No Action Against UMNO Supporters' Website?

I wrote in an earlier post with regards to the police report that I made 2 weeks ago with regards to a highly inflammatory article posted on Kelab Penyokong Maya UMNO website, which was particularly offensive to Christians. This was also reported in Malaysiakini.

I've just followed up with the investigating officer for the case, and the only response I obtained was "masih dalam siasat". It has been two weeks, much more than the time taken for the police to take Raja Petra in for questioning with regards to a police report made by UMNO which alleged that the former insulted the Agung and Islam. That's double standards for you.

Also, some additional quick words to add - there as been 2 negative comments made on other websites with regards to the action which I have been taken.

Firstly, someone suggested that the remarks was purely targeted at Raja Petra, and had nothing to do with Christianity. I beg to strongly differ. To quote Raja Petra himself, its quite one thing to insult him with all the names you can think of, but it's quite another of accusing him of being a closet Christian, and hence believing in a false God.

Secondly, someone else suggested that by lodging a police report, I'm supporting the authoritarian Sedition Act. Again, I beg to differ. I don't support the sedition act, particularly not in its current overbearing and limitless form. However, I support the principle that the law applies to everybody and selective prosecution in itself, is a crime of the Government.

It is necessary to show that the Government's action in cracking down on bloggers has nothing to do with "sedition", and everything to do with illegal crackdown on dissent, and attempts to expose the relevant scandals and misdeeds of the Government.

The fact that the article has not been taken down, and no apologies have been made to date, demonstrates the clear intent of the Government to stifle the truth. It didn't matter that the article on KPMU wasn't telling outright lies, as they were told in support of the UMNO-led Barisan Nasional Government. However, if bloggers and other writers publish articles which exposes the truth which are unfavourable to UMNO and Barisan Nasional, the might of the Government machinery will fall upon the person, just as in the case of Wee Meng Chee.

聪明反被聪明误

Given that we are not suppose to discuss our Deputy Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak's declaration that "we are an Islamic state... we were never, never a secular state", I thought that Farish Noor's flat earth analogy was an excellent way to get through the "censorship" in the mainstream media.

Hence it inspired my little fairy tale on the Land of Aisyalam (check out the brief English version here), published in my column in Oriental Daily last week.

聪明反被聪明误
潘俭伟

从前，离这儿不远有个国家名叫亚西来马。亚西来马独立初期，人民是通过民主方式来推选国王。

那时候的国王总会向民众承诺，捍卫国家宪法所阐明的科技化理念。虽然国家宪法承认这个世界是圆的，但是民众包括平地社团在内，可以自由表达他们的想法和信念。凡是平地社团的信徒都认定地球是扁的。

50年来，国王利用其手上的权力，背叛了人民对他的信任，不断修改宪法来巩固其本身的权力。有鉴于此，国王变得越来越专制。尽管如此，国王却一直担心本身的地位是否巩固。

在皇宫里，还有个野心勃勃的王储正等待机会登基成为国王。有一天，王储为了增加本身的民望，决定登高一呼感召影响力逐年增加的平地信徒。

尽管王储宣布曾经周游列国，而且不曾从地球边沿掉了下去，但是他坚持宣布：“这个世界是扁的。这个世界从来都不是圆的！”

平地社团领导人高兴到跳了起来。他们不只是认同王储的说法，还抨击所有支持圆地球说法者根本不尊重平地信徒，甚至没有考虑到他们的感受。

相信科技化的人民听了王储难以置信的说法后相当不高兴。他们坚持认为科技及历史凭据足以证明这个世界是圆的。

为了避免整个情况闹得不可开交，和平与和谐部官员命令所有关于地球是扁或圆的问题，不能在主流的平面媒体提出讨论或评论。不受此命令影响者就是万能又独裁的国王及王储。只有他们俩才能继续宣称世界是扁的。

为了捉住机会飞黄腾达，年轻有为的洗脑部长更是要尽显个人威风。他警告皇宫的所有太监，如果要平安无事、保住个人地位，那么就不要插手这件事。虽然太监都相信世界不是扁的，但他们都只好当着没有那么一回事。

尽管政令发了下去，但官员还是担心民众会酝酿不满甚至引发骚动。为了防止国家动荡不安，亚西来马万能又仁慈的独裁者又发出了另一个政令。于是，国王把双方的意见结合起来，并统一命名为“这个世界不是圆的，也不是扁的”。

这道政令又再一次让亚西来马的国民高兴极了。他们对国王的睿智赞赏不已。从此，聪明的国王和人民过着幸福快乐的日子，并坚信这个世界不圆，也不扁。

Avril Lavigne Too Sexy

You must be kidding me. Avril Lavigne has attitude. She wears the grunge look with dark eye-shadows. Yes, I'm a fan. But Avril Lavigne "too sexy"? Unbelievable.

Unfortunately, our very own Minister of Culture and Heritage agrees with the PAS Youth leadership that Avril is inappropriate for Malaysian youth. So permit has been denied for the concert, and I should think, unless you are Tom Jones or Cliff Richard, one should just forget about visiting Malaysia.

In fact, I think sooner or later, the famous Hong Kong and Taiwan artistes will be banned as well, for as far as I can tell, singers like Jolin Tsai or Karen Mok and many others dresses much more sexily than Avril Lavigne (without in my opinion being inappropriate).

Malaysian Artistes’ Association (Karyawan) describing the move as “ridiculous”.

