Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News
Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News |
- Secular or Islamic State? Dr Farouk and the Peacocks
- China editor's suicide sparks web debate
- Stop fanning rumours, DAP man tells PR
- 'Exodus if PBRS has to give up MP seat'
- PKR disagrees with Lajim
- The Special Position of the Malays (Part One)
- By whose interpretation?
- Touché?
- Courts sending out mixed signals over statutory rape
- Najib: Six Umno divisions can spearhead recapture of Kedah
- A depressed Merdeka — Are you celebrating Merdeka?
- Time for DAP to be a good partner
- Janji dicapati?
- Corbett Report Radio 205 – Spotlight: Malaysia with Nile Bowie
- Rafizi’s ‘NOW’ centre to make whistleblowing Malaysian culture
| Secular or Islamic State? Dr Farouk and the Peacocks Posted: 30 Aug 2012 11:37 AM PDT What I find egregious about the attack on Dr Farouk by Imran Mustafa and Wan Mohd Aimran Wan Mohd Kamil in The Bankruptcy of the Islamic vs Secular State Debate is their insinuation that they are "learned scholars and men and women of spiritual discernment and of pure and upright character; scholars and saints," while Dr Farouk is ignorant, superficial, devilish, pretentious, brazen, blind, debilitated, obeisant, simplistic, unreasonable, unfair, futile, inflexible, hypocritical, schizophrenic (I may have missed a few). Rama Ramanathan I do not know Dr Ahmad Farouk Musa, whom I believe is a medical doctor who lives in Kuala Lumpur. I do know that he is a Muslim who is being belittled and mocked by some others who also speak for Islam in Malaysia. I say this because soon after his 2,000 word piece Arguing for a Secular State appeared, a 5,000 word piece was loosed upon him by 2 writers from Himpunan Keilmuan Muslim. What I find egregious about the attack on Dr Farouk by Imran Mustafa and Wan Mohd Aimran Wan Mohd Kamil in The Bankruptcy of the Islamic vs Secular State Debate is their insinuation that they are "learned scholars and men and women of spiritual discernment and of pure and upright character; scholars and saints," while Dr Farouk is ignorant, superficial, devilish, pretentious, brazen, blind, debilitated, obeisant, simplistic, unreasonable, unfair, futile, inflexible, hypocritical, schizophrenic (I may have missed a few). When respondents resort to name calling, we know the author of the original paper has either exposed a glaring weakness, or has proposed something which could displace the entrenched. Thus my interest in what Dr Farouk has to say. His is a wide ranging article. In the interest of brevity, I'll restrict myself to 6 themes. Hudud. Dr Farouk feels compelled to write about the Islamic/Secular state at this time because the Islamic state, especially in it's manifestation as Hudud, is often raised in the build-up to General Elections. I note that Hudud is the rod MCA repeatedly uses to beat the DAP for the latter's willingness to work together with PAS, the Islamic party in Malaysia. Dr Farouk indicates that PAS is divided over whether the Hudud penal code (which to me means cane those who consume alcohol, cut off the hands of those who steal and stone women who commit adultery) should be implemented. He labels those who support such penalties "medievalists," and labels those who do not support such penalties "Erdoganists." He highlights an alternative view of Hudud which space does not permit me to discuss here.
Dhimmi. Dr Farouk says many Islamists think an Islamic State is comprised of three groups of people: Muslims, Dhimmis and Harbis. Dhimmis are those who agree to submit to Muslims by paying a special tax called jizyah which buys them the protection of the state; Harbis are people who are hostile to Islam. He even points out that well known, centuries-old Islamic laws prohibit Dhimmis from riding animals within city limits and require Dhimmis to wear distinctive clothing and even bells so that it will be clear to all that they are Dhimmis. Tolerance. Dr Farouk's purpose in pointing out those features is to state the obvious: those "medieval" laws are now common knowledge for most Malaysians. I have known about those laws for many years – thanks to the extensive coverage of Islam after 9/11. Dr Farouk is challenging Malaysian Muslim scholars and leaders to recognize that there is a diversity of opinion amongst Muslims about these matters. He's pointing out that large numbers of Malaysian Muslims are also eager to recognize the rights and aspirations of non-Muslims, who are equally citizens of Malaysia. He's pleading for tolerance. Diversity. Dr Farouk brings up the very practical question of "who interprets"? I think immediately of the practice of various difference forms of government in "Islamic" countries – for instance in Indonesia, Jordan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and the various expressions of Islam, e.g. Ahmadiyyas, Ismailis, Shiites, Sunnis, Wahhabis, etc. He points out that there is no one person whom Muslims can claim is the final authority, not even the Grand Syeikh of al Azhar and the Saudi Mufti. Further, he points out the difficulty of arguing against those who say "it's mandated by the divine will of God." I recall that this is why churches often caution Christians not to say "God says." Citizenship. Dr Farouk explicitly mentions citizenship. His critique of "medievalism" is not that it's old (which his attackers obtusely say is what he is claiming). His critique of medievalism is that it doesn't have room for present day realities – which include the constitution of Malaysia, the understanding of citizenship and universal human rights. It's easier to attack Dr Farouk for his purported ignorance and deprecation of history, than to face his challenge and answer how the proposed "Islamic state" will work with modern realities. Piety. One of the most compelling of Dr Farouk's passages concerns true piety. He says: "Any regime that imposes piety because of the belief that it is part of the doctrine "commanding the good and preventing the wrong" like Saudi Arabia for instance, is basically creating a community of hypocrites [rather] than genuine piety. Genuine piety only arises through personal choice. And that choice only becomes possible when there is freedom. In other words freedom to sin is a necessary medium to be sincerely pious." That made me think immediately of the hypocrisy in the current regime in Malaysia after 55 years, so eloquently expressed by Tengku Razaleigh: "[Tengku Abdul Rahman] called a press conference and had a beer with his stewards when his horse won at the Melbourne Cup. He had nothing to hide because his great integrity in service was clear to all. Now we have religious and moral hypocrites who cheat, lie and steal in office but never have a drink, who propagate an ideologically shackled education system for all Malaysians while they send their own kids to elite academies in the West." Imran and Aimran's bitter attack caused me to study Dr Farouk's paper carefully. They flaunt their ability to quote stellar Muslims from the history of Islam; they think they show they're "cool" by making reference to the RSA; they choose to ignore the history of Malaya and Malaysia and current realities. I am repelled by their response. I am attracted to Dr Farouk's thought. I respect Dr Farouk for thinking deeply about 20th century realities in our ethnically fractured Malaysia, for taking seriously his neighbours and digging deep into his heritage to unearth and courageously promote such views. You've probably heard the saying "as proud as a peacock," and you may have seen peacocks displaying their feathers, preening, showing off. Do you know that peacocks are worthless and that they can barely fly? They can fly about six metres, but they can't land. They can only crash. |
| China editor's suicide sparks web debate Posted: 30 Aug 2012 11:32 AM PDT  People's Daily newspaper is the mouthpiece of the ruling Communist Party (BBC) - "My pain is I dare to think, but I don't dare to speak out; if I dare to speak out, I don't dare to write it down, and if I dare to write it down, there is no place to publish. The suicide of a senior editor working for China's Communist Party newspaper has sparked strong reaction from Chinese cultural and media circles and on the internet. Xu Huaiqian, 44, was editor-in-chief for the Dadi (Earth) supplement of the People's Daily. According to its official microblog, he jumped to his death on 22 August. The official People's Daily microblog said he had taken time off because of depression and had sought medical help. Xu Huaiqian was born in 1968 and graduated from the prestigious Peking University in 1989. After a year of work experience in a steel plant, he started working for People's Daily, where he stayed until his death. 'Can't leave system' Zhu Tieszhi, deputy chief editor of Seeking Truth journal, said he could not believe that Mr Xu had chosen this route. Many people praised his excellent writing, and quotes from his interviews and publications have become instant hits. In an interview he gave before his death, Xu Huaiqian was quoted as saying: "My pain is I dare to think, but I don't dare to speak out; if I dare to speak out, I don't dare to write it down, and if I dare to write it down, there is no place to publish. "I admire those freelance writers, but I can't leave the system because if I do that my family will suffer." In an article entitled "Let Death Be the Witness", he also wrote: "Death is a heavy word, but in China, in many cases, without deaths society will not sit up and pay attention, and problems won't be resolved." These quotes were widely circulated on the internet and resonated with netizens who expressed shock and anger as they asked why a talented journalist ended up taking his own life. 'Unpublished script' A reader posted in Tencent Weibo (one of China's Twitter equivalents): "I am only starting my career as a journalist and I have encountered such difficulties in my work already, and I feel that I can't fight them." A reader asked on Sina Weibo: "Did Xu Huaiqian die to serve as a witness? Was it personal depression or the depression of an era? What kind of country is this?" Another netizen commented that Mr Xu experienced the 1989 student movement as a young man but he had to live in lies, which caused his illness. Some netizens mentioned the fact Mr Xu's suicide happened just days after the Burmese government said it was lifting its censorship, and lamented the sad state of affairs for Chinese intellectuals and journalists. An eulogy posted on QQ Weibo by Gao Shixian summed up like this: "People are the editors of a country; People only have their lives to publish; Their life is their article, and their death is the payment; Your sad end to life is like an unpublished script." |
| Stop fanning rumours, DAP man tells PR Posted: 29 Aug 2012 10:38 PM PDT
(The Sun) - Penang DAP chairman Chow Kon Yeow has urged Pakatan Rakyat leaders to nip rumours in the bud to prevent uneasiness fermenting among the grassroots. Chow said instead of adding to such controversies, leaders instead should disseminate the right information to party members. "If something does not happen (not true), kill it and not fuel it," the Tanjung MP told theSun. Chow was commenting on the recent controversy involving Penang PKR chairman Datuk Mansor Othman after it was reported that he had described Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng as "arrogant and cocky" as well as seen a "tokong" (temple or deity). The deputy chief minister I was alleged to make the remarks in a PKR meeting over seat negotiations with DAP. The remarks were contained in the minutes of the meeting which was leaked to a blog. Mansor has denied describing Lim as arrogant but defended using the word "tokong" as it was made in reference to the esteem and respect of the people had towards the DAP secretary-general. Chow said the issues raised during the PKR meeting would not have repercussions with the DAP as he was of the opinion that the matter were were just the concerns of a particular group in the party (PKR). "The views of these groups in the party does not necessarily reflect the reality on the ground," he added.
