Klik GAMBAR Dibawah Untuk Lebih Info

Sumber Asal Berita :-

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

Changing values (UPDATED with Chinese translation)

Posted: 30 Jun 2013 04:54 PM PDT

Have the Chinese forgotten how to be Chinese? Have the old Chinese 'values' changed so much over the last 40 years? What happened to the Chinese 'word' that is supposed to be stronger than 100 pages of a written and signed contract? At least my involvement in the Chinese triads during my school days taught me some values that the Chinese today seem to have forgotten.

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

If you were to ask the Malay-on-the-street the meaning of the word 'akidah', he or she would most likely reply that that word means 'faith'. That would not be entirely incorrect although the accurate Malay word for 'faith' would be 'yakin'. Hence if you have faith in something or someone you are said to have keyakinan.

However, those Muslims with a 'higher' understanding of Islam -- for example the Sufis -- would define akidah as something else. Akidah is the 'rope' that binds us to God (Allah), they would say.

The Jews and Christians too believe in this and they call it the covenant. The definition of covenant would be a binding agreement or contract. Hence Christians enter into a covenant with God, which means an agreement or contract with God, just like Muslims do with their akidah.

And that is why Muslims are advised to 'protect' their akidah because if their akidah is tainted then they cease to be a Muslim. And, according to Islamic teachings, there are many things that can destroy a person's akidah. For example: believing in and wearing a tangkal (talisman or 'lucky charm') would be one of them.

And the reason your akidah would be destroyed if you believe in and wear a talisman is because you agreed (contracted) to believe in the one-God (Allah) but then you go and believe in another 'power' other than Allah. Hence you believe that the talisman has the same power as God and that it can protect you or change your fate/luck whereas such power belongs only to Allah.

Nevertheless, many Malays still believe in 'other powers' and in the supernatural in spite of the fact that this would taint or destroy their akidah. This is mainly because of their very superficial understanding of Islam, which has been reduced to merely a set of rituals. If these Malays really understood Islam then they would know that their actions have made them a non-Muslim a long time ago.

Anyway, that is not the point of my article today. What I want to discuss today is what some readers have said to be 'the law of contracts'. To them, a contract is only valid under two circumstances.

1) That the contract is in written form (meaning on a piece of paper) and is signed by all parties to the agreement.

2) That the contract is enforceable by the court in the event you take the case to court if there was a breach of contract.

Furthermore, they say that a contract and an agreement are two different things entirely.

That may be the 'modern' interpretation of 'contract' (basically English law) and that if these two conditions are not met then a contract or agreement does not exist. But then the concept of covenant (with God) or akidah existed long before England or English law existed. In that case, if contracts are only called contracts if they are signed and on a piece of paper and enforceable by the court, what would you call a covenant or akidah (your 'contract' with God)?

I remember 40 years ago when I first started business -- mainly with the Chinese -- our 'contracts' were never on a piece of paper or signed. Hence they would not be enforceable by the court, so to speak. Our 'contracts' were all by word of mouth and 'sealed' with a handshake over a pot of Chinese tea. When that Chinese businessman pours you a cup of tea and hands it to you with both his hands, and you accept that cup of tea and sip it, that is your 'signed contract'.

Today, the supporters of Pakatan Rakyat say that unless the contract is on a piece of paper and is signed by all parties and is enforceable by the court, then no contract exists. They, of course, quote the English law or tort law as the reference here.

No doubt Malaysia follows English law. But there are certain things that can be done outside English law and would still be valid. Did PKR, DAP and PAS sign a document to form Pakatan Rakyat? If they did not then is the 'agreement' to form Pakatan Rakyat valid? For example, can PKR and PAS or PKR and DAP engage in three-corner contests in the general election? Since there is no written and signed agreement (contract) then there is nothing wrong if PKR, DAP and PAS all engage in four-corner fights with Barisan Nasional.

What about those 222 Members of Parliament and 505 State Assemblypersons from Pakatan Rakyat who contested the recent general election on 5th May 2013? Did they sign any written contract with their respective parties? If not then there is nothing wrong if they cross over and join Barisan Nasional.

What about the Pakatan Rakyat people -- such as Tunku Abdul Aziz Tunku Ibrahim -- who were appointed Senators on a Pakatan Rakyat 'ticket'? Did they sign any written contract? If not then what is wrong if they decide to cross over and support Barisan Nasional?

After the 2008 general election many Pakatan Rakyat people crossed over. Hee and the two PKR State Assemblymen from Perak crossed over and brought down the Pakatan Rakyat State Government of Perak. They never signed any written contract and you cannot take them to court and sue them. Hence no contract exists so why are you all so angry with them? They did not breach any agreement.

Ibrahim Ali and many more who contested the 2008 general election on a Pakatan Rakyat 'ticket' and then declared themselves as 'independent' wakil rakyat also did not breach any agreement because they did not sign any piece of paper. So why vilify and disparage them and call them names?

So be careful before arguing that Anwar Ibrahim and Najib Tun Razak did not sign any paper contract and therefore no valid agreement exists. That argument can apply in so many other instances as well.

And back in the 1970s, when I first started business, the Chinese taught me that your word and handshake and the cup of tea is stronger than 100 pages of a written and signed contract.