“Their narrow-mindedness will definitely not get the support of the rakyat. They are always looking at the world through blinkers. They cannot see any other point of view except theirs.”

We can forget about Malaysia becoming a "cultural and entertainment" centre in the region, and one of the biggest victims will be our tourism industry in itself. Of course, that obviously isn't the concern of PAS Youth. Inul was asked to be banned. Same for Gwen Stefani. They even our very own Malaysian Ella and Mas Idayu's concert, much to the consternation of Selangor's Sultan Sharafuddin Idris Shah.

As far as I'm concerned, I'm quite certain that after watching these concerts I won't suddenly get the urge to consume drugs, rob banks, go on a murder rampage or even cheat on my wife. And I don't even drink! So what's the problem?

I wonder if these PAS Youth members even looked out of the windows in their house? Or more pertinently, do they have windows?

MCA Supports Bar Council Forum?

For once, that's very good to hear. But please tell that to your Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister and best friend, UMNO!

We have read with interest that the MCA leadership has come out strongly via statements to the media the party was “extremely upset at the protesters' actions” which resulted in the event having to be wrapped up early. They said the forum should be respected by everyone as the council had conducted it in a rational and peaceful manner.

Datuk Seri Ong Ka Ting was quoted to say that the “forum never intended to question the special position of the Malays or Islam as the religion of the federation as enshrined in the Federal Constitution. Never once were the organisers, speakers or registered guests critical of Islam”.

However, at the very same time, both the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and other top leaders from UMNO has been unapologetic and even threatening in their condemnation of the forum conducted by the Bar Council.

The Prime Minister said the Bar Council had been advised against holding the forum that touched on sensitive matters like religion and race. He has state that he“hope[s] such an incident won’t repeat itself. Last Saturday’s forum is proof that issues relating to religion and race are sensitive in the country.

The Deputy Minister went further to say that the Bar Council’s persistence in going ahead with a forum on conversion to Islam has triggered extreme reaction from certain quarters, which in turn would threaten the country’s harmony.

The country's top leadership has even not discounted the possibility of utilising the Internal Security Act against the forum organisers, clearly a threat which is no less “extreme” compared to the actions of the demonstrators!

Therefore, while we welcome MCA's views on the controversy, they must face up to their responsibility to challenge the views of the Prime Minister and UMNO, who are clearly abusing the race and religious card recklessly to create an atmosphere of fear. It is noteworthy that while the protesters were condemned, no comments were forthcoming on the opposing views espoused by the UMNO leaders.

Without doing so, it would appear that Barisan Nasional is perpetuating its system of divide and rule, where UMNO stokes the racial and religious sentiments of Malays while MCA plays its subservient role to placate the minority communities. That, will only strengthen the case that MCA has lost it total relevance in Barisan Nasional.

The DAP stands firm that there are probably no better party to organise and lead discussions on the Constitution and the laws of Malaysia than the Bar Council. It was also a constructive forum to ensure that unintended victms as a result our laws will be given humane and justifiable treatment. It will make a complete mockery of our legal and judicial system if its very practitioners are denied opportunities to discuss or explain our laws.

In the Land of Aisyalam

I have a short fairy-tale to tell this morning for us to tell all our children.

Once upon a time, there was a country Aisyalam not too far away was ruled by a Government voted by the majority and for the majority. Over time, the ruling party of the land got increasing autocratic, and in that process ironically, became increasingly nervous about losing that autocracy.

The deputy dictator of the land, decided one day to shore up his popularity by appealing to the influential flat earth society. He decided to declare "the world is flat, and that it was never, never round" despite the fact that he has personally travelled around the world and never fallen off the edge of the earth.

In the face of mounting unhappiness amongs the oppressed minorities who raised their arms in incredulity for they believed that the world, was incontrovertibly round! To prevent further embarrassment to the autocracy, for the outcry by minorities was backed by indisputable scientific and documentary evidence, another decree was issued.

This time round, the Ministry of Unfree Expression declared that there can be no further discussion on the issue of whether the earth was flat or round, with the exception of the almighty dictator and his deputy, who can continue to proclaim that the earth is flat.

Despite the decree, and sensing persistent simmering discontent and restlessness amongst the commoners, the almighty and all-benevolent dictator decided to accomodate the interest of all by decreeing that "the world is neither round or flat".

The populace of the land of Aisyalam rejoiced at the wisdom of the almighty dictator, and everyone lived happily ever after in the comfort that a world they live in is neither round or flat.

The above story was inspired by renown scholar, Farish A. Noor, who spoke this morning at the Parliamentary Roundtable hosted by the Parliament Opposition leader, Sdr Lim Kit Siang.

The Roundtable was to reaffirm Merdeka social contract and Malaysia Agreement on the occasion of 50th Merdeka anniversary that Malaysia is a secular state with Islam as official religion and not an Islamic state.

The speakers at the Roundtable, includes Honey Tan from AWAM, Malik Imtiaz of HAKAM, Dr Hacharan Singh of MCCBHCST, Dr Nasir of Parti Socialis Malaysia and Andrew Khoo of the Human Rights Committee of the Malaysian Bar Council.

What was disappointing was the fact that despite it being a parliamentary roundtable open to all Members of Parliament, none from Barisan Nasional, particularly, none from MCA, Gerakan, MIC and other parties turned up to defend the principle of a secular state irrespective of political affiliations.

Just as the MPs from MCA, Gerakan and MIC failed to defend the rights and dignity of women when UMNO MPs insulted Malaysian women, similarly, they are now failing to defend the rights of minority and the secular state.

