Merdeka 曖昧

Happy 63rd Birthday His Majesty Yang di-Pertuan Agong of Malaysia

It’s His Majesty King’s Birthday today. A day when most Malaysian regard as just another public holiday (less so now that Saturday is already an off-day for many, holiday or not). To promote a healthy discourse on public affairs, I would like to discuss the pros and cons of absolute monarchy vis-a-vis constitutional monarchy, and what day would it be more appropriate than today?

In Australia, there was a “Republic Referendum” in 1999, in which the public was asked whether the Governor General (Queen’s representative in Downunder) should be replaced by a Parliament-appointed President. It was rejected with the ‘no’ side receiving 54.4% of the vote.

That scares the house of Windsor tremendously. At any given time, the percentage of opposers of Monarchy in UK is about 25%, plus or minus, thus seeing 45.6% of Australians requesting a republic is indeed frightening.

Constitutional Monarchy, as we know, checks the power of the government. As in Malaysia, the appointment of Prime Minister is one of King’s discretional power, eventhough conventionally he would choose the head of parliamentary majority. But there’s no law barring the King from choosing, say, YB Ms. Fong Po Kuan or YB Datuk Seri Semi-Value (Perak Boleh!), as long as the appointee is elected into the House of Commons.

(more…)

Days ago, Menjadi-jadi published a so-called satire designed by a fellow stakeholder in an extremist Muslim version of Answering Islam site, which was meant for soliciting donations. The so-called satire called for destruction of Christianity faith, among others.

The Malaysian blogging public reacted passionately on this. Menjadi-jadi, now under fire, decided against my good advice to block Malaysian visitors’ access to his blog. To show solidarity to my fellow countrymen, I decided to self-impose a ban on visiting Menjadi-jadi’s blog, eventhough my Internet Protocol (IP) was not among the range he banned.

I hate to let this Menjadi-jadi dude occupy too much of my space. Yet, I need to discuss it slightly, from the perspective of equality among all religions, as well as the attitude of some extremists.

(more…)

Few days ago, I chatted with Rajan Seri MENJadi-jadi, and this flee habitually turn our conversation into a brainwashing segment.

As usual, I would defend my stand, that is, equality for all regardless of ethnicity or faith, a state where the government does not ill-treat anybody. As expected, he advocates a system where a particular religion, not yours, not mine but his, is above everyone else. In his words, “There must be someone to dominate.”

He still cannot differentiate treating all faith communities equally from rejecting faiths altogether. He claimed that a secular system (any system that’s not dominated by his religion) is doomed to fail.

He also questioned why Christian laws (what he labelled as Christian Hudud ) can be enforced in Vatican and nobody is complaining, but when Muslims want to implement Islamic laws, people around the world make noise.

When I pointed to him that people are not opposing Islam per se, but rather, the elements of torture within Hudud, just like they too oppose to death penalty and caning of our British common law, he vomited his shit of the day, “Hudud is not torture.”

(more…)

I have just talked to YB Miss Fong Po Kuan, MP for Batu Gajah this morning. YB told me that Minister in the Prime Minister in-charged of Parliament Affairs, Datuk Seri Mohd Nazri Aziz was melatah-ing and merepek-ing on the so-called “misundestanding” of his intention to set up a Parliament Department (Jabatan Parlimen), which he later dramatically denied and claimed to be just a post of Director. Thus, “the incident of big J and small j”.

It’s simply idiotic ! Or should I say, it’s so Malaysiana !

What did Nazri have in mind for this department ? Just to look after the administrative stuff, or to put the legislative branch under the fangs of the Executives ? If the latter, surely Malaysia will be the pariah of democracy in the world again by going against separation of powers between Executive, Legislature and Judiciary. Quoting Azizah, it’s an insult to our intelligence !

The House Committee of the Senate has made a stand on bringing back the Parliament Service Act 1963 (PSA) that Tun terminated in 1992. PSA had allowed the Parliament to run their own administration, but since 1992 that has come under Public Service Department. Nazri claimed that if the House of Representative longs for PSA, their House Committee should decide, for being Parliament’s own aspiration, the bill should not be initiated by Cabinet.

He is right. Rightly getting rid of his responsibility. The House Committee is chaired by the Speaker, Datuk Seri Tan Sri Ramli Ngah Talib who severely lacks political will. He’s reluctant to call the meeting eventhough the DAP member in House Committe has been asking for it for numerous times.

Chairman of Backbencher Club (BBC), Datuk Shahrir Samad has been talking and acting aloud to the press outside Parliament, as if they are the champion. However, without pressing Ramli to call the House Committee meeting, all that he has done is cheap talk di bibir aje. It’s also pointless for anyone else to propose it as a private member’s bill, for its chance of getting through is slim.

The way I see it, our Parliament may only regain its independence (and society’s respect for it) if we have a majority of democrats sitting in it, be it from DAP, Keadilan or others, who knows the ABCs of democracy and separation of power. Better if they also understand the importance of separation of church and state. Do Malaysians hope for a better future ? Don’t just hope, the choice is in your hand !

On the night of Budget 2006, Alvin, Bob and our friend from bahagian Kelana Jaya had dinner in the mamak near my home. Alvin called DAP being sometimes a tit-for-tat party, only reacting to Umno when troubles take place. Fine, they might be realistic and pragmatic enough to realise that they will never come into power, yet, I don’t think it’s a good excuse for them not to present a long-term comprehensive policy.

While Pas fish for votes by claiming whatever they do is in the name of God, they actually offers very little apart from alternative legal, entertainment and clothing systems. For PSM, it is a Socialist (some say Marxist) system that seems so utopian to most of us. DAP, which no longer monopolise the anti-Ketuanan Melayu sentiment, falls back on the little comfort zone of anti-Islamic state hardcore.

Shall we in Keadilan also “monkey see monkey do” ? Instead of only reactively attacking BN at times, I propose we draw up a wholesome plan, to show the voters that we are a capable, trustworthy and most importantly, a better alternative to Umno. Our non-ethnic set up has avoid us from falling into the never ending dilemma of horse trading, compromise and discrimination that is part and parcel of BN, thus, cutting off a lot of BN’s never ending dilemma.

