Juslo

MACC: Whale Ain’t No Big Fish

2010-08-06T14:16:00.007+08:00

Juslo's Bawang

(Kuala Lumpur, 31 September 2011) Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission Chief Commissioner, Datuk Seri Abu Kassim Mohamed, today vehemently defended his refusal to resign, even though MACC has so far failed to take any action against the country’s most powerful politicians such as the Prime Minister Najib Razak, Sarawak Chief Minister Taib Mahmud and Sabah Chief Minister Musa Aman for alleged corruption.

Last year, the MACC Chief denied the allegation that MACC was not serious in tackling bribery and only caught the 'ikan bilis' (those involved in small bribes) instead of the 'sharks'; he said MACC had never turned a blind eye to the 'big fish', and told a gathering of innocent, naïve, primary school kids in a public relations event that,

“You know that I am (100% prepared to take action against any members of the cabinet for corruption). I can make sure that if there is a case and report against any cabinet minister (and subsequently no action is taken), I am willing to go down.”

But today, Abu Kassim clarified what he meant last year,

“Please read my speech carefully. I said “cabinet minister”, but I did not say “Prime Minister” or “Chief Minister”, am I right?? Yes, I did say before that I'll quit if big fish are let off, but hey, don’t you people watch National Geographic? Didn’t your teachers teach you people that whale is NOT a fish but a mammal?? I said MACC would catch the 'sharks', yes, but we never said we would catch whales! Whales are in a completely different category than fish, big or small!”

“We have no problem catching sharks but do you know how dangerous it is to catch a whale?? If a whale flips its tail, it will cause a tsunami, and the whole Malaysia will get drown. There are far reaching consequences for the whole country and Ketuanan Melayu if we touch whales!! You want me and my people to get killed is it?! We never signed up to catch whales!! Besides, whales are legally protected by international treaties. So, we at MACC are not allowed to catch whales, we know that from day 1 we joined. We don't want to bite off more than we can chew, and trust me, whaling could get very very ugly.”

He was approached by reporters today after Tun Dr Ling Liong Sik was yesterday found by the court for not guilty of two cheating charges related to the RM12.5 billion PKFZ project.

The court decided that “misleading the Government is not ‘cheating’, you idiot; that is corruption. Don’t abuse the meaning of words.”

Abu Kassim said, “Yes, I did say before that I'll quit if big fish are let off, but hey, there is NO corruption involved in this case. Tun Ling was NOT charged for any corruption crime, but only for cheating. So, his prosecution actually has nothing to do with the MACC.”

When asked if MACC is now going to prosecute Ling for any corruption crime, Abu Kassim said, “Too bad, we can’t anymore. Since he has been freed by the Court, we cannot charge him anymore for the same issues. It’s called “double-jeopardy”, don’t you people understand?”

Abu Kassim denied that the Government had purposely charged Ling for the wrong offence so that he is guaranteed to be not guilty, and denied that this was a “whitewash.” He insisted that the Attorney General is a smart person. When asked whether Ling was a 'whale' (which MACC is afraid to hunt) or a 'shark' (which MACC is not afraid to hunt), he said,

“I would say he’s a 'baby whale'. Which means, if we really go against him, the Mother Whale might get so upset that we’ll all get into trouble. So, we have to be gentle with the baby whale also.”

OMG - Juslo's Prophecy Came True!!

2010-07-21T04:36:00.015+08:00

Stan: Oh my god, they plagiarized Juslo's fatwa!

Kyle: YOU MORONS!!

Taken without permission from Juslo's Seriously-Dude-I-Really-Didn't-Make-This-Up.com, copyright unprotected.

(31 June 2010, Johor Bahru) Semi-retired blogger Juslo has today threatened to sue the Johor Religious Council adviser Datuk Nooh Gadot and Perak Mufti Tan Sri Harussani Zakaria for plagiarizing his fatwa, when they recently declared that the wearing of certain football jerseys, such as those of Manchester United and Barcelona, were forbidden in Islam. (see the press excerpt, below)

Juslo, who on November 25, 2008 already posted the much-ridiculed post, "Fatwa Bans Red Devils and Christian Clubs", said furiously at the press conference that: "I came up with this first! Therefore, they should at least properly acknowledge my authority in this field. Otherwise, this is plagiarism, and I'm gonna sue these a**holes!" He went on to bang the table repeatedly.

Juslo says: Respect my AUTHORITAH!!

Juslo added, "I don't mind people paying homage to my works, but at least they should not pass it off as if it was their own original ideas. You know, I can respect their constitutional right to stupidity, but they should also respect my authority, just like how they always talk about respecting the Malay Rulers, the position of Islam, and the special rights of Malays, blah blah blah. This is highly unethical. Since they claim to be religious men, they ought to be ashamed of themselves."

Juslo added that he now also expects the various newspapers like KOSMO! and Star to give him credit as the original creater of this fatwa. "If you guys are ethical journalists, you should do so, dudes!"

In that 2008 post, Juslo has already came up with the world's FIRST fatwa to say that Muslims should not be allowed to wear the jerseys of Barcelona and Manchester United. Although he did not name the jerseys of the national teams of Brazil, Portugal, Serbia, Barcelona and Norway (and England and Switzerland, by the way), he did named other famous European football clubs too, such as Real Madrid and AC Milan. (Datuk Nooh Gadot and Perak Mufti Tan Sri Harussani Zakaria might want to take note. For the good of the Muslim youths, don't leave out any one of them god-damed infidel, sesat clubs!!)

Nevertheless, Juslo commended these 2 prominent Muslim intellectuals for always be on the lookout for ways to protect the stupid muslims of Malaysia. "Malaysian muslims would be lost and confused without these guardian angels. What would Malaysian muslims do without them? All praise and glory to God, and may God bless their intellect for decades to come," said Juslo, tears of gratitude in his eyes while touching his heart, and seemed geniunely touched.

Juslo, a part-time unemployed blogger who was banned by RPK because of minor differences of opinions, also felt relieved and vindicated. "Now, nobody can accuse me of spreading false news. Nobody can say I'm not qualified to talk about Islam (Malaysian style, at least) because even the highly respected ulamas like Perak Mufti Tan Sri Harussani Zakaria and Datuk Nooh Gadot bloody stole my ideas. So now you know, all the things I've written are true - you just have to wait for the time to come, that's all."

Meanwhile, the Malaysian bloggerhood are worried about which other prophecies of Juslo would come true next. Ascot Sports has already been issued the very first and only betting license by the Prime Minister to put up bets of the following few prophecies coming true:

3/1 - Tan Sri Lim Goh Tong Declared a Muslim, Children ‘Disinherited’

5/1 - Use of ‘Bapa’ by Non-Malays Banned

8/1 - Malaysian Men Banned From Non-OIC Countries

8/1 - Parliamentary Votes by SMS Valid, says Court

The following are the reports showing how these unethical ulamas have plagiarized Juslo's fatwa:

Football jerseys Muslims should
not wear
http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2010/7/19/nation/6689974&sec=nation
Monday July 19, 2010

KOSMO! carried a report about Muslims who wittingly or unwittingly wear football jerseys which display images of crosses, liquor brands and devils.

Johor Religious Council adviser Datuk Nooh Gadot said wearing such jerseys were forbidden in Islam.

“It is as if Muslims are worshipping and exalting the symbols of other religions. Islam does not compromise on this matter, regardless of whether it is worn for fun, fashion or sport,” he said.

Perak Mufti Tan Sri Harussani Zakaria agreed with Nooh and said although Islam did not forbid its followers from participating in sports or dressing up, it has to be done within the boundaries of Islamic law.

Among the football teams whose crests carry images of the cross are Brazil, Portugal, Serbia, Barcelona and Norway, while Manchester United carries the “Red Devil” slogan on its team crest.

Haram pakai jersi lambang salib – Datuk Nooh
Gadot
http://www.rindok.com/blog/haram-pakai-jersi-lambang-salib-datuk-nooh-gadot/

Pemakaian jersi bola sepak atau sebarang pakaian yang memiliki lambang salib, jenama arak dan imej syaitan adalah haram hukumnya dan boleh menjurus kepada perbuatan syirik.
Penasihat Majlis Agama Islam Johor (MAIJ), Datuk Nooh Gadot berkata, perkara tersebut ditegah oleh Islam dan perbuatan mengabaikan hukum yang sudah jelas boleh membawa umat Islam ke arah syirik.
Beliau berkata, memakai baju seperti itu walau apapun alasannya menunjukkan umat Islam seolah-olah mengagung-agungkan dan memuliakan lambang agama lain.
“Semua mengetahui hukum ini dengan jelas, ia adalah haram dan jangan beri alasan untuk menghalalkan perkara tersebut.
“Dalam hal ini, Islam tidak ada kompromi sama ada ia dibuat atas nama hiburan, fesyen mahupun sukan,” ujarnya ketika dihubungi Kosmo! Ahad baru-baru ini.
Beliau mengulas trend menyarung jersi di kalangan remaja dan golongan dewasa masa kini yang secara terang-terangan memiliki lambang salib atau jenama arak di baju mereka.
Trend itu sudah agak lama berlaku di negara ini namun semakin popular semenjak demam Piala Dunia melanda bermula awal tahun ini.
Antara jersi pasukan negara atau kelab yang tertera lambang salib atau imej syaitan adalah Brazil, Portugal, Sweden dan Norway, Manchester United dan Barcelona.
Nada yang sama turut diluahkan oleh Mufti Perak, Tan Sri Harussani Zakaria.
Beliau berkata, perbuatan memakai baju seperti itu hanya menjurus ke arah dosa dan boleh mengakibatkan syirik kepada Allah.
Jelasnya, pakaian yang mempamerkan lambang agama lain mahupun mempunyai imej syaitan dan jenama arak dilihat seperti mengangkat martabat lambang itu lebih tinggi berbanding Islam.
Menurut Harussani, Islam tidak menghalang umatnya untuk berfesyen atau bersukan namun ia perlu dilakukan dalam ruang lingkup syarak seperti menutup
aurat dan tidak membazir.

Use of ‘Bapa’ by Non-Malays Banned

2010-01-04T19:12:00.019+08:00

Some of the mentally challenged Malays teaching their kids how to be loving and tolerant

Juslo's Bawang

Friday, Feb 31, 2010, Kuala Lumpur – The Malaysian Government has just launched its “Protect 1Stupid Malaysia” Campaign today, which was officiated by the Prime Minster and attended by all the Malay leaders from the ruling party UMNO.

The Prime Minister launching his signature “Protect 1Stupid Malaysia” Campaign, with his wife and other UMNO leaders.

In his keynote address, the Prime Minister said:

“We all know that believing in Islam would make you stupid and vulnerable. (Some would say, ILLITERATE too – that’s why they couldn’t fucking tell that ‘Herald’ is actually a Catholic publication.) We also know that in Malaysia, by definition, all Muslims are also automatically Malays. That is why, the Malays/Muslims are a group of very easily confused people. So, the Government of Ketuanan Melayu has decided to launch this very important campaign to protect the stupid Malays of Malaysia.”

Under this campaign, apart from disagreeing with the court’s decision that the word ‘Allah’ could be used by non-Muslims (by appealing until the higher courts agree with the Government, as they are bound to), the Government will also ban the use of a few important words in the Malay language by non-Malays, so that eventually, the use of the Malay language in any way, shape or form by non-Malays would be banned altogether.

First off, the most popular word “Bapa” would be banned. The word means “father” in Malay. Based on our survey, English-speaking Westerners like to use the word “Papa” to refer to their fathers affectionately, and Chinese Malaysians also commonly use this word to call their fathers, albeit sounding more like “Baba”, “Aba” or just “Ba”. The PM explained that it is very important to ban the use of this word by non-Malays because:

“Let’s say a pious, highly educated Malay adult man with a highly successful professional career, walks on the street. Suddenly, he hears a little Chinese girl calls her Dad, “Baba”. Although this man is highly educated etc etc, to the Government he is STILL VERY STUPID (because as far as the Government is concerned, he is still a Malay), so he might suddenly become SOOOO confused and thought that the little Chinese girl’s Dad is actually his own “Bapa”!! How could a pious, good Malay call a kafir, Chinese pig “Bapa”?! We must never let this happen.

Not every father is a “Bapa”! So, non-Malays must not call their fathers “Bapa” or anything which remotely sound like that because we don’t want Malays to become confused about who are really their daddies. This would affect the supreme position of the stupid Malay fathers under the Malaysian Constitution and it is provocative to the stupid Malay fathers.

In the coming days, I shall ask all leaders of UMNO to suggest words which they think we should ban non-Malays in this country from using.”

Unbelievably Moronic Numbskull Organisms -- Proud Defenders of the rights of the Malay Race

All the Ministers from the UMNO party (Unbelievably Moronic Numbskull Organisms) fully support the PM’s new campaign.

Dato' Seri Hishammuddin Bin Tun Hussein, the PM’s cousin and a top-leader in both UMNO and the Malaysian Government, said that because this is Tanah Melayu (the ancestral land of the Malays), it is the right of the Malays in Malaysia to do whatever they like including to be stupid, and to FORCE OTHERS TO CHANGE their own cultures and methods of worship, in order to respect the Malays' right to stupidity. He said that he is willing to pull out his keris (the traditional Malay sword) to defend this right.

Not surprisingly, his suggested word for banning is “keris”, so that Malay men do not confuse it with “kiss” when it is time to do battle with the non-Malays who challenge this right to stupidity. "Bunuh kafir itu dengan keris (kill that infidel bastard with a keris)!!" might be misunderstood as "kill that infidel bastard with a kiss!!", he explained.

Hisham -- Kissing the Keris but not confused about Keris and Kiss

Dato' Seri Dr. Ahmad Zahid Bin Hamidi, a top-leader in both UMNO and the Malaysian Government, said that just because a Malay is not blind, can read, and can recognise his/her own father, let’s not forget that Malays tend to become stupid whenever they are exposed to non-Malay cultures. Whenever they come into contact with non-Malays, all of a sudden, their world became very confusing - because, according to Zahid, non-Malays are always out to use every means at their disposal to confuse the Malays. (But he did not elaborate on why he thought this was the case.)

That is why, it is the mission of UMNO to protect these Malays so that they can choose to continue to live like idiots, and also because it is only by continuing to make them idiots that they will continue to support and depend on UMNO. “It is a win-win situation. If your people are stupid, it is your job as a leader to keep them that way, not to reason with them or to make them smarter,” he added.

Zahid -- One of the brainiest leaders of his generation, extremely fluent in English

In fact, being one of the more brainy ones in UMNO, Zahid’s goal is more ambitious. He figured that by banning the use of certain words by non-Malays, non-Malays will ultimately also lose the use of that word, therefore becoming as stupid as the Malays too. So, He suggested that the word “Enjin” be banned from non-Malay use, so that non-Malays (whom UMNO accuse as forming the majority of the opposition politicians) would stop questioning the Government and him about the embarrassing theft of the 2 fighter jet engines from the country's top security air force base (which occurred when the current stupid Malay PM was the Defence Minister).

(However, he later withdrew the suggestion and aborted the interview immediately after being told by his aide that actually, the word “enjin” was a word borrowed from English.)

Meanwhile, Dato' Seri Shahrizat Abdul Jalil, the top woman leader of UMNO, became immediately hysterical -- in the true UMNO tradition -- when she was asked to comment. “A lot of stupid Malay mums have called my organization to ask what more could they do to protect their stupid children from becoming very confused. We are going to meet whoever we can meet to make sure that Malays don’t get confused about whether they are actually stupid or not. If need be, we will apply to meet the King,” she said in a statement.

Sharizat -- The Agong is our Agony Uncle

Naturally, being the top female Malay leader, she proposed the ban of the word “Mak” (meaning ‘mother’, in Malay language) as the obvious next step to the ban of “Bapa”. “If we don’t want stupid Malays to get confused about who are their fathers, surely we do not want them to get confused about who are their mothers either. In fact, I think, avoiding confusion about “Mak” is more important than not confusing “Bapa”, because nowadays, rich and powerful Malay men usually become very horny when they get older, so it is very common to have more than 1 “Mak” in a household, which can get very confusing for the kids.”