Disappointing Protest Against Bar Council

I must express my deepest disappointment at the protest led by Kulim-Bandar Baharu Member of Parliament, Zulkifli Noordin on the forum held by the Bar Council to discuss the issue of Article 121 (1A) of the Federal Constitution.

It has been reported that the "protesters, many of whom are from Muslim welfare organsation Perkida and Islamic party PAS, shouted, “Hancur Bar Council” (Crush Bar Council), “Hidup Islam” (Long Live Islam) and “Batal forum” (Cancel the forum). They are carrying placards saying “Jangan cabar Islam” (Don’t challenge Islam) and “Bar Council, Don’t play with fire”.

I am deeply disappointed because the protest is not only misguided, it was also immature and unconstructive. I had issued the following press statement yesterday to emphasize the fact that if even the Bar Council, comprising of members of the legal fraternity, is not allowed to hold open discussions in relation to our constitution and its laws, then it makes a complete mockery of our legal system.

What what probably most ironic was that when the organisers agreed to end the forum early and "when those who attended the forum made their way out of the building, they were greeted with loud boos, obscenities and vulgar words". This type of behaviour certainly makes a mockery of the very religious principles which they claim to want to uphold.

And when asked by Malaysiakini why should the protesters not participate via dialogue and engagement in the forum instead, Zulkifli said that he was open to dialogues but the Bar Council’s intention was to provoke Muslims. “For us, this forum is merely (for) Islam-bashing.”

Well, for me, the statement is absolutely uncalled for, totally unjustified and provocative and completely brainless. If discussing our constitution and our laws is equivalent to "Islam-bashing", then he needs to have his head inspected. The forum did not create the "hoo-haa". It is "leaders" like him who fail to understand simple principles who misleads others into thinking that the whole world is against them.

The group had earlier threatened "many times to storm into the building if the forum was not stopped." In addition, the police had allegedly "found two bottles of alcohol by the building that were believed to be unlit Molotov cocktails."

Well, it appears that this type of thuggish and loutish behaviour is unfortunately not only limited to UMNO Youth.

Bar Council Forum on Article 121 (1A)

In the light of protests made over the forum which was scheduled to be held today, I had issued a press statement defending the forum and the Bar Council yesterday. My comments on what happened at the forum today with protests led by the Member of Parliament from Kulim-Bandar Baharu is blogged here separately.

The Bar Council intends to hold the forum entitled “Conversion to Islam: Article 121 (1A) of the Federal Constitution, Subashini and Shamala Revisited” within its premises on Aug 9.

However, its plans has been met with immediate protests from UMNO Youth, PAS and even the Deputy Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Abdul Razak himself.

Executive Council member of UMNO Youth, Datuk Pirdaus Ismail was reported to have issued the warning “Don’t play with fire! Don’t ever touch religious and racial (matters)!" He even asserted that “It is pointless to organise forums based on intellectualism, professionalism or controversial issues when the safety, peace, harmony and stability of the country were being compromised.”

PAS party president, Abdul Hadi Awang argued that “although, PAS accepts the freedom of expression of various parties to dialogue and discuss issues of public interest, nevertheless, issues concerning Islam is something already guaranteed in the Federal Constitution.” According to Hadi, any discussion pertaining Islam, said Hadi, should involve those who had sufficient knowledge and are authorities in the subject as it will otherwise “only confuse the real understanding of Islam and cause undue tension.”

At the same time, Datuk Seri Najib Abdul Razak chipped in that the Bar Council Malaysia's proposed forum entitled Conversion to Islam is unsuitable to held in an open manner.

1. Firstly, the entire basis of such a forum being held is due to the controversies and parties victimised as a result of difference in interpretations of Article 121 (1A). Hence a forum held to discuss these differences is certainly constructive towards setting a foundation for “safety, peace, harmony and stability of the country”, as opposed to the threats issued by UMNO Youth.
   
   
2. Secondly, the question that is discussed is a question of law and not a question of religion. This means that the status of Islam as the official religion of the Federation is unquestioned. The forum does not seek to interpret Islam which is the role of the theologians, but to understand, interpret and make constructive suggestions on the law in the interest of all Malaysians.
   
   
3. Thirdly, by demanding that the forum be “closed” in nature, the Deputy Prime Minister is in fact denying the rights of Malaysians to better understand the laws of the land. If ignorance of the law is not a justifiable excuse in the courts of law, then surely, law-abiding citizens must not be denied opportunities seek a better understanding of the law and its implications.

The DAP stands firm that there are probably no better party to organise and lead discussions on the Constitution and the laws of Malaysia than the Bar Council. It will make a complete mockery of our legal and judicial system if its very practitioners are denied opportunities to discuss or explain our laws.

Moral Courage

It is of great relief that there are at least ministers with moral courage left in the Barisan Nasional (BN) administration. As reported by Malaysiakini, Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Bernard Dompok has received rare support from the opposition for breaking ranks on the Islamic state issue.

He argued that the nation’s founders did not have in mind an Islamic state when the Federation of Malaysia was formed in 1963.

“I think my colleagues in the government will forgive me for saying that I will not agree that we are an Islamic state,” added Dompok, who is leader of Sabah’s United Pasokmomogun Kadazandusun Murut Organisation.

Dompok is the first minister to speak out on the controversial issue after a gag order was issued in wake of Deputy Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak’s ‘Malaysia is an Islamic state’ remark two weeks ago.