(more…)

Bob has agreed with Charles F Moreira who pointed out that oppositions had so far not matched their manifesto to the voters’ expectation. So do I. In a society as primitive as ours, voters can’t see how rights or civil liberty will improve their life. For these people who vote by stomach, to put food on table is paramount.

Charles was right in observing that,

“It is high time we face some unpalatable facts in that the Western concepts of democracy, free speech, free press and human rights are not an Asian tradition. Asians have mostly known feudalism, patronage and cronyism, and which places priority on economic well-being.”

Concuring, Bob disclosed that without pursuing further on rights, freedom and liberty, coupled up with the absense of a comprehensive policy on national issues, oppositions has already been reduced to merely reacting to Umno’s mistakes point-by-point on “bread-and-butter” issues. What if Umno makes less mistakes ? Many claimed that the autocratic PAP in Temasek is good, to the extent of claiming that oppositions are unnecessary, just because economic is not too bad. They have forgotten that without civil liberty and press freedom, there is no way to prevent PAP from going astray.

Not that rights and freedom are not important. However, Malaysians failed to see that many of the problems today have arisen due to the lack of these rights. We must help them to contextualise how these rights are going to affect them in issues close to their heart, for example, cost of living, fuel, housing, public transport, national car etc. We should emphasis that democracy, rights and freedoms are all means to ensure that our ends, including social stability and economic well-beings, are attainable.

Yes, mediocre Umno is still far from awarding us starvations. Yet, the opportunity cost to keep Hudud at bay should not be surrendering our constitutional rights and let BN milk us as much as they wish. It’s high time for us recapture our rights, else, we and our descendents will be living by the grace of Umno forever. Rights and freedom are instrumental in ensuring our economic well-being, Keadilan should emphasis on this !

Certain quarters in the country, including, and especially, but not limited to those from Taman Melewar, believe in banning certain undesireable elements in the society as the magical cure to every problem.

Smoking is bad ? Sure, just get Mufti to issue a fatwa stating smoking is haram. Akademi Fantasia allows boys hugging girls ? Issue a fatwa to ban it. They failed to look at Akademi Fantasia from the perspective of average Malaysians. But then again, as if they care.

There are two issues at hand. First, do we have a Malaysian population here that cannot think for themselves and decide on what is good and bad ? Second, do we want a gigantic administration which interferes every aspect of our life, while the modern trend in the world is to keep the government as tiny as possible, in order to award as much liberty as possible to its citizens ?

I believe Malaysians are smart. We have companies like Kompakar that are capable of attaining Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI) Level 5 within 2 years, while there’s none from our archrival Singapore so far. We have rights activists like Madame Irene Fernandez who have bagged 2005 Right Livelihood Award, the alternative Nobel. The earliest alternative media initiative in the region, Malaysiakini, bears the name of our nation. Even the winner of Reporters Sans Frontier (RSF) Freedom Blog Asia is a fellow Malaysian.

(more…)

Dr. Sun Yat-sen

Hari ini, 10 Oktober 2005, merupakan ulang tahun ke-94 Kebangkitan Wuchang yang diketuai pengikut-pengikut Dr. Sun Yat-sen untuk menggulingkan Dinasti Ching yang korup dan boros.

Dinasti Ching yang diasaskan orang Manchuria pada tahun 1644 telah menjadi amat lemah pada hujung abad ke-18. Pada tahun 1841, British yang berdendam kerana candu yang diimport dimusnahkan oleh pegawai tinggi China telah menyerang China. Tentera Dinasti Ching gagal mempertahankan negara, menyebabkan Pulau Hong Kong, Semenanjung Kowloon dan New Territories dijadikan tanah jajahan British pada tahun 1842, 1860 dan 1898 masing-masing.

Empress Dowager (Bonda maharaja) Cixi yang merupakan tok dalang kepada maharaja budak pada masa itu telah membina taman rekreasi mewah peribadi dengan peruntukan untuk memperkembangkan kapal-kapal tentera laut. Oleh yang demikian, dalam Peperangan Sino-Jepun 1895, tentera laut dengan peralatan yang uzur terpaksa menerima cabaran tentera laut Jepun yang moden. Akibatnya, tentera laut Dinasti Ching dihapuskan sama sekali, dan Taiwan dijadikan tanah jajahan Jepun.

Dr. Sun Yat-sen, seorang doktor perubatan, telah mengetahui bahawa kerajaan yang begini mesti digulingkan. Beliau menjelajah ke sana sini untuk mendapatkan sokongan ramai, termasuk Tokyo, London, Pulau Pinang, Singapura dan Honolulu. Di Pulau Pinang, Dr. Sun telah menerbitkan akhbar Kwong Wah Jit Poh, yang merupakan suratkhabar tertua di antara suratkhabar berbahasa Cina yang masih beroperasi di dunia kini.

Akhirnya, pada 10 Oktober 1911, revolusi telah bermula di kota Wuchang, dan diikuti dengan ledakan rakyat yang sama di seluruh negara. Akhirnya, pemerintah maharaja telah digulingkan dan digantikan dengan sistem republik. Pada 1 Januari 1912, Republic of China telah diasaskan, dan 10 Oktober ditetapkan sebagai hari kebangsaan untuk memperingati Kebangkitan Wuchang. Badan-badan yang ditubuhkan Dr. Sun pula distruktur semula dan dinamakan Kuomintang (Parti Nasionalis) dan menjadi pemerintah.

(more…)

Rules are meant to manage the human activities. While men may or may not accept new values, ways to live a life in modern days according to their values surely still need to keep up with time.

When a new approach to life is adopted, those circumstances that required the previous rules are gone, and older rules rendered irrelavent. Insisting outdated rules simply curbs human development, and holds back progress.

