Ahad, 4 November 2012

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

0 ulasan
Klik GAMBAR Dibawah Untuk Lebih Info
Sumber Asal Berita :-

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News


To know Malaysia is to love Malaysia

Posted: 04 Nov 2012 04:22 AM PST

While the Malays practically monopolise politics, the Chinese monopolise the economy although you are bound to hear most Chinese grumble about the discrimination that they face. Even though the Chinese control the wealth of the nation it is best you do not point this out to those you talk to, as they are more comfortable with the notion that the non-Malays suffer discrimination and unfair treatment in spite of their vast wealth.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Ladies, welcome to our orientation session. These sessions are meant to help the wives of foreign diplomats serving in Malaysia to better familiarise themselves with local culture, traditions, customs and taboos. Actually, Malaysians themselves have not yet come to a decision as to what their culture, traditions, customs and taboos are.

Hence you have to play by ear most of the time and tune in to TV3 every night to monitor what statements come out from the mouths of politicians, which will then give you an idea as to what the flavour of the day is, so to speak. Invariably, this constantly changes from time to time depending on what the political issues of the day are and who is doing the talking.

Malaysia has what they call the New Economic Policy or NEP. This was a policy introduced in 1970 and was supposed to have run for 20 years and end in 1990. Nevertheless, 42 years on and that 20-year policy is still being enforced. It is best you do not try to understand how a 20-year policy can run for 42 years and will probably run for another 42 years with no end in sight.

The NEP was intended to bridge the gap between the haves and the haves-not and to reduce the disparity between the different races. What you will see instead when one day you get to tour the country, however, is that the poor remain poor while the rich get richer. You will also come to realise that it is not the NEP but political power that bridges the gap between the haves and the haves-not and reduces the disparity between the different races. It would be wise, however, if you keep these observations to yourself as it can be a very sensitive issue to most Malaysians.

That is probably the first taboo you need to note.

Malaysia, as most of you know, is a Constitutional Monarchy. It has a Parliament that is elected into office with a Prime Minister as its head every five years. However, unlike Britain, which gave Malaysia this system, the general elections are not held every five years. They are held when the government feels it is strong enough to win the elections.

Malaysia has nine state monarchs with one of the nine becoming its Supreme Head for a period of five years on the basis of a rotation system and based on the concept of first amongst equals, who is called the Agong. Malaysia, therefore, is the only country in the world where the Prime Minister can rule till the day he dies while the monarch rules for only five years.

Furthermore, the monarch cannot remove the Prime Minister while the Prime Minister can remove the monarch, although this is seldom done, at least not since the British gave Malaysia its independence in 1957. Of course, during the time of the British occupation, a number of monarchs who did not demonstrate pro-British tendencies were kicked out of office and were replaced by pretenders to the throne who were British lackeys.

Malaysia still practices old British laws of 1,000 years ago that makes it a crime to criticise the rulers so it would be best that none of you engage in any discussion regarding the royal family. In the next session we will teach you the proper protocol and the manner in how you address members of the royal family and non-royal Malaysians who have been given titles by the palace. It is a very complicated culture but if you were to view movies of England of, say, 500 years ago, that would give you a pretty good idea about how it works.

Malaysians are fond of talking about race and religion, two subject matters that most of us in the west do not like to talk about. Hence it would be advisable that when you meet Malaysians you try to steer the discussion into another direction lest you get dragged into discussing this most unpalatable subject. One strategy would be to talk about the traffic jams and Malaysian driving habits, another subject Malaysians are most passionate about.

As I said earlier, Malaysia is a Constitutional Monarchy with Islam as the official religion of the country. However, Malaysia is neither a Theocratic State nor a Secular State and after 55 years of independence Malaysians are still arguing about what the country is. Some will insist that Malaysia is an Islamic State, some that Malaysia is a Secular State, while some will insist that Malaysia is neither or is something in between.

Actually, Malaysia is more accurately in a confused state, as I doubt they will ever come to any agreement on the matter. Most of our governments, however, consider Malaysia an Autocratic State but it would be best we do not mention this fact, as it can be a very sore point to most Malaysians.

Malays are the dominant ethnic group in Malaysia and they hold most of the political power plus the majority and key positions in the government, police and armed forces. However, more than a dozen political parties form the government of the day under a coalition, the only country in the world where more than a dozen political parties are needed to form the government, as not one of the two dozen or so political parties has enough votes or seats to form the government. Hence Malaysia's political system comprises of two coalitions, both which claim to be multi-racial but are in reality very racial in composition and structure.

While the Malays practically monopolise politics, the Chinese monopolise the economy although you are bound to hear most Chinese grumble about the discrimination that they face. Even though the Chinese control the wealth of the nation it is best you do not point this out to those you talk to, as they are more comfortable with the notion that the non-Malays suffer discrimination and unfair treatment in spite of their vast wealth.

Malays are officially and legally Muslims and no Malay may convert to any other religion once they are born into a Muslim family. Malays are also forbidden from indulging in vices such as the drinking of liquor, gambling, extra-marital sex, and so on, while homosexuality is illegal. Nevertheless, you will find that many Malays secretly do what is officially forbidden and you are advised to not make any mention of this lest you rub their sensitivities the wrong way.

Okay, we will stop here for today. Next week we will discuss some of the other taboos, which some of you may find very amusing. Oh, and Malaysians are very superstitious, especially the Chinese, even the educated Chinese, so you must take special note of this as they tend to get very emotional if you make any mistakes such as giving out white coloured envelopes instead of red ones during Chinese New Year.

 

Must be Sirim-approved first

Posted: 01 Nov 2012 07:41 PM PDT

Wouldn't life be so much simpler if there were no man-made religions around? Anyway, there are still some good uses for religion. Politicians can use religion to win votes. So you might not go to heaven but at least you can get into political office and rip off the country of billions of Ringgit. So religion is not as useless as you think it is. You can gain power and wealth by exploiting religion.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Because of the influence of Hollywood and the movies it churns out, most people have the misconception that the Crusades was about Christians going to war against Muslims. What we are not told is that the Crusaders killed (or massacred entire communities) more fellow Christians than they did Muslims.

There was more than one Crusade over about 200 years so it was actually a series of religious expeditions organised by different people from different parts of Europe. So it was not just Richard the Lion Heart versus Saladin (of the Prince John, Sheriff of Nottingham and Robin Hood era) as what most think.

The objective of the Crusades was to recapture the Christian 'Holy Land' occupied by the Turks after the defeat of the Byzantine Empire. The 'backbone' of the Crusades was the Roman Catholic church. Hence if you were not Roman Catholic -- such as you were Coptic Christians -- then you too would be exterminated just like the Muslims.

In fact, all over Europe, even in England then, if you followed a different form of Christianity than the official 'government-approved' version, you were declared a heretic and thus would be killed. Christians, and of course Muslims as well, have zero tolerance for those who deviate from the correct form of Christianity or Islam.

Christians would kill 'deviant' Christians but would tolerate Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, etc., and Muslims would kill 'deviant' Muslims, but would tolerate Jews, Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, etc. That is how it goes.

Of course, since the last couple of hundreds of years, Christians no longer kill 'deviant' Christians. But that does not mean Christianity accepts 'deviant' Christians as true Christians. Even as recent as 100 years ago Anglican Christians considered Roman Catholics as idol worshippers and would never sanction anyone of their family marrying a Catholic.

For example, homosexuals are still not accepted in Christianity. The priest would remind us about the story of Sodom and Gomorrah in the Bible and how God went berserk and punished homosexuals. No doubt the church no longer arrest and burn homosexuals like they used to. But just because homosexuals are no longer burned alive this does not mean the Bible has been amended to allow homosexuality.

Hence heresy is still a crime in Christianity, just like homosexuality, and the fact that you are no longer tied to a stake and burned alive is not because that crime is no longer a crime. It just means the church no longer has the political power to kill you like it used to.

In Islam it is slightly different from Christianity (but only different in terms of authority to punish you). In Islam, the 'church', meaning the religious authorities, still has power to punish you for crimes against Islam. Heresy, homosexuality, sexual misconduct, etc., which the Christian church can no longer punish you for even though they are still crimes under Christianity, can result in you facing punishment as decided by the religious authorities.