Finally, Datuk Seri Syed Hamid bin Syed Jaafar Albar, the ex-Minister who started all these controversies by imposing the ban of the non-Muslims’ use of the word ‘Allah’ even though non-Muslims in the country had been using it for hundreds of years even before Malaysia was born, said that the God-given right of Malays to act and talk like idiots and the Malay Rulers' role to protect the idiocy of the Malays was enshrined in the Constitution. Therefore, those who dare to question it should be immediately detained without trial for up to 2 years under the country’s Internal Security Act – for their own ‘protection’.

Syed Hamid -- His wisdom sent him into Happy Retirement

He suggested that the Malay word “Bodoh” (meaning ‘stupid’, in Malay language) should be banned from non-Malay use, because the word has now become too commonly used by non-Malays to call someone ‘stupid’ in an affectionate or joking way, such as "Eh, Bodoh lah you!" and do not mean it seriously. Therefore, Malays might get ‘confused’ and think that the person who is being called ‘Bodoh’ is seriously stupid, instead of only jokingly so.

“Because Malays are so stupid, they can’t tell if someone is joking or not. The pre-requisite to appreciating humour/have a sense of humour is intelligence, which unfortunately most Malays in UMNO and their ilk sadly lack,” he said, perhaps meant as an advice to the author of this post?

Parliamentary Votes by SMS Valid, says Court

2009-05-23T11:58:00.017+08:00

"Aye or Nay? Aiya My Dear, you decide lah...
Just sms His Majesty for me after you decide, ok?"

Juslo's Bawang

LAGOS, Nigeria, 31 June 2020 - The Supreme Court today decided that His Majesty the King of Nigeria was entitled to sign into law the "Kill All Poor People" Bill passed by the Parliament of the Kingdom of Nigeria, last week, even though the Bill was passed via Short Message Service (or 'SMS', a form of text messaging on mobile phones) sent by 51 out of the 100 Members of Parliament to His Majesty's mobile phones.

The Chief Justice of the Nigerian Supreme Court writes in his decision:

"We follow the very famous decision in this area called Nizar v Zambry, by the Malaysian Court of Appeal, which decided in 2009 that:

"There is no mandatory, express requirement that provides for a motion of no-confidence to be passed in the State Assembly against the Respondent before he ceases to command the confidence of the majority.

The fact that the Respondent has ceased to command the confidence of the majority may be ascertained through extraneous means."

This means that HM the King was entitled to gather the votes of the Members of Parliament by such 'extraneous means' as he thinks appropriate."

Surely, 'extraneous means' can include by SMS."

Before this decision, the Supreme Court of New Zealand has also decided in 2018 that the King of New Zealand could conclude that the Parliament of that country has passed a Bill to castrate all male followers of the Catholic faith found in the country, the 'extraneous means' here being voting by the use of emails to the King. The New Zealand court also based its decision on the famous decision of Nizar v Zambry, by the Malaysian Court of Appeal in 2009.

And before the New Zealand case, the Supreme Court of Sri Lanka has also decided in 2015 that the King of Sri Lanka could conclude that the Parliament of that country has passed a Bill to ban all television stations in the country who criticised the ruling party, the 'extraneous means' here being voting by the use of 'circular resolutions' which were signed by the Members of Parliament from the ruling party while they were on holidays in foreign beaches and casinos. Again, the same famous decision by the Malaysian Court of Appeal in 2009 was followed.

And before the Sri Lanka case, the Supreme Court of Finland has also decided in 2013 that the King of Finland could conclude that the Parliament of that country has passed a Bill to pay 100 members of the King's royal household as well as each Member of the Parliament USD10 million a year for life, after the King gathered 'extraneous evidence' of the wishes of the Members of Parliament by chatting with them by the poolside while they were all having a wet-t-shirt party at the Palace over the weekend. The King of Findland called it a "Vote at the Palace". Again, the same famous decision by the Malaysian Court of Appeal in 2009 was followed.

And before the Finland case, the Supreme Court of Singapore has also decided in 2011 that the Emperor of Singapore could conclude that the Parliament of that country has passed a Bill to amend the Constitution of Singapore to appoint Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong as the Emperor of Singapore and abolish the Parliament forever, after the Emperor gathered 'extraneous evidence' of the wishes of the Members of Parliament by talking to each of them while they were all locked up in the Singapore Prison after being arrested under the Internal Security Act of Singapore for suggesting in Parliament that it was time for Minister Mentor Lee Kwan Yew to "retire graciously and stop behaving like he is the Emperor." Again, the same famous decision by the Malaysian Court of Appeal in 2009 was followed.

The Chief Justice of the Nigerian Supreme Court writes in his decision:

"Relax lah, people. What's the big deal??

Look, if you can decide on whether to change the leader of a Government by just talking to the Members of the Legislative Assembly outside of the Assembly and in the Palace, just like they did it in Perak, Malaysia, in that very famous decision, then why can't you do it via SMS?? After all, HELLO, we are at 21st Century already, and we should embrace the latest technology of the 21st Century!

Don't you guys watch the American Idol?? From what I understand, you can elect the American Idol by sending SMS, right?? So why not the passing of a Parliamentary vote? I personally think that there would be nothing wrong if the President of the USA should be elected by SMS.

Come on, our Members of Parliament are so busy nowadays! So, they shouldn't have to come to the stupid Parliament House to pass laws or elect Prime Ministers all the time! After all, company directors are allowed to pass Board Resolutions by written circulars (just sign the damn paper!), so why not our Members of Parliament? They should be allowed to do it wherever they are, whenever they want - just like we are entitled to order takeaway Chinese food via SMS and mobile phones. Why not?!

To us in the Court, we just don't understand why we should even have a Parliament House anymore. Indeed, why the f**k do we need the Speaker for?? (Especially when His Majesty the King doesn't mind becoming the part-time Speaker to count the votes for us...) It's a complete waste of taxpayers' money."

Meanwhile, the other 49 Members of Parliament who insisted that all votes by the Parliament should be taken in the Parliament were labeled as "belonging to the 20th Century" by the Chief Justice. The leader of this group of 49 MPs, Mr Neezal, said:

"The Members of Parliament, as the People's Representatives, are elected by the People to transact business in the Parliament for and on behalf of the People - NOT the Palace. The Parliament House is where the Sovereignty of the People lies. Whatever they want to say, they must say it in this place so that the People can see and hear us. Ultimately, we are accountable to the People, and so we must do it before the People's eyes, NOT the King.

In the old days before we have Constitutional Monarchy, the King (Executive Branch of the Government) was of course very powerful. Even today, the Executive Branch still controls the guns - the Police, the Military. Everything was done in a very non-transparent manner. Now, we have the Parliament, at least what we do inside Parliament is open to the public and recorded in the Hansard. But things you do in the Palace could be secret.

For example, everything we say in the Parliament is immune from being sued in court, so that we can speak as the People's Representatives without fear or favour. When we vote, the People - such as my own constituency - can see what I voted for/against, and they know I did not vote because someone points a gun at my head.

Now, if we do it OUTSIDE of the Parliament House, how could we be sure what went on when the MPs sent their SMS?? Maybe they were being forced or blackmailed to send that kind of SMS to the King??

Whatever it is, I just don't understand why can't they do it in the Parliament House. How can the King behave as if His Majesty is the Speaker??"

Elsewhere, in the Netherlands, the Supreme Court of the Netherlands will decide next month whether Live TV footage of the shouting of the slogan "Down with the Spanish Armada!" by more than half of the Members of the Dutch Parliament attending the 2020 UEFA Champions League Semi-Finals (First leg) between Ajax Amsterdam and the Spanish Champions, Real Sociedad, in the Amsterdam Football Stadium last month, could be regarded by Her Majesty the Queen of Netherlands as "extraneous evidence" of a "Parliamentary Vote to Declare War on the Kingdom of Spain."

Fatwa Bans Red Devils and Christian Clubs

2008-11-25T07:42:00.012+08:00

UPDATE - PLAGIARISM ALERT!!
This post has been PLAGIARIZED by unethical, slim-ball ulamas!!

Juslo's Bawang

(KUALA LUMPUR, 31 Nov 2008) In line with its role and mandate to protect the country’s stupid and vulnerable Muslims, Malaysia’s top Islamic body today ruled against Muslims supporting Manchester United Football Club as well as a host of other European football clubs, saying they have elements of evil and other religions that could corrupt the highly fragile Muslims.

The National Fatwa Council's edict said that supporting such football clubs involves not just physical activities or being a couch potato, but also includes Satanic or Christian spiritual elements, chanting and worship.

"It is inappropriate. It can destroy the faith of a Muslim, who are by definition stupid and vulnerable," council chairman Professor Tan Sri Dato’ Seri Dr Sheikh Abdul Shukor Husin told reporters. He noted that clerics in Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan had issued a similar edict in 2008 that called the support of such European football clubs "an aberration."

Recently, the council issued an edict banning yoga and tomboys, ruling that yoga is Hinduism’s secret weapon to bring Malaysian Muslims back to their ancestors’ kafir roots (the earliest recorded religions in the Malay archipelago were Hinduism and Buddhism, before the spread of Islam to the region), while girls who act like boys violate the tenets of Islam. The fatwa council took up the football club issue after an infidel blogger, Juslo, last week criticised the council’s ban on yoga and tomboys as further evidence of the oppression of Muslim women in the name of Islam, and dared the council to take on the male Muslims instead.

SYAITAN MERAH

The fatwa explained that the reason why Manchester United is banned is because of its nickname, RED DEVIL or “Syaitan Merah”. The council chairman elaborated, “In other words, those who support or worship Manchester United players are basically worshipping the Satan. World famous Man U players such as Cristiano Ronaldo, Wayne Rooney and Ryan Giggs are actually the incarnations of the Devil himself.”

When asked whether the fatwa has exaggerated the significance of a mere nickname, the council chairman denied and pointed to an additional proof: the emblem of Manchester United, where it clearly shows a Devil-like creature holding a Devil’s ‘fork’. Therefore, according to the council chairman, anybody who wears or uses Man U T-shirts or merchandise is basically carrying around the Devil with them all the time.

“Only Satan-worshippers would walk around proudly displaying the symbol of Satan. God-fearing Muslims would not associate themselves with the Devil, whether Red or Black or whatever. Also, the way they cheer and chant in the stadium in order to frighten their opponents (or in front of giant TV screens in mamak stalls everywhere) is Satan’s way of leading the Muslims astray because the cheering and chanting of Red Devils shows that they are loyal to God’s enemy."

"Instead of spending all their energy to shout “Allahu Akhbar” during their weekly after-Friday-prayer demonstrations against cartoons and infidel oppressors in front of the US Embassy and British High Commission, or against freedom of religion and speech in front of the Bar Council, they now reserve their energies "for Saturday" in order to cheer the Red Devils who carry clearly infidel names such as Cristiano, Carlos, Paul and Michael. Man U supporters therefore incur God’s wrath at least on a weekly basis. They will definitely go to hell.”

The shares of Manchester United traded on the London Stock Exchange fell 50% on the release of such a landmark fatwa by 1 of the world’s most influential and respected intellectual heavyweight institutions, Malaysia’s National Fatwa Council. On the other hand, shares of Arsenal, Chelsea and Liverpool Football Clubs jumped at least 25% each as analysts predict that most Muslim supporters of Man U would switch their allegiance to these 3 fierce rivals of Man U.

The Man U management has already convened an emergency board meeting to discuss whether to accommodate their Muslim supporters by changing the Club’s famous emblem and nickname. The meeting has not ended as of press time, after 5 hours of continuous deliberation. Options being considered are: changing the nickname to ‘Red Angels’, let the creature in the emblem wear a songkok or skull cap, or simply changing the Club’s name to “Mujaheeden United”.

KELAB-KELAB SALIB

However, Manchester United is not the only European football club affected. The fatwa also ruled that it is haram for Muslims to support the following football clubs (more to come) as they are deemed to be the “new armies of Christian Crusaders” who try to penetrate the hearts and minds of Muslim youths around the world by disguising as football clubs and turn all Muslim football fans into Christians simply by seducing them to wear or use their Christian merchandise. The reason is obvious and needs no elaboration: the presence of a Salib (Christian Cross) in each of the emblem of these clubs!!

AC Milan, a Christian Club.

(Don't tell me you idiots can't fucking see that HUGE cross, even if you are illiterate!)

Barcelona, also a Christian Club.

(Duh!!)

Real Madrid, definitely a Christian Crusaders' Club.

(Can't you morons fucking see that TINY cross on top of the Crusader's crown?? Don't you motherfuckers remember which country started the SPANISH Inquisition??)

How such obvious signs of Christian Crusader agenda has escaped the attention of the defenders of Islam around the world for so long is indeed puzzling.

The National Fatwa Council is also due to publish a list of “Kelab-Kelab yang ditanggung Halal” (Religiously Permissible Football Clubs) next week for Muslim football fans to choose from. Sources have indicated that little known Middle-eastern football clubs from Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and even Shiite Iran are expected to top the list. However, NONE of the clubs from Malaysia's professional football clubs from the Super League and Premier League is expected to be recommended to avoid further embarrassment to Malaysia.

A non-Muslim reporter asked whether the National Fatwa Council is insulting the intelligence of Muslim football fans in banning these European clubs because it basically suggests that Muslim football fans are too fucking stupid to tell whether they are only engaging in sporting activities and not religious worship; or that they are too fucking blur to tell whether they are at a football stadium or watching the match on the god damn TV on 1 hand, or praying at a mosque or church on the other hand.

The council chairman immediately retorted that infidels have no business questioning Muslim affairs, politely suggested the reporter to fuck off and then threatened to lodge a police report against that reporter immediately for disrespecting the Malay Rulers, the position of Islam, the Federal Constitution and inciting racial hatred. The chairman also gave that reporter a short lecture on “watch out for ISA, read your history and remember the Social Contract" blah blah blah (you know, the usual tirade used by Malay ultras to avoid intelligent debates) before abruptly changing the subject to tomboys and lesbians after he was told that the infidel reporter was actually a non-Malaysian journalist from Reuters.

JIHAD BOLA SEPAK

Meanwhile, to counter the increasing influence of Satan and the Crusaders over the hearts and minds of Muslim youths all over the world, the Grand Imam of Al-Azhar University, Egypt, has called on the Rulers of the oil-rich Gulf states to do an “Ibrahimovic” by buying up popular European football clubs with heavy Christian traditions and change them to become more ‘Islamic’ so that Muslims can wholeheartedly engage in healthy sporting activities without worrying about being led astray.

“Oh, those who believe! Turn AC Milan into AC Mullah, change Real Madrid into Real Medina! Remove the crosses and bring in the moon! Use your endowment (oil money) wisely in the way of Jihad, and your fight for the souls of your Muslim brothers shall be rewarded hereafter!”

The Grand Imam made the above call to these Rulers in his latest Friday sermon.

Meanwhile, back in Malaysia, immature and no-sense-of-humour Muslim readers of Juslo’s blog are expected to label Juslo as anti-Islam, rather than of trying to use their fucking brain cells to see just how ridiculous and childish this so-called ‘Islamisation’ nonsense has become. However, it really makes you wonder how is it possible that these geniuses still haven’t thought of the bloody obvious and come up with a fatwa to ban Man U yet, so that we infidels don’t have to fight so hard for tables at the mamak stalls every Saturday night and during Champions League matches. Totalitarianism is only for picking on women and soft targets, perhaps?

Politik baru Datuk Chamil Wariya

2008-10-15T10:42:00.015+08:00

Yo yo Malaysia, wassup?!!!

Look, people, recently I’m sort of tired of writing news and commentaries on current affairs like a responsible journalist, so I decided to try my hands at literature (I mean REAL literature, fit for a Nobel nomination), after reading this highly inspiring, original and sophisticated piece at Malaysia’s most respected, mature and responsible daily newspaper, Utusan Malaysia.

The parts which I have made “bold” are places where I have tried to be original. I've also added some commentaries (in red) at the most important parts of the plots for those Malaysian TRAITORS out there who don't know our Bahasa Kebangsaan well enough to read through the whole piece.

So, enjoy, and tell me what you think… I hope you would be kind because it's my first shot at writing literature/cerpen!!

(Needless to say, all these are pure fiction. No incitement for violence, murder or racial hatred intended!! Readers' intelligence required. Parental guidance needed for Utusan Malaysia readers.)

Wish all of you in Malaysia a Molotov-free week!!

