| Now, who are the Arab wannabes? Posted: 28 Dec 2012 03:45 PM PST And let's not forget the political element as well as the Allah word also serves those with an agenda, a political agenda. It had been the Catholic Herald's insistence on using Allah as the Bahasa (Malay language) equivalent of God in the al Kitab which had started the name-calling (wakakaka) brouhaha three years ago. Now, just a wee review of the various aspects of the name-calling (wakakaka) tussle: Legally, High Court Judge Lau Bee Lan had ruled as unconstitutional the Malaysian government's ban of the use of Allah as the Bahasa equivalent of the word God in the Catholic Herald. I believe the government (then with Syed Hamid as the Home Minister) had indicated it would appeal. I am not sure where that appeal currently stands? On the etymological front, a number of academicians including Muslims have traced its usage to pre Islamic era, and explained that both Arab Muslims and Christians refer to their respective gods as Allah. Of course we shouldn't challenge the finding of their highly qualified clarifications, but nonetheless I have something to comment on the etymological aspect of the Allah word shortly. Historically, it has been agreed that Dutch Christian missionaries sometime in the 16th Century translated the Bible into the Indonesian language by using the word Allah for God. Why those Dutch missionaries did so has not been questioned nor discussed much but that they had used Allah has been deemed by the Catholic Herald as a precedent which must continue to be accepted even today. I'll also come to this soon. Politically, of the two Malay-Muslim parties, UMNO said-says 'no', PAS said 'it's alright' but something new has just cropped up, where PAS has now changed its mind about the word Allah as the equivalent of God in the Malay language version of the Bible. Yes, PAS has just said 'no' as well (to add to UMNO's 'nay'), showing its lamentable character in the same way as had been indicated by its recently disintegrated 'promise' wakakaka that non-Muslims won't be affected by Islamic laws (and/or municipality rules based on Islamic moral values). PAS' lack of reliability in its belakang pusing (volte face) from its promise has been a classic case of the Malay idiom cakap ta'serupa bikin. No mate, you can't trust any politician, even and especially those from a religious party, be it Islamic, Christian, Hindu, Buddhist, Confucianist, Taoist, Bahāʾīs or Ayah Pin-ish, etc, wakakaka. But let's leave out this troubling though not unexpected side of PAS vis-à-vis non-Muslims in this post, where we can then discuss the topic in a future post. This post is about the use of the word Allah as the Bahasa (Malay language) equivalent of God in the Bible. 
| YVWH | And I'll be frank that I will undoubtedly hurt many of my Christian friends as I did 3 years ago when this topic first flared up. While I believe on principle there ought not to be a monopolistic use of any word or words, I can understand the Muslim community's worries about the Church's obdurate intention to use this word, especially more so when I know it's obligatory, nay, a sacred duty of the Church and Christians to be 'missionary' (evangelistic). Yes, I'm afraid on a personal basis, kaytee isn't all that supportive of the Church's insistence on using the Allah word to represent/indicate/describe their Christian God in the Malay language. Perhaps let me declare my religious affiliations so that you can be clear where I am coming from (or going to, wakakaka). I was born to very staunch Buddhist parents. My late dad and his mum were devoted Theravada Buddhists whilst my late mum was Mahayana Buddhist, not that they knew the difference between those schools of Buddhism. Once I attempted to explain to my mum (when she was alive) about the schools' doctrinal differences but I gave up when I saw the annoyed look on her face, wakakaka. Both my granddads were non-practising Taoists-Confucianists, which may explain why I'm an atheist, wakakaka. Anyway, I am neither Christian nor Muslim. 