Too philosophical ? It’s just a prelude to a series of jokes by he whose mind stopped thousand years ago. So, don’t take it too serious when you are asked to live as if you are still in the era of !Kung Bushman, and be careful not to fall from your chair.

We are blessed to live in Malaysia, not because we have bunches of zombies whose mindset do not evolve over time, but more importantly, because we have youngsters who stand up to voice their belief against outdated rules. A barely legal sweet young thing by the name of Tilia is one.

(more…)

Tun Dr Mahathir’s response to the protest by some 30 NGOs that he should not have been invited by Suhakam to speak on human rights is pathetic. He reportedly asked, “Are they denying me my human rights?”

In insisting on his human rights, he has forgotten the human rights that he and his government had denied to thousands of citizens. What about their rights, Tun Mahathir? Did you ever pause to ponder about the rights of those who were locked up based on unsubstantiated and dubious claims? Did it bother you that they lost many, many years of their freedom while you were in charge of this country? Did it ever disturb you that many wasted their best years of their lives locked up in your jails without any recourse to justice?

Do you remember that on 27 October 1987 during “Operation Lalang”, more than a hundred citizens were arrested and detained under the obnoxious ISA while you were the Prime Minister, Home Minister and Justice Minister? They were denied the right to a fair trial and subjected to a grave injustice: many of them were harshly interrogated, cruelly locked away in solitary confinement, and mercilessly tortured. What justice did you extend to them?

Tun has forgotten the human rights that he denied to thousands of citizens

You denied our right to information by legislating an undemocratic law that kept under wraps many of the abuses of your administration. This Act protected those who should have been prosecuted. Do you remember Ezam’s case? He was found guilty of possession of a document that was classified under the Official Secrets Act and was convicted and sentenced to two years’ imprisonment. But you must know, as we do, that Ezam’s conviction only confirmed that there was a document from the Public Prosecutor recommending the prosecution of certain top UMNO people who were holding important government posts. Didn’t this sordid episode deny Ezam’s right to expose corruption in high places?

And what about Anwar Ibrahim? Were his human rights any concern of yours? He was handcuffed, blindfolded and beaten up in a cowardly manner by your top policeman. He was then found guilty of what were widely believed to be trumped-up charges and languished in jail for six years. Were you concerned about Anwar’s human rights? Instead, you came up with that flippant and silly remark that Anwar’s injuries could have been self-inflicted.

(more…)

In this 5th installation of the Wawancara Hari Kebangsaan, David Teoh, Nurul Izzah, Politics 101, Sharizal Sharaani, Emmanuel Joseph, Tauke Fooji, Zulhabri Supian, Rajan Rishyakaran, Ong Boon Keong and Fathi Aris Omar discuss the role of Islam in the administration, as well as if Hudud should be seen as part of freedom of religion.

Shin : Liberals and fundamentalists have different interpretations on the role of Islam in the Constitution, in which its role was not clearly defined. Does Islam as the religion of the federation is only ceremonial and symbolic, or it should be the basis for all laws and policies ? In some countries for example Pakistan, it is stipulated in the Constitution that any article in the Constitution will be automatically invalid if it clashes with Al-Quran or Sunnah. Do you think we need to include this in our Constitution too ?

Between Constitution and Al-Quran, as well as human rights and Al-Quran, which is superior ? Constitution and human rights safeguard freedom of religion. Instead of being just a way of thoughts and rituals, Islam is also a way of life (ad-deen) and has its own legal system. Is the National Front (BN) government, which continues to forbid the enforcement of Hudud, Qisas and Takzir while claiming that Malaysia is a “Negara Islam”, infringing its citizens’ constitutional rights and human rights by restricting them from practising their religion ?

Fathi : The Federal Constitution or Perlembagaan Persekutuan (there is no Malaysian Constitution, only the Federal Constitution) is vague. Islam, according to our first Prime Minister, is ceremonial only but the practice of the religious hegemony (Islam over other religions) is so extensive and tight.

The constitution protects Islam and allows privilleges of Islam over other religions. I don’t think it is fair. If we value religion, we should treat all religion equally. We can’t - for example - obstruct the teachings of other religions to Malays and Muslims.

Without further ado, please refer to this book Malaysia: An Islamic State? Secularism and Theocracy: A Study of the Malaysian Constitution (edited by Abdul Razak Baginda and Peter Schier).

I basically believe, religious or not a state is, when corruption or abuse of power (like Pakistan) is rampant, when there is no sense of justice and fair play, let us topple such governments. Let us throw it over, not only the leaders, the ruling parties but also the religious ideologies.

Any religion can be manipulated, so can Islam. What is so special about Islamic ideology? Tell me, what? Do you think PAS in Kelantan and Terengganu (1999-2004) do not practice corruption, nepotism and cronyism (KKN)?

See my analyses here ‘KKN Kelantan T’ganu macam Umno‘ (22 August 2002) and ‘Media bebas sorok KKN PAS?‘ (15 November 2002).

Ideology, whatever it is, can be manipulated. Idealism is good on paper (in theoritical persuasion) but once it is politically practised, it will have some problems. Let us deal with ideology or political idealism that give freedom (that is democracy) and stop propagating ideas, ideology and idealism that will benefit some people only.

BN’s ‘Negara Islam’ - like ‘Islam Hadhari’ - is a window-dresser for the stupids. Why should we bother to think about that? Let us get to the crux of the matter, not the labelling. When there are no democracy, freedom and human rights, then the state is not fully “legitimate” (according to Jurgen Habermas’s Legitimation Crisis, 1975).

BK : Actually the Constitution foresaw only a ceremonial role for Islam, apart from some specific areas reserved to the States. But this is different from the demand to introduce religious values into government - I think this demand is the same as Christians
conservatives who oppose abortion in the US, for instance. It is out of religious values, not necessarily from the Constitution. They may incidentally invoke the Constitution to support their case.

In Malaysia of course it is unwise to arrange the different authorities in any order. Problems : 1. There are many different interpretations in Islam for example some African Muslims perform genital mutilations on females. But not other Muslims. Even in Pakistan I heard there are so many differences that the implementations are problematic for instance allow many male-prejudices to creep into the religious laws. Not wise to bring the chaos into Malaysia.