Politik baru DATUK CHAMIL WARIYA

Juslo punya Sastera/ Cerpen

PAGI itu resah DATUK CHAMIL WARIYA, yang lebih mesra dengan panggilan DATUK C sukar dikawal. Sepanjang perjalanan menuju ke Dewan Perhimpunan Warga Mayu di ibu kota, fikirannya terganggu. Tuduhan bahawa dia anti-Kebebasan Bersuara (Freedom of Speech), anti-Minoriti, anti-Buddhist, anti-Kristian, anti-Cina, anti-India dan anti-bukan Islam sungguh-sungguh menghantui perasaannya sejak malam tadi lagi. Entah mengapa baru sekarang dia begitu, dia sendiri tidak tahu. Dia juga tidak pasti sama ada pemandunya, Ah Kow, menyedari gelora jiwanya ketika itu. Kalau dia tahu pun, peduli apa, DATUK CHAMIL WARIYA berbisik sendirian.

Pemandu itu memang sedia maklum pendirian politiknya tentang kepentingan kaumnya vis a vis orang bukan Melayu. Dan dia tahu Ah Kow menghormati pendiriannya, walaupun dilihat anti-bukan Melayu, anti-Kebebasan Bersuara (Freedom of Speech), anti-Minoriti, anti-Buddhist, anti-Kristian, anti-Cina, anti-India sebagai hak asasi tinggal dalam sebuah negara demokrasi. Bukankah kebebasan asasi itu dijamin oleh Perkara 5 hingga Perkara 13 Perlembagaan Persekutuan. Tetapi DATUK CHAMIL WARIYA akui demokrasi ada yang tidak sempurna dan kerap disalahgunakan oleh pihak yang berkuasa, khususnya surat khabar “Ulat Malaysia”. Tetapi hakikat itu tidak menghalang rakyat menempatkan pembangkang di Dewan Rakyat. DATUK CHAMIL WARIYA adalah salah seorang daripadanya.

Ah, tudahan dia anti-bukan Melayu, anti-Kebebasan Bersuara (Freedom of Speech), anti-Minoriti, anti-Buddhist, anti-Kristian, anti-Cina, anti-India, dan anti-bukan Islam tuduhan yang melulu bentak DATUK CHAMIL WARIYA seolah-olah mahu menyedapkan dirinya.. Ia juga tuduhan yang tidak berasas, hati kecilnya bersuara lagi. Dia meyakinkan dirinya bahawa kenyataan kenyataan yang dibuatnya atas nama satu kaum untuk memperjuangkan kepentingan kaumnya, bukan sesuatu yang rasis. Muslim Brotherhood, organisasi hak asasi antarabangsa akan menyetujuinya. Begitu juga dengan Saudi Arabia. Perdana Menteri dan seluruh Kabinet Barisan Nasioinal pun tidak pernah menganggapnya rasis. Yang menganggapnya rasis hanya orang bukan Melayu di dalam Parti Orang Bukan Melayu (POBM).

“Aku juga bukan anti-bukan Islam. Aku bukan anti-Kebebasan Bersuara (Freedom of Speech), anti-Minoriti, anti-Buddhist, anti-Kristian, anti-Cina, anti-India,” pujuk hati DATUK CHAMIL WARIYA yang sudah dua penggal bergelar YB itu, mewakili Parti Rasis Ketuanan Melayu. Parti itu dianggotainya sejak berada di kampus lagi, walaupun Akta Universiti dan Kolej Universiti melarang para siswa membabitkan diri secara langsung dalam mana-mana organisasi siasah. (Walaubagaimanapun, beliau tidak pernah menjadi seorang wartawan atau penulis sastra sepanjang hayat beliau oleh kerana pendiriannya yang anti-Kebebasan Bersuara (Freedom of Speech).) Lagi pun penguatkuasaan undang-undang itu sekadar melepas batuk di tangga. Lebih dari itu, ia adalah satu lagi undang-undang lapuk, kata DATUK CHAMIL WARIYA.

Kata hatinya lagi: “Aku sekadar memperjuangkan kepentingan kaum aku, sama seperti pemimpin bukan Melayu dalam POBM memperjuangkan kepentingan bangsanya, sama seperti pemimpin Parti Orang Kafir (POKAF) berjuang untuk bangsa menggunakan wajah bukan Islamnya.”

Malah DATUK CHAMIL WARIYA berasakan kelantangannya memperjuangkan kepentingan kaumnya itulah yang telah membantunya menang kali kedua kerusi Parlimennya. Kali ini dengan majoriti yang lebih besar lagi. Apa yang membanggakan dia adalah perjuangan yang dianggap anti-Kebebasan Bersuara (Freedom of Speech), anti-Minoriti, anti-Buddhist, anti-Kristian, anti-Cina, anti-India dan anti-bukan Islam itu kini turut disokong pengundi-pengundi bukan Melayu di kawasan pilihan rayanya itu. Pada mulanya dia sendiri terkejut apabila dimaklumkan sebahagian besar pengundi bukan Melayu yang merupakan 20 peratus keseluruhan pemilihan berdaftar dalam kawasan Parlimen Alam Maya telah memangkahnya.

Ini satu perkembangan luar biasa. Tidak mungkin mereka menyokong aku, bisik hatinya. Tetapi apabila dimaklumkan oleh para pekerja parti bahawa pengundi bukan Melayu di semua peti undi telah beralih arah mendokongnya, dia menerimanya dengan fikiran terbuka. Baguslah kalau orang bukan Melayu menerima perjuangan Ketuanan Melayu Ultra Barunya.

Tidak puas hati bermonolog dengan perasaannya, DATUK CHAMIL WARIYA secara spontan berpaling kepada Ah Kow, pemandunya yang sejak tadi tekun dengan tugasnya.

“Kamu fakir saya anti-bukan Islam, anti-Kebebasan Bersuara (Freedom of Speech), anti-Minoriti, anti-Buddhist, anti-Kristian, anti-Cina, anti-India?”

Pertanyaan

Ah Kow yang sudah menghampiri usia bersara itu tidak menjawab, seolah-olah dia tidak mendengar pertanyaan itu. Matanya tertumpu ke jalan raya. Tugasnya adalah untuk mempastikan DATUK CHAMIL WARIYA selamat ke majlis yang ingin dihadirinya. Dan tiba tepat pada waktunya. Majlis itu penting kerana DATUK CHAMIL WARIYA akan mengadakan dialog dengan generasi muda seketurunan dengannya yang belajar di luar negara tetapi kebetulan berada di tanah air kerana bercuti. Ah Kow sendiri tidak pasti sama ada pelajar yang pernah mempersendakan lagu Negara Ku sewaktu menuntut di sebuah universiti di Seberang Laut turut berada dalam kelompok itu. Kalau pun ada, pemandu DATUK CHAMIL WARIYA tidak ambil pusing. Budak itu memang kurang ajar. Ada ke patut Malaysia dianggap sebagai Negara Tanah Melayu Islamiah Ultra (ejaan Inggerisnya ‘Nazi’) yang bermaksud rasis. Dan kreativiti digunakan untuk menghalalkan perbuatan biadapnya itu. Cuma Ah Kow berfikir kalau semua orang dibiarkan menghina lagu Kebangsaan dengan lirik yang memperlekehkan kehidupan orang bukan Islam, dan atas nama kreativiti, maka kesannya terhadap perhubungan kaum adalah negatif.

Ah Kow tidak tahu apakah yang sebenarnya mengganggu bosnya itu sejak dari tadi lagi. Dia jarang begitu. Ah Kow dapat mengesan DATUK CHAMIL WARIYA lain macam sahaja pagi itu. Dia dapat membaca keresahan dan kegelisahan DATUK CHAMIL WARIYA. Seolah-olah ada sesuatu yang tidak kena walaupun apa yang sebenarnya berkocak di dalam diri DATUK CHAMIL WARIYA dia tidak pasti. Sepanjang ingatan Ah Kow, DATUK CHAMIL WARIYA juga tidak pernah berbual dengannya tentang politik, apa lagi tentang isu-isu semasa - kecuali memberi arahan yang ada kaitan dengan perjalanan atau jadual kerja. DATUK CHAMIL WARIYA juga tidak bertanya sama ada dia mengundi POBM atau parti apa pada pilihan raya yang lalu.

Lazimnya, sepanjang perjalanan, baik ke pejabat atau majlis-majlis rasmi dan tidak rasmi yang lain, DATUK CHAMIL WARIYA akan menghabiskan masa membaca akhbar atau membelek-belek fail. Tetapi pagi itu DATUK CHAMIL WARIYA lain macam sahaja. Dia kelihatan resah. Gelisah. Fikirannya juga seolah-olah tidak menentu. Apa yang dibuat serba tak kena. Sekejap dia membelek ucapan utama yang akan disampaikan sebentar lagi menghuraikan gagasan Politik Baru Ketuanan Melayu Ultra Baru yang dipeloporinya. Sekejap dia membelek akhbar-akhbar yang memang menemani DATUK CHAMIL WARIYA ke mana juga dia pergi.

Ah Kow cuba mencongak mungkin keresahan DATUK CHAMIL WARIYA ada kaitan dengan suhu politik negara sedang panas ketika itu. Bahangnya terasa di mana-mana. POBM sendiri sedang menghadapi pergolakan yang hebat berkait dengan kepimpinannya. Pertarungan kepentingan puak-puak di dalam parti sedang mengambil tempatnya. Kalaulah tidak kerana kedudukan politik kerajaan agak lemah selepas kehilangan majoriti dua pertiga, sudah lama Operasi Lancau, seperti yang pernah dibuat pada 1978, dilaksanakan, agaknya. Mungkin juga tidak kerana di bawah kepimpinan sekarang, kerajaan mengambil sikap yang lebih liberal terhadap para pengkritiknya.

Ah Kow juga terfikir mungkin perasaan DATUK CHAMIL WARIYA terganggu dengan tindakan kalangan yang tidak diketahui siapa mereka melempar bom petrol ke rumah keluarga ahli Parlimen Sepohon Beringin, Su Lan. Barangkali, fikir Ah Kow, DATUK CHAMIL WARIYA, bimbang kejadian yang sama boleh menimpa diri atau keluarganya.

Mana tahu selepas keluarga Su Lan, musuhnya DATUK CHAMIL WARIYA pula yang menjadi mangsa. Dan yang dilempar itu bom betul-betul. Meletup pula. Tidakkah nahas DATUK CHAMIL WARIYA. Sekonyong-konyong Ah Kow terbayang kejadian letupan bom berani mati yang berlaku di Damsyik, Syria yang ditonton menerusi Buletin Utama di TV3 beberapa hari lalu. Kalau kejadian yang sudah menghiasi kehidupan harian di Iraq, Israel, Tebing Barat, Gaza atau Afghanistan itu menular di negara ini, alangkah malangnya bumi bertuah ini. Minta disimpang malaikat 44, Ah Kow berkata sendirian di dalam hatinya.

Tetapi fikir Ah Kow, amaran kalau tidak diendahkan berbahaya. Dia teringat apa yang diceritakan berlaku pada 31 Mei 1996. Bapanya menceritakan dalam tragedi selepas pilihan raya umum pada 30 Mei itu, orang bukan Cina dan bukan Melayu berbunuh-bunuhan. Perjuangan yang mahu menafikan hak-hak tidak istimewa orang bukan Melayu dan kaum bukan bumiputera lain yang tidak dijamin oleh Perlembagaan Persekutuan, tidak dapat diterima oleh mereka. Kata-kata kesat dan menghina orang bukan Melayu oleh para penyokong parti-parti pembangkang sewaktu berarak meraikan kemenangan besar di Kuala Longkang dan bandar-bandar utama lain pada pilihan raya 1996 itu tidak dapat ditelan oleh orang bukan Melayu. Parang yang terbiar tumpul selama ini diasah tajam. Dalam keadaan itu tercetuslah pergaduhan yang dahsyat menyebabkan Parlimen digantung dan pemerintahan darurat diisytiharkan. Negara diletakkan di bawah perintah berkurung. Ah Kow sendiri belum lahir ketika itu. Tidak lama selepas itu, peralihan kuasa berlaku daripada Tunku Ahmad Rahman kepada timbalannya, Tun AhmadRazak. Namun demikian, ia telah disahkan oleh rekod-rekod sejarah bahawa sebab sebenarnya peristiwa 31 Mei 1996 berlaku adalah akibat konspirasi ahli-ahli politik Parti Rasis Ketuanan Melayu yang ingin merampas kuasa, dan disokong dengan sepenuhnya oleh editor-editor dan wartawan-wartawan rasis di surat khabar “Ulat Malaysia”.

“Kow, saya ni anti-bukan Islam dan anti-Kebebasan Bersuara (Freedom of Speech), anti-Minoriti, anti-Buddhist, anti-Kristian, anti-Cina, anti-India ke?,” DATUK CHAMIL WARIYA secara mendadak mengulang semula pertanyaannya apabila tiada jawapan daripada pemandunya.

Ah Kow, yang sejak tadi membisu seribu bahasa selamba menjawab: “Mungkin tidak YB.” Dia memberi jawapan berlapik. Maksudnya: Mungkin tidak, mungkin ya bergantung pada mata yang menilai.

“Apa maksud kamu mungkin tidak.”

" Ini soal persepsi YB. Persepsinya begitulah. Hakikatnya DATUK tidak membenci bukan Melayu tidak juga membenci bukan Islam. DATUK sekadar memperjuangkan kepentingan kaum YB. Tidak salah DATUK berbuat demikian. Kalau DATUK tidak memperjuangkan kepentingan kaum DATUK sendiri, siapa lagi. Tetapi cara DATUK itu barangkali disalahertikannya.”

“Maksud kamu?" Tanya DATUK CHAMIL WARIYA yang masih belum jelas lagi.

Bergantung

“Yalah, ia bergantung pada mata yang memandang. Bukan sahaja di kalangan orang bukan Melayu, tetapi di kalangan bukan bukan Melayu. DATUK kena ingat di kalangan bukan bukan Melayu pun bukan semuanya menerima politik baru Ketuanan Melayu Ultra baru YB. Kalau tidak masakan parti satu kaum seperti Parti Orang Cina Babi (POCB) masih boleh bertahan.”

“Apa maksud kamu. Saya tidak begitu jelas?"

“Yalah bagi DATUK perjuangan DATUK adalah anti-pelbagai kaum. Tetapi dalam tindak tanduk, perjuangan anti-pelbagai kaum DATUK itu tidak tertonjol. DATUK mahu menghapuskan tulisan bukan jawi dan ganti dengan tulisan Melayu. Bagi mereka itu bukan perjuangan bukan pelbagai kaum. Ia perjuangan pelbagai kaum. Kalau benar bukan pelbagai kaum, DATUK patut menghapuskan tulisan jawi.” Ah Kow memberanikan diri untuk memberikan pandangannya.

Mengesan bosnya ingin mendengar pandangannya lagi, Ah Kow berkata: “Patutnya kalau DATUK benar-benar ingin menjadi pejuang bukan pelbagai kaum, kepentingan orang bukan Melayu harus diketepikan sewaktu mengetengahkan kepentingan kaum Melayu. DATUK perjuangkan kepentingan satu sahaja. Penerimaannya saya pasti berbeza. DATUK akan dilihat sebagai tidak mahu menjaga kepentingan kaum YB, tetapi pada waktu yang sama menafikan hak orang bukan Melayu.”

(nota Juslo: sorry, I became a little confused myself, hehe... corrections welcomed!)

Itu perjuangan POBM dan POCB, dengus DATUK CHAMIL WARIYA di dalam hatinya. Bosan aku dengan Si Ah Kow ini, dia berkata sendirian. Aku penganjur politik Ketuanan Melayu Ultra baru dan tidak mahu terikat dengan kerangka politik lama, katanya lagi kepada dirinya.

Perbualan DATUK CHAMIL WARIYA dengan pemandunya habis di situ sahaja. Dia tidak mahu lagi mendengar pandangan karut pemandunya. Dia mahu terus melayan perasaan: Aku percaya pada Politik Baru Ketuanan Melayu Ultra Baru, tegas DATUK CHAMIL WARIYA pada dirinya. Setiap warganegara, tanpa mengira apa keturunan mereka patut diberi hak yang lebih rendah daripada orang Melayu mengikut undang-undang yang mempertahankan Ketuanan Melayu Ultra. Tidak ada bangsa yang patut diberi layanan istimewa yang setaraf dengan orang Melayu. Tidak ada warga yang patut diberi darjat atau kelas kedua kecuali orang bukan Melayu. Kita semua orang Malaysia tetapi bukan semuanya orang Melayu.