| gulp | Okay, let's consider the etymological angle of the Allah word first. Yes, I'm confident of the accuracy of those who have traced the Allah word and its usage to pre Islamic era, and who have also explained that both Arab Muslims and Christians refer to their respective gods as Allah. Yup, I, you, we have all heard the several arguments that Allah is an Arabic word meaning god and not necessarily that of the God of Islam only ... yadda yadda yadda ... and therefore Christians have every right to employ this Allah word because of the word's genericalness. Notwithstanding its etymological certification, let me tell you what I think of the pro arguments. First of all, my caustic remarks wakakaka do not apply to all, but only those who feel my sarcasm, wakakaka. I am not surprised by the hypocrisy of some of those who advocate this argument, that because Allah is a generic Arabic word for god (not necessarily that of Islam,) the Church and Christians in Malaysia have the right to use it as the Bahasa translation of God. They are/were hypocritical because: (a) these very 'some' people have been those who have been at laughing (as well as sneering) at the orthodox Malay Muslims (or if you like, Muslim Malays) for wanting to be Arabs or to be Arab-ized rather than just being Muslims, from and in the way they dress in Middle-Eastern desert garb instead of our Malaysian tropical baju or sarung kebaya, etc, or resort to Arabic words when Malay equivalents are available, etc etc. * Incidentally I'm also one who laughs at Arab wannabes, wakakaka. Now, aren't these Christians and their supporters, in arguing for the use of the generic Arabic word Allah as the Bahasa equivalent of God, themselves also Arab wannabes? (b) hey man, aren't we talking about a Bahasa word for God? Why then invoke an Arabic word? If they don't like the word Tuhan because the Church argued that in some instances, the word Tuhan (God) does not convey the required meaning in a biblical passage, why not a Hebrew word then, when after all, Judaism and Christianity share the same God, rather than the one Muslims believe in (yes, this is debatable too)? Just as an aside, I wonder what's the Bahasa word for Father in the Malay language al Kitab? Would it be 'Ab or Ayah? Please let me know! Look, there are so many names for the Hebrew-Christian God, such as YVWH (Yahweh or, Jehovah), Elohim, Adonai, as well as the following (with their English meanings): Adonai-Jehovah - The Lord our Sovereign El-Elyon -- The Lord Most High El-Olam - The Everlasting God El-Shaddai - The God Who is Sufficient for the Needs of His People Jehovah-Elohim - The Eternal Creator Jehovah-Jireh - The Lord our Provider Jehovah-Nissi - The Lord our Banner Jehovah-Ropheka - The Lord our Healer Jehovah-Shalom - The Lord our Peace Jehovah-Tsidkenu - The Lord our Righteousness Jehovah-Mekaddishkem - The Lord our Sanctifier Jehovah-Sabaoth - The Lord of Hosts Jehovah-Shammah - The Lord is Present Jehovah-Rohi - The Lord our Shepherd Jehovah-Hoseenu - The Lord our Maker Jehovah-Eloheenu - The Lord our God And many many more exists. 
| God's names - Kabbala | Will this range of Godly names in Hebrew satisfy the Church's requirement that in some instances, the word Tuhan does not adequately convey the required meaning in a biblical passage? C'mon, tell me why the Church must use the Arabic word for God and not the Hebrew equivalent? [Just leave the historical angle aside for a while as I'll be coming to it soon]. Let's see what the Tanakh (Jewish bible) says in Genesis 1:1? "In the beginning Elohim created the heaven and the earth ...". Now, tell me, doesn't that indicate to us, in fact indisputably, what is God's name? So why won't the Church use Elohim? Just as a double check, let's look at the English Bible [King James Version] of the same passage, where it confirms that "In the beginning God created the Heaven and the Earth ... " Thus, on top of Tuhan for God, we have the Hebraic Elohim for God, that is, if the Church doesn't like the word Tuhan. And as I have shown above, there are many more alternatives for God or God's names. In Hebrew (not Aramaic), some have argued that the word Elohim is plural, but as per the Tanakh it is considered as a singular noun and indeed uses the verb for such. It is meant to signal the single God of Israel, but you know what, it is actually ideal for the Christian concept of God as a Trinity, Three yet One. Let us now turn our attention on the man who started it all, Father Lawrence Andrew of the Catholic Church and the editor of the Catholic Herald. Given the experts' etymological and historical clarifications on the Allah word, I am in no doubt that Father Lawrence Andrew is on strong legal grounds to use it ... and indeed we know that the court has supported his stand. But I have always believed that religion is about faith and morality and not legality or for that matter, political approval. Thus I find it unfortunate that the Father Andrew and the Catholic Herald had taken the issue to the courts. Surely on a matter of religious faith and knowledge, there are numerous other names of God it could have use beside Allah. I view its arguments for the use of Allah as seemingly based on obduracy and legality rather than any plausible unavoidable reason. READ MORE HERE |
| Siapa politician terima RM8 juta dari Deepak? Posted: 28 Dec 2012 03:34 PM PST Perkara didedahkan hari ini dalam satu kenyataan berhubung status syarikatnya itu yang dipaksa dijual kepada sebuah agensi Kementerian Pertahanan.
Hasil dari penjualan saham dalam syarikat itu beliau memperolehi RM30 juta dan wang itu diagihkan kepada Ketua Wanita Umno Selangor Raja Ropiah RM13 juta selebihnya sebagai berbagai bayaran termasuk fee guaman.
Yang menjadi pertanyaan kini siapakah yang mendapat ganjaran RM8 juta itu? Umum telah mengetahui Deepak berkawan baik dengan Rosmah Mansor. Dia menganggap isteri perdana menteri itu sebagai kakaknya sendiri?