|
| 'Exodus if PBRS has to give up MP seat' Posted: 29 Aug 2012 07:39 PM PDT
(Daily Express) - Keningau: The public spat between Barisan Nasional components Parti Bersatu Rakyat Sabah (PBRS) and Umno in the Interior seats in the coming general election continued with PBRS Sook Youth Chief Kahirin Bador predicting that BN will lose thousands of members if PBRS loses one of its two seats here to Umno. Nevertheless, he said PBRS Sook Youth remained loyal to the BN and fully supported the leadership of Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak and Chief Minister Datuk Seri Musa Aman. The incumbent for the Pensiangan parliamentary seat is Tan Sri Joseph Kurup, President of PBRS. The court ruled in favour of the Deputy Natural Resources and Environment Minister when his rival claimed that he was prevented from filing his nomination papers on time. Kurup also faced an angry mob at the nomination centre that day in 2008. According to Kahirin, PBRS has 26,630 members in Pensiangan with 13,850 in Sook and 9,780 in Nabawan. "This is the up-to-date figure as of June 2012 and not as stated by Umno Pensiangan Youth assistant secretary Khairil Abdullah who was referring to an outdated report that was based on the 2008 figure," he said. Kahirin advised Khairil to respect the power sharing concept of BN and respect whatever decision made by the leadership. He said Khairil should have not tabled the motion to ask for one of the three seats in Pensiangan during the Umno Pensiangan Youth annual general meeting. Kahirin praised Nabawan Upko Assemblyman Datuk Bobbey Suan and Upko members as always cooperating with PBRS leaders to resolve problems of the people in the constituency. "This is a true example of the BN concept, which is in line with the unity and peaceful spirit, not bully small parties like what Umno Pensiangan Youth is doing," he said. "I suggest Umno Pensiangan Youth stop discussing the seat distribution because it will only cause disunity among the BN parties," he said. "Respect whatever decision by the BN leadership as well as the statement by Umno Pensiangan Chief, Datuk Abdul Ghani Yassin, who promised to cooperate with whoever is the BN candidate in Pensiangan," he said. Meanwhile, Pensiangan Umno urged its members to unite and ensure BN wins and remains the government. Its chief, Ghani, said they should support all BN candidates irrespective of which party they represent. Pensiangan Umno deputy chief Ahuar Rasam said the Division had yet to receive any information on whether Umno will be contesting the parliamentary seat. Ahuar said anyone has the right to apply to contest in Pensiangan including Umno. Nevertheless, the decision rests with the BN leadership, he said. On his son joining the PKR, he said anyone has the right to choose whatever political avenue. However, he did not discount the possibility of his son supporting the BN in the future. Such scenario, he said, is not strange and cited PBS President Tan Sri Joseph Pairin Kitingan and his brother, Star Sabah Chairman, Datuk Dr Jeffrey Kitingan. "My son's decision to join another party is his choice and has nothing to do with me," he said. Ahuar is an influential figure in Pensiangan. He was instrumental in relocating villagers from five settlements on the Kalimantan-Sabah border to Kg Salarom Taka near Sepulut Kalabakan. The villagers were given a longhouse as dwelling and also 74 houses to continue their livelihood. According to him, there are 15,464 Umno members in Pensiangan that include Sook and Nabawan. A former secretary of a BN component, James Jamil, 58, said PBRS President Tan Sri Joseph Kurup, as BN chairman for Pensiangan, should call for a meeting of all the component parties and discuss the issue. "This is the best way to resolve the crisis," he said, adding that any BN component has the right to request to stand in Pensiangan or Sook and Nabawan. However, he said it was better the matter not be debated in the media. "The opposition will gleefully take the opportunity if the crisis between the two component parties cannot be resolved," he said. According to him, during the formation of PBRS on March 15, 1994, he organised the party in Pensiangan, which at the time covered Tambunan, Bingkor and Pensiangan itself. "At that time the BN component parties were facing a very tough situation and the PBRS branches at that time had to be re-organised until 2004 the time when I retired. "However, I know more about Pensiangan especially its people," he said. In 2004, the electoral boundary re-delineation exercise saw Pensiangan separated from Keningau to cover the state seats of Sook and Nabawan with the incumbent being Datuk Ellron Alfred Angin (PBRS) and Datuk Bobbey Ahfang Suan (Upko), respectively. "I was made to understand that the BN government had in 1994 until today given the Pensiangan and Sook quota to PBRS until last year when Umno Pensiangan demanded Pensiangan to be represented by Umno," he said.
|
| Posted: 29 Aug 2012 07:35 PM PDT
(Daily Express) - Kota Kinabalu: Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR) Sabah Chief Ahmad Thamrin Jaini said it is not true that all Muslim majority seats in Sabah are to be contested by Sabah Reform Alliance (PPS) as mentioned by its chief Datuk Lajim Ukin. Thamrin who attended Lajim's Hari Raya open house on Aug. 28 in Beaufort said, in fact, Lajim admitted that all Muslim majority seats were still currently being discussed among the PKR, PAS and PPS. Ahmad Thamrin said Lajim whose power base is mainly in Beaufort needs to continue to champion the cause of Pakatan Rakyat so that more Umno-BN members would join Pakatan Rakyat for the sake of justice for the people and the nation. He believed everyone has a right to voice his or her own opinion including Lajim, but that all final decisions are to be collective in nature among the parties in Pakatan Rakyat. "The strength of Pakatan Rakyat is that all decisions are decided by consensus and not by dominance like Umno-Barisan Nasional," he said. Ahmad Thamrin was confident that the on-going closed door seat negotiations and allocation among Pakatan Rakyat parties namely PKR, DAP and PAS and also with the newly formed PPS as well as Sabah Reform Movement (APS) headed by Datuk Seri Wilfred Bumburing would be concluded soon in preparation for the 13th General Election. On another note, he said the Pakatan Rakyat Malaysia Day National Celebration will be held from Sept 15-16 in both Sabah and Sarawak, respectively. The theme for 2012 is "Sebangsa, Senegara, Sejiwa" (One Race, Once Country, One Soul), which would be jointly-organised by all three parties from Pakatan Rakyat together with PPS and APS. Ahmad Thamrin welcomed PPS and APS into the Pakatan family. "Much space will be given to them to grow and to mature in the Pakatan family for the sole objective of bringing about a new and just government both in the federal level and also in Sabah," he said.