DATUK CHAMIL WARIYA enggan melayan Ah Kow lagi. Sebaliknya, dia membelek akhbar “Ulat Malaysia” yang secara rasmi menyokong dan disokong oleh partinya. Perhatiannya tertumpu pada artikel berjudul Jangan Padam Rekod Negara yang ditulis oleh seorang generasi muda Cina yang menolak tesis politik baru Ketuanan Melayu Ultra baru.

Ah, satu lagi propaganda yang memperlekehkan kaum aku, dengus hati DATUK CHAMIL WARIYA. Jangan-jangan yang menulis artikel ini orang bukan Melayu. Mereka masih menganggap kaum aku sebagai berketurunan bukan istimewa. Tidak guna punya generasi baru. Dengus DATUK CHAMIL WARIYA. Bisik hatinya lagi: Betullah dulu nenek moyang mereka berhijrah ke bumi bertuah ini untuk mencari kekayaan, membebaskan diri mereka daripada kemiskinan dan keperitan hidup di China. Itu dulu. Generasi Cina sekarang sudah menjadi warganegara Malaysia dan mereka kemudian meminta dilayan seperti warganegara Malaysia. Ini langsung tidak boleh diterima.

Dikejutkan

Sedang DATUK CHAMIL WARIYA asyik dengan lamunannya, dia dikejutkan dengan suara pemandunya yang memaklumkan, “Kita sudah sampai YB.”

Menunggu dia di luar ialah para penganjur dialog yang bakal berlangsung. Salah seorang daripada mereka membuka pintu kereta DATUK CHAMIL WARIYA, bersalaman dengannya dan memperkenalkannya dengan ahli jawatankuasa penganjur yang lain. Diiringi oleh mereka, DATUK CHAMIL WARIYA dibawa ke pentas. Menurut kiraannya ada 500 orang di dalam dewan pagi itu. Dia bangga dengan kehadiran begitu ramai anak bangsanya yang ingin bertemu dengannya. Apa yang lebih membanggakan DATUK CHAMIL WARIYA ialah mereka belajar luar negara bukan dengan biayai sendiri, degan bantuan sepenuh kerajaan.

Selepas ucapan-ucapan aluan oleh pengerusi penganjur selesai, DATUK CHAMIL WARIYA dijemput untuk memberi ucapannya. Inilah detik-detik yang ditunggu-tunggu oleh DATUK CHAMIL WARIYA. Gagasan politik baru Ketuanan Melayu Ultra barunya akan dihebahkan kepada dunia bebas. Dia teringat buku Dr Mahathir yang berjudul “8 Mac The Day Malaysian Made a Huge Mistake (But Not As Huge As When They Re-Elected My BN in those 23 years).” Momentum rakyat Malaysia atau lebih tepat lagi warga bukan bukan Melayu Malaysia yang sudah jaga dari lena itu mesti ditingkatkan. Pagi itu dia berazam untuk berbuat demikian.

Tetapi tanpa diketahui oleh DATUK CHAMIL WARIYA, di kalangan 500 orang generasi muda yang hadir pada pagi itu ada yang tidak setuju dengan pandangan politiknya itu. Salah seorang daripada mereka berazam untuk membetulkan penyimpangan politik DATUK CHAMIL WARIYA dengan caranya yang tidak begitu tersendiri - dia akan meniru cara-cara lama yang telanpun digunakan ke atas Abraham Lincoln, John F Kennedy, Robert Kennedy, Malcom X, Martin Luther King, dan sebagainya.

Apabila DATUK CHAMIL WARIYA bangun untuk menuju ke rostrum ucapan, seorang anak muda dari belakang pentas berjalan tenang menuju ke arahnya. DATUK CHAMIL WARIYA tersenyum kepadanya. Dia menyangka anak muda seketurunan dengannya ingin mengiringinya ke rostrum atau bersalaman dengannya.

DATUK CHAMIL WARIYA menghulurkan tangan. Tiba-tiba DATUK CHAMIL WARIYA tergaman dan berdiri kaku. Dia tidak percaya dengan apa yang dilihatnya. Tergenggam erat pada tangan anak muda yang seolah-olah mahu membalas salam tangan yang dihulur itu ialah sepucuk pistol jenis Revolver yang betul-betul diajukan ke arah dada DATUK CHAMIL WARIYA.

Tanpa berkata apa-apa, anak muda itu melepaskan beberapa das tembakan. Salah satu daripadanya tepat mengenai jantung DATUK CHAMIL WARIYA. Dia rebah ke lantai.

(nota Juslo lagi: for those who are illetrate in Bahasa Melayu, this is the part where the Member of Parliament got shot with a gun and fell to the floor. Of course he DIED!! Be patient, see below...)

Para hadirin menjadi panik. Mereka yang berada di atas pentas turut tergamam melihat apa yang berlaku. Kejadian menjadi hiruk-pikuk dan tidak terkawal. Pihak penganjur yang tidak menduga kejadian malang itu berlaku, tidak tahu berbuat apa-apa. Beberapa orang anggota polis berpakaian preman yang menjadi tetamu yang tidak diundang dalam majlis itu, meluru ke arah pentas. Rakan-rakan mereka yang berpakaian seragam yang berkawal di luar juga bergegas masuk ke dewan.

Tetapi belum sempat mereka berbuat apa-apa, kedengaran beberapa das tembakan lagi. Kali ini yang rebah adalah anak muda itu sendiri.

(nota Juslo sekali lagi: now, this is the part where the assasin shot himself. Of course he has to - otherwise, how could be become a MARTYR and get 72 virgins?? But seriously, this is an important development in the plot, because it allows the author (that's ME, of course) to end with the dramatic 'suicide note', below...)

Apabila pihak polis tiba di tempat kejadian, kedua-dua mereka - DATUK CHAMIL WARIYA dan anak muda yang berpakaian kemas itu, sudah tidak lagi bernyawa.

(nota Juslo sekali lagi-lagi: this is the part where both of them are confirmed dead.)

Sewaktu pemeriksaan dibuat ke atas mayat anak muda yang tidak dikenali itu, terselit sehelai nota yang ditaip rapi, ditulis dalam bahasa Kebangsaan.

(nota Juslo: this is the part where the author tells you (in case you still haven't got the drift) that all these were pre-planned. the assasin even 'neatly' (rapi) pre-typed the suicide note.)

Ia berbunyi: DATUK CHAMIL WARIYA adalah ancaman terhadap keharmonian. Lebih baik riwayatnya ditamatkan supaya masyarakat berbilang kaum boleh tinggal aman damai di negara bertuah ini. Saya berkorban untuk masa depan.

Habis (THE END. To be continued with more rubbish at the juvenille section of "Ulat Malaysia")

Don't forget to nominate me for next year's Nobel!!

p/s: I wonder how does RUBBING one's own medicine at one's OWN FACE taste like...? Must be fun! (Sorry if you get the impression that this is only a cheap intimidation of another great work of literature. A great imitation of a piece of cheap, trashy writing is still cheap, no matter how hard you try...)

Defections - Get Used to It

2008-09-19T16:13:00.009+08:00

William Gladstone (1809 – 1898), four times British Prime Minister, was defeated by no-confidence votes but went on to become one of the greatest Prime Ministers in the UK's history.

(Revised on 21 Sept 2008)

1. We cannot deny that defection – from either side – is against the people’s mandate. It is the case that in this country, the ballots are deemed as the people’s last words, and that the rule of the game is, whoever commands the majority support of the Parliament is entitled to rule.

2. But will ‘chaos’ happen to our system of democracy if the government of the day could be toppled by the defections of MPs? For his attempt to topple the BN government by mass defections, the Prime Minister has even called Anwar Ibrahim a "threat to the economy and national security".

3. But then this has happened in many democratic countries governed by coalition governments such as Australia, Canada, Italy, Israel, India, Japan, etc – mature and developing democracies alike. Many Prime Ministers have been brought down by votes of no confidence – just read this list. Most of these democracies not only did not collapse, but continue to prosper to this day.

Prime Ministers defeated by votes of no confidence

Australia
* James Scullin (1931)
* Arthur Fadden (1941)
* Malcolm Fraser (1975)

Canada
* Arthur Meighen (1926)
* John George Diefenbaker (1963)
* Pierre Elliott Trudeau (1974)
* Joe Clark (1979)
* Paul Martin (2005)

Denmark
* Knud Kristensen (1947)

France
* Georges Pompidou (1962)

Germany
* Helmut Schmidt (1982)

India
* Vishwanath Pratap Singh (1990)
* H D Deve Gowda (1997)
* Atal Bihari Vajpayee (1999)

Israel
* Yitzhak Shamir (1990)

Italy
* Benito Mussolini (1943)
* Amintore Fanfani (1954)
* Romano Prodi 1st (1998)
* Romano Prodi 2nd (2008)

Japan
* Katsura Taro (1913)
* Shigeru Yoshida 2nd (1948)
* Shigeru Yoshida 4th (1953)
* Masayoshi Ohira (1980)
* Kiichi Miyazawa (1993)

The Netherlands
* Joseph Maria Laurens Theo Cals (1966)
* Rudolphus Franciscus Marie Lubbers (1989)

New Zealand
* Thomas MacKenzie (1912)

Norway
* Christopher Hornsrud (1928)
* Einar Gerhardsen (1963)
* John Lyng (1963)

Papua New Guinea
* Michael Somare (1980)
* Paias Wingti (1988)

Solomon Islands
* Francis Billy Hilly (1994)
* Manasseh Sogavare (2007)

Tuvalu
* Bikenibeu Paeniu (1999)
* Faimalaga Luka (2001)
* Saufatu Sopoanga (2004)

Ukraine
* Viktor Yushchenko (2001)
* Viktor Yanukovych (2004)

United Kingdom
* Lord North (1782)—This is considered to be the first motion of no confidence in history
* John Russell, 1st Earl Russell (1866)
* Benjamin Disraeli (1868)
* William Gladstone (1885)
* Robert Gascoyne-Cecil, 3rd Marquess of Salisbury (1886)
* William Gladstone (1886)
* Robert Gascoyne-Cecil, 3rd Marquess of Salisbury (1892)
* Archibald Primrose, 5th Earl of Rosebery (1895)
* Stanley Baldwin (January 1924)
* Ramsay MacDonald (October 1924)
* James Callaghan (1979)

4. Whenever the members of your party/coalition change ship, the government is brought down with it. So I’ve got news for you, Malaysia: It happens all the time. This is what Wikipedia says (you only need common sense to agree):

“The cases in which a motion of no confidence have passed are generally those in which the government party has a slim majority which is eliminated by either by-elections or defections. Motions of No Confidence are far more common in multi-party systems in which a minority party must form coalition government. This can result in the situation in which there are many short-lived governments because the party structure allows small parties to break a government without means to create a government.”

5. The political system might be a little more 'stable' if we have a Presidential system of government, eg. in the USA, France, South Korea, Taiwan. Unlike a Westminster style Parliamentary Democracy like ours, the Executive branch of the government in a Presidential system is not exposed to the same risk of change or removal. Once elected, the President is there for 4/5/6 years whether the Parliament/Legislature have confidence in him or not. So, you’ll know for certain who you have to deal with for a fixed period of time. In that respect, there is certainty in the political system. (Yes, you can still try to impeach the President, but it is usually very difficult and therefore very rare.)

6. On the other hand, political deadlocks are perhaps even more common in a Presidential system because it is very common to have one party controlling the Legislature and another party controlling the Presidency, kind of like what is happening now in the USA (President = Republican, Congress = Democrats) and Taiwan during President Chen (President = Democratic Progressive Party, Parliament = Nationalist Party). The Legislature may shoot down the President’s policies, and the President may veto the laws passed by the Legislature. But then the USA has survived countless such deadlocks – and prospered – for more than 200 years. Taiwan - after 2 democratic and peaceful regime changes in the past 10 years - is now proudly among the most stable democracies in Asia.

7. However, it is unlikely that Malaysia will switch to a Presidential system because we love our Monarchy, we would not want to replace it with a President. (Unless we choose to have a President who is still subordinate to the Agong, but then if the Agong has power to remove the President it would defeat the purpose of electing the President in the first place.)

Anti-Hopping Law – Unworkable

8. Can the problem of ‘political instability’ due to party-hopping be solved by an anti-hopping law? The fact that most of the other Westminster style democracies – mature and developed – in the world DO NOT have such prohibition of party-hopping seems to make the answer quite obvious.

9. But then we are Malaysia, and Malaysia is always Boleh, so maybe we should be the first to have it? Well, but how is that going to work in practice? Let's work this out.

10. The starting point we all accept is that our MPs are not mere rubber-stamps. (Softly: I know the BN MPs are, but psshhhh… in theory they are not supposed to be…) They are supposed to exercise independent judgments on whether to vote for or against any proposal presented to the Parliament, so it is always open for them - BN and Opposition alike – to vote for or against the government of the day.

11. So, it is always possible for the MP from the governing BN coalition to vote against the government’s decision to, say, join the USA in invading Iraq. This was what many British MPs from the ruling Labour Party have done, against their then leader Tony Blair. It is their right, as people’s representatives elected by their constituencies.

12. But if we have an anti-hopping law in place, does it mean that the MP from a ruling party could no longer vote against his own governing party? You might say, voting for one or two resolutions is ok, but not too many. But then how many nay-votes is too many? If a BN MP keeps voting against the BN and keeps voting in favour of proposals put up by the Opposition, is he still a member of BN, even though he is not allowed to jump ship and call himself an Opposition MP (because the anti-hopping law does not allow that)?

13. Ok, maybe we can accept him voting with the Opposition MP but he just cannot be allowed to cast a vote of no-confidence against the Prime Minister, leader of his own coalition. But if that is the case, is it still meaningful if, even though the Prime Minister cannot be defeated by no-confidence votes from his own party’s MPs, but his own MPs always vote against him in all other resolutions? How can he still govern if they keep rejecting his policies in Parliament?

14. The other alternative is of course to make it mandatory for the MPs elected under a particular party/coalition to vote according to party line, regardless of his own opinions. Therefore, let’s abolish paragraph 10 above, so the government will always be 'stable'.

15. But in that case, we would no longer have a Parliamentary Democracy – we have a de facto Presidential system which is even more powerful than the real Presidential system because we now have 2 branches cemented into 1: the Executive branch is fully controlling and controlled by the majority of the Legislative branch. Say goodbye to checks and balances and welcome Executive Tyranny – we might as well abolish the Parliament because whoever (both from BN and Opposition) is not appointed a member of the Cabinet (ie. the Executive branch) is basically useless, because they can never vote ‘no’ to any proposal by the Executive branch anyway.

16. The right of an MP to exercise his own judgment (paragraph 10 above) is so crucial and fundamental to any Parliamentary Democracy. If he is not able to vote freely, he would not be able to ‘jaga’ the Executive for the people, to vote against and to vote out the corrupt and incompetent government ministers (which is sadly the situation in the current BN-dominated Parliament). These MPs would have no reason to be elected in the first place.

17. So, to sum up, the anti-hopping law is fundamentally unsustainable because it seeks to deny the most fundamental feature of a Parliamentary Democracy – the freedom of each and every MP to vote to support any resolution, whether it is from the ruling party or the opposition.

Recall, perhaps?

18. But does it mean that the people should be left disappointed when their elected MP turns into a frog? Well, technically yes, and that is why it is so important for the voters to vote for the candidate, not the party. Vote for someone you can trust, whose judgment is sound and who is wise – no matter which party he is with. (Theoretically, don't forget that he should be allowed to jump ship after he was elected as a candidate of his party because his party might turn into a 'bad' party AFTER being elected to govern and half-way into their 5 year term.) That was the original intention of our Parliamentary system, anyway.

19. But I think instead of having anti-hopping law, we should have a ‘recall law’ where the voters in a constituency are allowed to call for a ‘referendum’ on the MP if the MP has done something against the wishes of his constituents who elected him, such as if he has changed party.

20. Voters should be allowed to have another election in their constituency to confirm whether that MP should continue to represent them in the Parliament if, say, 25% of the registered voters in that constituency petition to do so, after the general election but before the 5 year term is up. It would be like a by-election we now have.

21. That way, the MP would be forced to constantly explain his (in)actions in the Parliament to his constituents, making the system much more accountable.