So, the difference is as follows. Crimes against Christianity and crimes against Islam still exist and both Christianity and Islam basically share the same view on what these crimes are. However, while in Islam the religious authorities are still allowed to punish you for these crimes, in 'Christendom' the religious authorities have lost this power. That power now comes under the state under the concept of separation of church and state.

And that explains why the Selangor Religious Department arrested 20 people in Rawang last night that were accused of trying to revive the Al Arqam movement. The followers of Al Arqam are considered heretics and in Malaysia the religious authorities can take action against heretics like they could in Christendom until less than 200 years ago. (Even witches were still burned alive, and in America as well, until not too long ago).

In fact, the religious authorities will not just arrest followers of Al Arqam. Even Shias, Salafis, etc., will face the wrath of the religious authorities. In short, anyone who deviates from 'true Islam' and who do not follow the official 'government-approved' version of Islam will get into trouble.

Isn't it ironical? Jews, Christians, Zoroastrians, Hindus, Buddhists, or whatever, are considered people who have followed the wrong path and who are going to spend an eternity in hell. Muslims are not allowed to leave Islam to embrace any of these other unaccepted and false religions. If they do then they can be killed by order of Allah.

But all these false religions are allowed to exist as long as you do not propagate your false religion to Muslims and try to convert Muslims to your false religion. The government will leave you alone and will not harass you if you leave Muslims alone and do not mislead Muslims.

Live and let live. Unto you your religion and unto me my religion. (Surah Al Kafirun -- O disbelievers! I worship not that which ye worship; Nor worship ye that which I worship. And I shall not worship that which ye worship. Nor will ye worship that which I worship. Unto you your religion, and unto me my religion.)

Yes, can you see how tolerant Islam can be to those of the other religions? You do your thing and the Muslims will leave you alone even if they consider you followers of a false religion. Only if you interfere with Islam or Muslims will you face the wrath of Muslims.

However, Muslims will not live and let live when it comes to fellow Muslims. Even if you do your own thing and you do not disturb other Muslims that will not save you. The state or religious authorities will seek you out, hunt you down, and clamp down hard on you if you are a fellow Muslim who is a heretic and who deviates from the 'government-approved' version of Islam.

Non-Muslims have absolute freedom to do what they like as long as they are not a 'threat' to Islam -- threat meaning to 'undermine' Islam or 'mislead' Muslims. Muslims, however, have no such freedom. You are told what you can and cannot do. And what you can do depends on what the government says you can do.

Now do you understand why the Selangor Religious Department took action against the followers of Al Arqam last night, one of those 20 a PKR Selangor leader? Religion is a state matter and the Selangor Religious Department comes under the Pakatan Rakyat Selangor State Government. So it is Pakatan Rakyat that took action against those deviant Muslims and heretics last night.

Yes, we need a Muslim Martin Luther to help reform the Muslim 'church'. We need a Muslim Martin Luther to challenge the religious institution and tell those religionists to mind their own fucking business. Who are they to decide which is the 'correct' Islam and which is the 'wrong' Islam?

You decide which is the 'correct' Islam and which is the 'wrong' Islam and you force me to follow your interpretation of Islam. What if you are wrong? What if you force me to follow your interpretation of Islam and what if you happen to be wrong? What will happen to me if I follow your interpretation of Islam and you happen to be wrong?

Well, that means, just like you, I will go to hell. Is that not correct? Is that not what the Qur'an says? Does not the Qur'an say that if I follow my ancestors' beliefs and if my ancestors happen to be wrong then I will join my ancestors in hell? Does not the Qur'an forbid us from following our ancestors because if our ancestors are wrong then we will be punished for following the wrong beliefs?

Yes, the Qur'an has made it very clear. We must not blindly follow our ancestors' beliefs because they may be wrong and if they are wrong then we too will be wrong. But the government will not allow us to do that. The Pakatan Rakyat Selangor State Government through the Selangor Religious Department will not allow us to do that.

The government says we must follow the 'government-approved' version of Islam. The Qur'an, however, says we must not do that. Is the government above the Qur'an? Is the Selangor Religious Department changing, amending or twisting the word of Allah?

You are going to pay for the wrongs you do. If the government forces you to do the wrong thing and you do it then you and not the government will pay for your sins. You cannot tell Allah that I only did what the government asked me to do. Allah will punish you for doing the wrong thing in spite of someone else forcing you to do it.

Hence religion is between you and God. The government cannot tell you what to believe and what to do. The government can, of course, arrest you if you do not follow the 'government-approved' religion. In fact, until quite recently, the government could even kill you for not following the 'government approved' version of the religion. They would declare you a heretic and put you to death. At one time they fed you to the lions while the Romans clapped and cheered until the animal-rights activists protested this cruelty to lions.

So there you are. What has changed over the last 2,000 years? Nothing much really! The government decides the correct version of religion and will pronounce you a heretic and punish you for heresy if you do not follow what the government dictates. Then all those in government who think they are going to heaven do not get to go to heaven and will drag you along with them to wherever they are going to end up after they die.

Wouldn't life be so much simpler if there were no man-made religions around?

Anyway, there are still some good uses for religion. Politicians can use religion to win votes. So you might not go to heaven but at least you can get into political office and rip off the country of billions of Ringgit. So religion is not as useless as you think it is. You can gain power and wealth by exploiting religion.

 

Do you think I care a shit?

Posted: 31 Oct 2012 07:33 AM PDT

You Pakatan Rakyat supporters are still too immature. And that is why Pakatan Rakyat is not ready to run the country. Pakatan Rakyat supporters first need to gain some maturity before Pakatan Rakyat can be allowed to form the federal government. You need to suffer another term under Barisan Nasional. This suffering might then wake you up and only when you wake up can we talk about a change of government.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

"More I read your articles, more I have an inclination that you really are on a BN payroll." -- bengali kunday.

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

That was what a reader going by the nickname of 'bengali kunday' said. Well, allow me to reply to that.

First of all, even if I am on the payroll of Barisan Nasional, so what? There are people like those in Malaysiakini, Malaysia Chronicle, and so on, who are on Pakatan Rakyat's payroll. In fact, sites like Harakah and many others actually belong to and are financed by Pakatan Rakyat or parties within Pakatan Rakyat. And they do not hide that fact or are apologetic or ashamed about serving the interest of a political party, notwithstanding the fact that it is an opposition party.

Are you implying that it is okay to be on Pakatan Rakyat's payroll but not okay to be on Barisan Nasional's payroll? Are you also implying that democracy and freedom of choice and freedom of association means you must be on Pakatan Rakyat's payroll but not on Barisan Nasional's payroll?

What type of democracy is this when you are restricted to serving one party's interest but not the other? What type of democracy is this when you have no freedom of choice or freedom of association and are obligated to serve one party's interest but not the other?

You take the moral high ground whenever you feel that someone is serving Barisan Nasional's interest but you do not demonstrate that same moral outrage if someone is on Pakatan Rakyat's payroll. So-called 'independent' human rights organisations such as Suaram openly work for Pakatan Rakyat but that is not repulsive to you. Only if they serve Barisan Nasional's interest is it repulsive.

Secondly, when I write articles very damaging to Barisan Nasional and Umno -- such as my two recent articles this week in The Corridors of Power regarding Umno Sabah -- you do not consider that as being on Pakatan Rakyat's payroll. However, if I write just one article that is slightly uncomplimentary to Pakatan Rakyat (in fact, the article that I wrote in which you posted that comment is not even about Pakatan Rakyat or uncomplimentary to Pakatan Rakyat) you consider that as being on Barisan Nasional's payroll.

To you Pakatan Rakyat supporters, the decent thing to do is to serve Pakatan Rakyat's interest. Serving any other interest is an indecent thing to do. You decide the moral boundaries and limits of decency and anyone who does not pass your interpretation and yardstick of morality and decency is vilified. Who appointed you the guardian and trustee of morality and decency?