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

价值观的改变

这些华人都忘了如何来做一个华人了吗？华人的'老价值观'在过去的40年里改变了这么多？那些华人们强于100页签署书面合同的"诺言"都去了哪里？我在上学时期混进华人黑社会团体里时学会的那些价值观到了今天一些华人们似乎都已经忘记了。

如果你随街问个马来人'akidah'是什么意思，他们很有可能会答那个词的意思是"信心"。这不会是完全不正确的，虽然说"信心"的正确马来字是yakin。因此，如果你有信心于某事或某人，你会说有keyakinan。

然而，对于那些对伊斯兰教的理解"高出一般人"的人--例如Sufi--来讲，他们会把akidah定义成别的东西。他们会说Akidah是一条用来把我们和上帝（阿拉）绑在一起的'绳子'。

犹太人和基督徒也相信这一点，他们叫它为圣约covenant。圣约的定义是一项具约束力的协议或合同。因此，基督徒与上帝立下圣约（通俗的讲法就是与神'签下'协议或合同）就像穆斯林和阿拉立下akidah一样。

这就是为什么穆斯林被教会要'保护'他们的akidah，因为如果他们的akidah被粘上污垢的话那么他们不再是一个穆斯林。而且，根据伊斯兰教教义，有很多东西可以摧毁一个人的akidah；打个比方：相信和穿上tangkal（护身符或幸运物品）就是其中之一。

当你你相信和戴上护身符时你的akidah就会被销毁，原因是因为你同意（签下合同）相信一个上帝（阿拉），但过后你还去相信阿拉以外的另一个"力量"。因此，你相信护身符具有相同于上帝的力量；它可以保护你，或者改变你的命运/运气，而这种权力只属于阿拉的。

尽管如此，许多马来人仍然相信"其他力量"和超自然现象，尽管这会玷污或摧毁他们的akidah。这主要是因为他们对伊斯兰教的理解是很肤浅的，可以说已经降低到仅仅在一系列仪式。如果这些马来人真正了解伊斯兰教，那么他们就知道他们的行动在很久以前已使他们变成非穆斯林了。

无论如何，这不是我今天文章的重点。今天我想讨论的是有些读者会称之为的"合同法律"。对他们来说，合同是在两种情况下才有效的：

1）该合同以书面形式（即一张纸上）和经由协议各方签署。

2）如果有违反合同的情况下，法院可以以该合同来执法的。

此外，他们还说，合同和协议完全是两回事。

这也许是"现代"演绎的"合同"（英国法律）吧：如果这两个条件不能被满足的话那么这个合同或协议是不存在的。问题是，圣约或akidah的概念在英格兰或英国法律出现前就已存在很久了。在这种情况下，如果我们把在一张纸上签署和能带上法院的合同称为合同，那你会把圣约和akidah（你和你的真主的'合同'）称为什么呢？

我记得40年前，当我第一次开始经商时--主要是与华人--我们的'合同'是从来没有写在一张纸上或需要签署的。因此，这些'合同'是不能由法院强制执行的。我们的'合同'是隔着一壶中国茶用口来'写'和用握手来'签署'的。当一名华裔商人为你倒了一杯茶并用他的双手奉给你，而你接受了和浅浅地尝了那杯茶后，那就是你的'签署过的合同'了。

今天，民联支持者说，除非合同是写在一张纸上并由各方签署的，而且还能由法院强制执行，不然那根本就没有任何合同可言。当然，他们是引用英国法或侵权法来作为参考的。

毫无疑问，马来西亚法律是源自英国法律，但有一些事情是可以依英国法律以外其它方式而仍然有效的。请问公正党，行动党和伊斯兰党有签署任何文件来组织民联的吗？如果他们没有的话，然后形成民联的'协议'有否有效？打个比方，民联三党可以在换届选举中搞3角战吗？既然他们都没有签署书面协议（合同），那么，他们三和国阵组成四角战也应该没什么不对。

对于在2013年5月5日选举里代表民联参选的222国会议员和505州会议员，他们有和他们的政党签订任何书面合同吗？如果没有，那么他们跳槽加入国阵并没有错啊。

那些因民联的'旗面'而被推选为上议员的民联人（如东姑阿都阿兹）呢？他们有签订任何书面合同吗？如果没有，那么他们跳槽加入国阵又有什么错呢？

2008年的选举后有很多前民联议员都跳槽了。许月凤和两个PKR州议员因跳槽而断送了民联的霹雳州江山。他们从来没有签订任何书面合同，所以你不能把他们告上法庭起诉他们。这事上从来就没有出现些什么合同，那么为什么大家还这么生气他们呢？他们并没有违反任何协议。

依不拉欣·阿里和许多在2008年大选里代表民联上阵的都在大选后自己是'独立'的人民代表，他们也没有违反任何协议，因为他们没有签署任何一张合同。那么，为什么你要丑化和贬低他们，以各种骂名来辱骂他们呢？

所以，在你争论安华和纳吉并没有签署任何文件合同因此不存在有效的协议之前，请记得这样的说法可以用来形容许多其他实例的。

而且，早在70年代，当我第一次开始做生意时，那些华裔商人曾教过我，诺言，握手和一杯茶强过100页的签署书面合同。

Kredit: www.malaysia-today.net

Isnin, 1 Julai 2013