Klik GAMBAR Dibawah Untuk Lebih Info

Sumber Asal Berita :-

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

They are messing with our minds
The only good politician is a dead politician
Why it is un-Islamic to arrest Ong Sing Yee
When nothing works, do nothing
Till death do us part
The Istana influence in politics
Remember we did this in primary school?
Let the pictures do the talking
Relative to time and place
By whose interpretation?

Posted: 09 Sep 2012 07:00 PM PDT

Committing suicide was the last thing on our minds back then. Our minds were not messed up like the minds of today's kids. Okay, maybe we were a bit messed up because we could not decide in what order of priority it was supposed to be -- bikes, booze and broads or bikes, broads and booze. But we did not allow details to stand in the way of fun.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

One million people commit suicide each year: WHO

(AFP) - One million people die by their own hand each year, accounting for more deaths than wars and murders put together, the World Health Organisation said yesterday, calling for urgent action to address the problem.

"Data from the WHO indicate that approximately one million people worldwide die by suicide each year. This corresponds to one death by suicide every 40 seconds," the organisation said in a report launched ahead of the World Suicide Prevention Day on Monday.

And while the number of deaths by suicide is staggering, the number of attempts each year is 20 times higher, the WHO said, pointing out that five percent of people in the world try to kill themselves at least once during their lifetime.

And the problem is getting worse, the organisation said, insisting that "given the magnitude of the public health problem of suicidal behaviours", urgent action was needed.

"As suicide is largely preventable, it is imperative that governments, through their health, social and other relevant sectors, invest human and financial resources in suicide prevention," the report said.

According to Dr. Shekhar Saxena, who headed the team behind the report, suicide rates have risen sharply in some parts of the world in recent years, with some countries seeing their rates jump by as much as 60 percent.

"Although suicide continues to remain a serious problem in high-income countries, it is the low- and middle-income countries that bear the larger part of the global suicide burden," the report said, adding: "It is also these countries that are relatively less equipped to prevent suicide".

The highest documented suicide rates can be found in Eastern European countries like Lithuania and Russia, while they are lowest in Latin America, WHO said.

The United States, Western European countries and Asia fell in the middle of the range, the report showed, but stressed that statistics are not available for many countries in Africa and South-East Asia.

Globally, suicide is meanwhile the second cause of death worldwide among 15-19 year-olds, with at least 100,000 adolescents killing themselves each year, according to the study.

Among adults, the suicide rate is highest among those aged 75 and older, the WHO said, pointing out that "elderly people are likely to have higher suicide intent and use more lethal methods than younger people, and they are less likely to survive the physical consequences of an attempt".

The report also showed that men were three times more likely to commit suicide, but that three times as many women as men attempted to kill themselves.

"The disparity in suicide rates has been partly explained by the use of more lethal means and the experience of more aggression and higher intent to die, when suicidal, in men than women," it explained.

*********************************************

Latin America has the lowest suicide rate in the world, maybe because they like to party

One million people a year or one person every 40 seconds commits suicide all over the world. "Although suicide continues to remain a serious problem in high-income countries, it is the low- and middle-income countries that bear the larger part of the global suicide burden," said the report.

"Globally, suicide is meanwhile the second cause of death worldwide among 15-19 year-olds, with at least 100,000 adolescents killing themselves each year, according to the study," said the news report above, which represents 10% of those who commit suicide

So there you have it. These people are too young to have sex (they are not matured enough to make the decision whether to have sex of not) but they are not too young to commit suicide.

But why do people commit suicide, especially teenagers who have not even started their life yet? I suppose it is because they are not happy. And since they are not happy they no longer want to live.

Isn't 15 or 16 a bit too young to not be happy? When I was that age I was happy like hell. Every day was party day, as far as I was concerned. And we lived for today. We did not care a damn about tomorrow. Why are the kids of today not like how we were when we were their age?

I suppose, in our days, we did not have any pressure. Everyone was a friend, not like today where you have Malay friends, Chinese friends, Indian friends, etc. You were just a friend, period, so there was not much pressure placed on us to compartmentalise ourselves into racial, religious or social blocks.

Then we never worried about our future. Every day is today. Tomorrow also becomes today when the sun rises the following morning. Hence who cares about tomorrow? Tomorrow never comes. Nowadays, there is no today. Everything is about tomorrow. We don't live for today. We plan and prepare for tomorrow.

I suppose grass helped a lot as well. In our days, grass was not considered a drug and hence was not illegal. Even policeman would join us for a smoke. And sometimes the policemen would dip into their own pocket and pull out some grass for us to 'roll'.

Man, in those days we kids did not have any problems with the policemen like the kids of nowadays. The policemen were our friends and our smoking 'kakis'. Some of them even came around with their squad cars to join us in Benteng for Teh Tarik and a smoke.