Deepak perlu menjelaskan siapa gerangan orang politik itu. Beliau tidak boleh menyembunyikan perkara itu kerana akan timbul prejudis. Apakah Deepak baru membuat promo selepas dia akan membuat pendedahan. Apakah Deepak akan memilih waktu sesuai nanti iaitu setelah parlimen di bubarkan? READ MORE HERE |
| May 13: Official Version Vs Declassified Documents Version Posted: 27 Dec 2012 06:06 AM PST Reading the Malaysiakini report dated Oct 12, 07 entitled 'Malay capitalists' not behind May 13′ I can't help but wonder how the powers-that-be took great pains to rebut the allegations and accusations that the riots were planned by Malay capitalists as concluded by Suaram's director Dr Kua Kia Soong's in his bookMay 13 – Declassified Documents on the Malaysian Riots of 1969. In fact the Utusan Group has republished first prime minister Tunku Abdul Rahman's book, May 13: Before and After and its obvious that the publication of this book was to dispel Dr. Kua's conclusions. However this book 'Before and After' was written by Tunku shortly after the May 13 incident and what was never reveal was Tunku's statement from his residence in Penang, 1972, what Asiaweek's M.G.G Pillai had alleged in the 17 February 1978 issue of that magazine and Tunku's interview with Asiaweek, published on 10 May 1985. The writer wishes to present all three articles here, one by Malaysiakini at attempts to potray Tunku's book 'Before and After' as official facts and excerpts from an article written by Fan Yew Teng, former DAP Acting SG entitled 'Some UMNO Myths Young Malaysians Should Know About' and Tunku's statement in 1972 for readers to make an informed conclusion. _____________________________________________________________________________________ 'Malay capitalists' not behind May 13′Oct 12, 07 Utusan Group has republished first prime minister Tunku Abdul Rahman's May 13: Before and After book to rebut the allegations and accusations that the riots were planned by Malay capitalists. It is obvious that the publication of this book was to dispel conclusions found in Suaram director Dr Kua Kia Soong's May 13 – Declassified Documents on the Malaysian Riots of 1969. In his book, Kua (right) said the May 13 incident was a coup d'etat against Tunku by Malay capitalists surfacing that at time to grab power from the old aristocrats to execute a new Malay agenda. He drew his conclusions based on a three-month research into various sets of foreign dispatches and confidential reports from that time – which were declassified recently by the Public Records Office in London after 30 years. However, the official version by the government states that the riots were caused by predominantly Chinese opposition supporters who provoked the Alliance party by celebrating their election victory by parading on the streets. The reason for the republication of Tunku's book was noted clearly in the foreword written by academician Prof Dr Nik Anuar Nik Mahmud who is based in the history, politics and strategy department under Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia's social science and humanities faculty. He said the republication was timely "in light of recent attempts by parties who were trying to twist the facts and cause confusion over the bloody May 13 riots." 'Cause of the tragedy' He wrote: "In mid-May, a book about May 13 was published. However, the approach used clearly rejected the belief that the riots were caused by the socio-economic imbalances between the races in the country. "Instead, the writer presented a new thesis that the Malay capitalists let by Tun Abdul Razak tried to topple Tunku as the cause of the riots." However, Nik Anuar did not expressly acknowledge that the aforesaid book was the book written by Kua but the references were clear. The academician elaborated that despite it being difficult to discover the real motive for that book, there is a current trend to besmirch the country's past leaders including, Abdul Razak, Harun Idris, Mohamad Ghazali Shafie and security officers. He said the approach was clearly prejudiced – and if not refuted – would lend credence to the Malay capitalist takeover claim. Hence, Nik Anuar said the publication of Tunku's book would satiate all allegations against national leaders especially those directed at Abdul Razak. In the 195-page book, Tunku summarised that the racial riot was the work of extremists and communists. According to him, these two group of people have been attempting to start riots even before independence. Power struggle