I must certainly voice my support to Bernard whose demonstration of tremendous moral courage suffered the ignominy of being unreported in any of the muzzled mainstream newspapers.

Malaysia is a "secular state with Islam, the official religion of the country" and not, as otherwise proclaimed as an "Islamic State". And it must remain so until the day our Federal Constitution is amended, if at all.

It is of great regret that the leaders of other major component parties of Barisan Nasional, in particular Datuk Seri Ong Ka Ting and Tan Sri Koh Tsu Koon have had absolutely nothing to say against Datuk Seri Najib's declaration.

It is clear to me that despite the oft-repeated rhetoric that MCA and Gerakan are parties who will present the conscious of the people to their UMNO counterparts from within BN, they have failed to do so. And if they did indeed make "whispers" to the UMNO leaders, they had shown no moral courage to stand up for the rakyat when their "whispers" are brushed aside with absolute ease. In fact, for even attempting to make "whispers", the 2nd tier leaders in UMNO will reward MCA and Gerakan's effort (if any at all) with stern threats and warnings.

The lack of response to the issue of such importance from Datuk Seri Ong Ka Ting, Tan Sri Koh Tsu Koon and Datuk Seri Samy Vellu, reflects either their agreement with UMNO, or a total lack of moral courage and conviction to stand up for the very rakyat they claim to represent. They are a disgrace to their party, and definitely a disgrace to the people.

It is hence no wonder the anybody, particularly the younger generation, with an independent and critical mind, barring those seeking connections to wealth and power, will steer well clear of these parties. It will also explain with little surprise, Jeff Ooi's decision to dump Gerakan for DAP.

I'd strongly recommend that the leaders of the BN component parties, or any of the country's youth leaders contemplating a political party, to read the above book on "Moral Courage: Taking Action When Your Values Are Put to the Test". Or you can buy it cheaper here @ Amazon.com.

No Debate on Islamic State?

As reported by Bernama, the Deputy Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak proclaimed on 16th July that “We have never, never been secular... we are an Islamic state.”

Subsequently, as reported in Malaysiakini, the Internal Security Ministry has confirmed that they have given a directive to all mainstream media not to publish any news on the issue of Malaysia being an Islamic state.

Publications Control & Al-Quran Texts Unit senior officer Che Din Yusof said, “Yes, we have given the directive to all mainstream newspapers. Islam is a sensitive issue. They cannot publish any news on whether the country is secular or Islam.”

However, he said newpapers can still publish statements from Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi and his deputy Najib Abdul Razak on the country being an Islamic state.

“Reaction from political parties and the public cannot be published especially the negative reactions,” he said.

In light of the seriousness of the above two major development on a 'democratic', multi-racial and multi-cultural Malaysia, and the reluctance of other BN component parties to pick up the gauntlet, the DAP is organising a public forum to discuss the above issues:

Panel of Distinguished Speakers

• Lim Kit Siang, Parliamentary Opposition Leader
• Ambiga Sreenevasan, Malaysia Bar Council President
• Malik Imtiaz, Human Rights Lawyer
• Tan Sri Khalid Ibrahim, PKR Treasurer
• Rev Dr Hermen Shastri, General Secretary, Council of Churches*
• Lim Guan Eng, Secretary-General to DAP

* To be confirmed

Venue: KL & Selangor Chinese Assembly Hall
Date: 25th July 2007 (Wednesday)
Time: 7.30 pm

If you feel strongly about the above issues, please bring friends and turn up in full force! Please forward this post to all concerned parties.

Liow Tiong Lai Defends Najib?

OK, I completely missed this earlier. On 17th July 2007, after our Deputy Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak unilaterally declared that "we are an Islamic state... we have never, never been secular", the Sun took a comment from the MCA Youth Chief, Datuk Liow Tiong Lai:

Najib's statement that Malaysia is an Islamic should not be taken literally but in a general sense that it is an Islamic country, where the majority of the population is Muslim.

Umm... so are we, or are not a secular country? And if we are indeed a secular country as defined in our Federal Constitution, what are you going to do about it? Will you heed the warning by your counterpart, UMNO Youth Chief Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Hussein? Or will you continue to "fudge" the issue as per the above?

At least the MCA secretary-general, Datuk Ong Ka Chuan attempted to defend the secular nature of our Federal Consitution before the ban was imposed on the media by the Internal Security Ministry, and by UMNO Youth on MCA leaders.

MCA Youth has also just released a statement on their website that they are "disturbed with the outburst" by UMNO Youth Chief Dato’ Hishammuddin Tun Hussein. (So, what are you going to do about it?)

It also states that:

MP for Kota Melaka and MCA Central Committee member, YB Wong Nai Chee reiterated that MCA has made our stand abundantly clear and we have nothing more to add. Wong added that we don’t intend to engage in public outcry.

I have 2 problems with the statement:

1. No where in the statement by MCA Youth was it stated in absolute clarity that Malaysia is a secular state. If such a position is so "abundantly clear", then it must be reiterated. Otherwise there is an obvious lack of sincerity.
   
   
2. Since Mahathir pronounced Malaysia as a "Islamic country" in the 929 incident, the secular nature of the country has come under increasing threat. Wong's (and MCA's) policy of not engaging "in public outcry", as they have done since 929, has clearly failed. UMNO hegemony is now absolute.
   

I can only conclude that MCA is clearly losing its legitimacy firstly, as a governing party, and secondly, as a integral component party within Barisan Nasional.