2. The holy books are not legal documents - they impart knowledge on numerous areas - so they should be respected as such. Where there are areas the holy book can be useful to strengthen such as social justice, the holy book can be helpfully utilized by people who are into it, to promote the concept of social justice. Since their roles are different it is not a good idea to incorporate any religious document into or over the Constitution.

Since they are different none is superior to the other - just like a swimming manual is not comparable to a football rules book ! There is no need to compare them with possible undesirable results of undermining the values of each. Not enforcing certain Islamic laws does not equate to infringing on the citizens’ constitutional laws because even in Koran there are instances where Islamic laws are suspended or superceded.

So the laws should be seen as laws which need to suit historical circumstances. This is different from the religious requirement (kewajipan) of praying 5 times a day etc. In fact even praying 5 times a day can have some acceptable excuses. So Islamic laws cannot be implemented mechanistically. However the government do infringe on citizens’ constitutional rights in many areas such as lack of social justice in many areas and corruptions are rampant - when this is against all religious values !

Rajan : The Medina Compact made no mention of the state religion. Neither should our’s.

Human rights.

And practicing religion doesn’t entail haven’t a separate legal system, in the same manner freedom of religion doesn’t mean you can rob, murder, and rape in the name of religion.

Habri : Tidak, selagi mana negara ini ditadbir dengan adil dan saksama serta dijaga kebajikan rakyatnya, saya berpendapat ia sudah cukup Islam.

Inilah yang menjadi masalah bila mana agama begitu dipolitikkan, bercelaru jadinya. Sebagai umat Islam sudah tentulah Al-Quran yang lebih tinggi namun di dalam negara yang berbilang kaum dan agama, umat Islam harus lebih berhikmah dan meletakkan prioriti pada perkara yang lebih utama.

Fooji : Of course no. The Muslims in this country already have the Syariah court. During the forging of Malaysia, no one fought hard and cried for such Islamic penetration to our laws and policies, and it should stay that way.

I think we cannot blame BN entirely here. If they regard us as a Negara Islam because the majority are Muslims and we have a Muslim Sultanate, then so be it, but God forbid, never because we are going to be Islamic in very thing that we do, even for the non-Muslims. I think Badawi administration is clear about this.

However, there are many Muslims holding administrative positions in various government agencies that seemed to be zealous in their Islam thinking that many regulations and rules are made that could restricted other from practising their religion. For example, it is always difficult for Christian groups to organise meeting in the campus, as compared to their Muslim friends. This is not Badawi’s policy, but the biased policy of the university’s HEP (Office of Student Affairs).

Emmanuel : No.If we have that, you are directly infringing upon the rights of other people who do not believe in Islam. I would say, Islamic law should be used to govern its people, on matters pertaining to religion. An acceptable secular law, one governed by common values should be used to govern the rest of us.And both parties should adhere to the common law as a higher law, lest there be a double standard.

Sharizal : It all depends on that type of Malaysia you want. I believe we need to be flexible enough to allow for any type of government that is elected by the majority. However the constitution needs to safeguard the basic rights and

Freedoms of ALL no matter what political party we vote in.

Poli : When there’s a need to have a legal interpretation of the constitution, it’s for the court, not the executive or Attorney General, to interprete it. In Che Omar bin Che Soh vs Public Prosecutor (1988), five-man Federal Court panel, headed by the then Lord President Tun Salleh Abas held that the Constitution and the legal system are “secular” and held that the meaning of the expression “Islam” or “Islamic religion” in Article 3 “means only such acts as relate to rituals and ceremonies“.

During negotiations for the formation of Malaysia in 1963, Sabahans and Sarawakians were assured that Article 3 of the Constitution “does not imply that Malaysia is not a secular state.” (Cobbold Commission Report).

There’s got to be give-and-take. We are a plural society and it’s not right that one community should live under a different set of laws as that will lead to polarisation, which is what we are facing now.

Countries like Turkey and Iraq have 95% or more Muslim majority and yet they are still governed by secular laws. There must be clear separation of church and state. That’s the cornerstone of our forefathers’ social deal.

Nurul Izzah : Of course as a Muslim, I will try my best to live up with the responsibilities that are expected of me, and I also recognize that it does not contradict my support for the constitution.We have to accept and work within the main constraints of our society and common aspirations.

The main teachings of Islam which promote tolerance, peace and the importance of safeguarding justice and upholding human dignity is very relevant to our constitution. We should formulate policies using the framework of our constitution and in eradicating existing laws that contradict the spirit of the constitution and work towards maintaining the basic tenets of safeguarding democratic rights for each citizen.

David : No. We have a constitution that has worked for 48 years. If it ain’t broke, why fix it?

Everyone is free to practice their religion. Faith is a communication between each soul and God. It need not be legislated. Faith directed towards God is each individual’s journey, and should not be a subject of enforcement.

Here comes Episode 4 of the Wawancara Hari Kebangsaan, in which Nurul Izzah and David Teoh has joined the bandwagon. Together with Fathi Aris Omar, Ong Boon Keong, Rajan Rishyakaran, Zulhabri Supian, Tauke Fooji, Emmanuel Joseph, Sharizal Sharaani and Politics 101, they tell Shin the relevance of the much talked about “Social Contract” in our society today.

Shin : Social Contract which was created prior to independence has become the buzzword in town again. Unfortunately most of them wish to interpret it according to own preferences, for instance, Umno emphasis on the Special Malay Positions, while DAP emphasis on Malaysia being a secular state. In your opinion, is this Social Contract going to be relevant forever ? Would the thoughts of future generations be different ? If yes, which way ?

Fathi Aris : Frankly speaking, my friend, I don’t like at all the way you say and put the issue as such: “Unfortunately most of them wish to interpret it according to [their] own preferences, …”

What do you expect them to do — to scream as loud as possible in one voice, one chorus, “Yessssss”? It is politics, people have different (or, diverse) interests, values, jugdments, ideals and analyses.