How different are you from the religionists who decide what is moral and what is decent and impose their standards of morality and decency on others? Since Muslims represent the majority population in Malaysia can Muslims then, going by the doctrine of democracy where majority rules, impose their Islamic interpretation of morality and decency on the minority?

Since the majority dictates the ground rules then surely what is compatible to Islam should prevail and anything repulsive to Islam should be barred. In that case the Islamic Sharia law, Hudud included, should be the law of the land. Muslims who are the majority in Malaysia should decide what is moral and what is decent and Islam must be the code of conduct that all Malaysians should live by.

Religionists such as Muslims, even if they are the majority in Malaysia, should not impose their will on Malaysians, even on fellow Muslims, let alone on the non-Muslims. So why should you impose your will on others? The believers of Islam should not vilify those who are not of the Muslim faith. Why should the believers of Pakatan Rakyat vilify those who are not of the opposition faith?

When misguided Muslims adopt the 'either you are with us or you are against us' religious doctrine, you find that revolting, indecent and immoral. But you can adopt the 'either you are with us or you are against us' political doctrine and it is not revolting, indecent and immoral.

What kind of hypocritical double standard is this? You resent it when others impose their will on you and when they decide what is tolerable, moral and decent. But you can impose your will on others and decide what is tolerable, moral and decent. Can you see the hypocrisy that is so thick you can cut it with a knife?

Do you think I care a shit about Barisan Nasional or Pakatan Rakyat? Do you think I care a shit whether Barisan Nasional retains power or Pakatan Rakyat gains power? Do you think my life is only about the general elections and about who gets to march into Putrajaya? That is a very narrow way to look at life.

Do you honestly think that my mission in life is to make sure that Barisan Nasional does not get kicked out? Do you honestly think that my mission in life is to ensure that Pakatan Rakyat gets to form the next federal government? You have a very narrow mission in life. Do not imagine that my mission in life is as narrow as yours.

Politicians are politicians, never mind from which side of the political divide. And the narrow objective of all politicians is merely to get into power. What makes you think that that is also my very narrow objective? If you think that then you have not been reading properly what I have been writing over these last 35 years.

You Pakatan Rakyat supporters are still too immature. And that is why Pakatan Rakyat is not ready to run the country. Pakatan Rakyat supporters first need to gain some maturity before Pakatan Rakyat can be allowed to form the federal government. You need to suffer another term under Barisan Nasional. This suffering might then wake you up and only when you wake up can we talk about a change of government.

Yes, do keep whacking me. Continue to vilify me. And when you do I will do everything within my power to make sure that the coming general election is going to result in a huge shock and disappointment for you.

Never give a flower to a monkey, the Malays would say. That is like throwing pearls to swine, the English say. And that is how I look at some of you Pakatan Rakyat supporters, monkeys and swine that are not ready to be entrusted with power.

So you want to fight. So let's fight. I have nothing to lose because I don't care a shit which side is going to win the coming general election. That is what you want. That is not what I want. Just because that is what you want you have this mistaken notion that that is what I also want.

What stupid people you are. If I support Pakatan Rakyat then I am God. If I do not support Pakatan Rakyat then I am a Barisan Nasional stooge. Well, let me break it to you gently. I am neither God not a Barisan Nasional stooge. I am an independent-spirited individual who does not care a shit about losers like you.

 

Lust is a good strategy

Posted: 30 Oct 2012 06:29 PM PDT

Well, since the majority of the Genneva gold bullion investors are Chinese I suppose this proves that the Chinese are greedy and are driven by lust -- lust for quick and easy money. And since the Chinese have demonstrated that they have this great lust then they must also be having lust for power. And this explains why the Chinese want to kick out the Malay Umno government.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Genneva involved 35,000 investors, investments of RM10bil

(Bernama) - Some 35,000 investors with total investments clinching RM10 billion were found to be involved with the gold bullion investment company, Genneva Malaysia Sdn Bhd, a deputy minister told the Dewan Rakyat today.

Deputy Finance Minister Datuk Dr Awang Adek Hussin said based on the information received thus far, total investments received amounted to RM4 billion and could swell to RM10 billion.

He said Bank Negara Malaysia needs time to investigate the case based on two considerations deemed necessary to solve the controversy over the gold bar trading scheme.

"Firstly, Genneva Malaysia has been "disguising" behind the gold bar business. Gold is a sentimental attraction. Many people are keen on gold regardless of their background including leaders."

"They (the investors) feel this is a genuine business."

"Secondly, Bank Negara has to study the situation. The central bank cannot raid straight away. For instance, if Bank Negara conducts a raid today and starts a probe, the central bank is also scolded at, because of their raid, investors lose their returns."

"So Bank Negara has to consider, the central bank cannot act very quickly or very late. A balanced consideration is important. I feel all of us will learn from this experience."

"Hopefully, we can better handle these type of cases in future," he said when replying to a supplementary question from Datuk Ibrahim Ali (Independent-Pasir Mas) during question time.

Earlier, Awang Adek told the House that Genneva Malaysia's liabilities were more than the company's assets and this clearly showed that the company cannot afford to pay the due returns to its investors.

The authorities recently conducted a raid on Genneva Malaysia and its associate company on suspicion of violating the Anti-Money Laundering Act.

Datuk Wira Ahmad Hamzah (BN-Jasin), who posed the original question, had asked the Finance Ministry to unveil measures taken to curb get-rich-quick schemes which indulge in deposit-taking and illegal investments.

In his reply, Awang Adek said Bank Negara was considering imposing a more deterrent sentence on get-rich-quick scheme operators in efforts to wipe out such scams from continuing to cheat the people.

The ministry, in collaboration with related government agencies, including enforcement divisions, was monitoring closely and gathering intelligence, besides getting information from public complaints, he added.

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

Get-rich-quick schemes (Skim Cepat Kaya) such as tontine schemes, Ponzi schemes, etc., have been around for a long time. Tontines (known locally as 'kutu') have been around since the 1800s and Ponzi schemes for about 100 years now.

Actually, get-rich-quick schemes have been around since time immemorial. The only thing is the name changes from time-to-time but the objective always remains the same -- make a lot of money from a little bit of money in the shortest possible time.

I remember 40 years ago in the early 1970s the Gemini Chit Fund scandal hit the country. I had actually 'invested' in that scheme and made quite a bit of money. I got out just in time, though, before they were closed down and the tail-end investors lost their pants.

Then we had the 'Pak Man Telo' Ponzi scheme that first emerged in the late 1970s and ran for about 20 years before the government sprang into action and closed it down. Most of the people caught with their pants down were Malays, a huge number of them rank-and-file police personnel and those from the kampong.

Since the 'Pak Man Telo' Ponzi scheme affected mostly Malays it did not become an 'election issue' like the current Genneva gold bullion fiasco. Somehow, anything that affects the Chinese always becomes an election issue. Even giving out white envelopes instead of red envelopes for Chinese New Year can be turned into an election issue. But this would be only if the white envelopes were given to Chinese. If given to Malays then it is not an issue.

The strategy in these get-rich-quick schemes is to prey on humankind's lust -- lust for wealth, power, recognition, position, etc. Humankind works on the basis of wants, not needs. Hence lust is very crucial in the whole scheme of things.

We need food on the table, clothes on our back, and a roof over our head. Those are our basic needs. But once we meet those basic needs that would no longer be enough. Once we meet those basic needs then our wants take over. Then we want expensive clothes, jewellery, designer shoes and handbags, mansions, exotic cars, power, titles, and much more.

Do we need all these? Of course we don't but we want them anyway.

And that is why get-rich-quick schemes work. Those behind these schemes prey on peoples' lust or wants. And if you can convince them they can make a lot of money from very little money in the quickest time, they would entrust their money to you -- especially if there are 'references' from others who already made a lot of money from the scheme.

To be successful in politics you also need to play on peoples' wants. Most voters might already have what they need. In fact, most Malaysians already have what they need. No one (except those such as drug addicts, etc., who choose to do so) is sleeping on the streets. We do not hear of anyone dying of hunger or starvation. No one walks around naked. So what more do the people need?

They actually need very little more. They already have what they need. But it is what they want that counts. And they will vote for the government that can provide them these wants.