|
| The Special Position of the Malays (Part One) Posted: 29 Aug 2012 07:19 PM PDT
The special position of the Malays is not a concept that was invented by the ethnic Alliance parties in 1957. The concept had existed at least as early as the 1948 Federation of Malaya Agreement, clause 19(i) of which provided that:
When, therefore, the Alliance parties agreed to preserve the special position of the Malays in 1957, they were simply continuing what had existed in Malaya the decade before Merdeka. Between 1948 and 1957, the special privileges consisted mainly in reservations for the Malays in four areas:
A memorandum prepared for the Reid Commission set out the extent of these privileges. In the area of landholdings, the special privilege consisted primarily in the reservation of land for Malays pursuant to State laws in gazetted areas in the Malay States (but not in Malacca or Penang). The specific provisions and the extent of the reservations varied from State to State; e.g. in Kelantan, nearly the whole State was reserved for the Malays, whereas in Trengganu, no reservations had been made. Within the public service, qualified Malays were given preference over other applicants for employment. In addition, certain government departments applied a 4:1 or 3:1 ratio of Malays to non-Malays. But as the memorandum noted, these policies applied only to first appointments to the Service and not for subsequent promotions, pursuant to clause 152 of the 1948 Federation of Malaya Agreement, as 'racial considerations cease to count in respect of the promotion of officers who are already in the Government Service.' In education, similar quotas also applied. The memorandum states that in 1948, due to the fact that there were few non-Malays who were federal citizens (Malays formed 85% of the electorate in the first nationwide election in 1955) a 3:1 ratio had been proposed 'to safeguard not only the special position of the Malays but also the legitimate interests of the other communities'. Eventually, it was thought, the awards would be divided in accordance with the proportion of Malays and non-Malays among federal citizens as a whole. But the 3:1 quota came to be seen as fixed, and relaxing it required the consent of the Conference of Rulers. Nevertheless, minimum standards were maintained: each year between 1952 and 1956, because of the shortage of qualified Malays in technical subjects, the British asked for, and Rulers consented to, the majority of overseas scholarships to be given instead to qualified non-Malays. In the area of business licences and permits, the special privilege only applied to the road transport industry, where the policy was applied to licences and permits for taxis, buses and haulage lorries in each State or Settlement, in order to 'render the proportion of [Malay operators] equivalent to their proportion of the population of that State or Settlement as a whole'. It is with this background in mind that we can now consider the agreed position of the Alliance parties at the time of Merdeka. The Alliance memorandum to the Reid Commission on 25 September 1956 provided:
The first point that we may note is that the special position of the Malays was meant to be a limited derogation from the general principle of equality and non-discrimination. The extent of the derogation was to be limited, firstly, by the specified areas to which reservations could be made, and secondly, by the requirement that such reservations must be reasonable. The second point that we may note is that the special position of the Malays was not intended to 'adversely affect or diminish' the rights and opportunities that were then available to the other communities. Further clarification was obtained by Lord Reid on 27 September 1956, during submissions by the Alliance before the Reid Commission:
|
| Posted: 29 Aug 2012 06:42 PM PDT Why does the age of the person determine which court has jurisdiction over cases involving illicit sex or zina? Do you mean to tell me that if you are not yet 18 then you are not yet a Muslim? Only when you reach 18 you become a Muslim? Can those under 18, therefore, drink and eat pork and go to church since you are not yet a Muslim and the Sharia court has no power over you until you touch 18? NO HOLDS BARRED Raja Petra Kamarudin
You may have noticed that I have not written a thing regarding former national youth squad bowler Noor Afizal Azizan's statutory rape case. First of all, I thought that since every man and his dog was already talking about it you don't really need me to comment as well. I mean it is not quite the untold story that I normally like to dabble in. It is more like the 'over-told' story. Furthermore, do you really need more 'noise'? There is such a thing called overkill and flogging a dead horse (an idiom). There is also such a thing called information overload, which makes people lethargic and sometimes immune to the issue. Hence 'too much' can be counter-productive. Secondly, this appears to have turned into an opposition crusade, which is bad. Once it is perceived as a political issue rather than an issue of justice, people become divided on the issue based on political leanings and not because it is either the right thing or the wrong thing. People will oppose right or support wrong if the criteria is politics. Take crossovers as one example. Anyway, what is my take on the issue? Okay, are you outraged about the court's decision because you are an opposition supporter or because it is morally (or legally) wrong to not classify the case as statutory rape instead of consensual sex? (Note that even some of those in government feel the same way as you do although they speak 'gentler' in expressing their view and without the venom). I think a more important question would be are you capable of setting aside politics when you talk about this issue -- or any issue for that matter that involves justice, civil liberties, etc? Can we leave our Barisan Nasional and Pakatan Rakyat hats outside the door and come to the table as Malaysians of common interests and concerns? That is the one thing we find most difficult to do. It is always politics first and everything else second, even in matters such as Hudud, which is supposed to be above politics but is not. Okay, so a man (or boy) has sex with an underage girl. My first question would be: are the men/boy and girl Muslims? If they are then this is zina (illicit sex or sex outside marriage). And is not zina a crime under the Sharia (Islamic law)? Hence should not the boy and girl be tried under the Sharia? If the man/boy