We prefer democracy and freedom (over authoritarianism, dictatorship or undemocratic control) not because we want unity or to eliminate differences.

We want to exercise a more open, democratic, peaceful, equal and intelligent debates over our differences. We would like to appreciate the diversity and plurality of voices. We want to form consensus via the deliberative or discursive democracy.

It is an ongoing process, we don’t limit the discourse and criticism even after some agreement (or, consensus) is achieved. Previous generation agreement is not conclusive; it must be subjected to criticism on our current understanding and thinking.

We want democracy, independence (Merdeka) and freedom because we want to challenge the dominant (so that the dominant, the majority, can not and should not do whatever their whims and fancy are). We want our voices of concern heard, we want to say something without being seen as anti- the State, anti-Government or anti-majority.

The State, Government, majority, policy, tradition, culture, ulama, guidelines, social contract, knowledge or religion — so what? There is nothing holy in them, all is human creation to suit certain needs (especially the dominant ones, the winner’s, the majority’s) in certain spatial-temporal context.

Shin : In fact, by phrasing my question that way, all I wanted to emphasis is, they are telling us to stick to Social Contract, while they themselves have problem in accepting part of it. For example, Umnois shying away from upholding the agreement on secular state. However, by all means, I don’t mean they cannot have dispute.

Fathi : Social contract is totally relevant at any given time. The contract is another word or concept of setting fair ‘rules of the game.’ Let eveybody contest in the game with sense of justice and fairness. Life is competitive; politics is a competition. Social contract lets everybody live and play in this game with sense of justice and fairness.

The thoughts of future generations? Let us struggle to achieve and shape it. I don’t believe in miracle and prediction. We may discuss it, better, at another forum. Sometimes it seems optimistic, sometimes not. So, I repeat, let us struggle to achieve and shape generations to come. We have to prepare more fertile ground so that our seeds will be more democratic.

BK : Actually the Social Contract was not seen to be lasting for ever -many references are available to prove this point eg the Reid Report. It should be regularly reviewed -but unfortunately the government never do it. So it open the contract to different interpretations -and abuses eg by UMNO Youth to justify perpetuating special treatments. Future generations will have different opinions -but the recipients of benefits may resist giving up the benefits. And in a country where ethnic politics is strong it will be even more difficult to do so. But perpetuation of such special treatment will be problematic for the competitiveness of the recipients, besides open to abuse by ethnic elites.

Rajan : he constitution was hashed out in a hurry by Lord Reid - hardly a local - so that they would get rid of the Malayan Union faster in 1948. If anything, it was meant as a temporary compromise in 1948 before our eventual independence where we would get to write another constitution if we liked to.

Habri : Sama ada ia akan bertahan lama atau tidak, ia amat bergantung kepada kita semua rakyat Malaysia. Kontrak sosial yang ada sehingga hari ini digubal menurut konteks waktu itu yakni sebelum merdeka (tujuan untuk mencapai kemerdekaan) yang mana berlaku proses bargaining sehingga lahirnya kedudukan istimewa orang Melayu sebagai tukar ganti kerakyatan jus soli dan sebagainya dan kontrak ini bukanlah sesuatu yang suci dan boleh digubal dan dinilai semula jika rakyat mengkehendakinya.

Sama ada generasi akan datang akan memilih untuk menilai semula kontrak ini tidaklah mahir untuk saya ramalkan. Apa yang lebih penting proses dialog dan diskusi ilmiah tentang hal ini harus ditingkatkan dan dilakukan secara jujur dan di dalam proses menilai semula jangan dilupa dua prinsip utama yang wajib menjadi teras iaitu prinsip kebebasan dan keadilan.

Fooji : If we are a progressive nation, the constitution should be reviewed dynamically from time to time, to see if it is still relevant to the needs of the nation. It is unfortunately true the constitution has given provision to the Malay Positions, but it has also stated that it is a secular state. Certain parties are doing selective adherence to the constitution. The current education system and with the invasion of racial politics by UMNO and MCA into the minds of our youth, it is not surprising if our future generations have the same backward communal thinking. Just look at UMNO Youth and you’ll know what I mean.

Emmanuel : The Social Contract upon which Malaysia was founded upon will eventually be a non issue unless we choose to make it one.Even the US’ founding fathers’ ideals became a point to ponder recently,with the whole God and state issue.On whether or not future minds think differently, I will not be able to answer you, but only say this- we shape their minds.So if we feed them poison, they will be poisonous.

Sharizal : I think everyone in Malaysia agrees that the Social Contract won’t be relevant forever. The only difference is their level of readiness to part with the social contract.

Poli : The social contract is an unofficial understanding among our forefathers on the necessity of give-and-take among the various communities and along what path the country should proceed along the road to maturity. The phrase “social contract” only became a buzzword when the DAP objected to Mahathir declaring the country was already an Islamic State. The DAP keeps harping on the fact that we should defend the 1957 constitution. I don’t think that’s a very good idea because the original constitution was flawed in many ways and it’s because these flaws were exploited by, first, The Alliance, and now the BN, that there is still distrust among Malaysians.

Nurul Izzah : It is a buzz word in the sense that it binds the fabric of society together. I cannot predict what the future generation will decide on but I will decide on a more meaningful, equitable meaning of the social contract which basically destroys any grandeur thoughts on any race being superior to the other.

David Teoh : Martin Luther King said “I have a dream, that one day my four little children will live in a world where they will not be judged by the colour of their skin but by the content of their character”. The social contract will eventually collapse if the race UMNO intends to protect as a whole does not develop the richness in character.

No, not through our independent judiciary this time, but right here in the blogosphere.

Yes, the supporters of Kerajaan Langit have finally set up a blog, simply named Ayahpin, to explain what actually happened. Things that were purposely blacked out by Umno.

It’s heartbreaking to see my fellow citizens suffer just because they choose their own belief which was deemed a deviant teaching by the powers-that-be.