If it is merely about your needs then you can survive living off the land in the middle of the jungle. You will not need a huge mansion or exotic car in the jungle. You do not need Birkin handbags, Rolex watches, Jimmy Choo shoes, Polo shirts, etc., in the jungle. In fact, you do not even need these if you live in town. But you want them anyway and if you can't have them then the government is bad and needs to be kicked out.

Oh, but we are not kicking out the government for these reasons. We are kicking out the government because it is corrupt. Take the RM40 million 'donation' scandal involving Umno Sabah as an example. That is why we need to kick out the government.

But the RM40 million 'timber kickback scandal' involving Umno Sabah is not something new. This has been going on for almost 50 years since 1963. That's right, it has been going on for almost half a century. And we have been telling you this for almost 40 years since the 1970s (at least I have, anyway).

But this has never concerned you before. The more we tell you about all this the more you vote for Barisan Nasional. In fact, you looked at us as if we were crazy -- barking like a mad dog. Many times you scolded us and told us to just shut up. Now you appear to be screaming more than we are.

So, no, I do not believe you want to kick out the government because the government is corrupt. I suspect that this is bullshit and that you have an ulterior motive. I suspect you are up to something no good. I suspect that this is merely a Chinese conspiracy to grab political power from the Malays. If corruption is really an issue then you would have kicked out the government a long time ago and not wait 55 years to do so.

I know you all are a suspicious lot. Whenever I write something you are always suspicious of me. You suspect that I have a hidden agenda and that I am doing this for some personal benefit.

Well, I, too, am just like you. I too am suspicious. I too suspect that you have a hidden agenda and that you are doing this for some personal benefit. Hence you want to kick out the government not because the government is corrupt -- because the government has always been corrupt for over 55 years and you never cared about it before this. I suspect you are not sincere and this is all about the Chinese kicking out a Malay Umno government.

Well, since the majority of the Genneva gold bullion investors are Chinese I suppose this proves that the Chinese are greedy and are driven by lust -- lust for quick and easy money. And since the Chinese have demonstrated that they have this great lust then they must also be having lust for power. And this explains why the Chinese want to kick out the Malay Umno government.

Hmm…Chinese logic does make sense, does it not? You swim. A duck swims. So you must be a duck. Raja Petra Kamarudin whacks Pakatan Rakyat. Barisan Nasional also whacks Pakatan Rakyat. So Raja Petra Kamarudin must be supporting Barisan Nasional.

I just love what 5,000 years of Chinese civilisation and Chinese philosophy can teach us.

Want to see another example of Chinese logic and philosophy? This is what Malaysiakini wrote:

In the middle of April 2011, blogger Raja Petra Kamarudin, better known as RPK, dropped a bombshell in denying his sensational statutory declaration dated June 2008. He claimed that he had been misled into making a false allegation against Rosmah Mansor, wife of premier Najib Abdul Razak.

So there you are -- another example of Chinese logic and philosophy at work. That is what 5,000 years of Chinese civilisation has given to the world. I don't know how Malaysiakini came to that conclusion but who am I to argue with 5,000 years of Chinese logic and philosophy?

 

How I imagine the trial would proceed

Posted: 28 Oct 2012 07:51 PM PDT

Lawyer: What I am driving at is God's hand is at work here and the church is powerless to prevent God from doing His work. God and not the church or the statue cured your wife just like God and not the church or the statue caused the statue to fall over. Both acts, according to your faith, are what we could call ACTS OF GOD. Can someone else be sued for an act of God?

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Man Who Lost Leg After Crucifix Fell on Him While Praying Sues Church for US$3mil

(Daily Mail) - A cruel twist of fate cost David Jimenez his leg when the crucifix he prayed to every day when his wife was fighting cancer toppled over and crushed him.

Jimenez stopped every day to pray to the statue of Jesus on the cross outside Church of St Patrick in Newburgh, New York. When his wife, Delia, recovered from the cancer, the 45-year-old father of two offered to clean the crucifix as an act of faith and a goodwill gesture. However, as he scrubbed the heavy marble object, it fell off its shaky pedestal and landed on his leg, the Mid-Hudson News Network reported.

The pizza parlour employee is now suing the church for US$3 million, claiming the priest who gave him permission to work on the unstable statue was negligent. The injury on Memorial Day in 2010 so badly mangled Jimenez's right leg that doctors were forced to amputate it just below the knee.

The church told CBS New York that the congregation collected food and US$7,000 in cash donations for Jimenez and his family. However, Jimenez's lawyer, Kevin Kitson, said the insurance company for the diocese had made collecting additional money difficult. As a result of the legal action, the church has removed the crucifix from the Church of St Patrick and moved it to another parish.

Kitson said his client, a devout Catholic, still believes it played a role in his wife's recovery. "David attributed the cure to his devotion to that cross," he told CBS New York. Nonetheless, the lawyer maintains that the church was negligent.

He said only one screw held the marble statue in place. That gave way when Jimenez scrubbed the statue, causing it to fall over.

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

This is how I imagine the trial would proceed.

Lawyer: Mr Jimenez, you say that the church was negligent and that this negligence caused the statue of Jesus on the cross to fall over and crush your leg. Could it not be that you were negligent instead and that it was your negligence that caused the statue to fall over rather than the negligence of the church?

Plaintiff: No. I was very careful. I was not negligent.

Lawyer: So, in spite of your carefulness, the statue still fell over. Hence it was not your own negligence. Is that correct?

Plaintiff: That is correct.

Lawyer: You volunteered or offered to clean the statue as an act of faith and a goodwill gesture. Is that correct?

Plaintiff: Yes, that is correct.

Lawyer: So the church did not ask you or request you to clean the statue.

Plaintiff: No, but the church gave me permission to do so knowing that it was dangerous.

Lawyer: How do you know that the church was aware that it was dangerous to clean the statue? Did the priest or anyone else from the church tell you it was dangerous?

Plaintiff: No. No one told me it was dangerous. But they would have known it was dangerous and they should have told me.

Lawyer: How do you know they would have known it was dangerous?

Plaintiff: Well…I sort of just know. It's a sort of feeling I have.

Lawyer: So, you have no evidence of this. It is just a feeling you have that the church knew it was dangerous and you also have a feeling that they did not tell you that it was dangerous in spite of knowing that it was dangerous?

Plaintiff: Well…err…well yes.

Lawyer: So, in spite of you being able to have all these feelings, you did not have any feeling that the statue might fall over if you start cleaning it.

Plaintiff: Err…no.

Lawyer: And you volunteered or offered to clean the statue because you have faith that your prayers in front of the statue helped cure your wife's cancer.

Plaintiff: That's right.

Lawyer: Are you saying that the statue cured your wife's cancer?

Plaintiff: No, not the statue. God cured my wife's cancer because I constantly prayed in front of the statue. It was God's will.

Lawyer: So it was God's will that your wife was cured, not the statue's will. Is that correct?

Plaintiff: That's right.

Lawyer: But the statue fell over when you cleaned it.

Plaintiff: That's right.

Lawyer: So it was not the statue's will that it fell over but God's will.

Plaintiff: Err…I think so…you are confusing me.

Lawyer: Mr Jimenez, it's a simple question. Is it God's will or the statue's will that it fell over?

Plaintiff: It's God's will.

Lawyer: So, it was God and not the statue that cured your wife's cancer and it is God's will and not the statue's will that it fell over and crushed your leg. So why sue the church then? Since God is the cause of both your wife's cancer being cured as well as for the statue falling over would it not be God's doing and therefore you should be suing God instead of the church?

Plaintiff: I can't sue God!

Lawyer: Why not?

Plaintiff: Well, because you just can't, that's why.

Lawyer: But the church had no hand in this. In fact, even the statue had no hand in this, as you admit. It was the hand of God that both cured your wife and made the statue fall over. So why sue the church for something that God did?

Plaintiff: It just does not work like that.

Lawyer: Even if the church had not been negligent but God had willed the statue to fall over could the church have prevented God's will?

Plaintiff: I don't understand.

Lawyer: Let me put it another way then. Can the church defy God?