For goodness sake, you will note that all official statements from MCA is only made by junior backbenchers and unelected representatives. What is the position of the MCA President, the Cabinet Ministers and Deputy Ministers, as well as the Parliamentary Secretaries? Are they all dumb? (yes, pun absolutely intended). Do they serve the rakyat or do they serve their UMNO masters?

And the President of MCA has the cheek to proclaim in the Star today for the rakyat to "Count on MCA". What an absolute disgrace.

Of Faith and Dialogues

Generally, I try to steer clear of blogging religious issues due to its obvious sensitivity, unless the relevant issue is clear cut or outrageous. But I've read several articles published by The Star, based on opinions of a muslim sociologist, Dr Syed Farid Alatas, which I found plenty interesting, and is certainly fresh knowledge for myself.

So I thought to share some of the points made here. The first, published about 2 weeks ago, was with regards to an "Education System Polarising Us", while the latest one on "Taking it Over is good for all", published yesterday, were all relating to the benefits of dialogues between civilisations. These comments were given at a lecture entitled "An Islamic Perspective on the Commitment to Inter-Religious Dialogue"

On inter-faith dialogues

Dr Syed Farid said although the general impression here was that Islam/Muslims were indifferent to dialogue, he said the Quran and the life of Prophet Muhammad showed otherwise.

Citing verse 64 of Surah Al-Imran and verse 125 of Surah An-Nahl, he said the Quran asked Muslims to engage in interfaith dialogue and in inter-civilisational dialogue with reason and evidence.

He added the prophet entered into agreements with Jews and Christians in Medina and they were referred to as ummah.“The term ummah in Malaysia today, however, is exclusive to Muslims. Imagine if we used it as in the prophet’s time to include all Malaysians and not just a part of.”

On objections to dialogues:

“As for ulamas who are against dialogue, that comes from a misplaced feeling of superiority because they are the majority and Islam is the religion of the state.” He said it should be a requirement for dialogue that one does not have to dilute one’s belief in one’s religion.

“One should be able to hold on to one’s belief while establishing common ground and recognising the differences and even fault lines. Muslims with a deep sense of tradition are always for dialogue. The sufis are more open and have a harmonious view of society. The ulamas against dialogue are usually those who are legalistic in thinking and narrow-minded in their views.”

On helping other religions:

Muslims should help Christians solve their problems, for example, if they want to display a cross on their buildings and it is not allowed.

Asked on what basis a Muslim should do that, he said that being the majority group, Muslims should be committed to help people of all faiths with their problems as Islam provides for the protection of the rights of others.

“It is not just a concession granted to minority groups. Rather, there is a Quranic basis, prophetic tradition and centuries of Islamic practice to support this.

On culture vs religion:

At a public forum on freedom of thought, conscience and religion in June 2004, Harcharan Singh, then president of the Malaysian Consultative Council of Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism and Sikhism, had disclosed that although many Sikh gurdwaras, including a 100-year-old one in Kuantan, had dome-shaped roofs, they were told new temples could not have one because Muslims might mistake them for a mosque.

Why take this stand when the Hagia Sophia with its dome-shaped roof - which became the inspiration for other mosques after the Ottomans invaded Constantinople - was originally a church during the Byzantine Empire?

“In that case, there should be a campaign to remove domes from mosques because they come from outside Islam,” he said in a rare chuckle.

Such decisions reflected insecurity or a misplaced feeling of superiority and a lack of historical knowledge, he added. “In China, the mosques look like Buddhist temples from the outside. Architecture should not be the central factor. All religions indigenise themselves to culture and climate.

“We should celebrate that diversity. If Muslims want to claim the dome for themselves, then they should stop cultivating logic, refrain from drinking tea, and give up Kentucky Fried Chicken because these are all alien practices!”

Now, that's certainly an enlightening view, and provides plenty of food for thought.

Dress Code Again?

There's a serial love affair between PAS and dress codes, particularly those of the fairer sex.

We have heard the Kelantan Menteri Besar raised the issue many a times in the past, and now, the PAS Youth Movement wants the same thing implemented in the Pakatan Rakyat state governments.

Malaysiakini reported that "PAS Youth moots Islamic law in Pakatan states".

PAS Youth is keen on implementing hardline Islamic laws that ban gambling, limiting sale of liquor and introducing dress code for office workers in all Pakatan-ruled states.

In taking the first step towards introducing such laws, PAS Youth will organise a seminar in August to discuss the possibility of doing so.

And the Deputy Youth Chief, Azman Shapawi Abdul Rani went to the extent of saying that DAP will be willing to consider such laws since "not all leaders in DAP have the same position (against such laws)". He quoted the example that:

“If we look at the DAP leadership in Penang, they are very open and tolerant. They also raise the allowances of religious teachers,” he said.

Ummm... sir, the DAP leadership in Penang is indeed "very open and tolerant". We have raised the allowances of religious teachers because we believe in religious freedom, we recognise that Islam is the official religion in this country, and religious teachers have their place in society.

Hence by the very very same reason that we are "very open and tolerant", it'll necessarily mean that we cannot implement laws which are clearly "closed and intolerant", e.g., Malaysians fined up to RM500 for wearing "offending clothes" such as tight fitting blouses, jeans, shorts and mini-skirts as per Kota Bahru.

There are a lot of common issues which Pakatan Rakyat component parties can focus their energies on, including ethical and moral issues such as fighting drug abuse, crime and Mat Rempit menace, as well as building a kind and compassionate society which are clearly more important than issues such as "how tight is your blouse".