So what happened? What changed in those 45 years since we were kids who lived for today and did not care a damn about tomorrow? Why do kids today commit suicide when in our days a good 'watermelon' was to die for but only in a figure of speech sort of way?

(By the way, for those of you who do not know what 'watermelon' means, too bad. For those who do, maybe you can take a trip down memory lane with the video below).

Anyway, sometimes I wonder whether the fault could be because we replaced grass with religion and that is why so many people are unhappy and end up committing suicide. Well, as Bob Marley said, "Don't worry, be happy." But we will have to start by getting rid of those people who keep telling us that we are going to go to hell if we don't listen to them.

oenlU0KiILc

SEE VIDEO ON YOUTUBE HERE: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oenlU0KiILc

The only good politician is a dead politician

Posted: 09 Sep 2012 04:56 PM PDT

Would an orgy help then? I mean, not only will we encourage males and females to mix freely but they can also strip naked and engage in an orgy. We will have a mass bonking session involving 1,000 men and women. Will this make Malaysians love each other more? If free mingling of males and females can help improve racial harmony just imagine what free sex can do.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Two dead, child loses leg in Thai south

80 police hurt after riot at Kurdish festival in Germany

Wave of attacks kills 56 in Iraq

Taliban threaten to kill Prince Harry

Those are just some of the news items this morning. There are, of course, many more than just those four and all give Islam a bad name. Basically, the impression that one gets is Islam or Muslims is about violence, conflict, killing, intolerance, extremism etc.

Why is it when we read anything about Islam or Muslims it must always be something negative? Aren't there any good news like Muslims set up relief centres for refugees, Muslims raise USD100 million for war orphans, Muslims condemn and call for economic sanctions against states that propagate terrorism, and whatnot?

I am sure that there are some good news but who likes to read good news? It is the bad news that sells. Sex, politics, murder -- those are what sell. And if it is a politician involved in a sex cum murder scandal that sells even better. Hence do you now understand why the Altantuya Shaariibuu story will just not go away?

Today there is that story about PAS in Negri Sembilan separating the males and females at its Hara Raya bash (Negri PAS under fire for segregating sexes at Raya open house).

State MCA political and strategy bureau head Datuk Lee Yuen Fong said PAS' action only caused uneasiness among Malaysians. "Why do you need to segregate when it is an open house and held in an open area? This is a preview of what PAS will do if it ever gains power," he said.

Negri Sembilan Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Sikhism and Taoism council chairman Edward Lim said that having such a rule would not help foster unity. "We can understand if the rule is introduced to ensure women, girls and children get their food as there is always a scramble at such events," he said.

National MIC information chief Datuk V.S. Mogan described the segregation as ridiculous. "It mocks the open house concept and doesn't help in promoting unity," he said.

PAS has been doing this for years. I have attended many PAS functions at Taman Melawar in Gombak (not only Hari Raya events) and they have always had separate sections and separate entrances for males and females.

But this has never upset my wife and me one bit. My wife just walks in together with me through the 'male' entrance and she sits together with me in the male section. She does not join the other ladies in the ladies section. And that has never been an issue. No one has come up to her to ask her to leave the male section and go join the women in the ladies section. In fact, my wife was not even wearing a tudung or scarf. And sometimes she wears tight/body-hugging jeans and a 'sexy' T-shirt.

These people make it appear like this is something that PAS only introduced this year rather than it has always been like that for more than two generations. And what are these MCA, MIC and Negri Sembilan Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Sikhism and Taoism council people complaining about? The event is a PAS event held at their place. They can decide how they want things done in their own event.

If you come to my event, say at my house, I will expect you to take off your shoes even though taking off your shoes when entering someone's house is not British culture. It is my house so I will decide how things are done. And if you don't like it then don't come to my house. Simple!

The event was a PAS event. If PAS says no dogs are allowed then don't bring your dog. Go bring your dog to a MCA or MIC event of you wish. If PAS says you cannot strip and dance stark naked on top of the table then don't do that. Do that when you go to the Negri Sembilan Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Sikhism and Taoism council gathering.

Lee said that in a multi-racial and multi-religious country like Malaysia, it was important for people to mix with one another as it would help promote understanding.

So the state MCA political and strategy bureau head, Datuk Lee Yuen Fong, wants to promote racial harmony through free mingling of males and females. If males and females were not allowed to mix freely then Malaysia would suffer racial discord.

Actually, asking men and women to mix freely or organising orgies would not solve the racial problem in Malaysia. What would help improve things would be when we line up all the politicians in front of a firing squad and shoot them, especially those politicians who are using race and religion to divide Malaysians

The only good politician is a dead politician, I always say.