Plaintiff: Of course not. No one can defy God.

Lawyer: So, if God had wanted the statue to fall over then there is nothing the church could have done, is that correct?

Plaintiff: What are you driving at?

Lawyer: What I am driving at is God's hand is at work here and the church is powerless to prevent God from doing His work. God and not the church or the statue cured your wife just like God and not the church or the statue caused the statue to fall over. Both acts, according to your faith, are what we could call ACTS OF GOD. Can someone else be sued for an act of God?

Plaintiff: Err…err…you are confusing me.

Lawyer: Your Honour, I ask the court to set aside this suit and award costs to my client as the Plaintiff has admitted that what happened to him was an act of God and not negligence on the part of the church. I have also received instructions that if the Plaintiff would like to sue God I am authorised to represent Him.

 

A Democrat indeed

Posted: 27 Oct 2012 06:27 PM PDT

We need New Politics. We need a New Malaysia. We need New Malaysians. We need a Malaysian of Democrats. And this New Politics, New Malaysia, New Malaysians, a Malaysian of Democrats, etc., have to be one that is tolerant of criticism -- even if that criticism is 'God does not exist, religion is bullshit, and those who believe in all this nonsense are enslaving themselves to a doctrine from the Dark Ages'.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Anwar: 'Kenyataan Soi Lek hina Islam'

(Sinar Harian) - Ketua Pembangkang, Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim menyifatkan kenyataan dilontar Presiden MCA, Datuk Seri Dr Chua Soi Lek  tentang hudud satu penghinaan nyata terhadap agama Islam.

Dakwa Anwar, tindakan Soi Lek itu amat memalukan dan tidak mampu dipertahankan lagi.

Katanya, kenyataan Soi Lek yang dilakukan di hadapan Datuk Seri Najib Razak,  juga bermaksud menghina beliau sebagai Perdana Menteri dan tetamu khas konvensyen tersebut.

"Saya sifatkan ianya sebagai satu serangan yang biadab dan telah menyinggung perasaan umat Islam," katanya yang dipetik dalam blog miliknya, semalam.

Soi Lek sebelum ini mengeluarkan kenyataan bahawa pelaksanaan hukum hudud akan menjejaskan 1.2 juta peluang pekerjaan dalam sektor perkhidmatan dan pelancongan serta boleh mencetuskan keresahan rakyat terhadap Islam.

Beliau selepas itu meminta semua anggota parti MCA supaya meningkatkan lagi publisiti dalam usaha menepis dakyah pembangkang.

Katanya, lebih parah lagi, kenyataan  Soi Lek itu seolah-olah dipersetujui Najib.

"Kebisuan Najib tentang perkara ini jelas menunjukkan beliau berada di pihak yang salah," katanya.

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

Opposition Leader Anwar Ibrahim says that the MCA President, Chua Soi Lek, has insulted Islam. Just for the record, I too have whacked Chua Soi Lek for instigating the Penang Malays in my article We didn't start the fire. And this is what one reader commented:

RPK,

No matter how much you try to instigate May 13 - Version 2.0, realize that you are wasting your time. The Malays today are far, far different from those in 1969...they are wealthy and drive new-ish fancy cars...do you really think they are going to Mengamuk like the old days?

Today's Melayus have lost their balls.

So, when I whack the MCA President, I am instigating May 13 Version 2.0. When the Opposition Leader whacks Chua Soi Lek, he is the greatest Malaysian alive -- a true 'Towering' Malay.

The chap, Ramesh Chandran, who posted that comment accuses me of instigating May 13 Version 2.0 and yet he closes his comment with: Today's Melayus have lost their balls.

Is this not a contradiction? You accuse me of racism and then you throw the Malays a challenge by saying that the Malays have lost their balls. So how do you want the Malays to prove that they still have balls? By taking to the streets and mengamuk?

Malaysia Today appears to attract comments from readers with the lowest intelligence and intellectual level. No wonder the thinking readers rather just read and remain quiet. They refuse to comment and be associated with brain-dead Malaysians.

Anyway, I would have expected that statement by Anwar Ibrahim to come from people like Ibrahim Ali, Hassan Ali, Zulkifli Nordin, and those of their ilk, but not from someone like Anwar, a so-called Democrat.

A Democrat may disagree with what you say but he or she will definitely respect and defend your right to say it. Anwar appears to have lost this ability.

You may have a warped opinion, but that does not mean you are not entitled to this warped opinion or that you lose your right to express this warped opinion.

After all, probably 80% of the world believes in the existence of God and they profess some form of religion. They will also express their views about their religion. And the other 20% of the world that does not think this is true would consider the 80% as silly and superstitious sub-humans, at least in mentality.

But do the 20% stop the 80% from having these beliefs and from expressing these beliefs as much as they may think these are extremely silly beliefs?

Why is it only those who believe in God and profess a religion have rights whereas those who do not believe in God and do not profess a religion do not have rights? And when those who do not believe in God and do not profess a religion express their views, they are accused of 'insulting' so-and-so religion.

This 'you are insulting my religion' allegation is being carried a bit too far. God is supposed to be kind, forgiving, compassionate, just, fair, and so on. On the other hand, God is extremely intolerant and God has appointed 'agents' to roam around the world to punish those who 'insult' Him.

This sounds like a very short-tempered and vindictive God who is even worse than the person you love to hate -- Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad. At least even if Dr Mahathir detains you under Operasi Lalang you finally get to go home. Dr Mahathir does not shoot you or bomb your house because you have insulted him, like what your God has commanded you to do.

Perkasa, Pekida, Umno, the government, etc., accuse the Christians, DAP, MCA, the non-Muslims, the church etc., of insulting Islam. And they want action taken against these people. Whether these (non-Muslim) people really did insult Islam or this is something these Muslims perceive and is just something in their minds is not important. As long as someone is perceived or imagined to have insulted Islam, those are grounds enough to punish him or her for this 'crime'.

We can expect this from the government and the government supporters. We do not expect this from the opposition, in particular those who are projecting a Democrat image, and certainly not from the Leader of the Opposition.

We need New Politics. We need a New Malaysia. We need New Malaysians. We need a Malaysian of Democrats. And this New Politics, New Malaysia, New Malaysians, a Malaysian of Democrats, etc., have to be one that is tolerant of criticism -- even if that criticism is 'God does not exist, religion is bullshit, and those who believe in all this nonsense are enslaving themselves to a doctrine from the Dark Ages'.

If we are not yet ready for that then Malaysia is NOT yet a nation of Democrats and hence we lose the right to talk about democracy. And certainly the Opposition Leader should lead by example and be the first to demonstrate he is a Democrat and not just another Perkasa, Pekida, Umno, etc., by another name.

 

Are we who we are?

Posted: 26 Oct 2012 06:27 PM PDT

In Chinese philosophy, the concept of Yin-Yang is about how polar opposites or seemingly contrary forces are interconnected and interdependent in the natural world, and how they give rise to each other in relation to each other. Many natural dualities such as dark and light, male and female, low and high, cold and hot, water and fire, earth and air, etc., are considered manifestations of Yin and Yang.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Are we who we are? Or are we who we are not? For example, we are not black. Hence since we are not black then we must be the opposite of black, which means white. That is, of course, if we look at the world in merely two shades -- black and white, good and bad, big and small, rich and poor, sick and healthy, etc.

But is this not how we always look at the world, in two shades? Either you are with me or you are against me. You must be one or the other. You cannot be not with me plus not against me. And this is how most people look at things. Either you are Barisan Nasional or Pakatan Rakyat. They cannot imagine that there exists an in-between world that is neither left nor right.

So, who are you? Are you who you are? Or are you who you are not? And have we even pondered on this question or have we accepted who we are based on what society has moulded us into believing who we are?

We exist because something else exists. In the absence of that something else we would cease to exist. Hence we are not who or what we think we are. What we are is always in relation to something else that is not what we are.

I know this sounds very confusing so I will need to quote a few examples to help you understand this concept. In an earlier article I used the example of the moon. The moon, or rather the full moon, exists only because the sun exists. If the sun did not exist then the (full) moon would not exist as well.