Tunku said they started tensions in the economic boycott (Hartal) in 1967, the death by hanging incident (1968), elections boycott (1969), corpse parade (May 9, 1969) and the victory march by opposition parties on May 12, 1969 causing racial tensions and riots. Based on this, Nik Anuar ruled out the role of the Malay capitalists because Tunku has never viewed the incident as a move to seize power. He did note that Tunku (left) admitted that the bloody incident was due to a few Umno members who were not happy that he remained as PM.. "But their dissatisfaction did not cause the riots itself. This has been explained by Tunku in Chapters 15 and 16 of the book," Nik Anuar stated. He added that Tunku's book should be read and studied by the people especially the youths "so that they would not be caught in the accusations of parties trying to twist facts and defame leaders that have sacrificed for their race, religion and country." "Tunku's book is based on documents procured from the Royal Malaysian Police. This different from the book published before this that are based on diplomatic and foreign journalist sources that are not reliable," Nik Anuar wrote. |
| “Dragging” Its Feet? The EC Has Had to Be “Dragged” Kicking and Screaming by Bersih 2. ... Posted: 26 Dec 2012 11:19 AM PST MyOverseasVote reads with interest EC Deputy Chairman Datuk Wan Ahmad Wan Omar's denial yesterday of Bersih 2.0 Co-Chairman Datuk Ambiga Sreenevasan's allegation that the EC has been "dragging its feet" on election reform. In his rebuttal, Wan Ahmad cited, as an example of the EC's "unprecedented" reforms, the extension of postal voting to all Malaysians overseas (Malaysiakini, 20 December 2012). MyOverseasVote believes that to state that the EC has been "dragging its feet" is to endue the EC with more activity and cooperativeness than it actually deserves. It would be more apt to say that the EC has had to be dragged kicking and screaming by civil society, Bersih 2.0 and the Parliamentary Select Committee on Electoral Reform (PSC) in order to come up with any reforms at all. We believe that the EC's inaction on this issue alone speaks for itself: - On 11 February 2011, nearly two years ago, Wan Ahmad told the press that the EC "was now looking at extending the ballot to other Malaysians at large who were working in international organisations or running businesses overseas" (The Malaysian Insider).
- On 25 August 2011, shortly after the historic Bersih 2.0 rally in July 2011, EC Chairman Tan Sri Abdul Aziz Mohd Yusof announced that the EC "was in the midst of amending regulations to extend postal voting rights to Malaysians working overseas" (The Star).
- On 1 December 2011, the PSC recommended in its interim report that all Malaysians living overseas should be entitled to vote by post. This was accepted by the Dewan Rakyat, but the EC insisted on a requirement that overseas Malaysians could not vote unless they returned to Malaysia every five years.
- On 3 April 2012, the PSC confirmed its recommendation in its final report and gave the EC a three-month deadline (3 July 2012) to make the necessary arrangements with Government departments to implement its recommendation. This was also accepted by the Dewan Rakyat.
- On 11 July 2012, having missed the PSC's deadline, Abdul Aziz told Malaysians that "the system [of overseas postal voting] can be implemented by September if we have to amend the law, but it could be earlier than that (if legal amendments are not needed)" (Malaysian Insider).
- On 14 September 2012, two weeks before the start of the last Dewan Rakyat sitting before the next general election, Abdul Aziz said that the Attorney-General's Chambers was "still studying whether an amendment to the Election Act was needed" before overseas postal voting for Malaysians could be implemented" (Bernama/Malaysiakini).
- On 19 October 2012, Wan Ahmad said that: "Very soon, maybe next month[November], we will upload the form that can be accessed by Malaysians all over the world who are already registered voters, to request to receive their ballot papers by post" (The Star).
- On 3 December 2012, having missed the end of the final Dewan Rakyat of this Parliament, EC Secretary Datuk Kamaruddin Mohamed Baria said that: "The EC is finalising the policy, planning logistics, labour and financial provisions to implement this system effectively. After that, the EC will amend the Election (Postal Voting) Regulations 2003″ (The Sun).