If there is continued and increased lobbying by PAS leaders for implementation of laws such as the above, it will at some point make Pakatan Rakyat coalition untenable. I for one, dare say that despite having won Petaling Jaya Utara parliamentary seat with nearly 20,000 majority, it will be among the first to fall in the next elections, should an "open and tolerant" society which we strongly believe in is threatened.

Malaysia, After Lina Joy: More Pics

The Panelist for the Forum (left to right):
Leonard Teoh, Ambiga Sreenevasan, Tan Sri Khalid Ibrahim, Lim Guan Eng,
Azmi Sharom, Yusri Mohamad, Tony Pua (Chair), YB Lim Kit Siang

Full House: Standing room only at the back, after the
hotel staff squeezed in additional chairs

The audience lined up eagerly in 2 rows behind the 2 available microphones to voice their views. This certainly provided a level of interaction between parties on both sides of the fence, meeting the humble objectives of the forum.

More reports in my earlier post here.

Malaysia, After Lina Joy: Epilogue

For the forum "Malaysia, After Lina Joy: A Dialogue", when we booked the hall at Armada Hotel which catered to some 400 persons, we were more than a little concerned that the hall would not be fully occupied. Normally, our forums are considered very well attended with a crowd of 150 persons. In fact, we attempted to procure another hall at another hotel nearby which would have been smaller, and cost much less. ;)

However, as it turns out, the worry was needless, as the DAP Petaling Jaya volunteers worked relentlessly over the week to publicise the event. An estimated more than 600 persons turned up for the event making the hall standing room only, plus another sizeable crowd, listening via the hotel speakers outside the hall. Towards the end of the forum, one of the audience even told us, the organisers, to secure a bigger hall the next time round. ;)

I thought the forum was a success, not from the perspective that we "found" a solution to all our problems relating to Lina Joy, but that it was a historic meeting of members from both sides of the divide to come together to hear each other out. For that I'm specifically grateful to the President of Angkatan Belia Islam Malaysia, Yusri Mohamad, who was gracious enough to participate as a panelist.

When many of us, of both views, often do not even understand or emphathize with the views of the other, as they have never been properly explained, then you can never have meaningful dialogue. Unlike the often interrupted Article 11 forums, we are thankful to the police for granting us the permit to hold the dialogue, for one of the very first time, we were able to hear first hand, the other side of the story. It served as a 'starter', and we hope there'll be more dialogues and discussions in time to come.

The dialogue is well reported in Malaysiakini, with Yusri's views, entitled "Respect Islam First, Then Dialogue":

Speaking at a dialogue regarding apostasy, he told some 600 people who packed a hotel in Petaling Jaya last night that there must be respect for the religion, its specialists and authorities.

“It’s a danger if we try to build circumstances around something very fluid and subject to debate. Islam is not all-consensus,” said Yusri.

“Who gets to determine which part of Islam is already settled and definite and which part is still open to debate? There must be a respect for authority, specialisation and expertise in Islam.

“Of course you can advise on Islam but please respect the sensitivities,” he stressed.

And that of the others here, "A Secular Constitution Protects All Religions":

Dr Azmi Sharom:

Another issue as to jurisdiction in the Syariah Court of the civil courts is clearly listed in Schedule 9. What is not in the list are constitutional freedoms. Constitutional freedom is clearly in the hands of civil courts. And for civil courts to say no, this is a syariah matter it is in effect saying that ‘we’re not going to live up to our responsibility to deal with this matter’.

Ambiga Sreenevasan:

The constitution is the supreme law of the federation. It doesn’t undermine any religion. The Bar Council sees this from a very legalistic point of view. It’s not to say we’re pro-this or anti-that, we’re looking at the constitutional approach taken by the courts all these years.

The Bar Council president has also let it be known that she is happy to participate in forums or dialogues organised by ABIM or other Muslim organisations, both to listen to other views, as well as to present hers. It's a good start, and I certainly hope that it can continue. And certainly, where we disagree, we can at least agree to disagree amicably.

Finally, we are grateful that the audience who came were generous with their donations, who help the Party cover the cost and expenses for the evening. And for those who attended, I hope you went back with a better understanding of the issues at hand.

Mothers' Day Event

Mothers' Day falls on this coming Sunday. For DAP in Petaling Jaya, to celebrate the occasion, we will be giving out carnations to all mothers at the Sea Park market on Sunday morning from 8.30am. At the same time, we will also be addressing the press at 9.30am, in part to register our with disgust with Barisan Nasional MPs, in particular, Mohd Said "Close-One-Eye" Yusof and Bung Mokhtar Radin who insulted all mothers and women in Parliament with their vulgar remarks.

For those who are free, who shares our disappointment with BN MPs who thumped their tables with joy when our MP for Batu Gajah, Fong Po Kuan failed in her bid to refer the duo to the House Committee of Privileges, please feel free to join us, either at 8.30 or at 9.30. For details, please email me at tonypua(at)yahoo.com. Your support will be greatly appreciated. ;)

Below is our 3 Wishes for this Mothers' Day:

1. That Our Mothers' Dreams Will Come True

Mothers all over Malaysia have sacrificed immensely so we can be successful in our lives. Hence today, May 13 is a day dedicated to mothers across the country for their unconditional love and dedication in raising us. We should therefore be reminded to pause from our busy daily schedule to spend time with her and tell her how much we love her, hoping the our Mothers' dreams will all come true.