And we measure time according to the sun and/or the moon. Malays call month bulan, which is also the word for moon. Some communities measure time according to how many moons have passed. Hence, if the sun did not exist, and therefore the moon also did not exist, would time exist? Time exists only because the sun exists. In the absence of the sun -- and say the world is dark all year around -- time would not exist.

A King exists because there are subjects. If there were no subjects and he-who-would-be-king was alone in this world, there would be no kings. He would merely be one man alone in this world.

Hence the existence of kings is contingent upon the existence of subjects.

Religionists say that without God humankind would not exist. If you believe in God then this argument would form the fundamentals of your belief system. But is it not true also the other way around? If humankind did not exist would there be a God? God may still exist in its 'physical' form, for want of a better word, but God will never exist in its conceptual form. Humankind needs a concept of God. So, without humankind, the concept of God would not exist.

God needs creations to become a God -- just like kings need subjects to become a king. Without creations, God cannot become God. So, is that the true secret of our creation -- so that God can become God?

I am not sure whether you can grasp this concept, which is really not that complex.

Does goodness exist? Goodness exists only because evil exists. Without evil goodness cannot exist. Hence does goodness really exist or is this merely a perception in our mind?

Say there are no murders, rapes, robberies, diseases, deaths, etc., in this world. Everything is very perfect just like we were living in Paradise. Everything is good. There is no bad. So, since bad or evil does not exist, good cannot exist as well. Things will just be, that's all. It will never be good or be bad. It will just be because there is no concept of good and bad or evil.

The existence of one is subject to the existence of the other. Hence what we are is basically the opposite of what we are not. So, back to my original question, are we who we are or are we who we are not?

We are alive because we are not dead. Life is the opposite of death and since both exist then the concept of life and death also exist. So, are we who we are (meaning alive)? Or are we who we are not (meaning not dead)?

If no one died then there would be no concept of death. And since there is no concept of death then there would be no concept of life as well. We just are, that is all. We are not alive, because we cannot be dead.

So, we claim we are alive. That is who we say we are. But that is who we think we are only because there is an opposite of life. In the absence of death we will not be alive. We will just be. In that case we cannot claim that to be what we are.

Humankind thinks alongside concepts. And based on this very narrow understanding of concepts we get to know ourselves. But we think we know ourselves only because of the way we think. However, once we change the way we think, we start to realise that we do not really know ourselves.

We thought it was very simple and that life is very clear. We measure things and perceive things according to the accepted laws of nature. Maybe the Chinese have the best concept to describe this --Yin and Yang, as the Chinese would say.

In Chinese philosophy, the concept of Yin-Yang is about how polar opposites or seemingly contrary forces are interconnected and interdependent in the natural world, and how they give rise to each other in relation to each other. Many natural dualities such as dark and light, male and female, low and high, cold and hot, water and fire, earth and air, etc., are considered manifestations of Yin and Yang.

There may be something, after all, in 5,000 years of Chinese civilisation that the world is yet to understand. Yin and Yang need to exist together. Without one the other would not exist. Hence, we need death for life to exist. So, are we really alive or just not dead? Yes, are we who we are? Or are we who we are not?

Just my Saturday evening article to get your brain cells to work a bit. No politics or religion, just some Chinese philosophy for your weekend reading.

 

Do you know what sacrifice means?

Posted: 25 Oct 2012 06:00 PM PDT

So, yes, today, animals all over the world are going to be sacrificed for the sake of God. But it is the animals that are going to be sacrificed. Those sacrificing those animals do not sacrifice anything other than a few hundred Ringgit, many of it illegally earned anyway from usury, exploitation, cronyism, nepotism, speculation, profiteering, bribes, tax evasion, etc.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Muslims nationwide celebrated Aidil Adha today on a moderate scale and in appreciation of sacrifice as required by Islamic teachings. 

Aidil Adha is of great significance for Muslims worldwide and is celebrated in memory of the sacrifice made by the prophets Ibrahim and Ismail in obeying Allah.    

Fine weather in the morning enabled Muslims to perform their prayers comfortably, followed by the sacrificial offerings carried out at mosques, villages and housing estates.  Bernama

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

Performing the pilgrimage or Haj is one of the tenets or rituals of Islam. And today about three million or so Muslims are in Mina where they will spend three days stoning Satan (symbolically, of course) before moving on to Mekah to perform the Sa'i -- the ritual of walking seven times from the hills of Al-Safa to Al-Marwah.

This is what one Islamic website has to say about that ritual:

According to Islamic beliefs, the Prophet Ibrahim (Abraham) was commanded by God to leave his wife Hagar and their infant son alone in the desert between Al-Safa and Al-Marwah with only basic provisions to test their faith. When their provisions were exhausted, Hagar went in search of help or water. To make her search easier and faster, she went alone, leaving the infant Ismail (Ishmael) on the ground.

She first climbed the nearest hill, Al-Safa, to look over the surrounding area. When she saw nothing, she then went to the other hill, Al-Marwah, to look around. While Hagar was on either hillside, she was able to see Ismail and know he was safe. However, when she was in the valley between the hills she was unable to see her son, and would thus run whilst in the valley and walk at a normal pace when on the hillsides.

Hagar travelled back and forth between the hills seven times in the scorching heat before returning to her son. When she arrived, she found that a spring had broken forth from where the crying baby kicked the sand with his feet. This spring is now known as the Zamzam Well, and was revealed by the angel of God as both sustenance and a reward for Hagar's patience.

Yesterday, those performing the Haj had to spend at least 24 hours congregating (and waiting) in the Arafah desert just outside Muzdalifa and Mina. This is symbolic of what is supposed to happen when you die -- and when you are resurrected to face judgement and to receive your punishment or reward for what you do in this life.

Basically, this represents the day of judgement and symbolic of all of us waiting anxiously for the fate that will befall us after we die. So, as you can see, the waiting in Arafah, the stoning of Satan in Mina, the walk from Al-Safa to Al-Marwah seven times, etc., are all symbolic rituals to remind us what the pilgrimage or Haj is all about.

And the lesson from all these rituals and symbolism is that we need to sacrifice in this life to be rewarded accordingly in the next life. And that is why today is called the Festival of the Sacrifice or Aidil Adha.

What, however, is the Festival of the Sacrifice symbolic of? Well, according to the Jews, God commanded Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac (Ishak) from his first wife, Sarah. According to the Muslims, though, God commanded Abraham to sacrifice his son Ismail from his second wife, Hagar.

Hence both Jews and Muslims share the same roots but are from different branches of the family tree of Abraham. The Jews are from the son of Abraham's first wife while the Muslims are from the son of Abraham's second wife. In other words, the Jews and Muslims are 'related by birth' but are split into Team A and Team B -- no different from Umno politics over the last 60 years or so since the 1950s.

Anyway, the most important aspect of Islamic (and Jewish) teachings is to sacrifice. And this is reinforced in a Hadith that relates the Prophet Muhammad as saying that if you want to give sedekah (alms or donations) to someone then give something that you love or treasure the most. Giving away your old and tattered clothes that no longer fit you is no sedekah as you sacrifice nothing. In fact, those taking them are doing you a favour by helping you to get rid of your junk.

Abraham loved his son tremendously but when God commanded him to sacrifice his son he did not hesitate to do so. He sharpened his knife and told his son to lie down so that he (Abraham) can slit his (son's) throat.

Abraham's son gladly did as he was told but just before the knife touched his throat God rescinded the command and told Abraham to replace his son with an animal. Hence, till today, this day is celebrated with the sacrifice of a lamb, goat, cow, buffalo, camel, etc.

So there you are. God told Abraham to sacrifice his beloved son and Abraham plus his son gladly complied. So, today, Muslims all over the world sacrifice an animal as a symbolic gesture of Abraham's sacrifice of his son in compliance with God's command.

But how many Muslims treat today as merely a ritual and a day of celebration? How many Muslims treat today as the particular day in a year that they need to sacrifice in the way of Allah? How many Muslims can live a life of sacrifice all year round from one day of Aidil Adha to the next day of Aidil Adha the following year?

