents to a fistfight. To put in mildly, these are two of the more outrageous personalities from Barisan Nasional and are probably disliked by both sides of the political divide. I know for a fact that ex-Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad would like to put Nazri Aziz against a wall and shoot him. And the feeling is mutual. Nevertheless, they are both loose cannons in the true sense of the word. And loose cannons are called loose cannons because they tend to shoot their own side as much as the other side. And that is why loose cannons are called loose cannons. They roll all over the ship's deck in a storm and shoot anything that moves, never mind what uniform they are wearing. I, too, am called a loose cannon. Of course, it is the Pakatan Rakyat leaders who call me a loose cannon (the Barisan Nasional leaders call me a liar). That is because I, too, tend to shoot both sides of the political divide. But when I do that they will scream that I have been bought, have sold out, am now in Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak's pocket, and so on. In short, it is okay to be a loose cannon if you are from Barisan Nasional. In fact, many people like Barisan Nasional loose cannons. They think that Barisan Nasional loose cannons are cute creatures. But they do not like the Pakatan Rakyat loose cannons. Pakatan Rakyat loose cannons are not cute creatures. They are traitors, turncoats, Trojan horses, etc. Anyway, just to digress a bit, have a look at this, which I picked up from WikiSabah: Sabah Population Breakdown by Race 2010 (http://wikisabah.blogspot.com/2011/11/sabah-population-breakdown-by-race-2010.html) Now, as I have said many times, the key to Putrajaya is in the hands of Sabah and Sarawak. And, going by the above, plus by the results of the recent Sarawak state elections, do you think Pakatan Rakyat has any chance of forming the next federal government? Barisan Nasional does not call Sabah and Sarawak their 'fixed deposit' for nothing. Let's face it, unless Pakatan Rakyat hammers out a formula on how to cooperate, as opposed to compete, with the parties from Sabah and Sarawak, then they can kiss Putrajaya goodbye. I have said this before and I will say it again. PKR, DAP and PAS have a better chance of forming the next federal government if they work with the parties from Sabah and Sarawak rather than compete with them. Okay, I know, they are now going to argue that Pakatan Rakyat (meaning PKR, DAP and PAS) need to contest the seats in Sabah and Sarawak because the politicians from Sabah and Sarawak can't be trusted. If they were allowed to contest the seats and if they win they might sell out and jump over to Barisan Nasional. I take it the people from West Malaysia are saying that everyone from East Malaysia are prostitutes who will sell their own mothers, wives and daughters for the right price. That is why Pakatan Rakyat cannot work with East Malaysian politicians and will instead have to contest the seats themselves. Well, in that case I have nothing more to argue. If that is true then we might as well agree now that Pakatan Rakyat is never going to form the next federal government and that Barisan Nasional is going to rule forever. Maybe this is just what Malaysians deserve. And I have no sympathy for a society that will sell the future of the country for monetary gains. Yes, maybe we need to see Barisan Nasional in power for a while longer. Then, once Malaysia joins the long list of countries that are facing bankruptcy, maybe Malaysians will wake up and do the right thing. Of course, by then it will be too late because, once a country is bankrupt, changing the government can no longer save the country. But at least I will have the pleasure of screaming, "I told you so", assuming I am still around by then.