Well, we must Get Used to it

22. So here we are, a Westminster style Constitutional Monarchy and Parliamentary Democracy. The Prime Minister can only be the Prime Minister if he is supported by a majority of MPs. If not, he has to step down immediately – simple as that. And MPs are allowed to change their allegiance all the time. In theory it is less 'stable', but more accountable because whenever the government does something incredibly stupid/unpopular (such as invading Iraq, 'main-main' with ISA arrests or the Prime Minister being struck by mad cow disease), the MPs should be able to bring the government down IMMEDIATELY, so that the government will be constantly accountable to the people.

23. Toppling the ruling party by defection is a fact of life in such a system, DUH!! Indeed, it SHOULD BE VERY COMMON, because it is only through this CONSTANT THREAT of being brought down that the Parliament is able to keep the government CONSTANTLY accountable and don't do anything stupid or crazy. It is the only effective weapon to check Executive tyranny. The only thing is that we have never come to this stage before in our history, so it’s completely new to us, thanks to BN’s perpetual insult on the people’s intelligence for the past 51 years and assuming that we are too stupid to handle Democracy.

24. But then I suspect that given the very slim majority (less than 5 MPs) that Anwar claims to currently have over BN in the Parliament, it is quite likely that Anwar’s “new government” (if he succeeds) could also be easily destabilised in the future by threats of MPs crossing-‘back’ (watch out for PAS).

25. If the current BN could be so easily threatened with crossing-overs even though they are only 8 MPs short of a 2/3 majority (while PR is a whopping 30 MPs short of a simple majority), I wonder how many governments in the future would be ‘stable’ enough.

26. If PR can really survive into the future and a 2-party system really takes root in Malaysia (which is a good thing for our Democracy), Malaysians must brace ourselves for a more ‘unstable’ and ‘fluid’ political system in the future. The only alternative is to back-paddle and retard the growth and maturity of our Democracy, back to the dark old days of a comprehensive domination by a single coalition (or to turn into a Presidential system – paragraph 5, 6, 7 above, which is unlikely).

27. Therefore, let’s get used to this ‘instability’, a hallmark of genuine Democracy. If so many other democracies could do it, so could we. Both sides of the political divide – and the important institutions of the country such as the Monarchy and the armed forces – should do the country a great service by accepting whatever decision is made by our elected MPs. There should be nothing to panic about if there is going to be a change in government. (Only those who are afraid of losing power should panic.) Once we manage to ride through this ‘growing pain’ of regime change (or failure to change) for the first time with calm and composure, we – and foreign investors – would have nothing to fear EVERY SINGLE time we have a general election. If we can live through this sort of 'political turmoils' unscathed, it would bear testimony to the maturity and strength of our democracy.

28. So welcome, Malaysia, to genuine Democracy. Enjoy the ride - and there is no need to 'panic'!

(from now on, I'll write like my idol Che Det - numbering my paragraphs. And it makes me feel quite 'Che Det', to be honest... hehe)

Dalai Lama wants Islamic states to follow Tibet

2008-06-20T09:08:00.009+08:00

Juslo's Bawang

(Lhasa, Tibet, 31 June 2008) TIBET wants the Islamic states to emulate its Buddhist City concept where administration is based on religious tenets while promoting goodwill among non-Buddhists. His Holiness is expected to make the same call to the Christian, Jewish, Hindu and other pagan states in the coming weeks, according to his press secretary.

His Holiness the Dalai Lama of Tibet said that non-Buddhists should not be fearful of the Buddhist concept as it generated a harmonious lifestyle and curbed vice and crime.

“We want the Islamic states to copy Tibet’s form of governance and our concept of Buddhist cities.

“Buddhism stands for the ultimate good so we don’t see any wrong in others copying what we do,” he said after launching the pioneer USD100mil Buddhist township in Chamdo.

“If the Buddhist City concept promotes positive and healthy values, I suppose even the non-Buddhist would accept it. If they do not want to, then there is nothing we can do but people usually support good things,” he said.

The township project, billed as the gateway to Lhasa, would be carried out in four phases until 2014. It would represent every aspect of Buddhist living and religious requirement.

The city would have a state-of-the-art temple, a budget hotel with Buddhist architecture, apartment blocks, recreational grounds, shop houses and a research centre.

As at press time, it is understood that in response to the Dalai Lama's call, in the coming weeks,

(1) Nik Aziz, Malaysia's Islamic spiritual leader, would be making the same call to the Buddhists to embrace the 'Islamic City' concept;

(2) the Sheikh Al-Azhar, or the Grand Imam of Al-Azhar University, Egypt, would be making the same call to the Christians to embrace the 'Islamic City' concept;

(3) the Grand Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the Supreme Leader of Shia Iran, would be making the same call to the Sunni Muslims to embrace the 'Shia City' concept;

(4) the Pope would be making the same call to the Muslims to embrace the 'Catholic City' concept;

(5) the leader of the Mormon Church would be making the same call to the Catholics to embrace the 'Mormon City' concept;

(6) the leader of the Church of Scientology would be making the same call to the Mormons to embrace the 'Scientology City' concept;

(7) the Reverend Jerry Falwell (August 11, 1933 – May 15, 2007) an American evangelical Christian pastor and televangelist, would be rising from the dead to make the same call to the Muslims to embrace the 'Christian City' concept;

(8) Adolf Hitler, still the spiritual leader of the world's Nazism, would also be rising from the dead to make the same call to the Jews to embrace the 'Nazi City' concept;

(9) Mao Tze-Dong and Joseph Stalin would also be rising from the dead together to make the same call jointly to the Capitalists of the world to embrace the 'Communist City' concept;

(10) the leader of the World Vegetarian Network would also be making the same call to all the meat-eating people of the world to embrace the 'Vega City' concept;

(11) the President of the Alcoholics Anonymous Worldwide would also be making the same call to all the healthy people of the world to embrace the 'Booze City' concept; and

(12) the Chairman of the Global Stamp Collectors Alliance would also be making the same call to all other people who actually have a life to embrace the 'Stamp City' concept.

More religious, political, ideological, leisure and what-not organizations of the world are expected to make the same call to the rest of the world, in the coming weeks and months. The world's media would face a chaotic scheduling problem as they try to decide which 'Embrace City' press conference, counter-press conference, counter-counter-press conference and re-counter-counter-counter-press conference to cover. The media are worried that if they leave out any such press conference uncovered, they would be accused of bias, discrimination, racism, and anti-whatever-ism.

The Chief Executive Officer of CNN has made his own call to the world leaders to consider postponing "making 'Embrace City' calls" to allow an orderly coverage by the world's media.

Meanwhile, the world's natural disasters, hunger, diseases, corruption and poverty problems go unreported, as the mass media are busy convering competing 'Embrace City' calls by the various organizations.

Editorial notes: “Everyone thinks they have the prettiest wife at home.” -- Arsene Wenger, on Sir Alex Ferguson. This is very true when applied to the Dalai Lama's latest statement above.

We do wish that the Dalai Lama learn to be less divisive, chauvinistic, self-centered, and (to be honest) fascist. Imagine if EVERY RELIGION/ CREED says that THEIR belief system is the best, and should be followed, we'll have chaos. After all, who the f**k among us could tell for sure that our way is definitely THE right way and THE best way, and that others must follow? Only God knows that, not those who play-God.

What makes the Dalai Lama think that other religions, like ISLAM, does not "generate a harmonious lifestyle and curbed vice and crime"??? Maybe they would do better, MUCH MUCH BETTER, than the Dalai Lama's own religion in achieving those goals?? If that is the case, would the Dalai Lama's own followers happily accept living in an Islamic City, since Islam "stands for the ultimate good so we don’t see any wrong in others copying what we do"???

How much does the Dalai Lama actually know about other religious beliefs anyway, to give him the moral authority or enough knowledge as a basis to make that kind of claim?? Surely if you don't know anything about other beliefs, logically you would not know whether others are more inferior, or better, than your own, right??

Just like it is the Dalai Lama's f**king annoying habit of constantly criticizing those who speak up against his Buddhist ideology as "ignorant about Buddhism and therefore have no right to talk about Buddhism", the Dalai Lama should heed his own adivce and learn how to SHUT THE F**K UP.

And if you want to force YOUR religious beliefs down the throats of others, we really cannot see how you have the AUDACITY to ask people who speak up against your ideas to SHUT UP -- man, you got to expect some reactions when you are spitting at others' beliefs, right?!???!!

We at JB really cannot understand why is it that the followers of the Dalai Lama cannot f**king realize that to keep championing his own religious beliefs AS THE BEST that should be followed by all is, AT THE SAME TIME, DENIGRATING others' beliefs as INFERIOR??? We at JB really cannot see how this is conducive to world peace.

Please lah, grow up, focus on how to make everybody feel equal and at ease with each other, so we can unite as a poeple and face the bigger challenges from outside -- especially to defeat our COMMON ENEMIES. Instead of calling it the 'Buddhist City', why not call it the Peace City, so that EVERYBODY, regardless of religious background, can relate to and call his/her own??

We at JB seriously urge the Dalai Lama to stop thinking that he and the followers of his religion is like Manchester United, while the rest of us are just his INFERIOR competitors in a competitive league who are destined for hell. We are all in the same team, for f**k's sake, and we need to defeat our COMMON ENEMIES, so stop annoying others please!!!

Malaysian Men Banned From Non-OIC Countries

2008-06-13T23:16:00.042+08:00

Juslo's Satire (Used without permission)

EMERGENCY UPDATE on 24 June 2008:
ONIC has issued travel advisory to the citizens all member states against travelling to the Northern Malaysian city of Kota Baharu. The ONIC Secretary General's Office says that the DEPTH OF PERVERSION AND DEPRAVITY of all men (or wolves???) living in that city has reached an 'extremely critical level' because in addition to being aroused by school uniforms (which is a national phenomenon not restricted to that city), men in Kota Baharu will also lose control of their sexual desire by the sight of lipstick and high heel shoes as well. It is believed that "incidents like rape and illicit sex" would befall any female wearing lipstick and high heel shoes.
The Malaysian Tourism Minister responded that "I could assure you, from my personal experience, that the women of Kota Baharu are delicioius, voluptuous, sexy and seductive enough without wearing lipstick and high heel shoes. This is to keep our men from losing their mind and self-control."

(Miami, Florida, USA, Friday, 31 June 2008) At the First Emergency Summit of the Organization of Non-Islamic Conference countries (ONIC) held here today, the ONIC have unanimously resolved that all Malaysian males who have attained the age of puberty be banned, with immediate effect, from travelling to their respective countries. All visas already granted to such Malaysian males are also automatically revoked with immediate effect. This issue was the only thing being discussed in this Emergency Summit.

Secretary-General of ONIC, Madam Angelina Jolie (above, who is also the United Nations’ Goodwill Ambassador and a renowned American actress), says that its member states were concerned about the serious lack of fundamental sexual maturity among Malaysian men which has reached a new, dangerous level, which is considered as posing clear and imminent danger to all females across its member states, including young girls and old women.

“The member states must do everything they can to protect all our women, especially our young, school girls,” said Madam Angelina Jolie. “Due to the latest authoritative confirmation by one of the leading scholars in Malaysia, the member states felt that they have run out of options to protect the safety of half of their populations (i.e. the females) from sexual harassments and attacks by a group of deeply troubled men, and depraved beasts – if I may say so. This is the only responsible and effective thing for the member states to do.”

The “latest authoritative confirmation by one of the leading scholars” referred to by Madam Angelina Jolie is the pronouncement by one of Malaysia’s most respected, most intellectual, most learned, most scholarly and most influential NGOs, the National Islamic Students Association of Malaysia, whose vice-president Professor Tan Sri Dato' Seri Dr Munirah Bahari (a leading authority on criminal psychology and gender studies in the Islamic world) has dished out her latest nugget of wisdom called the "Theory of Uniform Arousal", to the effect that the school uniforms worn by the students of the Southeast Asian country would invite “social ills, including rape, sexual harassment and even premarital sex.”

“This leads to babies born out of wedlock and, to an extent, even prostitution,” Professor Tan Sri Dato' Seri Dr Munirah Bahari said. “This could see them getting molested, having premarital sex and all sorts of things.”

This is despite the fact that the uniforms cover most of the flesh of the female body anyway, from the neck to the wrists and to the toes.

(Picture: A typical Malaysian school uniform)

It appears that the ONIC have monitored the sexual maturity of Malaysian men closely in recent years, and Professor Tan Sri Dato' Seri Dr Munirah Bahari's latest scholarly opinion firmly confirmed their respective opinions about the danger posed by Malaysian men. Analysts believe that the last straw which triggered this unprecedented ban was the Malaysian men's perverse attitude towards female school uniforms, because all of ONIC’s member states have less conservative school uniforms than those worn in Malaysia.

One woman Minister attending the Summit, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said that

“When Professor Tan Sri Dato' Seri Dr Munirah Bahari opens her mouth, we all listen. With a group of men who could go crazy even by seeing innocent school uniforms like that, you really don’t know what would provoke them next. It makes you wonder what the f**k is going on in these men's heads, and how our Malaysian sisters could live in such a dangerous environment. I would say Malaysia is even more dangerous than Iraq, because half of the population is just waiting to pounce on the other half, 24-7. Our hearts and prayers are with our Malaysian sisters.”

An emotional Malaysian male journalist (who was due to be deported immediately after covering the Summit’s press conference) questioned Madam Angelina Jolie whether the ban was "racist and anti-Islam", due to the fact that Malaysia is currently the Chair of the OIC and that the views of Professor Tan Sri Dato' Seri Dr Munirah Bahari is widely shared by the member states of the OIC, especially distinguished and pious religious scholars such as the Mufti of Australia.

Upon learning about the male journalist’s nationality and before she could muster a response, Madam Angelina Jolie visibly panicked and immediately asked for the protection of the armed policemen present. After a barrier was formed by 10 policemen armed with AK-47 assault rifles between her and the male journalist, (who was more than 25 metres away below the stage anyway), she then took a deep breath, and proceeded to explain,

“If you could get aroused even by a 13 year old’s school uniform, I’m pretty sure you would have raped Lara Croft the Tomb Raider."

"As your country’s Sisters in Islam Programme manager, Miss Norhayati Kaprawi said, “Something must be seriously wrong with local men if the sight of girls in their school uniform turns them on.”

"So, we really can’t take any chances of having a bunch of horny animals who have absolutely no self-control whatsoever walking around the streets of Milan, Marseille, Miami, Monte Carlo and Mongolia, among glamorous and beautiful women. Even though the member states would lose the tourism revenue from Malaysian men, this is far outweighed by the corresponding savings in eliminating the need to beef up security at whichever place on our soils where a Malaysian man is found. It’s just not worth it.”

Referring specifically to Professor Tan Sri Dato' Seri Dr Munirah Bahari’s comments that “It becomes a distraction to men, who are drawn to it, whether or not they like looking at it… This leads to babies born out of wedlock and, to an extent, even prostitution… This could see them getting molested, having premarital sex and all sorts of things,” Madam Angelina Jolie added,

“Malaysian men can’t seem to distinguish between being pretty or sexy and being slutty. Even if it is not a question of rape, we would still save our women a great deal of harassment from sexually immature Malaysian men, who would definitely misunderstand the ordinary dresses of our member states’ women as an invitation to sexual intercourse, or to be under the mistaken belief that our waitresses at McDonald’s are actually prostitutes advertising their services. Indeed, Malaysian men are worse than Borat. At least, Borat was charming and hilarious. Anyway, we are happy to at least do without the flirting from these childish men, which is no great loss at all – after all, your own Minister has said that the Malaysian men aren’t exactly Brad Pitt material anyway, you know what I mean?”

This blanket ban would be the first time in history that an entire country’s male population has been banned by any other country, although it is less comprehensive than Malaysia’s own complete ban on all Israeli nationals from travelling to Malaysia, which is currently still in force. Therefore, analysts believe that the Malaysian government would not have the audacity to complain about it, since this is only a taste of 'half' of its own medicine.

In Miami beach, Florida, the Mayor has already announced that the City’s police have been given the authority to “shoot first, investigate later” any Malaysian men approaching a 5 mile radius of the famous Miami beach, where skimpily dressed sexy, young women is a common sight. “If they could go wild over school uniform, imagine what these sons of bitches would do to our half naked American beauties on the beaches.” Other socially liberal ONIC member states as well as countries with nude beaches such as France, Spain, Italy, Brazil, Argentina, Australia and Thailand are expected to adopt the same “shoot first, investigate later” policy towards any man looking suspiciously like a Malaysian, who comes close to any female (including the ugly ones).