Rituals and symbolism in religion are meant as reminders and to test our discipline, obedience, commitment and resolve. But most people will be good and obedient only for that one day. Then, for the rest of the year, they revert to following the life of the devil.

Corrupt, greedy, racist, evil, etc., Muslims will stop being corrupt, greedy, racist and evil only for today, the day of the Festival of the Sacrifice. Then, tomorrow, once the day of the Festival of the Sacrifice is over, they will revert to what they really are.

Sacrifice is a very easy word to throw around. Everyone talks about sacrifice. Everyone says to see change we need to sacrifice. But whether you are Jew, Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, or whatever, how many of you really practice what you preach?

Sacrifice is probably the most overrated and overused word amongst Malaysians. Nine out of ten Malaysians will scream that word. But less than one in ten Malaysians would dare sacrifice.

If you think change is necessary and that we must see change at all costs, how many of you will pay this cost of sacrifice to see this change? As a start, how many of you will dare use your real names to post comments in Malaysia Today?

Yes, you might face the wrath of the government and you might have to sacrifice your freedom if you do that. But what is the use of sacrifice if you dare not sacrifice a minor and unimportant thing like your freedom? What is your freedom for the sake of change? Nothing!

So, yes, today, animals all over the world are going to be sacrificed for the sake of God. But it is the animals that are going to be sacrificed. Those sacrificing those animals do not sacrifice anything other than a few hundred Ringgit, many of it illegally earned anyway from usury, exploitation, cronyism, nepotism, speculation, profiteering, bribes, tax evasion, etc.

If all you are prepared to do is to pay a few hundred Ringgit to buy an animal so that its throat can be slit, then better save your money. Don't waste your money. Your so-called sacrifice is no sacrifice. It is merely a waste of your money and the waste of the life of the animal. Sacrifice is not mere rituals and symbolism. It has to be from the heart. And most Malaysians have absolutely no heart and no guts for sacrificing anything, whatever religion they may profess.

 

Perception and relativism

Posted: 24 Oct 2012 07:05 PM PDT

Now, before we embark upon this part of our discussion, let us first be clear about the difference between needs and wants. The NEP is supposed to satisfy our needs. It is not about pandering to our wants. Needs are necessities. Wants is greed. We have to understand the difference or else we can never come to a consensus as to whether the NEP has succeeded or has failed.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

The Great Hudud Debate is still raging. And it will continue to burn right into the next general election and beyond mainly because we are standing on different platforms to debate this issue. In short, we are not on the same page and unless we get onto the same page it is impossible to come to any consensus.

The proponents of Hudud are using the religious/theological platform to forward their views. The opponents are using the legal/constitutional platform. How can any consensus ever be reached unless the proponents and opponents first come to an agreement as to whether they want to debate Hudud as a religious/theological issue or as a legal/constitutional issue?

This is the first bridge we need to cross and unless we can cross that first bridge there is no way we can hope to cross the second bridge -- that is reach a consensus on Hudud itself.

Are the politicians from both sides of the political fence really that stupid? Or are they actually very clever and that is why they are able to confuse Malaysians by debating an issue using different 'wavelengths' knowing that the debate will continue indefinitely with no resolution possible?

It could be that the politicians are not stupid but are very clever. They are not really seeking a resolution. They just want this debate to go on forever as a convenient political weapon that can be resurrected every time a general election comes along. If they come to a consensus then the issue would be resolved and it can no longer be used as a political weapon. Hence better that they continue this debate as it is and keep using it again and again.

If we use the religious/theological platform to debate Hudud then the proponents of Hudud are right. If we use the legal/constitutional platform then the opponents of Hudud are right. In other words, both sides are right and both sides are wrong.

In other words, also, there is no absolute right and absolute wrong. Right and wrong are mere perceptions and relative to the comparison you are using. It all depends on what you are comparing it to. But when we use absolution we will always see right as wrong or wrong as right, a mere perception we have created in our minds.

I know at this point I may have 'lost' some of you, especially those who admit that they read only part of my articles and then start posting a comment as if they fully understand my message. Yes, there are a lot of those types of readers in Malaysia Today. They read just the heading or just a few paragraphs and then come to a conclusion as to what they think I am trying to say and then start posting comments.

We have to grasp the fundamentals of the concept I am talking about -- perception and relativism -- if we want to comprehend what I am saying. I am not sure how to demonstrate how this concept works to make you better understand it but allow me to try.

A few nights ago, I looked up to the sky and told my wife how beautiful the moon looked. It was so round and so bright. The moon also appeared so much bigger here in Manchester than back in Kuala Lumpur. A couple of weeks ago, if I had looked up to the sky, I would have told my wife, "There is no moon tonight."

Actually, a couple of weeks ago, if I had looked up to the sky and told my wife, 'There is no moon tonight," I would have been wrong. There was a moon. The only thing is I could not see it. Hence my correct statement should have been, "The moon is there but we can't see it."

The moon is always there. It is never not there. Sometimes we can't see it. Sometimes we see it as a half moon. And sometimes we see it as a full moon. But how we see the moon is subject to how the sun's light is reflected onto the moon.

The 'existence' of the moon, therefore, is subject to the sun. Without the sun there would not be a moon the way we perceive it. The moon looks beautiful/romantic only because the sun makes it look beautiful/romantic. So the moon is very dependent upon the sun for its beauty. On its own the moon is 'powerless' to radiate its beauty.

Hence the moon cannot exist in isolation. The moon can only exist if the sun exists or else it will be 'invisible' and therefore 'non-existent'. Without the sun no lovers can walk in the romantic moonlight. In fact, they are not even walking in the romantic moonlight. They are walking in the romantic sunlight reflected onto the moon and bounced back to earth.

My point in this moonlight example is: how do you see things? Do you see things as you want to see them or in relation to something else? Even the so-called moonlight is not what you think it is. But are you able to see it for what it is (meaning sunlight) or do you see it for what you think it is (meaning moonlight)?

Okay, next example.

You may have noticed over the last few days the Malay Chamber of Commerce, Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad, etc., were all talking about the economic situation of the Bumiputeras. I will not go into the details because I think you know what I am referring to. So maybe I can use that as my second example.

The consensus of the Malay businessmen and the Malay politicians is that the Bumiputeras have not quite succeeded as the government and the Malay Chamber of Commerce had hoped they would since the launch of the New Economic Policy (NEP) 42 years ago in 1970. This statement is both right and wrong. Again, as in the Hudud debate, there is no absolute right and absolute wrong.

When you talk about the economic success of the Bumiputeras what are you comparing it to? If you are comparing the current economic success of the Malays to what it used to be in the 1950s, or pre-Merdeka, then the Malays have certainly come a long way. They have improved in leaps and bounds. But if you are comparing the economic success of the Malays to that of the non-Malays, in particular the Chinese, then the Malays are definitely being left far behind.

Now, when the NEP was launched, what was the objective of that policy? The policy had dual objectives. One was to reduce the gap between the haves and the haves-not. The other was to reduce the differential between the various races. So, in that sense, it is not a 'Malay' policy.

But the NEP was not only about the creation of wealth. It also included many other issues or targets such as housing, financial security, employment, education, health, etc. In short, the NEP was not just about more money in the pockets but about a better quality of life, and not just for the Malays.

Now, before we embark upon this part of our discussion, let us first be clear about the difference between needs and wants. The NEP is supposed to satisfy our needs. It is not about pandering to our wants. Needs are necessities. Wants is greed. We have to understand the difference or else we can never come to a consensus as to whether the NEP has succeeded or has failed.

We need clothes on our back. We need a roof over our head. We need food on the table. We do not need a Porsche. We do not need a RM10 million mansion on a hill. We do not need USD150,000 Birkin handbags. Those are what we want, not what we need.

Okay, so have the Malays improved economically since 55 years ago? Are more Malays educated and receive better health care now compared to 55 years ago? If you are comparing the Malays of today to the Malays of 55 years ago then certainly the Malays have benefited from the NEP and have a better quality of life now than they did 55 years ago.