THE SECRET TO RACIAL HARMONY

Why it is un-Islamic to arrest Ong Sing Yee

Posted: 08 Sep 2012 04:19 PM PDT

When I brought that poster back to Malaysia, my Tok Guru whispered to me that I should get rid of it because it is haram in Islam. I should not hang it up on the wall, said my Tok Guru. I should just burn it. Even if Khomeini is a revered religious leader it is still haram to hang his poster or photograph on the wall.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

From the Islamic viewpoint, there is nothing wrong in stepping on statues, paintings, posters and photographs of humans and animals. In fact, the Talibans in Afghanistan blew up such statues. Remember the Bamiyan statues of Buddha that were blown up back in March 2001?

Statues, paintings, posters and photographs of people and animals are forbidden in Islam. Some ulama' (scholars) say that 'exemption' can be given in certain instances such as when photographs are needed for passports, identity cards, driving licences, etc. However, if they are just for fun or for show, then, according to the ulama', they are forbidden.

Hence are we allowed to hang photographs of rulers, political leaders, pop stars, etc., on the wall? Not if it is meant to revere these people or to 'honour' them. This would expose people to the danger of idol worshipping like how some people idolise pop stars.

I know some kids will say that so-and-so is their idol. They idol worship these superstars. Well, in Islam that is wrong. Saudi Arabia would even confiscate photographs and posters of Imam Khomeini. I should know because I had to hide my poster to smuggle it out of the country. I was warned I might be arrested if I was caught but I took that risk (and got away with it).

When I brought that poster back to Malaysia, my Tok Guru whispered to me that I should get rid of it because it is haram in Islam. I should not hang it up on the wall, said my Tok Guru. I should just burn it. Even if Khomeini is a revered religious leader it is still haram to hang his poster or photograph on the wall.

I did what my Tok Guru advised although it pained me to do so because that was the poster I carried above my head in the Mekah demonstration that I participated in.

Hence what Ong Sing Yee did was actually very Islamic. The Talibans would probably approve of what she did. So would the Salafis. In fact, even many Sunnis, the sect that most Malaysian Muslims belong to, would feel the same way.

If Ong Sing Yee had stepped on a poster of Carlsberg beer or on a poster of Sports Toto, she would have been commended. Such things are haram in Islam. And so are posters of human beings, which are equally haram in Islam.

Let those politicians and fake Muslims continue to foam at the mouth and whine away. We true Muslims who know what Islam is all about should commend Ong Sing Yee. More people should do what Ong Sing Yee did. Revering politicians and placing their photographs on the wall is considered idol worshipping in Islam. All these should be pulled down just like what the Talibans did in Afghanistan.

Oh, and don't worry about the Sedition Act. That is an old English law that was created so that the people would not criticise the King. You see, the King went against the Pope and the people were not happy about it. In those days, many people were papists and they believed that the Pope was God's Wakil on earth and that what the Pops says is on behalf of God.

The Palace, however, wanted the people to believe that the new Wakil of God is the King and not the Pope. But they had to stop the people from contradicting the Palace. Hence they created the Sedition Act so that those who said the Pope and not the King is the Wakil of God could be arrested.

Basically, the Sedition Act was meant to defend the Church of England. Now, Malays use it to defend haram things like hanging photographs and posters of people on the wall. Actually, these are sesat Muslims.

When nothing works, do nothing

Posted: 07 Sep 2012 04:37 PM PDT

But Dr Mahathir is old and senile. Nik Aziz is a country bumpkin. Saudi Arabia is crazy. It is our civil right to watch porn. No one should stop us from watching porn. So we have children also watching porn. But that is the price of freedom of information. There should be no censorship.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

More than 11 years ago, back in early 2001, Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad explained why Malaysia needs a detention without trial law.

The Internal Security Act (ISA) is a preventive law, explained Dr Mahathir. It is a law that makes it possible to detain people before they commit a crime. If they have already committed a crime then they can be arrested and charged in court.

But it is better to detain these people before they commit a crime, Dr Mathathir said. Once they have already committed the crime they would probably be far away from the scene of the crime and would have escaped by the time the police arrive.

Even if they are arrested and charged they may get off. Maybe there is not enough evidence to get a conviction or a smart lawyer would get them acquitted. Hence, even if they are arrested, there is no guarantee they would be punished.

This makes the ISA necessary, said Dr Mahathir. People can be detained even before they commit a crime. Even while they are still thinking of committing a crime they can already be detained. Once they have committed a crime the damage would have already be done. Better we prevent the damage before it happens.

Then 911 happened. And this allowed Dr Mahathir to gloat and tell us 'I told you so'.

Our Twin Towers is still standing because Malaysia has a detention without trial law, said Dr Mahathir. The US does not have such a law so their Twin Towers is gone. That shows how useful the ISA is to preserve peace, order and stability. The US too needs a preventive detention law like Malaysia, Dr Mahathir counselled that great power.

Then the US 'followed' Malaysia's 'advice' by introducing their version of a detention without trial law. And the western countries too started embarking on preventive detention. They detained suspected terrorists who had yet to commit any crime but were suspected of planning or thinking of committing a crime.