Contrary to the evil mainstream press reports, Ayah Pink has never forced anyone follower of him, regardless of his religion, to renounce their religion. Therefore, the Sky Kingdom is a place where believers of different religions come together to appreciate each the beauty of other’s religions.

The current administration, in order to look good under the threat of Pas, has danced along the Pas music by introducing many superficial yet lunatic so-called “Islamic” policies. Puppeting Muftis, religious authorities, moral police, even land office and Umno mobsters, they hand down judgement after judgements to destroy whoever thinks freely, creating charges for each and every through whim and fancy.

They have forgotten that the Prophet embraced diversity and inclusiveness. Perhaps, it’s time Malaysians give them a lesson so they won’t disturb our thoughts further. But first, Malaysians need to learn how to use the minds awarded by God to think of themselves freely. Will they ?

YAB DPM DS Najib Razak was reported to have said in Langkawi that, “No hugging please, we are Muslims”. He was commenting on the so-called reality show Akademi Fantasia where the students hug each other passionately especially when someone is to be kicked out doesn’t have sufficient votes to stay in the competition.

According to DS Najib, instead of showing “indecent” acts, they should sing decent songs and dress up properly, and by capitalising in such programmes that enjoy skycrapering popularity, government can instil so-called “good values” among the couch potatoes, as government-sponsored pro-Umno shows can never rake in such big bunch of bananas audiences.

AF is a stupid show. Look at their champs since season 1, Vince, Zahid and now Mawi, I could only say, it’s bad getting badder. Compare to Malaysian Idol or Astro Talent Quest, which don’t cash in in audiences’ tears but produce gooder singing talents, AF should just gulung tikar. But that’s story for another day.

Okay, now, it goes back to whether Muslims should follow strictly what’s said in the book more than a millennium ago without judging its relevance with their free will and wisdom awarded by God. Many have spoken up. As usual, you have the liberals vs the hardliners. It’s a matter of whether we are free to believe and think. We should not blame those who can’t think for themselves, should we ?

The catch here being, does Islam only regulate petty stuff such as no drinking, no hugging, wear tudung etc ? Now that since guys would look like Pas mullahs if they too wear tudung, they’ve come out with proposals asking police officers to wear kain lampin sampin instead.

Okay my point here. Didn’t holy Quran say a word on corruption or money politics ? Didn’t it tell us to be fair and just but why are you still suppressing our freedom of expression and freedom of information ? Would you please say, “No corruption please, we are Muslims” ? Or perhaps for all the money you have siphooned to your pocket from the treasury, your hands please, Sir. They should be chopped off, as “We are Muslims”.

My two sens Visit Malaysian Medical Resources and Politics 101 for more info…

Yes, as pointed out by Mr Gary bin Bush, a vivid fan of Rajan Seri, that instead of being accused of promoting deviant teaching, Ayah Pink’s Kerajaan Langit commune in Kampong Batu 13, Hulu Besut was demolished for they have erected non-agricultural structures, including a giant tea pot, on a piece of agricultural land belonged to Ayah Pink’s bini.

But that doesn’t explain why should the people living on that piece of agricultural land that contained non-agricultural structures should be detained as well.

According to The Star Metro today, the Ain Al Arabia, or Arab Square, in Jalan Berangan, Bukit Bintang, is almost 90 % completed.

The site in the heart of the Golden Triangle has already taken on a Middle Eastern look with its Arabic architecture and design.

The most striking feature of the project – a water feature depicting a giant teapot – is almost ready.

Alright, so it’s a sin for Ayah Pink, but a merit for DBKL ？Ｉｔ happens too frequent in Bolehland. First world mentality ?

Potential criminal caught !

Shimania: you know mnoorsha the __earthinc guy ? the editor of recom the overseas malaysian student forum and remag, recom’s online magazine…

menj1980: vaguely familiar about him. he trolls Wikipedia too.

Shimania: owh yeah i mentioned him to u, coz… he has given a comment in my blog. regarding the diff between religion and cult.

menj1980: hmmm… i dont know why but his perangai is like tariq kamal. always manages to go on my nerves even though i dont bother about them…

Shimania: they care to bother u because if ur views prevail, malaysia will be in disaster !

menj1980: morons like tariq kamal and _earth can join the same fate of ayah pin, for all i care… they are traitors to the muslim ummah.

Shimania: but then again, u think u alone is right in understanding islam. then u r no different from ayah pin.

menj1980: i never said that. i never claim to have a monopoly on Islam.

Shimania: but u brush off other ppl’s understanding…

menj1980: but i dont want deviant ideas to destroy Islam either. well, u see, you cant be “fair”all the time. there can only be one truth.

Shimania: owh now tarik camel dan __earth also hav become deviant juz bcoz they criticized u ?

menj1980: their ideas are dangerously close to being deviant, yes. not yet deviant yet, but who knows what will happen in time?

Shimania: owh there can only be one truth, yes. but not necessarily urs is the truth ! moderates do it their way, fundamentalists do it their way, nobody is infringing each other’s right. you see, for one, i never suggest to ban Pas’ brand of fundamental Islam. it’s their wish to wipe out the others that worry us… i will let Pas’s fundamentalism to operate freely. but i too wanna ensure Pas will equally allow the others to operate freely. i never wanna wipe out anyone…

menj1980: its not our nature to wipe ppl out, as long as its not a deviancy and affects our raison d’etre.

Shimania: u see, u only permit ppl to live when they dont affect ur raison d’etre. that means u cannot co-exist with those who have diff views. that is censorship, no more no less.

menj1980: then how do u expect any less? unless if you want us to drop our raison d’etre, which means we dont have any cause to fight for.

Shimania: you can get what u want but cannot force what u want onto the rest… i have no problem with all Pas supporters practising ad-deen, dont drink dont gamble wear tudong send kids to Sar… that’s their constitutional right and their choice… but when they start harassing the others and forcing the others to follow their style, they have gone too far !

menj1980: well we dont harrass anyone, not that i know of… and if some did, then they are wrong.