and girl were both above 18 they would have been brought to the Sharia court. Why are they not brought to the Sharia court just because one or both are below 18? In Islam, the 'age of consent' would be the age of puberty. For girls that would be once she gets her period and that could even be when she is nine years old. According to the Hadith Sahih al-Bukhari, the Prophet Muhammad married Aishah when she was six but did not 'take her' until she was nine. And aren't Muslims supposed to believe in and strictly follow the Hadith and Sunnah or else they cease to be Muslims and would become kafir (infidels). Hence if the girl is 13 and she already has her period, is she legally (in Islam, that is) a woman who can consent to sex or is she still a child? And hence, also, since she is a Muslim and 'legally a woman', is she accountable for her 'crime' of consenting to sex or is she blameless? In other words, if the Sharia court were to try them, would both be on trial or only the man/boy? Okay, we can argue that the Sharia court does not come into play here. This matter does not involve the Sharia court. Why not? If Muslims above 18 'get caught' for illicit sex they get dragged to the Sharia court. The common law court has no power to try Muslim adults who have sex outside marriage. In fact, sex outside marriage is not a crime under common law (even for Muslims) unless it is same-gender or gay sex. Why does the age of the person determine which court has jurisdiction over cases involving illicit sex or zina? Do you mean to tell me that if you are not yet 18 then you are not yet a Muslim? Only when you reach 18 you become a Muslim? Can those under 18, therefore, drink and eat pork and go to church since you are not yet a Muslim and the Sharia court has no power over you until you touch 18? Okay, what if the church or Christians preaches Christianity to Malay boys and girls of 13 or 14 (in short, below 18). Is this a crime? A crime under which law? Common law? Under common law it is not a crime to preach Christianity to Malay children. It is only a crime according to the Religious Department. But the Religious Department does not have power over us until we are 18. Islam recognises 9-year olds as adults. Common law does not. We are adults only at 18. And common law decides whether we are adults. Not the Religious Department. So how? The question is: who has power over Muslims? The common law courts or the Sharia courts? And why does the common law court have power over us until we are 18 and then the Sharia court takes over after that? Is age 18 the 'legally adult' age in Islam? And if 18 were the legal adult age under Islam, can Muslims below 18 get married? Yes, Muslims below 18 can get marriage on condition they are 'adults' (meaning reached puberty) and they have their parent's consent. Hence at that age they are already responsible for their own actions, even in crimes of illicit sex. But then we are not talking about the Qur'an, Hadith, Sunnah or Islamic law here. We are talking about common law. Hence common law overrides the Qur'an, Hadith, Sunnah or Islamic law and will decide at what age you are an adult and at what age you are still a child. And you will face the common law court when you are legally a child and the Sharia court once you are legally an adult. And although Islam has decided the age of adulthood, Islam has no power over Muslims because the laws of the land and Islam do not work in tandem. Crazy or not? In Islam, religion decides when we become an adult and hence can get married and have sex. But Islam does not have the power to decide at what age we would be considered as having consensual sex outside marriage. That the common law decides. And that age is 18. Now, who decides when we cease being a child and legally become an adult although at the age of nine we already discovered the difference between a boy and girl and knew what to do with that thing between our legs? Well, the 222 Members of Parliament, of course. They pass all the laws and they have decided that only at age 17 we can drive and at age 18 we can have sex and at age 21 we can vote. But why at age 17, 18 and 21 respectively? Queen Isabella of Valois married Richard II when she was 6 years, 11 months and 25 days old. David II married Joan, the daughter of Edward II, when he was 4 years and 134 days old. Louis XIV of France became King at age 5 and took over full control at 23. Joan of Arc led the French against the English at age 17. And of course we have that story regarding Aishah, the wife of Prophet Muhammad. In those days, you married as soon as you legally became a woman, which was when you got your period, and would have been around age 9-11. At age 10-13 boys joined the army and fought and died for their country. These were ages when you were no longer children. I know, times have changed and we no longer consider girls of 10 or boys of 13 as adults. That may be so when it comes to common law but not if we consider religion. So, are we outraged about the case of Noor Afizal Azizan because we perceive it as him having sex with an underage girl and the law says a girl of 13 cannot consent to sex and hence he broke the law? Okay, so it is the law that we are concerned about, am I correct? The law says that a girl of 13 cannot consent to sex. This is a law passed by Parliament, the body that can legally pass laws, which we all must follow. And since Noor Afizal Azizan broke the law passed by Parliament we are outraged. Okay, I can accept that. The law must be followed. After all this is a law passed by Parliament. But hold on, Parliament also passed a law that says we must get a police permit if we want to hold a demonstration. Should this law not also be followed since we are extremely concerned about the law? Was Tunku Abdul Aziz Tunku Ibrahim therefore correct in that the law must be followed? Hmm...touché or not touché?
|
| Posted: 29 Aug 2012 04:27 PM PDT
KTEMOC KONSIDERS I read RPK's post titled Touché and must admit wasn't aware his use of the word touché went beyond what I had in mind all along about the meaning of this word - goes to show I get to learn something new everyday. To me, touché was a one-word admittance of one's error or absurd logic when countered by one's opponent's right-on-target sarcasm against one's statement, or perhaps a polite reminder for one to first look into the mirror before making such a statement. It's almost, though not quite, like a 'stone thrower' confessing to the proverb 'Yes, you right, those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones'.