So the world proved Dr Mahathir right in the end.

And now we find that adults who have sex with children escape punishment. Then we say that Malaysia's legal system stinks. People who should be punished are not punished and people who should not be punished are punished. It is the world upside down. And, of course, we are not happy about this.

So what do we do? Do we detain without trial people who are suspected of planning to commit a crime or do we wait until they do commit the crime and then arrest and charge them and see them get acquitted and escape punishment?

Then we have people like Tok Guru Nik Aziz Nik Mat who says that boys and girls (or men and women) should not be allowed to mix freely. In fact, countries like Saudi Arabia do not allow girls or women to leave the house unless escorted or chaperoned by male members of their family. This is to prevent girls or women from being raped or duped into having sex with horny male predators.

But we call Nik Aziz an idiot and Saudi Arabia a backward country. We do not want segregation of the sexes or separate swimming pools and checkout counters for males and females. We want males and females the freedom to mix and not having to endure forced segregation by the state.

Yes, we want this and we want that. We want everything. We also want race-free political parties that will uphold the interest of our race. Hmm…that sounds like we want virgin prostitutes.

Then we have a 14-year old girl who has sex with a 13-year old boy. Do we now charge the girl for sex with a minor since she is one-year older than the boy? Or will this apply only if an 18-year old girl has sex with a 17-year old boy and then the 18-year old girl gets sent to jail in the interest of the 17-year old boy?

But it was the boy who seduced the girl. So how can the girl be punished? Yes, but it is the age that counts. And since the girl is older than the boy then she and not the boy has to be punished.

But why, in the first place, do children of 12 or 13 have sex? Well, this could be because children of nine or ten have access to the Internet and they get to see porn on the Internet. So they want to try out all those exciting things they see every day on the Internet.

So it is the Internet then that has to be blamed? Or is it because boys and girls or men and women are allowed to mix freely? Would barring girls from leaving the house without a chaperone or having separate swimming pools and checkout counters for males and females help? Or do we just arrest more people and charge them in court and see them get acquitted and go unpunished?

Phew…what a dilemma we are facing. Then Dr Mahathir comes out and makes a statement that the Internet needs to be regulated. Then we whack Dr Mahathir and call him all sorts of names.

But there is just too much porn on the Internet, argues Dr Mahathir. We are allowing children to see things they should not be allowed to see. And if we allow children free access to porn sites then they might want to try what they see on the Internet. And then we will have children indulging in sex.

Okay, the downside is children who watch porn indulge in sex. But we do not agree to chaperoning girls or women. We also do not agree to segregation of the sexes. We want more policemen on the streets arresting adults who have sex with children and strict judges who are prepared to send these people to jail. And if a 19-year old girl has sex with a 17-year old boy then the girl must be locked up even if it was the boy who seduced the girl.

And since Barisan Nasional cannot do this then we must kick out Barisan Nasional and replace the government with Pakatan Rakyat. And how will Pakatan Rakyat solve this problem that Barisan Nasional cannot?

That is not important. What is important is we gave Barisan Nasional 55 years and they could not solve the problem. No doubt Pakatan Rakyat has not told us yet how they are going to solve the problem that Barisan Nasional could not solve. But we will talk about that later. Let's vote them into office first and then we will discuss how Pakatan Rakyat is going to solve the problem that Barisan Nasional cannot solve.

Maybe we will do what Dr Mahathir suggests. Maybe we will listen to Nik Aziz. Maybe we will follow what Saudi Arabia does. Maybe we can show children various verses of the Qur'an and Bible that say sex outside marriage is forbidden and that they will go to hell if they violate God's command. Maybe we can detain without trial suspected sex offenders before they commit a crime. Or maybe we will do nothing and the problem will just continue. But let's vote first and find out later.

Till death do us part

Posted: 06 Sep 2012 06:57 PM PDT

I have to admit that I have changed my position on the issue of Islamic State a number of times. In the beginning, in my disco days, I was opposed to an Islamic State. Later in life (during my mosque days) I was excited about it. I even joined the Iranians in Mekah to demonstrate against the Saudi Arabian government. And I had a poster of Imam Khomeini on my wall as well. Later, I again changed my position. Today, I no longer feel that an Islamic State would work. And I have written about this many times giving my reasons why I think this.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

"Till death do us part," goes the marriage vows. But in many cases that never happens. In the US, about 40% of marriages end in divorce whereas in the UK it is slightly lower.

Whatever it may be, an average of more than one-third of marriages in the US and UK does not end with the death of one of the partners. It ends earlier than that and the divorce rate for second and thirds marriages is even higher, according to the statistics.

I suppose people change. Interests change. Priorities change. Age sometimes also plays a part. As we get older we change our mind or our value system. Sometimes familiarity breeds contempt. There could be many reasons or a combination of reasons as to why some couples are just not able to keep their marriage vows.