But then the Malay Chamber of Commerce and the Malay politicians are not comparing the Malays of today to the Malays of 55 years ago. If they did then Umno/Barisan Nasional has succeeded in improving the lot of the Malays. They are comparing the Malays of today to the non-Malays of today, in particular the Chinese. And if you use that comparison then the Malays are definitely still left far behind.

So which comparison is a fair comparison then? Should we compare Malays to Malays -- Malays of today to the Malays of 55 years ago? Or should we compare Malays to non-Malays -- Malays of today to the Chinese of today? This is the same argument as: do we talk about Hudud as a religious/theological issue or as a legal/constitutional issue?

Hence my first example regarding the moon. Do we look at the moon in isolation and gauge its beauty by the light, roundness and size? Or do we look at the moon in relation to the sun and understand that its beauty is subject to the reflection of the sun? And would lovers no longer find it romantic to walk in the moonlight once they understand that the moonlight is actually the sunlight and not the moonlight because the moon has no light?

We Malaysians love to quarrel and argue. And we pretend that all these quarrels and arguments are actually intelligent and intellectual debates. But we never get to resolve these conflicts because we are arguing about the opposite sides of the same coin but think we are both seeing the same side of the coin.

Hence debates related to race, religion, politics, development, the economy, etc., would go unresolved. And the politicians know this. It is not that they don't. For example, Umno and Barisan Nasional will compare Malaysia of 55 years ago to Malaysia today to argue that the government has succeeded in bringing development and prosperity to Malaysians.

Okay, if you compare Malaysia 55 years ago to Malaysia today then I have no disagreement with that argument. Certainly Malaysia has improved in leaps and bounds. But what if I use another comparison? What if I compare Malaysia today to what Malaysia could have been had the country been better managed these last 55 years, or even just these last 30 years? Using that scenario would we see a highly successful Malaysia or a less successful Malaysia?

Note I have not used the phrase 'a successful Malaysia' to 'a not successful (meaning failed) Malaysia'. Instead, I have used the phrase 'a highly successful Malaysia' to 'a less successful Malaysia'. In the first comparison I would be comparing success to failure. In the second comparison I am saying that both are successes, only that one is more successful than the other.

Hence, even if I want to agree with the government that Malaysia is a success and not a failure, I can still argue about the degree of success -- and 'less successful' compared to 'more successful' can be interpreted as failure.

The government is right in that Malaysia today is successful if compared to Malaysia 55 years ago. I am also right when I say that Malaysia today could have been better had it been better run so in that sense it is not successful.

The government is both right and wrong while I am also both right and wrong. What makes right become wrong and wrong become right all depends on what comparisons we are using and what yardstick we use to measure success and failure.

So, are the Malays successful or unsuccessful? Did the government do a good job or a bad job? Is Hudud a religious/theological issue or a legal/constitutional issue? Is the moonlight beautiful and romantic or is it merely the sunlight reflected on the moon that gives an appearance/impression it is beautiful and romantic?

Yes, I know, this article is already so cheong hei. Actually I can write another 20 pages if I want to but I know most of you have no time for proper discussions. You only want to read articles that whack people and call people all sort of nasty names.

So I will stop here and conclude this article by saying: don't waste your time arguing about Hudud or the NEP or whatever. This argument has no ending unless we first agree what platform we are using in debating these issues. Unless the platform is resolved then the debate is a non-starter. How to resolve anything when one talks about the cruelty to the dog while the other talks about the colour of the dog collar?

 

My response to Kee Thuan Chye

Posted: 21 Oct 2012 08:42 PM PDT

Wee Ka Siong called on Malaysians to reject laws based on religious theocracy. That would mean reject the Shariah, plain and simple, because laws based on religious theocracy means the Shariah. Hence this would also mean Malaysia becomes a Secular State where Muslims can become Christians and need not fast or pray and can drink beer and eat pork, etc.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

This was a comment posted by Kee Thuan Chye in my article MCA's bold move in secularising Malaysia.

Where on earth in the NST report is it said that Wee called for Shariah law to be abolished??? RPK is making too much of a meal out of this. Wee was just making the same old, same old call we have heard many a time from the MCA to reject PAS's Islamic state. That's what he meant by rejecting laws based on religious theocracy. For all we know, "laws based on religious theocracy" might have been wrongly phrased by the NST reporter when writing the story. So, please, RPK, don't try and make the MCA look like a pioneer or doing something significant when it really is not. It wouldn't have the chutzpah or cojones to call for the abolition of Shariah. You and I know that. No way in Hell.

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

Dear Kee, my reply as follows:

(NST) -- PAS' aspiration to introduce its interpretation of the Islamic law, or hudud, if the opposition coalition came into power was strongly criticised at the MCA Youth and Wanita assemblies yesterday.

(My response) -- Wee said  "...its (PAS') interpretation of the Islamic law, or hudud...".

First of all, it should not be "...its interpretation of the Islamic law, or hudud...". Islamic law is called Shariah law and Hudud is one branch of the Shariah. Hence Islamic law (Shariah) and Hudud mean two different things.

Secondly, there is no such thing as PAS's interpretation of Islamic law. Either there is such a thing called Islamic law or Shariah law or there is no such thing. Is there or is there not such a thing called Islamic laws or Shariah laws?

If there are none then how can the UIA (International Islamic University) offer Shariah law courses and degrees? How can there be Shariah laws, Shariah lawyers, Shariah judges and Shariah Courts? How can Muslims face punishment for drinking beer under the Shariah law?

Islamic laws are called Shariah laws and Shariah laws are based on:

1. Interpretations of the Qur'an.

2. Interpretations of the Sunnah.

3. Ijma or consensus amongst scholars ("collective reasoning").

4. Qiyas/Ijtihad or analogical deduction ("individual reasoning").

Can you see that the four items above form the foundation of the Shariah?

Hence there is no such as PAS' interpretation of Islamic law. Hence, also, Wee and/or MCA are either misleading the people or are trying to talk about something they know nothing about.

The Shariah comes under six main branches as follows:

1. Ibadah (ritual worship).

2. Mu'amalat (transactions and contracts).

3. Adab (morals and manners).

4. I'tiqadat (beliefs).

5. Uqubat (punishments).

6. Munakahat (Islamic marriage jurisprudence).

There are four main schools of Shariah law:

1. Hanbali.

2. Hanifi.

3. Maliki.

4. Shafi'i.

There are four categories of punishment under Islamic Penal Law:

1. Qisas.

2. Diyya.

3. Hudud.

4. Tazir.

(NST) -- MCA Youth chief Datuk Dr Wee Ka Siong called on Malaysians to reject laws based on religious theocracy and to denounce Pas' call to implement hudud.

(My response) -- Wee and MCA (and probably you as well) do not understand the difference between an Islamic State, the Shariah, Qisas, Diyya, Hudud and Tazir. One does not equal the other, as they are different issues.

NST said: Wee Ka Siong called on Malaysians to reject laws based on religious theocracy…

That would mean reject the Shariah, plain and simple, because laws based on religious theocracy means the Shariah. Hence this would also mean Malaysia becomes a Secular State where Muslims can become Christians and need not fast or pray and can drink beer and eat pork, etc.

(NST) -- Wee likened the mindset of Pas leadership to one that belonged to the Dark Ages.

(My response) – The Shariah is part of Islam. To say that the PAS leadership belongs to the Dark Age means Islam, the Prophet Muhammad, the Qur'an, etc., also all belong to the Dark Ages and are no longer relevant. 

Is this what Wee and MCA mean? PAS quotes Islam. If PAS is wrong then Islam is wrong, plain and simple. PAS can only be stupid if Islam, the Prophet Muhammad and the Qur'an, etc., are stupid.

I repeat, there is no such thing as PAS' version or Umno's version of Islam. There is only one version because there is only one version of the Qur'an unlike the Holy Books of some other religions where there are many different versions.

I trust this clarifies why I say MCA is secularising Malaysia. That is what they are trying to do. There is no half-Islam just as there is no 'little bit pregnant'. Islam is all or nothing.

And, this, the kafirs do not seem to understand or appreciate although they comment as if they are graduates of Shariah law.

 
Kredit: www.malaysia-today.net
 

Malaysia Today Online

Copyright 2010 All Rights Reserved