|
| Courts sending out mixed signals over statutory rape Posted: 29 Aug 2012 03:36 PM PDT
The Star NOW that their trials are over, former national youth squad bowler Noor Afizal Azizan can go on to fulfil the promise of his bright future and electrician Chuah Guan Jiu can focus on his fixed job and many years ahead. Through it all, no one spoke of the 13-year-old girl Noor Afizal took to a hotel to spend the night with, or the 12-year-old schoolgirl who was "coaxed" to go to her 21-year-old electrician boyfriend's flat instead of to school because he said he was too sick to take her. These were prepubescent girls who were deemed to have consented to sex with the older boys they were dating and Court of Appeal president Justice Raus Sharif wrote in his written judgment that Noor Afizal had not "tricked the girl into submitting to him". In the electrician's case, Sessions judge Sitarun Nisa Abdul Aziz also thought the "sexual act was consensual", even though DPP Lim Cheah Yit recounted how the girl had repeatedly asked Chuah to take her to school. If she did give consent, there was certainly trickery and fraud involved. The fact remains that the girls were 12 and 13, children barely out of primary school. They are not old enough to be able to legally buy cigarettes, or even obtain medical treatment if they had contracted sexual transmitted diseases. The law on statutory rape was meant to protect these very girls. Section 375(g) of the Penal Code states unequivocally that a man has committed statutory rape if he has sexual intercourse with a girl under 16 years of age, with or without her consent. It is rooted in the presumption that girls below 16 have not attained the mental maturity to consent to sex, and this law was enacted to protect children from abuse. It places the onus on those around her to not have sexual intercourse with her, even if she gives consent, because she is not deemed mature enough to give consent. In other words, the older guys should have known better. Noor Afizal and Chuah were found guilty of raping the underaged girls, but were not jailed. They were bound over for five years and three years respectively on a RM25,000 good behaviour bond. The public uproar has been over how these young men got away with a slap on the wrist, and how the emphasis has been on not blighting their future. Our teenagers are growing up inundated with overt sexual messages from the media and the Internet, without the benefit of a full-fledged sex education curriculum, or avenues to get answers. Clearly, our young people are having sex with each other but there is a line drawn by the law. And that is sex with girls below 16 children is off limits, even to their peers. By letting Noor Afizal and Chuah off lightly, are the courts sending out mixed signals? Are they saying these two girls aged 12 and 13 are capable of giving consent for sex, and are they saying future good behaviour is sufficient punishment for having sex with minors? What is the message that teenage boys and younger men are getting? At the root of it all, this is about protecting our children boys and girls. A 12-year-old girl was lured by a man twice her age into his flat, and coaxed into having sex with him, and he got away with a promise to behave himself for the next three years. Where does that leave her? What about her worth? What are we doing for these two girls? How do we protect other naive young girls from being sweet-talked by an older teen into a sexual relationship if he knows he could be found guilty of statutory rape but walk away with a promise to behave? If we do not uphold unequivocally our intolerance of sex with underaged girls, what does that say about us?
|
| Najib: Six Umno divisions can spearhead recapture of Kedah Posted: 29 Aug 2012 03:09 PM PDT
(The Star) - Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak wants the six Umno divisions in southern Kedah to be the catalyst for Barisan Nasional's victory in the general election. He said the divisions of Baling, Merbok, Sik, Sungai Petani, Padang Serai as well as Kulim-Bandar Baharu formed the backbone of the party in the state. "I chose to visit southern Kedah because this region has been our fort all this while. "As Baling had played an important role in our country's history, then let the voice of Baling be etched in the history of Umno and Barisan Nasional in our struggle to return Kedah back to Barisan," he said when opening the Umno delegates conference for the six divisions here on Thursday. He said other areas such as Alor Setar and Jerlun were equally important, stressing that the divisions should work together and fight hard to win back Kedah. He said party members should have resolved all internal problems that by now. "Enough is enough. It has been over four years since the last general election and they should stop pointing fingers at each other. "We, at the top leadership, have spoken about this issue countless times and now its time for the members to fulfill their pledges of loyalty to the party. "Let us not merely look at what the (Barisan) government had promised to do for us, but rather what we can do for the government," he said. The premier stressed that if all Umno members and fellow Barisan component party members voted for Barisan's candidates in Kedah, there was no reason why the party could not win in the state. He said party members should understand the meaning of unity and loyalty as well as put the party's interests above all else, including personal interests. "Umno is 66 years old while the nation will be celebrating 55 years of Independence. "People say we should be matured as a party by now, with a lifetime of experiences. "But, we need to further explore the knowledge of rational thinking to make wise and acceptable decisions. "That is what maturity should mean, where leaders know the true meaning of unity and loyalty, not merely by the party's age," he said. Najib advised Kedah Umno members to take the party's defeat in the last general election as a valuable lesson to do better this time. He said with an oath of loyalty that was earlier taken by Umno leaders from all six divisions in southern Kedah, led by Baling Umno division chief Datuk Abdul Azeez Abdul Rahim earlier, he was confident southern Kedah would return to Barisan.
|
| A depressed Merdeka — Are you celebrating Merdeka? Posted: 29 Aug 2012 02:50 PM PDT
Malaysians at this moment can't be bothered about politics. They're concerned about GE, but right at the top of their heads is how to make a living in Malaysia. If corporate professionals turn to multi-level marketing as a side-income, and journalists to tuition and freelance writing to make up for their pay, what about the average Malaysian? This year's Ramadan revealed the rising cost of food. A pitiful currypuff is now 50 sen, when it used to be RM1 for three currypuffs. And it seems that it is the same everywhere, from Bangsar to Keramat. Maggi Mee, a staple for Malaysians, has gone up, and a cup of very sweet Milo at a small mamak-like café at Giant Kota Damansara now cost RM4. Could this be why crime is rampant? Dina Zaman, The Malaysian Insider Seeing a headline shouting "Putrajaya offers cash rewards to N-Day event participation" does not encourage patriotism. It does not help that this year, just like the past few years, the atmosphere is muted. Very few Malaysians are in the mood to celebrate Malaysia's 55th year of Independence, and that is a truly sorry state for the country to be. There are many factors related to this. A declining economy, rising costs of living, gutter politics, crime, and there is also a general air of hopelessness among Malaysians when asked if they were looking forward to August 31, 2012. If one is to believe the noise on social media, and in forums, it would seem that Malaysians hate their country. There seems to be nothing positive about the country, and every effort the government puts, is met with ridicule. What does the average Malaysian think about this year's Merdeka celebrations? CS Tan of Terengganu finds that this year theme is a joke. "I 'created' a few phases to my Merdeka celebration. From primary to secondary school Merdeka was about how we managed to be independent, govern our country on our own terms, instead of being under British rule, and of course the colourful floats we saw on television. Tertiary – it's about holidays. Young working life – it's about holidays plus those outrageous uniforms from TNB