Or it could be because you got tired of eating curry every day and now you want to change your diet and taste some tom yam. Some people tell me that when you eat curry at home every day you sometimes want to go out for some tom yam. The only thing is, don't get caught lest your wife does a 'Bobbit' on you.

Change is the only thing that is constant, if you know what I mean. In my younger days, I used to love going to discos (what kids nowadays call clubbing). By the time I was 27, I preferred to spend my time at the mosque listening to the ustaz preach religion.

Another 27 years later -- by the time I was 54 (that was eight years ago) -- I got bored with the same old sermons. We appeared to be going nowhere with all this talk regarding rukun and hukum. I wanted to know more, not just about batal wuduk, batal puasa, batal sembahyang, hukum nikah, hukum cerai, and whatnot. So I stopped going to the mosque to listen to sermons that I had been hearing for more than half my life and which I already knew by heart and could utter in my sleep.

I suppose this is what the journey of life is all about. As you travel farther down the road you begin to see things differently and this changes you and the way you look at things. And when you reach the forks or junctions in your life you may decide to take the left lane rather than the right lane, as you have been doing so many times before.

I mean, when you keep taking the same right lane every time and you find that the scenery does not change you might, out of curiosity, decide this time to try the left lane to see what happens. Then you discover that the left lane actually offers the answers to the questions you have been asking for decades but never found the answers to.

It is no different in politics. Anwar Ibrahim, in his secondary school days, was fiercely anti-British. Considering that Malaya (not even 'Malaysia' yet at that time) had just gained independence barely three years before that, this is not surprising. The Merdeka spirit still burned very strongly in many people in 1960, Anwar included.

But as we got farther and farther away from 1957, Merdeka got reduced to something that we read in the history books. Why did Anwar need to continue screaming about Merdeka when we were already Merdeka? Anwar then began to talk about Malay nationalism. And with that he talked about the Malay language and why Malay should replace English, even for the street names.

Anwar's nationalist fight from 1968 to 1971 was through the Persatuan Kebangsaan Pelajar Islam Malaysia (PKPIM) and the Persatuan Bahasa Melayu Universiti Malaya (PBMUM).

Thereafter, Mountbatten Road got changed to Jalan Mountbatten and eventually to Jalan Tun Perak. Birch Road (named after the eighth Resident of Perak, Sir Ernest Woodford Birch) was renamed Jalan Birch and again to Jalan Maharajalela -- named after the man who killed James Wheeler Woodford Birch (the first Resident of Perak) -- and many more all over the country.

In 1974, Anwar was detained under the Internal Security Act. Not long after that, Anwar became an Islamist and started to fight for more Islamisation through the Angkatan Belia Islam Malaysia (ABIM), which was formed in 1972. In those days, Anwar worked very closely with the Islamic party, PAS, and was a strong supporter of the Iranian Islamic Revolution of 1979, as was I.

In 1982, Anwar did a U-turn and, again, became a Malay nationalist when he joined Umno.

I must admit that in the early 1960s I disagreed with Anwar's anti-British and pro-Malay language stand. But after he got released from ISA and became an active Islamist around 1976-1977 (by then I was already an Islamist myself, as I explained above), I did a U-turn and supported him. I would attend most of the rallies that PAS organised in the East Coast where Anwar was a speaker.

But when Anwar joined Umno in 1982, I washed my hands off him. There was one occasion when he flew to Kuala Terengganu with his Umno Youth entourage and I completely ignored him although I was seated right behind him in the plane. By the way, he also ignored me, so it was mutual.

Then, of course, that brings us to 1998, but I have already told that story so many times before so maybe it is not necessary that I talk about it again. Suffice to say, in 1998, I forgave Anwar for his betrayal and rallied behind him in support of Reformasi.

But that only lasted six years. In 2004, I again 'divorced' Anwar and chose to fight my own battle through Malaysia Today, although I still aligned myself to the opposition, in particular DAP, who I campaigned for in 2008.

Sometimes marriages last. Sometimes they do not. In the US and the UK more than one-third of marriages do not. But it happens and even the 'till death do us part' vow uttered in church do get broken. Nevertheless, when the relationship no longer works you need to just move on and look for a new relationship. Even then there is no guarantee that the next one will work.

Will, under such a situation, an anti-hopping law work? Is it even democratic in the first place? What about freedom of association, as enshrined in the Constitution? Do we remove that Article that guarantees all Malaysians freedom of association? Basically, that is what it would tantamount to.

Say, you are a member of DAP. And, say, DAP agrees to hold a referendum on whether Malaysia should be turned into an Islamic State with the Islamic law of Hudud as the law of the land. And, also say, DAP agrees that if 51% of Malaysians vote in favour of turning Malaysia into an Islamic State then DAP will not oppose it.