For reasons still unknown to the international press, Ulan Bator is the 2^nd City to follow such a “shoot first, investigate later” policy towards Malaysian men found in the City, even though Mongolia is a land-locked country with no beach. The country's Deputy Foreign Minister has declared -- without elaboration -- that "We'll shoot any Malaysian man who dares to come to our country, absolutely! We'll blow them up too!!" fueling speculation that Mongolia's policy has nothing to do with the uniform issue but some other undisclosed reasons.

Meanwhile, back in Malaysia, it is reported that non-Muslim men are planning a street protest against the blanket ban, in an effort to clarify that they have a much higher degree of sexual maturity and self-control around women and girls, especially beautiful women, so that they should not be lumped together with their Muslim compatriots.

In Petaling Street, Kuala Lumpur (the country’s hippiest fashion hub), T-Shirts bearing the slogans such as “I Am Not Horny, Angelina! (Even Though You Are So Damned Hot!!)” and “Hey, My Cork Doesn’t Pop at Uniforms!” are selling like hotcakes. Surprisingly, overwhelming majority of the buyers in the long queues are actually Muslim men, who seem to be ashamed of, and eager to distance themselves from, the enlightened opinion of Professor Tan Sri Dato' Seri Dr Munirah Bahari. This perhaps explains why there is a lack of protest of “Selling Out” against the non-Muslim men for their intended protest from the usually vocal UMNO Youths.

However, at press time, it is still unclear whether the country’s top leaders would be granted diplomatic exemptions for official visits to the ONIC countries, although the consensus seems to be that the country’s ‘trigger-happy’ Deputy Premier would most likely to be unwelcome in the ONIC.

The Malaysian Foreign Ministry spokesperson, while stated that Malaysia “understands with regret” the resolution adopted by the ONIC, have refused to comment on the Deputy Premier’s likely ban. However, the spokesperson did express the country's gratitude to Professor Tan Sri Dato' Seri Dr Munirah Bahari for publishing her "Theory of Uniform Arousal" and hailing it as "the most important discovery of Malaysian men's psychology since our Independence 50 years ago." The spokesperson added,

"In fact, if there ever was a "Theory of EVERYTHING" in the social sciences, this is it. It explains the root cause of EVERY SINGLE social problem faced by our country -- prostitution, sexual crimes, over-population by unwanted babies, et cetera et cetera et cetera et cetera! Our government will now follow the Professor's advice by changing the school uniforms. We believe that EVERY SINGLE ONE of our social problem will be automatically solved the moment we just take care of the school uniforms -- at ONE stroke of the pen only! No other country on earth could do this. This is pure genius!
So, the Malaysian Government will formally nominate the Professor for this year's Nobel Peace Prize. We believe that if the Nobel Prize committee is not racist and anti-Islam, the Professor would surely get a Nobel Peace Prize this year for her outstanding contribution to world peace (or at least peace in Muslim countries)."

Meanwhile, the Tourism Minister (whose status as a Woman is unclear), in a last-ditch attempt to woo back tourists to Malaysia, said:

"The ONIC might have missed the point here. We must remember that attraction is a 2-way process. Perhaps the ONIC women populations are simply jealous about the kind of attention our female population are getting from our men. Here is the other side of the coin: if Malaysian women could arouse our men into going wild by simply wearing a conservative school uniform, just imagine how astonishingly, breath-takingly pretty and sexy our women are! Come and check it out for yourselves -- I know I did!"

(Picture below: An unparalleled Malaysian beauty)

Well, it seems that outsiders would not be able to conclude whether it's the chicken (Malaysian men's extreme perversion) or the egg (Malaysian women's unequalled beauty) behind the "Uniform Arousal", unless they visit Malaysia personally. The intrigue continues...

Love - The Most Corrupted, Disgusting Idea

2008-06-10T14:52:00.017+08:00

Something as DISGUSTING as this would wake anybody up from a coma!!

Just read what the most respected newspaper in Malaysia has to say about these 2 shameless people:

"NST reported that the couple had turned an abandoned toilet at the Gemas railway station into their home in March, after Ismail was employed to upkeep some new toilets located nearby.

They had used wooden planks and plastic to cover leaks and the toilet bowls."

At first, I was like "Wow, what a romantic story..." 2 persons, already 70 and 68 years old, who love each other SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO MUCH that they don't mind living in a tiny shithole (literally!) converted from a public toilet, while keeping themselves alive with a dirty, dead end job of washing toilets, which doesn't even pay enough for them taking public transport to collect medicine from the nearest hospital -- for the past 18 years.

-- so long as they have each other;
-- so long as they could grow older and older and sicker and frailer with each other, day after day;
-- so long as they can spend the last few remaining years, or even months or weeks, of each other's lifes together, until one of them slowly fades away...
-- so long as when one of them died, the other is holding his/her body in her/his arms, in this tiny paradise of love which belongs to them and them alone...

As they say in Hollywood movies,

“...to be your faithful partner in sickness and in health, in good times and in bad, and in joy as well as in sorrow... to love you unconditionally, to support you in your goals, to honor and respect you, to laugh with you and cry with you, and to cherish you for as long as we both shall live."

Look at our young people today -- do they still understand what is 'love' anymore? Ask yourselves -- would you have married your husband if he only has a deadend, shit job of cleaning toilets, while both of you can only afford to live in a shithole the size of a public toilet?

For the blokes -- would you have worked till you drop dead just to keep both of you alive even though the only way to make an honest living for you and your wife is to clean other people's shit and lives in a shithole?

I don't think any of you would have lasted 18 hours like that, let alone 18 years.

I say we should make a movie about this extraordinary couple so that we can teach our kids HOW TO REALLY LOVE SOMEBODY, something most of them no longer knows how to do anymore. Maybe they should start teaching our kids how to love, instead of all the junk they teach in schools nowadays?

You might have been seduced by the romance of the story like me but wait a minute -- just read the headline:

'Abandoned toilet couple' not married

What the....!!!
NOT MARRIED?!? NOT MARRIED?!? Plague be on both your houses!!!!!!

To be perfectly honest with you, those 2 words totally changed my perception of the entire story, and completely destroyed my sympathy and admiration of this couple! I'm sure that as a pious and God-fearing person yourself, my dear reader, you would feel the same as well.

I feel so deceived, to be perfectly honest with you. When I first read the story, I was so touched, I wanted to cry for them! But now, to be perfectly honest with you again, I just want to see those 2 disgusting motherfuckers STONED TO DEATH or beheaded in Pasar Seni.

How dare they commit zina/adultery and khalwat/close proximity?!?!
In the name of ‘love’??? I say hell is their eternal abode!!
“because you love me”??!! Hell is their eternal abode!!
“I will always love you”??!! Hell is their eternal abode!!

Did I hear you say "Let them live the remainder of their lives as they wish, they are old adults, they know what they are doing"??!! Have you forgotten your Al-Amr Bil-Ma'roof Wa An-Nahy 'An Al-Munkar?! Didn't they teach you fardh 'ain and fardh kifaya?! What the hell kind of trash are they teaching you people in the religious classes nowadays???!!

Listen up, boys and girls, as uncle Aisehman said, It's A Sin!!

This shameful life of these 2 shameless people is even more disgusting than the toilets they are staying in. This is the perfect example of how the western ideas of ‘love’ have CORRUPTED not only our innocent, ignorant youths, but also our elderly, who have lived long enough to see enough crazy shit in life, and who are much more mature and know much better than you and I about what does life really mean, what is most important in life after all.

To hell with you, GREAT SATAN’s Hollywood!! DOWN WITH AMERICA!!! "Till death doth us part" my ass!!! Hell is definitely their eternal abode!!

Of course, while we shame the evildoers and hypocrites amongst us, we must not forget to honour our mujaheedeen too, the hero of the ummah, the defender of the faith!

You're the MAN, TUN Mizan Maulud!!! What would the UMMAH do without u!!!!!!!!!!!!! PRAISES AND THANKS TO GOD FOR Y-OOOOO-OOOOOOOOO-OOO—–UUUUUUUUUUU!!!!!!

Yes, we can!! ;-P

Keep it up, our hero!!

(Incidentally, before you decide to denigrate our wise sister Munirah's enlightened, wise, incisive comments that “covering up” according to Islamic precepts was important to fend off social ills, including “rape, sexual harassment and even premarital sex" by cheekily pointing out to us that the makcik in the above report did cover up herself with a tudung/scarf but still (most probably have, I have full confidence in pakcik) committed extra-marital sex, or at least some 'social ill'... you are dead wrong!!

Why you are dead wrong?? Well, because... my ustaz says you are wrong!!!
You want to ask me the same question again because I did not actually answer your question?? ...Alright, that's it -- because you don't understand the religion, so you don't have the right to criticise it, just shut the fuck up, will ya?!!)

---------------------------------------------------------

The full report from NST is reproduced here. The MOST DISGUSTING part of the report is the title, as I'm sure you would agree:

'Abandoned toilet couple' not married

TAMPIN: It has been revealed that the poverty-stricken elderly couple who turned an abandoned toilet into their home are not legally married. They have been living together for the past 18 years.

The story of Ismail Mat, 70, and Rahimah Jolan, 68, was highlighted in the New Straits Times on April 4, and touched the hearts of many.

They were given a new house in the hardcore poor housing scheme in Kampung Tengah, Gemenceh, and a RM300 monthly allowance each. Television station NTV7 had given them RM2,000 and some groceries, and many others came forward to help.

State Welfare Department director Mizan Maulud said the couple's secret came to light after the department received a tip-off.

"We then asked the religious department to investigate, and were surprised when we found out that Ismail, from Jelebu, and Rahimah, from Jasin, Malacca are not married. Rahimah even has a husband who is still alive and well," he said.

The couple have been separated. Rahimah is in a welfare home in Cheng, Malacca, while Ismail is still living in their house in Kampung Tengah.

NST reported that the couple had turned an abandoned toilet at the Gemas railway station into their home in March, after Ismail was employed to upkeep some new toilets located nearby.

They had used wooden planks and plastic to cover leaks and the toilet bowls."

Election 2008 - Vote for PUNDAK

2008-03-05T07:03:00.012+08:00

I am a proud member of PUNDAK, and here is my manifesto for the coming General Election 2008. (Different from the President's, so this is only for my own 'constituency'...)

If you are a hardcore opposition supporter, I don’t intend to sway your vote here; but those who are not the keen and passionate ‘supporters’ of BN nor the opposition – the ‘silent majority’ – should SPOIL THEIR VOTES on Saturday.

I have 3 reasons for spoiling votes in this election:

1) You should not vote for BN

2) You should not vote for any of the opposition parties as they are today

3) We should all take a ‘multi-elections’ view, to have a collective agenda of shaping the country’s direction through at least 3 elections

1) BN sucks

If you are a regular blog-reader, I don’t think I need to elaborate much.

- MIC exists solely for the purpose of keeping the Indians poor and ignorant, for the ease of control (ultimately by UMNO-putras). Semi-value is seriously out-of-touch and will have to rely on non-Indian votes to remain the taiko of Indians. Pathetic.

- MCA, UMNO’s dog, exists also to keep Chinese under control for UMNO-putras, but by a different approach: keeping Chinese scared and quiet. They have become so ineffective in protecting the rights of minorities that entitlements (e.g. building more Chinese primary schools) have become mere ‘gratuities’ dished out by UMNO, turning full-fledged citizens with extensive rights under the Constitution into beggars for ‘mercy’.

- Gerakan, also UMNO’s dog (like all the other parties in BN, to be honest) and doing the same thing to the Chinese like MCA but worse – they were supposed to be a multi-racial party championing multi-racial agenda, but has now become dominated by Chinese and Chinese issues. A sad example of how multi-racial politics get stifled in Malaysia.

- UMNO basically does the same thing as MIC, except that they are doing it to the Malays. UMNO-putras have hijacked the New Economic Policy, betrayed the Malay trust. Again, they use the same tactic as MCA – fear of minorities necessitating the need for absolute Malay/Muslim unity.

- BN in general is full of crooks, thieves and uneducated, shameless politikus. AAB has totally forgotten his previous manifesto in 2004 to tackle corruption and hunt down the '20 VIPs'. It is very telling that tackling of corruption is no longer a highlighted priority of the 2008 manifesto, and there’s no more ‘VIPs’ to be hunt down.

Above all, BN has systematically allowed the right to freedom of religion be undermined, creating uncertainties and fear among the minorities for their fundamental well-beings. AAB’s standard answer to this sort of controversies is “Everything shall be done according to the law” even though many people are precisely complaining that ‘the law’ is biased towards the ‘Islamic’ religious establishment.

Although AAB has allowed more space for freedom of speech than his predecessor, it is still not good enough and ISA is still used on bloggers (Nat Tan) and activists (Hindraf).

Let’s not forget the traditional ‘bragging rights’ of BN – the economy and material well-being. Our living costs have increased so much in recent years. Further, by refusing to do the right thing (taking away the ‘clutches’) after almost 40 years, BN has created a new generation of ‘bumiputras’ who are allergic to competitions and indirectly dragged the competitiveness of the whole nation down. Our Foreign Direct Investment has even begun to fall behind much less educated, non-English speaking countries in ASEAN like Thailand and Vietnam! Clearly, BN does not have genuine leaders who would drag their followers to do the right thing, but only clowns and tricksters who are good at hiding the truth and realities from a whole nation of ‘boiling frogs’.

So, a vote for BN is a sign of approval for all of the above. Anybody who has a brain could see that.

2) Opposition sucks

- PAS, for me, is the single biggest problem and threat for Malaysia's unity today. Its racist and religiously chauvinistic agenda of an Islamic State is the single biggest divisive factor of Malaysian politics. The fact that non-Muslims can only become a member of “PAS Supporters Club” instead of a full-fledged member of equal standing in PAS itself (and has to stand for election under the banner of another party instead of PAS) should tell us very clearly the obsession of PAS to turn all non-Muslim citizens of this country into dhimmis. (And don't forget their tendency to subjugate women in the name of religion.) Equality for non-Muslim is not what PAS is willing to offer. Any non-Muslim who still harbours any fantasy or delusion that PAS is the answer for a better future should open their eyes.

Not only does PAS incite hatred and resentment among non-Muslims, it’s biggest threat is the indirect effect of its very existence and strength – forcing UMNO to engage in an ‘out-Islamicization’ contest. If not because of PAS, UMNO would have less pressure to demonstrate how ‘serious’ they are in defending ‘Islam’ and in oppressing non-Muslims. Not to mention PAS’s tendency to say utterly stupid things (Valentine’s Day celebration could lead to promiscuity; educated women should not work because they can marry rich husbands, so leave the jobs to ugly women; cinemas should have the lights on to prevent fondling and kissing in the dark, etc) – and take pride in their own stupidity. PAS is therefore a constant source of embarrassment and disgrace - as well as threat - for Malaysia.

I’ll give credit where it is due, though – the fact that no PAS ‘big shot’ had yet been implicated in any corruption scandal (despite the monopoly of vast political, legal and economic resources by BN) would suggest that PAS politicians are clean, very clean indeed. But if we were to elect leaders based on who is more innocent and innocence alone, I would argue that Buddhist monks and Catholic priests who keep the vow to a celibate and frugal lifestyle are much better candidate at controlling their ‘nafsu’ (lust and desire) for worldly temptations than PAS ulamas who advocate polygamy of up to 4 wives and hell-bent on dominating/subjugating women.

- Keadilan is only the ‘loser version’ of UMNO/BN. A party facing the threat of survival could still get into power struggles (Ezam, Nalla have quit the parties as a result) is incredible.

I do welcome Keadilan's apparent agenda of a multi-racial politics which puts unity first. However, many suspect that most politicians in Keadilan – including Anwar himself – is only waiting to get elected and then jump back into UMNO/BN. The fact that Anwar himself has not apologized for/disavowed his past actions/complicity when he was a top leader (up to being the heir apparent) in BN (e.g. apologize for all the corruption, undermining of judiciary, suffocating of Chinese education etc) is very telling, again not correcting people's (especially minorities') perception of him being "all things to all people". It only strengthens my suspicion that he is not prepared to burn all his bridges, and is just waiting for the ‘opportune time’ to return to UMNO. (I don't think he has ever sworn that he would not do what Semangat 46 did - by returning to UMNO a decade or so later.)