Shimania: dont lie to urself. so it’s alright to assult their followers and set fire to their homes, yes ?

menj1980: ayah pin is excluded, of course.

Our loony extremist blogger by the name of Elfiefuddin has supported his weird opinions with lunatic arguments. Let’s examine one by one.

1. Freedom of Religion is a Constitutional right, “Freedom of Cult” isn’t.
2. Islam, being religion of the federation, can interfere in as much public decision as one wishes.

For a logical person like me, no matter how much I disagree with the teachings of their belief, including the fact that this fler claims himself to be God, I respect their right to believe in whatever they want to believe in. The authority must not act against them unless they commit any crime which breaks the law.

Islam as federation’s religion is just that. It doesn’t mean that our country is an Islamic state (but we can call ours a Muslim-majority nation). It is not a key for Islam to interfere the daily running of government or the decision-making process.

Many have made the same mistake. They judge people’s behaviour from their own sets of values. So what if Islam says this and Hindu says that about what someone else do ? What is important is that this fler, no matter how ridiculous things he does, has never broken any law. And even if he has, who empowers the mobsters to raid and torch their village ?

Loony Extremist Exposed :

menj1980: i still dont understand why u support this loony from kpg batu 13. he goes against ur faith too. i will have the same dialogue with anyone, even rajan seri also, if he was willing to discuss this.

Shimania: see, it is his right as a citizen of the nation and a human being in the world to believe in what he believes, nevermind it’s against my belief. but he has the right to live the way he wish / choose. that doesnt mean i like or i believe his teachings.

menj1980: well he claims to be God and you believe Jesus (pbuh) is God. doesnt that mean he contradict u? or maybe he’s Jesus?

Shimania: see, one thing i am different from PAS is, while PAS cannot allow ppl to think freely and must conform to what they preach, i allow everyone to think for themselves freely.

menj1980: thinking freely doesn’t give the right for you to create your own cult.

Shimania: ok i have told u i dont believe in his teachings. that doesnt mean i have the right to curb his rights of choosing what he wants. the fact that he chooses his own belief doesnt mean he has to be arrested. yes by claiming to be god he has contradicted some other religions, but that’s his own choice made under his free will. he has not commited any criminal act in doing so. why u cannot understand my argument ?

menj1980: i know ur saying that u ignore but that doesnt mean that what u do is correct.

Shimania: hey, i didnt mean i ignore him. it’s his constitutional right to choose what he want. and i agree that he can do what he likes under the constitution. there’s still constitution in this country, let’s not forget.

menj1980: i know there’s a constitution, but the constitution doesnt provide for every Tom, Dick or Harry to make his own cult. balance it with Rukunegara.

Shimania: did he do anything against constitution ?

menj1980: yeah, he made himself to be Gawd. does the Constitution say that anyone can become God?

Shimania: you didnt answer what i asked. did he do anything unconstitutional or unlawful ?

menj1980: i just answered u. he made himself to be God…thats against constitution.

Shimania: i dont see any provision in constitution saying someone cannot claim to be god.

menj1980: i dont see any that says that he can, either. but if you check agaiin, you will see that since Islam is official religion, anything that Islam determines goes.

Shimania: there’s freedom of religion. if he wanna set up his own religion in which he is the god, what’s wrong ?

menj1980: it goes against the spirit of Islam as official religion as well as Rukunegara. this is if you want to talk about it in secular terms.

Shimania: NO. Islam as the religion of federation as stipulated in constitution only means it carries ceremonial roles, not any decision making roles.

menj1980: my reasons for rejecting Ayah Pin goes much more further than man-made laws.

Shimania: dont try to tell me ur religion is more powerful than anyone else’s religion.

menj1980: it doesnt say that Islam is relegated to “ceremonial” roles…it only says that Islam is the official relgion, but other religions (note the word “religion”, not cult) are allowed as well. we have to determine first whether Ayah Pin’s crap qualifies as “religion” or not. so u tell me…is his nonsense reached a “religion” status or is it merely a cult?

Shimania: and now you are judging ppl from your own religion’s religious perspective. it’s alright for me for u to see things from ur colored lenses. but if you want to punish people thru your set of values, then that’s unacceptable.

menj1980: if its cult, then its not provided for in the Constitution. i already told you, what i am telling you now is purely from secular perspective, not religious. this is what i see from the secular perspective…even the secular laws dont support ayah pin’s tenure as “Gawd”

Shimania: you can ask Cobbolt Commission or Tunku Abdul Rahman Putra al-Haj what’s Islam’s status in the nation. what pas want for islam is the status they want to achieve, but until they rule, status quo maintains.

menj1980: well, u tell me…is Sky Kingdom a cult or a religion? i think we need to answer this first. from the history of this nation, cults are pretty much banned…or otherwise Al-Arqam and Al-Maunah will still be running around free.

Shimania: ok u emphasis heavily on the difference between cult and religion. but tell me, how would this be dealt with in other countries for example USA, UK, Japan, Taiwan, HK… etc ? will they see Ayah Pink as breaking any law ? yesh and i am telling you there’s no legal basis to ban them. however funny their teachings are.

menj1980: u already know what happened to Falun Gong and Aum sect.

Shimania: common people have a strong mind not to be influenced by crazy people, unless yours is so weak therefore need special protection from a powderful condom.

menj1980: so why didnt u accuse China or Japan of not respecting “freedom of religion” (whatever that is)?

Shimania: Falungong didnt do anything wrong. they are victims of violence. their teachings funny doesnt mean people can injure their followers or torch their houses. in Aum Shinrikyo’s case, those who spread sarin in subway was detained because they committed crime. later others renamed Aum to something else, and Japanese govt allows it to operate freely, as long as they dont go against law. in Falungong’s case of course i bidas chinese communist for restricting it and assulting it. the same goes for the restriction on roman catholics and other religions slapped onto them by the communist.

menj1980: of course banning other religions is wroing. RC is not a “cult”, its a religion.