Would you agree to that? Would you be of the opinion that the voting will be clean and honest and that there will be no rigging? Would you accept whatever the outcome of the referendum because it is your party's decision and you will not oppose your party's decision although you are opposed to an Islamic State? Or would you want the freedom of resigning from DAP because you are of the opinion that an Islamic State will not work for Malaysia?

Yes, changing your position does happen. And you may have reasons for that although others may not share these reasons. But this is what democracy is all about -- the right to change your mind and your position. Hence, if this right is taken away from you, then democracy itself has been removed.

Anwar has changed his position a few times, as have I. But to condemn Anwar for his ever-changing position when he has every democratic right to change his views (as he gets older) is a violation of these rights. We all change, as we get older.

My friend from DAP, YB Ronnie Liu, used to be a Communist in his younger days. But weren't many of us Communists when we were younger, me included? In fact, I still buy and wear Che Guevara T-shirts even until today. However, as we mature and as we lose some at that idealism, we begin to change. Today, Ronnie is as Communist as Madonna is a virgin.

In short, till death do us part is a fallacy. And even the Catholic Church has had to reluctantly accept this reality. But would a Catholic cease to be a Catholic just because he or she broke her marriage vow of 'till death do us part'?

The Istana influence in politics

Posted: 03 Sep 2012 06:56 PM PDT

The Istana influence in politics and elections should not be downplayed or underestimated. Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah understood this well when he said that the Rulers are the symbol of kedaulatan Melayu. Hitting out at the Rulers would be as 'criminal' as someone stepping on the Malaysian flag. What harm is there in stepping on the Malaysian flag? Has anything been lost?

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Malaysia's 1990 general election was the worst election performance for the ruling party since 1969. Barisan Nasional won only 53.4% of the votes and 70.55% of the seats. The opposition, which won 46.6% of the votes, performed almost as good as it did in 2008 when it garnered 46.76% of the popular votes. The biggest blow to the ruling party, however, was that it got massacred in the state of Kelantan, which fell to the opposition and has remained opposition ever since.

DAP, which for the first time was in a loose coalition with Semangat 46 -- called Gagasan Rakyat -- won 20 Parliament seats. PBS, another Semangat 46 'partner' in Sabah, won 14 seats while the Angkatan Perpaduan Ummah or APU coalition with PAS won 15 Parliament seats plus the Kelantan State Assembly.

Now, what is so special about the 1990 general election?

1990 was the first general election after the (second) Constitutional Crisis of the 1980s (there were two incidences in the 1980s but Umno lost the first one and won the second one). And in that Constitutional Crisis Annuar Musa, the Umno Chief for Kelantan, called the Kelantan Sultan stupid in a speech he delivered in Kelantan while Anwar Ibrahim called His Highness a smuggler (regarding the Lamborghini incident).

This infuriated the Sultan who openly declared war on Umno and which resulted in Umno getting whacked big-time. Even Umno members voted opposition in huge numbers.

Since then both Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad and Umno have learned their lesson. The Monarchy may be only a Constitutional Monarchy and without executive powers, and some may even view the Monarchy as outdated and no longer relevant, but the Malays still regard the Monarchy as a 'sacred cow' that should not be dragged though the mud -- just like how they feel about Islam, the Malay language and kedaulatan Melayu.

No doubt 'modern' Malaysians cannot grasp this 'weird' sentiment and they just do not understand why those 'old' values can still have a bearing on how Malays vote. This is, of course, a very 'rural' thing -- hence urban Malaysians would not understand this. But if you have lived in a kampong, like I did for 20 years from 1974-1994, then you will appreciate how the Malay mind works and what makes them tick.

I mean, you may not see the significance of Malay 'values' just like how Malays would not understand the significance of the colour red over white when you hand out ang pows during Chinese New Year. Every ethnicity has strange 'values' that the others do not understand.

The Istana influence in politics and elections should not be downplayed or underestimated. Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah understood this well when he said that the Rulers are the symbol of kedaulatan Melayu. Hitting out at the Rulers would be as 'criminal' as someone stepping on the Malaysian flag. What harm is there in stepping on the Malaysian flag? Has anything been lost?

It is not the physical loss that people are concerned about but the significance or symbolism of that act. Stepping on the Malaysian flag means pissing on Malaysia. Hence 'stepping' on the Rulers (Raja-Raja Melayu) also means pissing on the Malays.

Strange, don't you think so? I suppose no stranger than believing that white envelopes bring bad luck while red envelopes will make you rich and prosperous -- or that giving someone money in a white envelope during Chinese New Year equates to pissing on the Chinese. And isn't the crucifix also about symbolism? If not then why can't Muslims wear a crucifix? What 'physical' harm does it do?

I cautioned my friends in the DAP (YB Ronnie Liu can conform this) that the Selangor State Government has to step very cautiously when dealing with the Rulers. You can't always say yes, no doubt, I told Ronnie. Sometimes you may need to say no. But you must know the 'correct' way of saying no so that 'no' is not taken as a rebuke or a snub.