If Anwar is a true statesman – as opposed to just another politician – he would have had the courage to say sorry, to put history behind and to chart a new vision and course for the nation as a whole. (Can't wait to call himself a 'de facto leader' only strengthen Anwar's image of being a power-hungry, opportunistic politician, rather than a visionary, intellectual statesman.) I don’t expect him to be like Nelson Mandela, but he is not even a Lee Kwan Yew. So, frankly, I don't trust Keadilan.

- DAP is becoming like Gerakan, turning from a multi-racial, socialist party (yes, let’s not forget that!) which is supposed to fight for all the poor, into a Chinese-dominated dynasty dominated by 1 ageing Chinese Emperor and his Indian puppet (Karpal Singh). Many good people have been driven out of the party, and nearly Fong Poh Kuan too. This is a very sad example of how politics without power could still corrupt. Truly amazing...

So, personally I do not think any of the opposition parties is electable at all. To vote for them is to encourage them to remain opportunistic, petty, obsessed with trivial matters and sexual control and domination, and to advance personal egos.

3) ‘Multi-Election’ Agenda for Malaysia's Future

Therefore, I propose that YOU – the ‘silent majority’ who feels that if there is no good, electable opposition, so you should vote BN by default (because you 'have to' choose the 'lesser of 2 evils') – to SPOIL YOUR VOTE this coming election. And for those who do not wish to participate in the electoral process at all because "there seems to be no choice" - please believe that you still can vote, even though you don't have a choice - by SPOILING YOUR VOTE.

Imagine the scenario when there are more spoilt votes than the number of votes obtained by the 'winning' candidate – BN or opposition. E.g. BN Candidate 3,000 votes, Opposition Candidate 2,700 votes, Undi Rosak 10,000 votes. With all those spoilt votes staring at them, both winner and loser would blush with embarrassment. This is especially humiliating for BN, because they would definitely use phantom voters; and if even after including the phantom votes, they still get LESS votes than the number of spoilt votes, they would know they are really in deep shit...

After the election, both BN and opposition would be thinking hard about how to woo all these ‘silent majority’ voters, and therefore how to behave and upgrade themselves to meet the taste of the increasingly fussy and demanding electorate. Neither of them could take us for granted anymore.

We the people, by casting spoilt votes, would be sending a loud and clear message to them that “We don’t like either of you, please fuck off” as well as “Come and get us IF you want!” We will be able to turn the table and tell them, we have a THIRD CHOICE between black and white, and being less evil/bad than your opponent is no longer good enough for us. We want the top of the class to be a Grade A student (and the No.2 a Grade A- student), rather than just a Grade E student (and the No.2 a Grade F student). Raise your standards – BOTH OF YOU – or we will not play the game of ‘lesser of 2 evils’.

On the other hand, to vote BN by default (because you don't think the opposition is electable) or opposition by default (because you are not happy with BN) might send out the wrong message - both of them could misunderstand our real intention, and think that they are being rewarded for their behaviours, because a vote in favour is still a PLUS - but a spoilt vote is a NEGATIVE FOR BOTH.

CONCLUSION

So, to sum up, the ‘multi-election’ agenda works like this:

2008 – Eliminate substandard, Grade E’s and F’s parties. (Especially PAS – if it is a straight fight between PAS and UMNO, vote UMNO, so that PAS will be severely weakened if not totally eliminated. This (eliminate PAS at all costs, even if it means voting for Son-in-Law) is the only exception to the ‘spoilt vote agenda’.)

2012 – Keep spoiling the votes if they still do not improve. I expect them to take at least 2 elections to get/'confirm' the message. (Again, to eliminate all traces of PAS.)

2016 – Hopefully, genuinely electable and up-to-standard opposition and ruling parties and candidates would have emerged by now, in which case we could bring ourselves to pick 1 of them. Otherwise, we’ll still do the same for the next few elections until they finally ‘get’ what we are trying to tell them.

Emphasis: If the winning party gets less votes than spoilt votes, it would be a MINORITY government by any definition – but very, very embarrassing indeed. Whoever wins, they would be very embarrassed for the next 5 years – whereas the loser would regret why s/he did not behave properly or else s/he would have captured all those spoilt votes.

Question 1: What if, say, by spoiling our votes, the worst happens – say, PAS wins? Sure, I wouldn’t like that, but even then, PAS is only the minority government, and they would know damn well that they have to behave properly to stay in power. If BN wins – they are still a minority government and they would have suffered a very serious blow because they know they could no longer take us for granted. Whoever wins, they know they would have to come and get us next time.

Question 2: Why can’t we just refuse to turn up to vote? No, that is not a strong enough message, because by making the effort to travel to the polling station, queue, and then spoil your vote, you are telling them that you are willing to go out and make a point. Whereas staying home would be sending out a more equivocal message, could be interpreted as “weather no good” or “busy because of school holidays” by the politicians.

I know BN will still win this election, but it is time we ‘vote’ with a longer term perspective than just 5 years/1 electoral cycle. It is time we tell them loud and clear:

I WOULD RATHER SPOIL MY VOTES THAN WASTE IT ON YOU IDIOTS - BOTH OF YOU. NOW, COME AND GET ME IF YOU WANT, OR JUST FUCK OFF.

The POWER (to spoil the votes) is, and has always been, YOURS.

Tan Sri Lim Goh Tong Declared a Muslim, Children ‘Disinherited’

2008-01-30T17:02:00.000+08:00

Saturday, 31 February 2018

Malaysiakelak.com.my News (used with permission, copyright not protected)
By Juslo Satire

(KUANTAN, Friday) – The Syariah Court has today declared that the late Tan Sri Lim Goh Tong was a Muslim when he passed away more than 10 years ago in 2007. The Syariah Court also ruled that since no non-Muslim is allowed to inherit any part of a Muslim’s assets or wealth, the inheritance of Lim’s assets by his non-Muslim children are invalid and unlawful.

“Therefore, the assets should be immediately returned to Tan Sri Lim’s name, and then redistributed to his Muslim heirs (if any) according to Syariah law. If he has no Muslim heir, then the assets shall be given to the Islamic authorities and they can do whatever they wish. The non-Muslim children are disinherited.” The Syariah Court ruled.

Dato’ Zakaria Lim Abdullah, 35, the late Tan Sri Lim’s only Muslim child and the 20th of his 20 offsprings, would be his sole heir and is now poised to become the Chairman of Genting Group, 1 of Southeast Asia’s richest companies worth RM2 trillion as at press time, after inheriting all the assets. (He would have inherited only 1/20 of Tan Sri Lim’s assets if Tan Sri Lim was not declared a Muslim.) However, he refused to confirm whether he would stop the gambling business of Genting even though it is haram under Islamic law.

“Are you saying that our Hadhari government should refuse to collect taxes from gambling, alcohol, pork and other haram businesses?” Dato’ Zakaria replied, perhaps rhetorically.

Dato’ Zakaria has also said that he shall honor his pledge to donate 1/10 of his newly inherited fortune to Jabatan Agama Islam Pahang and UMNO in equal share if he won the case, made 3 days before the Syariah Court decision.

“Business Reasons”

“My late father wanted to keep his conversion secret because he was a gambling tycoon, and he did not want to jeopardize his gambling empire or make his shareholders lose confidence in Genting,” said Dato’ Zakaria during the hearing in Syariah Court. The Syariah Court felt that “this is most likely true because of the huge business implications. It is very normal for Chinese to do this. We can accept that.”

As to the testimonies of Tan Sri Lim’s 19 other offsprings in the Syariah Court, who unanimously disputed the alleged conversion, the Syariah Court said,

“Even though it is 19 to 1, but because the non-Muslim witnesses refused to swear on the Qur’an before they testified in court, we could not consider their testimonies. In any event, even if they did swear on the Qur’an, the dhimmis… sorry, the non-Muslims would still carry less weight when compared to the testimony of 2 Muslim men. It is not about the number, it is about quality of the witnesses.”

The other witness supporting Dato’ Zakaria’s claim to have witnessed Tan Sri Lim’s conversion is Ustaz Abdul Rahman Ganilan Abdullah, 23 year old. The Ustaz would have been only 13 year old at that time of the conversion, but the Syariah Court said that,

“Being a righteous, God-fearing Muslim, we have no reason to suspect that the Ustaz told any lie. In any event, he has reached the age of puberty at the time (of the conversion) so he was qualified to witness the conversion.”

“Answer To God” – It Depends

The Syariah Court has also ruled that the overwhelming evidence of Tan Sri Lim drinking alcohol, praying to pagan idols, celebrating pagan religious festivals, eating pork and gambling in his own Genting Casino and generally behaving like a non-Muslim all his life until his death was “…irrelevant. Once you have converted, you are a Muslim till you die, no matter what you did before your death. You will answer to God for all your sins.”

However, on the same kind of “answer to God” argument made by the non-Muslim children that:

“By the same logic, the Deceased himself should answer to God for concealing his alleged 'conversion' from his family (and resulting in him not being buried as a Muslim and his assets distributed among his non-Muslim children); it's not up to the Islamic Authority to insist on his assets being inherited under Islamic law if he, had indeed converted but KNOWING FULLY WELL THAT HIS ASSETS WOULD BE DISTRIBUTED LIKE AN INFIDEL (AND HE MIGHT BURN IN HELL), still didn’t want to tell his family to bury him as a Muslim and distribute his assets like a Muslim.”

the Syariah Court said “you cannot say he must answer to God for everything. Sometimes he also has to answer to us, the Islamic Authority and Syariah Court. If we say he has to answer to us, then he has to. When it comes to God's law, logic has nothing to do with it. Why is it so difficult to understand?”

“New Conversion Policy” vs New Economic Policy

The case to declare one of the richest Chinese in the world (at his death) as a Muslim was started 2 years ago (8 years after his death), 1 month after another non-Muslim Malaysian tycoon’s Muslim son was able to exclusively inherit his father’s global business empire – worth RM80 billion at that time – by proving in Syariah Court that his father had “converted in secret,” resulting in his mother and all 9 other siblings losing the right to inherit any part of the tycoon’s wealth, leaving him the sole heir to the huge fortune.

There are currently at least 200 more cases of the same nature pending before the Syariah Courts nationwide involving deceased non-Muslims who were wealthy during their lifetime and left behind a huge personal fortune. Rough estimate suggests that 50% of them were started by 1 of the Muslim children of the deceased (99% of them newly converted as Muslims), and the rest by the Islamic Authorities seeking to disinherit all non-Muslim children. Many are now wondering who's next, and bookies all over the country (including those operated by Genting) have now closed the bets on the top 1,000 richest Chinese in Malaysia (both dead and alive) "as they have become hot favourites now," says the representatives from Ladbrokes Malaysia and William Hill Wahid (the Malaysian subsidiary of William Hill, UK).

If all of the cases succeed, it is estimated that the ratio of equity held by Muslims in Malaysia would jump from the meagre 19% as at 1 January 2018 to 76%, a whopping 3-fold increase.

The Perak Mufti, who applauded the Syariah Court’s ruling, said that this wave of after-death declarations of conversions is the new approach taken by the Islamic Authority to bring people to the right path. "We used to focus on the living, now we think we should focus on the dead people too. Under Islam Hadhari, it's never too late to bring them back to the right path so that they can achieve salvation on Judgment Day, even if they are already dead." He added that this would help to speed up the Islamicization of Malaysia, but is also designed to achieve the government’s goal to redistribute wealth among the races which the government could no longer do (and failed repeatedly to do) under the now abolished National Economic Policy.

“By creating real economic incentives for the dhimmis to become a real citizens of the Islamic state, we expect more of them to embrace the true path, and this will mean that we no longer have to rely on the NEP to achieve such noble socio-economic goals of the government. Besides, this is more effective because to take money away from living people will create a lot of noise, but a dead person will not make any noise, right?” He said.

However, it is not clear whether the non-Muslim children would still be able to keep their inheritance if they convert to Islam Hadhari immediately. The Perak Mufti, when consulted on this issue, said,

“If that could bring them to Islam Hadhari, then it would be good, so the Syariah Court should allow that. But then it might be unfair to those children who converted into Islam Hadhari earlier… perhaps we can still allow them to inherit only 30% of what an “early bird” Muslim heir would have been able to get, to provide some “early bird bonus incentives” for them to convert earlier. When we are dealing with Chinese, such bonus incentives are very important, if you know what I mean. Anyway, we’ll think about this in the next National Fatwa Council meeting. But rest assured that we shall continue our struggle and to finish our job – until the Kingdom comes (literally).”

Chinese Beginning to Be Concerned

The Chinese community has now taken this matter very seriously and are brainstorming on the options to overcome this problem. They have also called for an end to the practice of declaring a person’s status as a Muslim after his or her death, a radical change from their usual attitude to shy away from controversial political and religious issues. Analysts believe that this is because this time, it is threatening their economic interests.

Supporters of the now semi-defunct Malaysian Chinese Association, Gerakan and Malaysian Indian Congress (still part of the ruling Barisan Nasional coalition, though) have called on the top BN leadership to put forward a plan to resolve such controversial and provocative religious issues once and for all and in a manner which is fair to the non-Muslims. An MCA leader who declined to be named told our reporter:

“We fear a backlash. Most NGO and opposition leaders have called on the non-Muslims to boycott BN if no fair solution is put forward before the upcoming general election. These issues have been around since at least the Moorthy controversy in 2005 but still remained unresolved. They are now affecting the basic security and fundamental well-being of the non-Muslims.”

[Juslo’s clarification:

This is purely a SATIRE. NOTHING in this post is factually true. DEEP APOLOGIES to the family of the late Tan Sri Lim Goh Tong. Forgive me for using a real, prominent name in order to try to bring out the real, concrete implications of the stupidity, madness and suffering which are happening in Malaysia right now, and hopefully to raise awareness of the people, Muslims and non-Muslims alike, in order to prevent ABUSE AND MANIPULATION. Let's ensure that the above WILL NOT HAPPEN.

Juslo’s additional clarification on 1 February 2008:

Some have accused me of being 'provocative' and 'inciting hatred.' I want to clarify that these are NOT my intentions -- but I strongly believe that these are what the corpse-snatching evil doers from the 'Islamic Authorities' intended. You cannot blame the victims/their communities for reacting in anger to your provocation because you knew very well that this would cause anger, pain and disharomony, and yet you still chose to go ahead to do it -- you expect your victims/their communities to SMILE AND WELCOME you??

These reactions were dead certain -- you have seen them in the Moorthy case, and many cases before, so don't pretend that you are somehow 'surprised' by the anger this time. Please don't be so SELF-CENTERED, put yourselves into other people's shoes for a change.

Some also accused me of "bashing Islam." Honestly and sincerely, I D-O N-O-T believe that this is ISLAM, and (as someone who was once 'attracted to' and have learned much about Islam) I am sad that people would equate these pain-anger-suffering-causing evil actions as 'Islam.' I hope all those who wish to defend these people think twice before equating them with 'Islam.' And if you think this is just 'islamophobia' or 'lies,' then explain to us where are the safeguards and how and why this kind of abuse and manipulation will never happen. Put our minds at ease. (But please spare us the naive "Muslims will never lie in syariah court" excuses.)

But I hope this much we could agree on:

that Islam should be practised in a FAIR & JUST manner towards non-Muslims;

that good Muslims will continue to speak up against injustices everywhere, ESPECIALLY those committed against non-Muslims in the name of Islam;

that no more suffering n pain would be visited upon non-Muslims in the name of Islam no matter what is the justification;

that Islam will not be manipulated by individual Muslims for their selfish gains.]

2007: Year of Women –- Especially Courageous, Muslim Women

2007-12-28T13:24:00.002+08:00

As if this year was not sad enough, one of my heroes had to be assassinated when the year is almost over.

“A discredited former prime minister, accused of massive corruption, Miss Bhutto had won grudging praise from many Pakistanis for her courage in defying the terrorists’ threat… In her final political address -- a few minutes before her death -- Miss Bhutto alluded to the risk she was running. She said: “I put my life in danger and came here because I feel this country is in danger. People are worried. We will bring the country out of this crisis.”