|
| Cure the cause, not the symptoms Posted: 14 Nov 2011 08:40 PM PST Therefore, reforms will need to be achieved outside the electoral process. It will have to be achieved through civil society action. Did India or South Africa achieve change through the electoral process or through civil society action? Did Europe 200 years ago achieve reforms through the electoral process or through civil society action? Did America achieve reforms in the mid-1900s through the electoral process or through civil society action? NO HOLDS BARRED Raja Petra Kamarudin
Sometimes, or maybe most times, it is quite difficult to have an 'intellectual discussion' with Malaysia Today's readers. But then this would only be if you were to analyse the dozen or so comments in the comments section. Out of a readership running into the hundreds of thousands this represents less than 1% of the total. Nevertheless, this gives an impression that this reflects the 'general opinion' whereas less than 1% hardly represents the majority view. But is this not so for other things as well? A few Muslims scream about Islam being under attack and a handful of Malays wearing the PERKASA T-shirts shout about the Chinese robbing the Malays of their birthright. And people take this as the general view of Muslims or Malays whereas 99% of the Malays-Muslims remain silent and say nothing because they do not share these views and feel that engaging the 1% is foolhardy seeing that nothing you say is going to do any good anyway. I know some people lament as to why the silent majority amongst the Malays-Muslims remain silent. Is this because they support or agree with what this 1% say? Well, would you want to argue with a fool? Is it not a fool who argues with a fool? So why bother to engage them? Just let them scream and make fools of themselves and hopefully one day they will get tired and shut up. There are white supremacists in Britain and Australia, Ku Klux Klan in the US, Nazis in Germany, etc. And they take to the streets and demonstrate and scream. But do these 1,000 screaming whites represent the 72 million population of Britain? Why are the other 72 million British citizens keeping quiet? Well, the 72 million other British think that the 1,000 screaming whites are nut cases. And why do you want to argue with nut cases? Anyway, I am digressing. Let us get back to the issue of the comments in the comments section of Malaysia Today that I was talking about. As I said, this represents a mere fraction of the total readership. I can just ignore them if I want to. But I am going to address them and make a general reply to these comments. I am not suggesting that these comments are foolish. Some, in fact, are of substance and certainly add value to the matter being discussed. But many are talking about curing the symptoms rather than the cause of the disease. And this is what I want to talk about today. Why do you keep repeating what we already know? Do you think that repeating, again and again, that the government is corrupt and abuses its power, the government practices racism and discrimination, the government practices selective prosecution and manipulates the judicial system, etc., all our problems are going to be solved? We know all that. No need to tell us what we already know. Tell us what to do about it. Sure, I know you will now tell me that we need to kick out the government, change the government, and so on. Okay, that is what we need to do. But how are we going to do that? And will kicking out the government or changing the government solve the problem? Many countries have done this but that did not solve the problem. What makes you think we can do what other more organised countries can't seem to do? And has not more than 200 years of history in changing governments all over the world not taught us anything? Most of you are focusing on and talking about the symptoms of the problem. All the comments you post are about the signs of the disease. And all your suggestions are about trying to cure these symptoms rather than getting to the root of the problem, the cause of the disease. For example, when we talk about the nine United Nations' Treaties and The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (SEE HERE) you brush that off and say that that is not important. What is important is that we must first change the government. But that is just it. These issues are important. And they are important because if they are not addressed then we will never be able to change the government. It is like saying that when I strike a lottery and become rich I am going to do this, that and the other. But you never go out and buy a lottery -- which means you are never going to win a lottery and become rich. So what's all this talk of when I strike a lottery and become rich I am going to do this, that and the other? It is merely idle talk and daydreaming. We need the correct environment and platform to see change. And I mean, of course, change through the electoral process or constitutional means. Of course, if you want to bypass the democratic process and effect change through non-constitutional means, such as an armed revolution, then that is another matter altogether. But how do we see this happen if we do not have free, clean and fair elections? We have discussed this before. Barisan Nasional will be able to hold on to power even if they win less than 50% of the votes. We need an independent judiciary if we want to file election petitions to thwart election fraud. We need an uncorrupted Police Force, Anti-Corruption Commission, Human Rights Commission, AG Chambers, Election Commission, etc., if we want them to uphold free, clean and fair elections. As long as all these agencies work for Barisan Nasional and not for the people, then free, clean and fair elections would be impossible. So, no, the cure to all our problems is not to change the government. The cure to all our problems is reforms. And we need to press for reforms because without reforms Barisan Nasional will be able to hold on to power long after all of us have gone to our graves. So, my question would be: can we see reforms by changing the government? I would say 'no' because we will never be able to change the government without reforms. Barisan Nasional will make sure of that. Therefore, reforms will need to be achieved outside the electoral process. It will have to be achieved through civil society action. Did India or South Africa achieve change through the electoral process or through civil society action? Did Europe 200 years ago achieve reforms through the electoral process or through civil society action? Did America achieve reforms in the mid-1900s through the electoral process or through civil society action? Learn from history, my friend. Hitler came to power through the electoral process. And tens of millions of people died