and Telekom and other Malaysian companies we had to wear. Middle age phase – Merdeka is about able to think of myself after years of believing that the government can't do wrong. This year – it's about Merdeka from crime in Malaysia. Not optimistic huh?" The 1Malaysia Merdeka logo provoked such outcry and ridicule, one can only feel sorry for the government. "I'm sure that our Government had the best of intentions when they commissioned the design …" a rather diplomatic professional who did not want to be named said. Oso-San Anna disagrees. A Communications professional, she has worked in advertising agencies and in-house communications departments. She understands design and branding – she lives and breathes them. "Firstly, for something as important as Merdeka, the Government should leave it to the pros. I mean real pros (and not some crony's son) who has a solid understanding of the use of symbol and colour and collective expression of national pride." "Secondly, branding is powerful when built and layered over time with consistency and commitment." "Thirdly, where are the brand values? Both from the standpoint of the creator and the people it's meant for? Is there buy-in from the Rakyat? I feel all 3 are missing in the 1Malaysia logo that was designed. We are 55 years old as a Nation. Sure it's national pride but the meaning of real patriotism is already lost since it's seldom practiced in soul & spirit," she said. Angelia Ong, who works in animation is saddened by recent celebrations. The idea of Merdeka has somehow lost its spirit, she says. "It used to be more alive and less about polishing the achievements of a particular political coalition. It used to come across as more inclusive and meaningful. The phrase "1Malaysia" has taken over so much, my youngest had one time thought our country was called 1Malaysia, rather than Malaysia. From a branding point of view, I guess they have succeeded in ensuring that it's everywhere and anywhere, to the point of oversaturation." From a Malaysian's point of view (on what she thought of the logo), "it was just a major facepalm moment." On Facebook, one lone friend is spotted asking on his status update, "Where can I get a Malaysian flag? I want to hang it from my balcony." Very few of his friends responded to the query. No Money, No Merdeka Honey Malaysians at this moment can't be bothered about politics. They're concerned about GE, but right at the top of their heads is how to make a living in Malaysia. If corporate professionals turn to multi-level marketing as a side-income, and journalists to tuition and freelance writing to make up for their pay, what about the average Malaysian? This year's Ramadan revealed the rising cost of food. A pitiful currypuff is now 50 sen, when it used to be RM1 for three currypuffs. And it seems that it is the same everywhere, from Bangsar to Keramat. Maggi Mee, a staple for Malaysians, has gone up, and a cup of very sweet Milo at a small mamak-like café at Giant Kota Damansara now cost RM4. Could this be why crime is rampant? Tania Leong, who runs a new age shop, is not confident of our economy. "Everyone I know who owns a business, has reported a decrease in revenue. Even my customers share a same complaint of their businesses, be it property, legal (clients unable to pay), travel agency, health spas, dvd shops, children's play facilities, restaurants etc. Sungai Wang Plaza in the city has always been golden hot property (probably one of the top 5 most expensive per sq.ft.), and even that is suffering." "What I have observed is that this country is lacking qualified personnel in many areas of work from a sale assistant to corporate positions, a low standard of education system, many government workers are slow, inefficient and clueless, there is no minimum wage, corruption appears to be the norm in our judicial, police & government departments, religion has been made into law, sex education in schools are non-existent or minimal and so we have children bearing children. Crime rates seemed to have soared the last couple of years." "If leaving the country was an option for me, I would leave in a heartbeat." Hani B works in retail and has first-hand experiences with customer spending. Her customers range from the wealthy Middle Easterners to young college students, and understands their buying habits. "I used to be confident that our economy can weather most adversities, now I get totally scared when reading that our national debt amounted to 257 billion in 2011 … yikes!! When I google about our economy, the results go on and on about how much it's growing bla bla bla but retail wise, I just don't see it and my salary certainly doesn't reflect it." Like Tania, she notes that skilled workers are lacking. "I read that our country is among the top 20 nations to be labelled as losers of capital flight ... that is RM893 billion(!) siphoned out between 1970 and 2010, so why should we stay back and help with the improvement of wealth to the 1 per cent? Then again, what do I know, I'm just a shopgirl." At the many open houses around the capital, the Malaysians asked, professed to forgetting that Merdeka was around the corner. This year is bad, they said, and their open houses reflect that. Open houses are celebrated on a smaller scale now.
|
| Time for DAP to be a good partner Posted: 29 Aug 2012 02:42 PM PDT The Chinese-based party should not rock the Pakatan boat right now by harping on non-issues and should instead work towards winning the polls. CT Ali, FMT The 13th general election is there for Pakatan Rakyat to lose. And lose it they will if DAP does not get its act together. I never thought I would say that. All this time I have watched DAP grow from strength to strength. Consolidating its considerable presence in Sabah and Sarawak while making inroads into the Peninsula in places where even Umno thinks Pakatan would not dare venture into or could hope to field a candidate against the Barisan Nasional and have a chance to win. All this while, the DAP has made concerted efforts to take in Malays to boost its claims to be a party for all Malaysians. Its commitment on taking over the government in concert with PAS and PKR seems to be the order of the day. And yet as the 13th general election nears, we see the real DAP is starting to unravel… to fray at its edges. The memory of the controversial exit of its vice-chairman, Tunku Abdul Aziz Tunku Ibrahim, has returned to haunt the party because now, through Tunku Aziz, we are privy to what has been said of Anwar Ibrahim by DAP's first-tiered leadership. And what they say of Anwar is not flattering to DAP and to Anwar himself. Now, is DAP making use of Tunku Aziz to rein in Anwar after his acquittal of Sodomy II? Or is Tunku Aziz making use of DAP to continue his public spat with Anwar over his insistence that the April 28 Bersih rally should not have proceeded at Dataran Merdeka? You tell me. Either way, it bodes ill for the Pakatan coalition. Hudud a non-issue The DAP also insists on mischievously harping on hudud – a non-issue as both BN and Pakatan are on record as having said that they will not and cannot implement. So why talk about something that is not going to be implemented? Another non-issue is party hopping. It is a non-issue because anybody with an ounce of grey matter in his or her brain is against this. But anybody with an ounce of grey matter also knows, understands and accepts that no matter what anybody says, any politician worth his salt will have to accept that in a democracy, elections are won in a number of ways – and party hopping is one of them. Tell us, Karpal Singh and Lim Kit Siang, was there not a time when this Anwar was once your sworn enemy? Wasn't he your favourite target and whipping boy in Parliament? And now you are comrades in arms. And do you not have within DAP ranks former Umno politicians? What do you call that? A change of heart, a marriage of convenience? Or has the time come even for sworn enemies to look again at each other's convictions and see if there is room to work together towards a common goal? So please DAP, while it is a decent thing to do to be against frogs that go hopping from one party to another, the adherence to such sentiment might be a bit harder to do. We are at war with BN. Almost anything that could assist us to win that war must be considered. When victory is in hand, these "questionable tactics" can be looked again with clear heads. Until then shut up.