In honour of all mothers around the country and as a token of our appreciation, DAP PJ will be distributing carnations to all mothers in Sea Park, Petaling Jaya.

2. That Our Government Will Stop Breaking Up Happy Families

Rubber-tapper Marimuthu was happily married to Raimah Bibi a/p Noordin for 21 years with 7 children but was suddenly and forcibly separated from them because his wife was born a Muslim.

Although Marimuthu has gotten back all his children, the family is now broken up. Raimah Bibi is now separated from her husband and children – although there can be no doubt that they would want to be reunited as one family again.

All religions inculcate good values of family love, compassion and unity and no religion would work to disrupt happy families. Where is the justice in Malaysia if families who have been living happily together for decades are forcibly separated by the Government, leaving the children without the care and love of their mother?

The DAP wishes on this auspicious day, that Raimah, a dedicated wife and mother for the past 21 years, can be reunited her pride and joy.

3. That Our Government Respects Mothers & Women

It was a disgraceful act by BN MPs who insulted women all over Malaysia in Parliament. When our MP for Batu Gajah, Fong Po Kuan was debating the issue of leaks in the Parliament, the Bung Mokhtar Radin had retorted “Mana ada bocor, Batu Gajah pun tiap-tiap bulan pun bocor juga,” while Mohd Said Yusof added ““MP for Batu Gajah tiap-tiap bulan pun bocor juga.”

They abused of their parliamentary privileges to besmirch and dishonour the Parliament by making crude, vulgar, sexist and offensive remarks. They insulted not only Po Kuan but all Malaysian mothers and women.

DAP PJ will show our solidarity with Po Kuan this Mother's Day by asking why no woman BN MP was will stand up to speak up for women dignity and condemn the two sexist BN MPs? Why is our MP in Petaling Jaya Utara who is also the Parliamentary Secretary for Ministry of Women, Family & Community Development staying elegantly silent on the issue?

Happy Mothers' Day!

Christmas Heartbreak

We sought for a Christmas gift from Pak Lah, that the printing and publications permit for the Catholic Church's internal newsletter, The Herald be renewed without conditions.

Well, Pak Lah is certainly no Father Christmas, for clearly, there will be no joy delivered. Malaysiakini has reported today that the Internal Security Ministry, despite the furore over the past week or so, has "sent a directive to the Herald to remove its Bahasa Malaysia section and this will be effective when the new permit is issued."

While earlier, some may blame the Deputy Internal Security Minister for being a mini-warlord in putting forth unreasonable conditions for the renewal of the permit, it is crystal clear now that the real man behind it is none other that the Minister himself, Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi. The deputy minister was only his spokesperson:

“Only Muslims can use ‘Allah’. It’s a Muslim word. It’s from (the Arabic language). We cannot let other religions use it because it will confuse people,” he said when contacted.

“We cannot allow this use of ‘Allah’ in non-Muslim publications, nobody except Muslims. The word ‘Allah’ is published by the Catholics. It’s not right,” he told Malaysiakini.

Of course, in front of others, the Prime Minister will preach the "spirit of tolerance". I've already written about tolerating Pak Lah, so I won't go on another bout of rant here. But I'm certain readers will be able to make their own judgements.

The Herald aren't the only victims of abuse of the country's laws by the Prime Minister. The Evangelical Church of Borneo in Sabah has also sued the Government for a similar issue on the 10th December. The Herald has now done the same.

I am certain that the Government's actions will not stop here. After all, the Deputy Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Abdul Razak has already stated Malaysia is an Islamic State, and was "never, never a secular state" and Pak Lah defended it.

Check out Jeff Ooi's story on how MCA leaders, who couldn't even stand up to the UMNO Youth Chief, have been tasked to ask the Churches to withdraw their suit. Do you want to vote for a party that does UMNO's bidding and not fight for your rights as defined under the law?

Christmas Present

It's Christmas tomorrow. Unfortunately, I don't feel very “Christmasy”.

Malaysia used to celebrate all religious festivals with zest. We were proud of the fact that we are indeed a multi-racial and multi-religious society both tolerant and respectful of each other.

Of late, you'll only hear such rhetoric in mainstream newspaper headlines as well as tourism promotion advertisements, which now not only rings hollow, it is hypocrisy at its worst.

You may have read the news in Malaysiakini a few days ago, as well as in The Sun today, “The Herald” which is an in-house Catholic newsletter application for the annual renewal of its printing and publications license has been unreasonably witheld.

And the basis provided by the Ministry of Internal Security for witholding its permit? Simply that the newsletter must stop publishing the The Herald in the national language. For those who are unaware, The Herald has 4 language sections within its paper, English, Chinese, Tamil and Bahasa Malaysia.

The pretext provided by the Deputy Internal Security Minister, Johari Baharom was that the word “Allah” can only be used by Muslims! How absolutely arrogant and preposterous!

For those who are not familiar, the word “Allah” originates from the Arabic word “al-Lah” and it was used even in pre-Islamic times in the Middle East. Even Arab Christians today (yes, they do exist) use the term “Allah” om their Arabic bible (and yes, unlike the Bahasa Malaysia bible which has been banned, there is no ban in the Middle East on bibles in Arabic language).

Even the Sikhs use the term “Allah” since the founding of their faith and the world is repeatedly used in their Holy Book. So will the Government ban the Sikh holy book next?

Of course, the fact that many Christian bumiputeras (Ibans, Kadazans etc.) in East Malaysia is educated only in Bahasa Malaysia due to the national language policy is irrelevant to the Government.