because of that. Sometimes, elections without reforms will bring more harm than good. So, can we stop talking about what's wrong with Malaysia? We all know what's wrong with Malaysia. You do not need to remind us about what's wrong with Malaysia. I can tell you more than you can tell me about what's wrong with Malaysia. We need to now start discussing what to do about it. And stop telling me that we need to change the government to see changes in Malaysia. I want to know how to change the government under the present electoral system that we have in Malaysia and whether by changing the government (if that is even possible in the first place) we will be guaranteed of seeing change or will it merely be, as more than 200 years of history has proven, just putting old wine into a new bottle? Maybe it is time to start thinking outside the box. Can we trust politicians to bring about these changes that we are clamouring for? Are, maybe, politicians too self-serving or selfish and are out for personal gain? Are they really working for the people or working for themselves? If the politicians were seriously interested in our welfare rather than serving their own interests then they would put aside their personal and party interests for the greater good of the people. But they are not doing this. There are three parties in Pakatan Rakyat (and, of course, 14 in Barisan Nasional). Then we have PRM, PSM, SNAP, SAPP, KITA, PCM, PERSB, BERJASA, PASOK, SETIA, AKIM, STAR, HRP, and the UBF 'coalition' (did I miss out anyone?). Why can't Pakatan Rakyat talk to the 'non-aligned' parties? Maybe I should ask: why can't the three Pakatan Rakyat parties resolve all their inter- and intra-party issues (which should come first)? Yes, many who voted opposition back in 2008 are beginning to question whether they still want to vote opposition this time around. We want to see ABU. But many are now asking whether ABU is good enough. They feel that it has to be more than just ABU. It should no longer just be about what we don't want. It has to be about what we want. If the political parties prove they are incapable of bringing about change then maybe we should forget about political parties (and therefore about seeing change through the electoral process -- which without reforms is not going to see a change of government anyway). Maybe it requires a different form of action to bring about change. And what alternative form of action do you think this will require? That is what we may need to talk about now. |
| Posted: 13 Nov 2011 08:58 PM PST
The 10th of December 2011 will be Human Rights Day (SEE HERE). That day will mark the 63rd Anniversary of The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (SEE HERE) that was signed back in 10th December 1948. Today, I would like to talk about this issue. NO HOLDS BARRED Raja Petra Kamarudin
Do you know, out of these nine United Nations' treaties (above), Malaysia has signed only two of them: (5) The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (Cedaw) and (7) The Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC). Malaysia has to date not signed the other seven, which are also very crucial if we want to see our civil liberties protected. It is apparent that the current government does not want to sign the other seven treaties. And one more thing that the Malaysian Government does not seem to honour is The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (SEE HERE) No doubt, while the nine treaties are legally enforceable (which is why Malaysia does not want to sign them), The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is not legally binding but nevertheless is considered a moral obligation. The matter is explained in this article, Human rights: what's stopping Malaysia? (READ MORE HERE) I suppose it is pointless to talk to Barisan Nasional about this issue. After all, Barisan Nasional (and the Alliance Party before that) has been in power for more than 54 years and if they had wanted to do it then they would have already done it by now. What I would like to do instead is to ask Pakatan Rakyat about its stand on this issue. What is Pakatan Rakyat's stand? Will it sign the balance seven of these treaties if it were to come into power? Another question would be regarding The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Will Pakatan Rakyat honour this Declaration as well? Now, we need to know before the next general election and BEFORE we decide who to vote for, is Pakatan Rakyat going to sign the balance of these seven treaties and is it also going to honour The Universal Declaration of Human Rights? If not, then why should we vote for Pakatan Rakyat? What difference would Pakatan Rakyat be from Barisan Nasional? We need to get this assurance from Anwar Ibrahim -- the Opposition Leader in Parliament and who Pakatan Rakyat has said will be the Prime Minister if Pakatan Rakyat gets to form the next federal government. We do not want to hear Anwar Ibrahim's personal opinion, like what he said about the Hudud matter. His personal opinion carries no weight in the scheme of things. We want to hear from him as the Opposition Leader and the Prime Minister-in-waiting for Pakatan Rakyat. This is very crucial. And we should not give Pakatan Rakyat our vote if they can't give us a guarantee that they will sign all nine of these treaties as well as honour The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. And if they are not prepared to give us this guarantee, we want to know why. And we want to know why, now, before we go to the polls to vote the next government into power. If you were to read the 30 Articles in The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (SEE HERE) you will know why I am asking this and why I say this matter is very crucial. And if I need to go through each Article one-by-one to explain to you in detail, then maybe, as MCA said, you do not deserve to vote. |
| Philosophy as taught by Universiti Teknologi Mara (UiTM) (UPDATED with Chinese Translation) Posted: 11 Nov 2011 01:54 AM PST Unless the Malays unite they are going to be reduced to a minority, said the one-time Prime Minister of Malaysia. The Indians are united into seven political parties. The Chinese are united into six political parties. But the Malays are divided into three political parties. And this is not good for the future of the Malays. NO HOLDS BARRED Raja Petra Kamarudin 1. We should not allow political freedom for students. Political freedom will threaten peace and unity, said the VC of UiTM. The most peaceful countries in the world are those that do not allow political freedom. Translated into Chinese at: http://ccliew.blogspot.com/2011/11/blog-post_6428.html
|
| You are subscribed to email updates from Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
| Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610 | |