And that is the most difficult thing whenever protocol is involved. And proper protocol 'education' is not something you are born with. It is something you acquire along the way. Even the underworld has certain protocol, which you need to observe. Just walking requires protocol as well because walking side-by-side, walking in front, and walking behind, mean different things and will send different messages (read: Rosmah Mansor).

But observing proper protocol requires putting aside egos. Observing proper protocol is an admission that you are subservient to convention. Walking upright into a room where an elder or senior is seated or walking slightly 'bent' means two different things. Gesturing or pointing with your finger and gesturing or pointing with your thumb also means two different things.

Those of you who complain that you were extorted or beaten up by triad members back in your schooldays in the 1960s probably failed to understand the importance of protocol -- the correct and incorrect hand gestures, when to and when not to have eye-to-eye contact, etc.

Yes, even the underworld practices protocol, as does the Istana. And if you need to deal with the Istana you had better learn the proper manners or else limit your dealings as far as possible. Of course, when you are in government this is not always a choice open to you.

I know…I know…many of you are now going to say that you don't care a damn and that this is so feudalistic and outdated and whatnot. That is well and fine maybe from where you sit. But when the majority of the Malays are still feudalistic and when many of the seats are Malay-majority seats it matters. And let us not discover the hard way like Umno did in 1990 that what they thought does not matter, in fact, does matter and then we pay a heavy price for our arrogance and ignorance.

Oh, and one more thing, Anwar Ibrahim, alongside Dr Mahathir, of course, is viewed as an enemy of the Monarchy. Hence it is even more important for Anwar to not rub the Istana the wrong way. Between Najib Tun Razak -- an 'orang Istana' -- and Anwar, the Rulers would rather see Najib as Prime Minister. So be warned.

THE ANTI-MONARCHISTS OF THE 1980S CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS

Remember we did this in primary school?

Posted: 03 Sep 2012 04:11 PM PDT

Do you remember back in primary school when we were still kids and when we quarrelled we would 'step on your father's head'? We did this by throwing a piece of paper on the ground and then declaring that it was the head of our enemy's father before we stepped on it. After more than 50 years we are still doing that. Actually, we have never really grown up much even though we may have grown old. Our body became big but our brain remains tiny.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Let the pictures do the talking

Posted: 02 Sep 2012 02:39 PM PDT

Many accuse me of being cheong hei. Well, today I am not going to write anything. Instead I am just going to show you some pictures and see if you are smart enough to get the message. If not then never mind.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Relative to time and place

Posted: 01 Sep 2012 05:52 PM PDT

Hence we are no different now than we were hundreds of years ago. We pick and choose as to what is right/moral and what is wrong/immoral. We discard religion and apply 'modern standards' for some things (such as slavery and age of consent) but in other matters we use religion as the standard (such as what religion you must follow).

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Can we be good without God? At first the answer to this question may seem so obvious that even to pose it arouses indignation. For while those of us who are Christian theists undoubtedly find in God a source of moral strength and resolve which enables us to live lives that are better than those we should live without Him, nevertheless it would seem arrogant and ignorant to claim that those who do not share a belief in God do not often live good moral lives--indeed, embarrassingly, lives that sometimes put our own to shame.

But wait. It would, indeed, be arrogant and ignorant to claim that people cannot be good without belief in God. But that was not the question. The question was: can we be good without God? When we ask that question, we are posing in a provocative way the meta-ethical question of the objectivity of moral values. Are the values we hold dear and guide our lives by mere social conventions akin to driving on the left versus right side of the road or mere expressions of personal preference akin to having a taste for certain foods or not? Or are they valid independently of our apprehension of them, and if so, what is their foundation? Moreover, if morality is just a human convention, then why should we act morally, especially when it conflicts with self-interest? Or are we in some way held accountable for our moral decisions and actions?

Today I want to argue that if God exists, then the objectivity of moral values, moral duties, and moral accountability is secured, but that in the absence of God, that is, if God does not exist, then morality is just a human convention, that is to say, morality is wholly subjective and non-binding. We might act in precisely the same ways that we do in fact act, but in the absence of God, such actions would no longer count as good (or evil), since if God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist. Thus, we cannot truly be good without God. On the other hand, if we do believe that moral values and duties are objective, that provides moral grounds for believing in God.

Dr. William Lane Craig

****************************************

That was just three paragraphs of a long thesis by Dr. William Lane Craig, which I had to read for my Philosophy of Religion course. Basically, we were going through the various arguments to support the belief regarding the existence of God and one of those arguments was that God certainly has to exist since God is the source of morality. Hence, since morality exists then God definitely has to exist.