Again, MyOverseasVote would point out that the EC, as the body entrusted by the Federal Constitution with the preparation and revision of electoral rolls and the conduct of elections, has its own legal staff and a RM700 million budget and is given wide rule-making powers both by Article 113(5) of the Federal Constitution and by the Elections Act 1958. As we come to the closing days of 2012, we have to note that unless the amendments to the 2003 Postal Voting Regulations are made soon, there is no way that 1 million overseas Malaysians will be able to register to vote by post in time for the next general election. After two years of deceit and inaction, MyOverseasVote has little confidence that the EC will deliver on overseas voting by the 13th General Election, though we would be very happy to be proven wrong. |
| Psychedelic psychic power? Posted: 25 Dec 2012 02:41 PM PST I had then commented her Pakatan shadow cabinet was a Kafkaesque joke – and if you don't know the meaning of this word, ask Mr Manmanlai, wakakaka - with the potential for Pakatan to outdo BN in the numbers department. 15 ministries including shared deputy prime minister-ships were listed, with each having at least 3 if not more names, making a total of no less than 45 and probably exceeding 60. WTF! Sweetie Selena admitted that her list has been compiled from a combination of: (a) discussions with a Pakatan MP who wished to remain anonymous ... ... but who wakakaka, I suspect, was probably from PKR. As usual, by suggesting some key nominees in the secret list, he was pre-empting PKR's supposed allies from choice ministries wakakaka, (b) observations from the performances and statements of Pakatan MPs ....., ... and undoubtedly, the most mysterious of all, wakakaka ........ (c) personal conversations with the shadow ministers, their friends or their acquaintances, where in the first place, shadow ministers, other than the PM-designate, don't exist ........ I was very cruel to her when I wrote: No, I won't hold much store by the list that Sweetie has written, perhaps more to mitigate against the BN sting that Pakatan is still incapable of coming up with a shadow cabinet than it be a genuine secret Pakatan plan. Of course I have my opinion as to why, but the far more important point was my amazement at Sweetie's claim of talking with non-existent shadow ministers ..... unless of course she had the conversation with the self-appointed wet-dreaming shadow Home Minister wakakaka. I hope she as a DAP member (so she claimed in her recent article) didn't/doesn't take my criticisms too badly as I had also excoriated another DAP sweetie, Hannah Yeoh, for being mathematically challenged in her support for Anwar Ibrahim's 916 (Hannah took law, not maths so it's okay, wakakaka), as follows: 
| I love but don't blindly idolize her, wakakaka | The saddest consequence of Anwar's 916 debacle was a DAP sweetie like Hannah Yeoh being swept into that mesmerizing manmanlai miasmatic mist of malarkey – see my February 2009 post DAP should stop defending Anwar Ibrahim where Hannah stupidly wrote (yes, I support DAP but that doesn't mean I am like some people, blind as a bat wakakaka): "Those who argue that the political crisis in Perak now is a taste of Pakatan Rakyat's own medicine – a reference to Sept 16 – fail to see the key differences between the two." "When Anwar claimed to have the numbers to form the federal government, he wrote to Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, requesting him to convene an emergency sitting of Parliament. This was rejected by the prime minister." "The next constitutional option was to press for the dissolution of Parliament to make way for fresh elections. This too was not entertained." "Anwar exhausted every constitutional means available to him. If Pakatan were to act unconstitutionally and lure defections, then we will be having a new government today. So, you can't say that Najib's coup in Perak and the Pakatan plan – Sept 16 – were one and the same." Leaving aside the different issue of Najib's coup d'état in Perak which involved someone high up who should have stayed out of direct politics, Hannah Yeoh was stupid (and I hope the sweetie isn't now) to claim that Anwar had the right to demand AAB convene an emergency sitting of Parliament or to press for the dissolution of Parliament to make way for fresh elections. WTF for, just after an election where AAB's BN trounced Pakatan by 140 seats to 82? Was she mathematically challenged? Now, would you believe it, the mystery of the phantom (wakakaka) shadow ministers has just become even more mysterious because on re-checking her shadow cabinet article I found the words 'shadow ministers' mysteriously missing like Jim Thompson, wakakaka. Oh, the mystery of it! 
| Jim Thompson disappeared in Cameron Highlands on 26 March 1967 Joining the Malaysian PFF in the biggest man hunt in Malaysian history were a Sarawak border scout, bomohs, aborigine pawang and European psychics To this day, the mystery of his disappearance remains | Surely this calls for the use of that wonderful Indonesian word anéh as in anéh bin ajaib (extremely strange, wonder of wonders) wakakaka. Hey, maybe sweetie didn't write it and I was, no not psychic, but psychedelically hallucinating, wakakaka. Hmmm, I wonder whether she read my post, wakakaka. Never mind, but incidentally, just where is Hartalmsm when you need them? Busy attacking politicians like Lim GE, I suppose? Wakakaka. Oh incidentally, on 30 June this year, sweetie wrote another article titled The doctor decides …? which states: Three days ago, a reporter friend (sweetie Selena has always been very discreet, never mentioning her sources, wakakaka) forwarded a text message to this columnist which says that the doctor has taken over Umno and right now the grassroots reports are being forwarded to him. But the big news is that the doctor is planning to have the polls held in September. This is because it seems that the doctor has got tired of Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak's feet-dragging and lack of confidence … […] Wakakkaa, I had then posted my take on her headline-grabbing coup d'état by Dr M as: We may yet again take it that Sweetie's latest article of Dr Mahathir mounting a silent coup d'état to launch a September poll was sourced from PKR, especially in the light of UMNO information that Dr Mahathir has affirmed Najib should be complimented for not calling for early election (or if you like, ordering Najib to hang on for as late/long as possible). Anyway, back to her latest article DAP leadership must share power in FMT. Just a few extracts I wish to comment on as follows: READ MORE HERE |
Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News