Shimania: f.y.i., communist didnt crush falungong because of it being a sect, but rather because it has the ability to mobilize and organise crowds, which communist is afraid of.

menj1980: okay, bad example. what about Rev Moon’s cult? i think they are banned in several countries.

Shimania: and don’t overlook the example i gave u earlier, that as long as the new Aum Shinrikyo dont carry out any criminal acts, Japanese govt lets it operate freely.

menj1980: http://blog.menj.org/index.php/archives/2005/08/04/difference-between-religion-and-cult/, well i still think aum should be banned, no matter what, but that’s Japan’s perogative, as long as they dont carry their nonsense here, i’m fine.

Shimania: ok regardless you call it religion or cult, the people can choose what they want to believe. and i acknowledge that they should enjoy this right.

menj1980: see the link i gave above, hehehe… religions is fine, cults is what i am against.

Shimania: already commented.

menj1980: ok.

Last but not least, our dear fellow blogger has posted this entry entitled “Difference between Religion and Cult“. But sorry, he merepek a lot of nonsense in the post but shy away from discussing what he claims to be discussing. Bravo dude ! Try harder ! :-p

Hatta, Kerajaan Langit pimpinan Ayah Pink telahpun dirobohkan oleh pengganas-pengganas dari Jabatan Hal-ehwal Agama Islam Terengganu dan Pejabat Daerah dan Tanah Besut. Apakah ia satu tindakan yang wajar diambil oleh kerajaan Islam Hadhari yang melancap secara rohani bahawa dirinya Cemerlang, Gemilang dan Terbilang ?

Malaysia bukan Taleban atau Saudi. Betapa bodohnya Umno mencontohi Pas yang bangang dan kolot. Kita sepatutnya bertindak mengikut Perlembagaan Persekutuan di mana termaktubnya Pasal ke-11 iaitu mengenai kebebasan beragama. Apakah kerajaan berhak memijak undang-undang ?

Perlembagaan Persekutuan telah mengisytiharkan sendirinya undang-undang tertinggi negara. Segala undang-undang yang bercanggah dengannya tidak sah. Sebagai sebuah negara yang menghormati undang-undang, sudahlah tentu amat menggeramkan jika jabatan kerajaan atau penganut-penganut sesuatu agama melanggar undang-undang sesuka hati, memusnahkan harta benda atau membatas kebebasan orang lain dengan memperalatkan dan bersembunyi di belakang kitab agama mereka.

Seperti yang dikomen oleh La Bana yang bandingkan pemusnahan Kerajaan Langit oleh Umno dengan perobohan Buddha Bamiyan oleh Taleban, apakah beberapa payung dan wakaf gergasi sahaja dapat menggoncangkan keamanan negara atau menggulingkan pemerintah ? Ataupun aqidah umat Islam negara ini begitu lemah sehingga mudah terpengaruh oleh pesakit jiwa ?

Al-Quran dikatakan meminta para Murtad dibunuh, inilah tafsiran segelintir sampah masyarakat. Akan tetapi sebagai negara bertamadun, kebebasan untuk memasuki atau meninggalkan sesuatu agama, Islam atau sebagainya, harus dipertahankan sepertimana dinyatakan dalam Perlembagaan, iaitu satu-satunya undang-undang sebenar. Membenarkan penganut agama-agama untuk memilih ajaran agamanya sebagai “way of life” tidak menghalalkan mereka membunuh, apa saja yang mereka mendakwa kitab mereka katakan.

Pengikut-pengikut kumpulan yang digelar ajaran sesat, asalkan tidak berjenayah (contohnya Aum Shinrikyo yang menabur sarin di MRT atau Al-Maunah yang merampas senjata), tidak patut ditahan atas sebarang tuduhan. Seseorang adalah innocent until proven guilty. DS Endon harus cubit telinga YAB DS Abdullah Ahmad Badawi atas penyelewengan dan salahguna kuasa ini.

Kebebasan beragama harus diamati dari segi semangatnya, bukan secara teks. Mahkamah Persekutuan yang mendakwa kebebasan beragama bagi Muslim adalah untuk terus bebas beragama Islam dan bukan bererti kebebasan untuk keluar dari Islam atau memilih agama lain telah terpincang dari maksud sebenar. Wahai anak Malaysia, sampai bila akan kalian insaf ?

Undang-undang Islam ala-Pas sekarang bukan sahaja ketinggalan zaman, malah diragui kesahihannya,sebab ia cuma tafsiran segolongan badut yang fikirannya mungkin lain daripada Allah. Oleh itu sesiapa yang mendakwa tafsiran dialah yang paling tepat dan merupakan hasrat Allah, serta memaksa orang ramai mempercayainya malah ingin menghukum orang lain mengikut tafsirannya, sebenarnya sedang “Play God” atau ingat dia sendiri Allah. Apakah bezanya daripada Ayah Pink yang turut mendakwa dirinya Tuhan ?

Ramai dari Pas yang menuduh Taleban, Saudi, Umno atau Partai Keadilan-Sejahtera (PKS) Indonesia tidak menyediakan model negara Islam yang sebenar. Siapakah mereka Pas ini untuk menjadi satu-satunya pihak yang menentukan maksud sebenar Allah ?

Pemerintah harus segera berhenti dari terus mengganggu kebebasan individu. Seperti yang dijelaskan oleh rakan berblog, Politics 101, “In God we trust, in Ayah Pink they trust”. Siapakah yang empowerkan kerajaan untuk memberkas mereka yang menikmati minuman di Zouk ataupun memilih kepercayaan sendiri ? Kenapa gagal lagi untuk mengiktiraf perbezaan individu dan kepelbagaian gaya hidup dalam masyarakat majmuk ini ?

Penasihat parti, DS Anwar Ibrahim telah menyatakan bahawa negara Islam dan Hudud bukan matlamat perjuangan Parti Keadilan. Mampuslah Umno gila, Pas jahat dan sesiapa sahaja yang membelenggukan fikiran dan membekukan kebebasan rakyat !

Salam Reformasi !