Hence, also, we know what is right and what is wrong because God 'tells' us what is right and what is wrong (or implants in us the notion of right and wrong) and if there were no God then we would not know what is right and what is wrong. (Note: this is just one of the various arguments that theists use to support the view that God exists).

In my essay, I disagreed with this 'popular' view based on the argument that right and wrong are relative to time and place and are dynamic, not static. In other words, the definition of right and wrong changes over time and over regions. There would certainly be a very long list of examples to emphasis this point but let us take just a few. Slavery would be one example. At one time slavery was considered right anywhere in the world. Today, slavery is considered wrong, but only is some parts of the world.

Do you know that as recent as just before Merdeka slavery still existed in Malaya? I am not going to go into details lest I embarrass certain members of the Royal Family but just let me summarise it by saying that many of my 'adopted cousins' would be considered slaves by western standards (and I emphasis 'western standards')?

In fact, J.W.W. Birch, the first British Resident of Perak, was killed in Pasir Salak on 2nd November 1875 because of his opposition to slavery. Birch had attempted to ban slave trading in Perak and the slave traders, basically the elite of the Perak ruling hierarchy, got rid of him.

It took another 100 years before slavery really ended and I was already around to see it before it ended. No doubt this is never discussed (for obvious reasons) and Malaysians generally are not aware of this scourge. And it was not just the Malays who were guilty of this; let me assure you of that.

The point I want to make, though, is that slavery, which is considered wrong, would only be wrong depending on the time and place you happened to be living in. So, are you sure that wrong is wrong? Could it not actually be right? And does right become wrong only because you happen to live in a certain region and in a certain time and that if you lived somewhere else and in another time this would be right rather than wrong?

Hence, my conclusion in the essay which I wrote was that right and wrong is relative. And since it is relative, how can morality come from God? If morality came from God then it would not change over time and region. It would be static, not dynamic. So, if you use morality to argue the existence of God, then God cannot exist because morality does not exist.

Now, when I say 'morality does not exist' I mean it in the sense that what is moral to one person may be immoral to another. Having four wives would be considered immoral, as would be the case for keeping mistresses. But that would only be immoral now, and in western society. In Muslim countries, for example, that is not immoral. So, again, time and place decides what is moral and what is immoral.

Take the definition of children, as another example. A couple of hundreds of years ago, 'children' were those who had not reached puberty yet (or girls who are yet to get their period). In 1212, tens of thousands of boys and girls aged 9-13 were sent to the Crusades. (Read 'La croisade des enfants' [The Children's Crusade] 1896, by Marcel Schwob).

Today, these 9-13-year old boys and girls are considered children but back then they were adults and old enough to be sent to fight against the Muslims. Incidentally, none of them returned home.

Hence even the definition of children changed over time and place and today sex with a 13-year old girl is considered a crime (immoral) because at 13 she is classified as still a child. In the past, though, at 13, a girl was not only old enough to get married but also old enough (moral) to be sent to war and to die for Christ.

But times have changed. Today we no longer use religion's definition of adult to classify children as adults. Today we use man-made laws and not God's law to define adults as those above 18 while those below 18 are considered still children -- although in the past a girl of 18 would be considerer too old and her chances of getting a husband at that age would be reduced drastically.

I am okay with that, though. I realise that slavery is now no-go and adults would legally be those above 18 (even though slavery is still legal in Islam). No longer can we use old standards and yardsticks. All those old values used to determine morality need to be discarded in favour of modern standards.

My only question is why is this limited to just some things? In the past, children of 13 were considered adults and at the same time children had to follow the religion of their parents. If they did not they would be killed as apostates. Apostasy, in short, was punishable by death.

Today, we ban the practice of classifying 13-year olds as adults. You need to be 18 to be an adult (in England, you can't even buy cigarettes and liquor). But we do not ban the practice of forcing children to follow the religion of their parents. Children must follow the religion of their parents or would otherwise be punished.

So, when you say this is right or that is wrong, or this is moral and that is immoral, whose standard are you applying? My standard? Your standard? Society's standard? Religious standard? Western standard? Constitutional standard? Which one?

You argue one point using one standard and another point using a different standard. You decide right and wrong and moral and immoral using what you believe to be right/moral or wrong/immoral. And you expect me to lead my life according to the standards you have drawn up.

If we wish to set certain standards and pass a law that 13 is no longer the age of consent and that an adult is someone who is 18 that is acceptable to me. In fact, that may be good. We redefine right/wrong and moral/immoral. But we should not stop there. There are many other so-called wrongs and immoralities that also need to be addressed.

And one such 'old value' that is just as outdated as classifying 13-year olds as adults is to use religious values to interfere in how I wish to lead my life. That is as outdated as sending 9-13 year olds to die in a war or to get them married off before they reach 15-16 and thus become too old to get married.

By whose interpretation?

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?

Kredit: www.malaysia-today.net

Selasa, 11 September 2012

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

0 ulasan:

Catat Ulasan