Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News
Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News |
| It’s all lies, there’ll be no anarchy Posted: 23 Sep 2012 01:42 PM PDT Except to sack a few scoundrels in the system, a new opposition-led government will not mean the country will descend into chaos. Mohd Ariff Sabri Aziz, FMT The biggest lie being spouted in this country is that if a new government takes over, the nation will descend into anarchy. Leaders in the current government must be taking us Malaysians as fools. They must think we were born yesterday. Let me be clear here. No one is indispensable, least of all Umno-Barisan Nasional. Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak is not indispensable. Former premier Dr Mahathir Mohamad is not indispensable. The old doctor must surely have been hallucinating when he recently said "better the devil we know than the angel we don't know", alluding to Najib (vis-à-vis Umno-BN) and Anwar Ibrahim (PKR-Pakatan Rakyat). We know the devil (Najib) and his devilish ways and we still want to choose him? Have we lost our marbles? Doesn't Mahathir understand that the people chose to kick out the devil? Mahathir is anti-democracy It's farcical for Mahathir to endorse voting when it was he who extinguished the flame of democracy in Umno. During his rule, he started the anti-voting measures to ensure the positions of Umno president and the deputy to be almost unchallengeable, with bonus votes and all that. In which case, why should we even believe that if Umno-BN falls, this country will descend into widespread chaos? It will descend into chaos only if people do not obey laws anymore. It will be so if the structures of government crumble. But will the structures of government disintegrate if Umno-BN loses? It will not. The civil service will still be around. We are not firing civil servants although there are 1.4 million of them. They will still perform their respective functions. We are not going to close down the land and district offices. We are not going to close down the post offices, fire stations or any other essential agencies. What we want to do is to replace a few scoundrels. Just a scratch. Not even a flesh wound.
|
| Posted: 23 Sep 2012 11:07 AM PDT
Given that this is a Muslim country, one should call Egyptian "Islamists" on who they really are: a bunch of shrill, patriarchal, misogynistic, violent extremists who are using Islam as a cover for their behaviour. Mahmoud Salem, The Daily News Egypt Like many of you, I have been horrified with the phone call made by constituent assembly member, Mohamed Saad El Azhary, to the 10 pm show on Dream, where he stated his intention to change the Egyptian constitution to allow the age of consent for marriage for females to be the age at which they reach puberty and have their first period, even if this age is as low as 9 years-old. He stated that the current legal age to be inappropriate with Egyptian cultural values, which always encourage marriage at a young age for certain segments of Egyptian society, and that the international treaties regarding human rights and women's rights to be a product of western values that are not suitable for Muslim Nations, and therefore should not be followed by us. This is coming on the heels of the week that had both the prophet movie crisis, the attack on the US embassy with people carrying an Al-Qaeda flag and the ensuing political fallout with the US, where we were described, for the first time in almost 40 years, as "not an ally". It has been a splendid week, as you can imagine. It is safe to say that Egypt is going through its own version of a culture war, except that unlike the US for example, it is a culture war in which one side always attacks and the other side scampers for cover. The amount of people who told me that this is the week where they have lost all hope and decided to leave the country is ridiculous. For some odd reason, the same people that should stay and engage in this culture war are the same people who are thinking of running away from it, thus allowing the other side to win by default. Nothing showcases this more than the case of Albier Saber. Albier is a 25 year-old Copt who got arrested by the Egyptian police for the crime of posting the trailer of the movie Innocence of Muslims on his Facebook page, and he is currently being accused of disdain for religion and has been attacked in his holding cell by other inmates for it. One would think that such action would be considered preposterous by the non-Islamist population because 1) the trailer was shown on TV, and introduced to the Egyptian population, by Salafi TV presenter Khaled Abdallah, and yet he didn't face any charges and 2) Since when is sharing content on our own Facebook pages a crime? and 3) The irony that the police operating under a government that exists only due to a revolution that got organised by a Facebook page that published content that the previous government thought was offensive and dangerous for the country's unity is now doing the same thing and arresting such Facebook offenders as well? Nope, such points are usually only found on Twitter, but everyone, with the exception of some human rights NGOs , are shying away from defending Albier, as if fearing that they would be labeled Prophet Haters by the Islamist camp or something. And none of them seems to think that them standing up in those specific battles is the only thing that will stop the sum of their fears from actually happening. They have willingly given the Islamists the right to speak in the name of Islam, and step on eggshells in order not to confront them, even though confronting them is fairly easy, and it starts with calling them out on their bullshit. First of all, given that this is a Muslim country, one should call Egyptian "Islamists" on who they really are: a bunch of shrill, patriarchal, misogynistic, violent extremists who are using Islam as a cover for their behaviour. That in reality we don't have "islamists" as much as people with unresolved sexual and personal issues that have found in certain Islamic schools an excuse to carry out their convoluted fantasies about sex, control and mental lock-down. That their so called fundamentalism is synthetic and created primarily to excuse their behaviour, and that their "back to basics" mantra that romanticises a time where they believe that their social rules, intellectual walls and sexual fantasies were part of society's norm and wishes to bring it back is obviously a crock and wishful thinking. Read more at: http://dailynewsegypt.com/2012/09/18/a-country-of-extremists/ |
| In defense of the right to offend Posted: 23 Sep 2012 11:05 AM PDT Charles C. Haynes (Washington Post) - Loony rabble-rousers at home – the people behind "Innocence of Muslims," the now infamous film insulting the prophet Muhammad – have succeeded in giving loony rabble-rousers abroad a golden opportunity to promote violence in the name of their own sick, twisted vision of Islam and the world. The filmmakers join the ranks of Terry Jones, Fred Phelps and other American extremists who will say and do anything to make headlines and provoke outrage. But however vile the filmmakers' motives and however odious their speech, we must defend the indefensible by upholding their right to freedom of expression. Needless to say, much of the world doesn't agree. From the president of Egypt (who is calling for the makers of the film to be punished) to some pundits in Europe (who are asking once again why Americans tolerate hate speech), the American commitment to robust free speech is being widely questioned and debated. Even in the land of the free, protecting the right to offend is an increasingly tough sell. A disturbing 43 percent of Americans do not think people should be allowed to say things in public that might be offensive to religious groups, according to a 2009 survey conducted by the First Amendment Center. The U.S. Supreme Court does, of course, allow some restrictions on speech under the First Amendment, including speech intended to incite imminent violence. But this film doesn't meet that test. Although the filmmakers surely knew that their film would provoke angry protests (and no doubt that was part of their intent), they aren't responsible for radical groups halfway around the world using the film as an excuse to kill American officials and attack Western embassies. If the United States were to react to this violence by attempting to censor speech that deeply offends religions (as in some European countries) or speech that is blasphemous (as in some Muslim majority countries), Americans would forfeit the right to freedom of speech and religion. Once government has the power to punish speech deemed "offensive" or "hateful," the First Amendment is effectively repealed and no one's speech is safe from prosecution and no one's religion is safe from governmental interference. |
| 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