By taking the Ministry's logic in its argument further, soon other religions will not be able to make reference to the Supreme being or an omnipotent God because, the only one which exists is expounded in the Quran. Hence any reference elsewhere will not be respectful of the faith of the Muslim majority in this country.

Who, may I ask, is the Minister for this preposterous Ministry? Oh, it can't be! It is the wise and genial Prime Minister himself, Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi who preaches the virtues of a multi-racial, muti-cultural and multi-religious society – which I'm certain will be the headlines of all mainstream newspapers tomorrow.

We'd like to call upon the Prime Minister, who is also the Internal Security Minister to practise what he preaches and grant the Christian community a simple Christmas present, that is to approve immediately the renewal of the printing and publication license for “The Herald”.

A Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to all!

Interfaith Dialogue on Poverty

Pleased to inform that Klang MP Charles Santiago will hold an 'Interfaith Dialogue on Poverty' to highlight the issue of poverty and civil society's effort to deal with it and to encourage inter-religious interaction.

The keynote speech will be delivered by Dr. Hermen Shastri.  The other participating speakers are:

• Islam : YB Khalid Samad (MP Shah Alam), Mr. Ismail Arsat (YDP PAS Klang)
  
• Christian : Father Lawrence
  
• Hindu : Mr. Kanapathy
  
• Taoism : Mr. Wong Boon Chuan
  
• Sikh : Hargopal Singh
  
• Buddhism : To be confirmed
  
• Bahai : To be confirmed
  

The details of the event are as follows:

Date : 20th Dec 2008 (Sat)
Time : 3:00pm – 6:00pm
Venue : MP Klang Community Centre, 2A, Jalan Bayu Tinggi 8/KS6, Batu Unjur, 41200 Klang

 This is an open event, anyone can join and invite others to join.. please call Yap (016-2026300) or Sarah (016-6267797) to confirm your attendance or if you have any queries.

The Malaysian Apartheid

Datuk Seri Rafidah Aziz was a furious lady in India, especially when she had to defend herself from accusations of apartheid practices in Malaysia.

Holding up the DNA newspaper of Nov 28, the International Trade and Industry Minister said that the article quoted a 22-year-old Sri Lankan-born poet who had spent 17 years in Malaysia, as saying that she fled Malaysia last month to escape “systematic racial harassment.”

“Fleeing Malaysia? Oh my goodness gracious. Can you imagine? This is really telling lies,” Rafidah told reporters yesterday after chairing a Wanita Umno meeting.

[...]

Rafidah added that Sharanya had said in the article that “countless (Hindu) temples have been demolished and idols smashed – oftentimes in the middle of prayer sessions and devotees attacked”.

“What a lie. Words like this are terrible. The article really hurts,” she said.

Now, what did the poet write that made the Iron Lady so worked up?

In the article, “The Malaysian Apartheid” which appeared in the 4 December 2007 edition of ‘The New Indian Express’, Sharanya was eloquently wrote that:

…The entire bureaucratic system of Malaysia privileges the Malay above all of these groups.

Historically, Indians of Malaysian origin have been at the lowest rungs of the race/class ladder because of how they migrated there in the first place, usually in the servitude of the British empire. Post-colonial Malaysia did not only keep the divide-and-conquer system intact, it augmented it, making race essentially the be-all and end-all of everything.

And yes, the Indian minority does have it worst — socially, economically and politically. But under a political system that thrives on division and uses the threat of discord as a means of ensuring silent acquiescence, everybody suffers. To different degrees, admittedly, and a few, maybe not at all.

But by and large, living in a society that judges, rewards and punishes on purely race-based motives takes its toll. To live conscious of inequality makes one a participant, willing or not, victim or not.

Readers can make their own judgement as to who is closer to telling the truth, and who, on the other hand is covering it up.

Hitting Women

The Menteri Besar of Kelantan, and PAS spiritual leader, Nik Abdul Aziz Nik Mat made an off the cuff comment with regards to the use of force by the Police yesterday. Essentially he said that the public cannot blame the police if they are forced to resort to such measures. While his comment leaves room for ethical debate, his subtantiation for his argument however, leaves a bad taste in the mouth (to say the least).

He argued that "Islam itself permits a father to hit a child, a husband to hit a wife in certain situations. This is practiced throughout the world."

Umm... excuse me, Tok Guru, which "world" are you talking about? The medieval world of the 13th century?

There is absolutely no reason for a husband to hit a wife, or a man to hit a woman under any circumstances. There is no situation I can think of in which violence is necessary or even justified.

A relationship between a husband and wife is built on trust, mutual respect and love. This relationship cannot be strengthened through fear and violence. We are not even talking about human rights here. The simple fact is a marital relationship breaks down with a physically abusive spouse.

No man or woman is without shortcomings. In a loving marital relationship, we learn to live and work around these shortcomings to strengthen our understanding of our partners better. In matters of dispute, a gentle discussion focused on the objective of resolving the issue at hand should be carried out instead. Hitting the wife does not resolve the dispute, it merely postpones and snowballs the problem.

And even when the disagreement cannot be resolved to the total satisfaction of all parties, there should be tolerance and forgiveness in the hearts of both parties.

I hope that Tok Guru will clarify his statement to protect the interest of women, and not have his words used as by unscrupulous men to abuse their wives.

Today is International Womens' Day to celebrate and promote the interest of womenfolk young and old, irrespective of race or religion. Hitting women is a big no no.

Now, hitting on women? That's a different matter altogether ;)