|
| Posted: 29 Aug 2012 01:42 PM PDT Kosong While the Home Ministry frets over huge crowd expected at Himpunan Janji Bersih at Dataran Merdeka...
 |
| Corbett Report Radio 205 – Spotlight: Malaysia with Nile Bowie Posted: 29 Aug 2012 12:59 PM PDT
(The Corbett Report) - We are keeping an eye on the different politics in Malaysia specifically the nefarious activities to prop up the opposition. Tonight we talk to Nile Bowie of NileBowie.blogspot.com about the latest developments in Malaysia. From the Trans-Pacific Partnership to the foreign-funded political opposition to the latest activities in the South-China Sea, we explore the stories that are making news across the country and around the Asia-Pacific region. We are keeping an eye on the different politics in Malaysia specifically the nefarious activities to prop up the opposition. Listen or watch the video at: http://www.corbettreport.com/corbett-report-radio-205-spotlight-malaysia-with-nile-bowie/ |
| Rafizi’s ‘NOW’ centre to make whistleblowing Malaysian culture Posted: 29 Aug 2012 12:54 PM PDT  Rafizi and NOW director Akmal Nasir (right) pose outside the centre's entrance during an interview with The Malaysian Insider. — Pictures by Saw Siow Feng Rafizi told The Malaysian Insider that NOW will be a "civil society alternative" to government authorities like the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) and the police, whose reputations have been marred by numerous reports of custodial deaths as well as assault and intimidation by armed officers. "Malaysians have been spooked from coming forward, but whistleblowing should become a culture in Malaysia, and that is what we hope to create," he said in an exclusive interview. Rafizi explained that the centre will prepare a step-by-step process for whistleblowing, which will include offering advice to informants on the legal risks they may face with their disclosures should they agree to proceed.  By providing a support structure for potential informants, the NOW centre aims to make whistleblowing a part of local culture. But the final step in the process ― publicly disclosing the scandal through the media ― is the stickiest of all, Rafizi admitted, as it would immediately open himself, the centre and the whistleblower to legal risks, if any law was broken in the process of investigation. The country's sole whistleblower law ― the Whistleblower Protection Act 2010 (WPA) ― only offers protection to whistleblowers if they make a "disclosure of improper conduct" to an authorised enforcement agency. As it does not accord protection to whistleblowers who go to the media, NOW's system will likely result in a mountain of lawsuits and prosecutions in court. "That is why we need some funds raised for legal fees. Most probably, we will be sued left, right [and] centre," Rafizi said.  Rafizi is experiencing the lack of whistleblower protection firsthand. "But we have to do it and take the risk. After all, the law is such that if you lodge a report with the MACC, for example, you have to submit all your evidence to them and you cannot speak to anyone else or go to anyone else. "If the MACC actually functions well, we would not need NOW. But does it?" he questioned. "So at this point, what we have are two choices: Either we live and work within the current framework of the WPA, which is used to suppress whistleblowing, or we prove to and convince the society that whistleblowing is actually good for the country. "We can show them that there is a support system from the non-governmental organisations and the civil society movement to hopefully increase pressure on the government to amend the Act," he said. Rafizi said another provision in the WPA renders the intention of the Act useless ― it stipulates that a whistleblower cannot break any other law when making his disclosure to the authorities. "So if the documents disclosed are confidential, even if you are revealing them to the authorities, you have no protection," he said. This is reflected in Rafizi's NFC court case, where he was charged for violating Section 97 of the Banking and Financial Institutions Act (Bafia) for exposing the confidential banking details of the National Feedlot Corporation (NFCorp), the firm that runs the NFC project. But the politician is determined to push forward with NOW, saying the centre must serve as a civil society movement to help spread awareness of the importance of whistleblowing as a "Malaysian culture" and increase pressure on the government to move legislative reforms. On this note, the politician said another primary objective of NOW was to be a legislative reform lobbyist and an "oversight" centre to make parliamentarians, governments and government-linked companies accountable for their actions. Whistleblowing, he said, was only 50 per cent of the centre's main work. "We need a centre like this now because if we rely on the government, we will continue to be stagnant. And the best way is to take the civil society route to it," he said. He pointed out that it was through decades of pressure from civil society movements that the government finally agreed to repeal the controversial British-enacted Internal Security Act 1960, which allows for detention without trial. "It has worked before. In this case, we want to change the way society views whistleblowing so that maybe five or six years down the road, there will be enough public pressure that no government can actually ignore it," he said. Read more at: http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/malaysia/article/rafizis-now-centre-to-make-whistleblowing-malaysian-culture/ |
| 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 | |
0 ulasan:
Catat Ulasan