She -- like most politicians -- was not an angel, and was apparently rather corrupt and inept even:

“While Benazir's Western education made her adept at speaking of democracy and women's rights, her feudal background had more of a bearing on her manner of government. Little was done to alleviate Pakistan's appalling rates of illiteracy and child mortality; instead there was a pervasive atmosphere of corruption, in which her husband, Asif Ali Zardari, whom she married in 1987, was frequently implicated. The scion of a lesser feudal family who had done well in business, he was known during his wife's reign as "Mr 10 Per Cent" for the alleged amount of his rake-offs, though some claimed 30 per cent would have been more appropriate.”

But she sure was much better than many male politicians to me. (And I agree with Michael Fathers: Bhutto's flaws in office cannot diminish her greatness, or the extent of Pakistan's loss)

Yes, she came from a privileged and elite background, and with that in mind her achievements might not seem that surprising. On the other hand, her courage to rise to the occasion to succeed her father’s political career in the most trying of circumstances would put most male politicians (and men in general, for that matter) to shame:

“If her personal circumstances had been different, Ms Bhutto’s feudal family background from the interior of Pakistan’s southern Sindh province, might well have confined her to a role as a Begum, no more than being a full-time affluent housewife and part-time politician. But Ms Bhutto’s two brothers, Murtaza and Shahnawaz, chose to live overseas after Pakistan’s military, led by the late General Zia ul Haq, overthrew the government headed by her father in 1977.
Zulfikar Ali Bhutto was arrested after the coup and hanged two years later on a controversial charge of ordering the assassination of a political foe.
Young and western-educated, his daughter was the obvious choice to stay to lead her father’s Pakistan People’s party (PPP) through Gen Zia’s harsh military dictatorship.”

When he country called, she accepted the challenge:

"I didn't choose this life in Pakistan; it chose me," Benazir Bhutto wrote in her autobiography, Daughter of the East.

Not forgetting that she was a modern woman in a fundamentalist, conservative Muslim country, and there aren’t that many men in this world who would have the courage to struggle against a military dictatorship (Compare Malaysia -- we are too chicken shit to even stand up to a semi-authoritarian regime.):

“She did so two years later, daring General Zia's increasingly authoritarian regime to imprison her or have her killed, addressing huge rallies about the martyrdom of her father and demanding an end to military rule. In 1988 the general died in a mid-air explosion which has never been fully explained, and the military called free elections, the first in a decade. Benazir was swept into power at the head of the PPP at the age of only 35, the first woman to be elected leader of a Muslim state.”

My personal respect and admiration for her is not influenced by her gender, but the way she overcame the, shall we say, “inconvenience” of her gender makes her a truly extraordinary human being (not just woman):

“Nor was there any doubting her courage. In January 1990, when she was heavily pregnant and elements of the establishment were demanding that she step down temporarily until the baby was born, she secretly had her daughter Bakhtwar by Caesarean section and returned to work the following day.”

But I think her historical significance is not only in her life -- her death also brings out what is fundamentally wrong with the contemporary Muslim world, especially for a fundamentalist, conservative but semi-democratic, heavyweight, nuclear-power Muslim country such as Pakistan.

The way she died -- and President Pervez Musharraf’s political maneuvering and utter failure to curb Islamic extremism and violence before and after that -- signifies that the Muslim world is at a crossroad: how to balance the demands of democracy and modernity on one hand with those of extremism and fundamentalism in the name of Islam, on the other.

Pakistan is not just a ‘basket-case’ of failed Muslim states -- it is one of the first Muslim democracies, and as a nuclear power it cannot be a ‘basket-case’ or a failed state. The world -- especially the Great Satan and the West -- will not allow it to become one. The world would brace itself, for the months and years to come, for further turmoil (caused by Pakistan’s domestic and international actors) in that volatile region which would have widespread repercussions globally, including in Malaysia.

LINA JOY, REVATHI AND SUBASHINI

The second courageous woman I want to mention here, who is “both Muslim and Christian” (according to Aisehman), is Lina Joy. Her failed battle to be legally recognised as a Christian in Malaysia is well-known by now, generating much international interests including most recently from an Australian High Court Judge, Michael Kirby.

Even though she has lost her battle before the Malaysian courts, her struggle for religious freedom has stirred up an important debate in Malaysia and captured the whole nation. For the first half of the year, the country was waiting for the decision to be delivered by the highest court, and for the second half of the year, we are still experiencing its ‘aftershocks’. Wherever she is, many Malaysians wish her well, and may she find happiness with her partner. The struggle for religious freedom in Malaysia and the Muslim world continues.

What Revathi experienced seems to confirm that going to the Syariah court to seek an 'apostasy order' (as suggested by the Federal Court in the Lina Joy case) is self-incriminating and digging your own grave. She was imprisoned for going to the Syariah court to try to quit Islam, mentally tortured as the 'Islamic' authorities sought to brainwash her to bring her back to the 'right path', forcibly split from her husband and young baby (all in the name of 'Islam'), but she did not give in. "My name is Revathi. I want to hold on to that name - forever. I want to drop the name Siti Fatimah." she said, defiantly.

Her example also confirms that trying to convert out of 'Islam' by going to the Syariah court system is a delusion, if not a flat out lie, because it is a confirmed dead-end:

“They held me for six months, only to say that I cannot leave Islam. If that is the case, they should have told me earlier, so I don’t have to go into the centre."

Her plight aslo caught the attention of Al-Jazeera. Until today, we have no news about whether she has been allowed to re-unite with her husband and live the life she has chosen for herself. But her words shows how much (unnecessary!!) damage which has been done to the name of Islam:

“I hate Islam even more now”.

In the aftermath of Lina Joy, another courageous lady is Subashini, a 29 year old Hindu lady who was abandoned by her ball-less husband who ran for cover to the Syariah court system in the hope of escaping his civil law, marital obligations as a man (which he ain't) by converting into Islam and at the same time converting his 2 minor children too (Dharvin Joshua, 4, and 2-year-old Sharvin), most probably because he wanted to make sure that he got custody of these kids (I guess along the line of “they are ‘Muslims’ now (legally, though not factually), so it is more suitable for me, a good, pious, responsible and upright Muslim ‘man’, to take care of them, rather than some infidel, pagan woman who would only make my children kuffar”).

Subashini did not just give up her love for her children and -- most probably because she did not want her children to turn out like a piece of shit like their father -- she bravely fought all the way to the highest court in Malaysia, capturing the nation’s imagination once again.

From what I understand, the Federal Court of Malaysia has said that that her husband is not allowed to escape to the Syariah court and treat it like a ‘get out of jail free card’, but must settle his scores with his wife in the civil court system first.

But when it comes to the kids, whatever the decision is/means, I think the kids should not be converted into something they could not convert out later (‘Islam’, Malaysian style, is the only IDEOLOGY that fits the ‘Hotel California’ description right now in Malaysia). And even if they were so converted, I think they should be allowed to ‘reconsider’ it once they reach 18 or 21, when they could really think for themselves (which they are obviously too young to do now at 2 and 4).

If the custody is given to their piece-of-shit father, they could be converted into Islam now if they have to stay with the father, fine, but they should be free to choose for themselves later. THAT’S what I would regard as “justice will be done, for EVERYONE” (including the kids, obviously, since this is a custody battle). Whether it is to be achieved by way of ‘divorce’ law, syariah or civil, or ‘religious freedom’ law, syariah or civil, in this case or the next, doesn’t really matter to me -- so long as that end is achieved and the religious freedom of those poor kids guaranteed.

But what this case highlighted is the need for clear rules when it comes to religious conflicts like apostasy and conversion of minors. It also, to me, highlights how the Syariah court system in Malaysia has been perverted by scumbags like Subashini's piece-of-shit husband (whose name I don’t care to remember). No decent father would involve his children in this manner in a custody- or religious- fight with his wife. That 'man' should go to hell as far as I’m concerned, whatever religion he chooses to associate his name with. There should be laws which ban a lousy father like that from ever becoming a father to any child in his lifetime.

OTHER NOTABLE LEADERS...

And I think we should not forget these 3 inspirational female political leaders who have made some waves during 2007 and before:

The classy and intelligent Ségolène Royal -- who nearly became the first female President of France. I hope she’ll make it next time, and soon.

The loyal Wan Azizah Wan Ismail, who faithfully guarded her husband’s political base and stood by her man while he served time in prison (for some, shall we say, ‘funny’ charges), whom was an outstanding doctor in her own right. I hope she would not simply fade away after her husband formally takes over as the ‘de facto opposition leader’.

The ‘Indian equivalent’ of Benazir Bhutto, Sonia Gandhi, widow of Rajiv Gandhi (Deceased) and the President of the Indian National Congress. She admirably ‘renounced’ herself from being the candidate for Prime Minister of India after her party and coalition won the general election in 2004, rather than trying to get a constitutional amendment or something like that to get there. I wonder whether she did this nice gesture because she’s not a Malaysian, or because she’s a woman?

...AND ONE CHILD

We could never forget Nurin -- not yet a woman when she was brutally killed and shall never be one. Her tragic death made all our hearts bleed (and still bleeding), left a permanent scar on the nation's soul, made us wonder what had happened to us as a society, and our anger towards the breakdown of law and order in this country reached boiling point upon learning her demise. Until today, the animal who violated her is still at large.

I hope her death would keep the public anger at our incompetent police and demand for better law enforcement alive, into the next year and beyond, so that NO MORE child or woman -- NOT EVEN ONE -- would be violated or oppressed in this country anymore, EVER. That way, Nurin would not have died in vain.

STRUGGLES CONTINUE IN 2008

The courage of women will continue on display in 2008. Moorthy’s wife would be waiting for her hearing at the higher court.

Revathi could still be fighting. Subashini would also have to carry on fighting in the civil court (and perhaps even the syariah court), and I hope justice -- albeit belated -- will be done, and that piece of shit be taught a lesson.

I’m also waiting for the final outcome of Mukhtar Mai’s case, who survived the ‘shame’ forcibly imposed on her by barbarians and heroically fought back, and whose case becomes even more intriguing given what has happened in Pakistan this year.

Also, since I’m tired of seeing men dominating the world’s headlines, so a female ‘leader of the free world’ would be a nice breath of fresh air.

Why should 2007 be "The Year of Women"? Because what these extraordinary women did and experienced were in relation to issues which have far reaching impacts on the freedom of many human beings -- both men and women -- not just regarding some 'women/feminist issues'. It could have been men who played their roles this year in the exact same stories. Women, in trying to win freedom, respect and dignity for all human beings, were the leaders this year.

So, wherever you are, courageous women of the world-- individually and collectively, you are changing the world. 2007 is not the beginning, and will not be the end. In the coming election, would your hands rock Malaysia too?

Believing in 'Islam' Would Make You Stupid and Vulnerable?

2007-12-27T10:07:00.000+08:00

The Malaysian government has said that "Muslims might get confused" if religions other than Islam is allowed to use the word "Allah" to refer to their God.

That is, frankly, the dumbest thing said about Muslims I've ever heard. (Let me say at the beginning that this is an attack on the Malaysian government's manipulation of 'Islam', not on all Muslims or Islam in general.) To hold that claim seriously would make people wonder what would believing in Islam/ becoming a Muslim do to your brain.

Seriously, think about it -- according to the Malaysian government/ religious authorities, Muslims in Malaysia are too 'vulnerable' (read: stupid?) to handle the following:

1, The Hollywood comedies "Bruce Almighty" and "Evan Almighty" (which the government was asked to ban because it was blasphemous)

2, Religious books written by foreign authors, especially if they are written in Bahasa Melayu (which the government has banned their imports)

3, Seeing the 'patung patung' (statues) erected by infidels by the roadside (which the Sabah Mufti has declared 'haram' to Muslims by his fatwa)

4, Reading the reference to 'Allah' in a Catholic publication (for which the Ministry of Internal Security has banned the Catholic Herald)

5, Wishing the infidels for their religious celebrations such as Deepavali (according to the Perak Mufti and Takaful Insurance)

6, etc etc...

In other words, Muslims just "can't handle the truth!" They, as Muslims and believers of Islam, could be easily led astray.

This is very strange, because it seems to suggest that even though a Muslim could tell "the straight path from the crooked" and "Truth from Error" when they quit their original religion and converted into Islam, (i.e. knew how to choose what is the truth,) they have suddenly lost their ability to tell right from wrong after they become a Muslim? It is as if becoming a Muslim causes you instant brain damage!?

I mean, are you seriously telling me that when a Muslim picked up a copy of the “Catholic Herald” and read an article talking about “Allah” having a son called “Yesus,” he couldn’t tell that he was reading the “Catholic Herald” and not the “Harakah”?? You got to be fucking kidding me.

HELLO ABANG -- READ THE TOP OF THE PAGE, FOR CRYING OUT LOUD!!

CAN'T YOU SEE THE WORD 'C-A-T-H-O-L-I-C'??? JESUS FUCKING CHRIST!!!

BUTA HURUF KE??

(And frankly, if this abang still can’t tell that he was reading a non-Islamic publication, then he’s most probably illiterate anyway -- the government would not need to save him from Satan’s seductive words disguised as Christian propaganda materials!!)

I would urge the government/ religious authorities to stop using this kind of stupid excuses which sounds like 'defending Islam' but in actual fact would only insult the intelligence of -- who else? -- Muslims, because they are indirectly saying that believing in 'Islam' (the Malaysian style) could make you stupid and vulnerable... This is a great disservice to Islam.

As Thomas Jefferson said,

"It is an insult to our citizens to question whether they are rational beings or not, and blasphemy against religion to suppose it cannot stand the test of truth and reason."

On the other hand, if the government has to resort to such desperate excuses and psuedo-reasons like "protecting the 'stupid' Muslims" in order to justify its discriminatory (YES, LET'S NOT FORGET THAT ULTIMATELY, WHAT THIS IS REALLY ABOUT) policies and actions (especially in order to violate non-Muslims' constitutional right to religious freedom), then we as the people should be alert.

Just like "A prince never lacks legitimate reasons to break his promise" (Niccolò Machiavelli), the Malaysian government never runs out of absurd reasons to violate the people's constitutional rights and freedom (aka 'social contract'). As some have said, when no good reason is given to justify an action by the government, "no reason, that is, that could not be instantly refuted by a literate teenager" (Noam Chomsky, MIT Professor), then we can only conclude that all the absurd reasons given are just excuses deployed to disguise the REAL MOTIVE -- to violate the religious freedom of non-Muslims.

Thomas Jefferson again:

"We are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor to tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it."

We are not stupid or naïve, no matter how much the government wishes us to be. I therefore call upon the government to stop insulting the intelligence of the Malaysian people, Muslims and non-Muslims alike, and take their hands off non-Muslims' religious freedom.

UPDATE: The Malaysian government has backed down.

"The publisher of Herald - The Catholic Weekly newspaper has been allowed to continue printing its Bahasa Malaysia section with no restrictions on the use of the word Allah for God."

I am happy that good sense has finally prevailed, and as far as I am concerned (not a Christian), I am happy to welcome this is a victory for the freedom of speech.

UPDATE 2: Nope, sorry folks, the Malaysian Cabinet still think that Muslims are too stupid and vulnerable:

"The restrictions on the use of the word “Allah” was still enforceable and shall be upheld as decided by the Cabinet in two of its meetings – on Oct 18 and Nov 1, 2006, Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Datuk Abdullah Mohd Zin said.

Abdullah, who said the Prime Minister had instructed him to clarify the matter so the public would not be confused, told a press conference on Thursday:

“One of the reasons given to uphold the restriction is because that it has long been the practice of this country that the world Allah refers to God according to the Muslim faith.”

It was only proper for other religions to use the word "God" and not "Allah" when referring to their God in respective beliefs, Abdullah said, adding that the use of the word “Allah” shall not be made a public debate that may give the impression as if there is no freedom of religion in the country.

“The use of the word 'Allah' by non-Muslims may arouse sensitivity and create confusion among Muslims in the country,” he said."

All Muslims in Malaysia should be proud of the government and themselves. Really.

To prevent 'confusion' among non-Muslims, let's see the Malaysian government prohibit Muslims from reciting the following verses of the Quran:

5:17: "In blasphemy indeed are those that say that Allah is Christ the son of Mary."

9:5: "Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush."

47:4: "Therefore, when ye meet the Unbelievers (in fight), smite at their necks; At length, when ye have thoroughly subdued them, bind a bond firmly (on them): thereafter (is the time for) either generosity or ransom: Until the war lays down its burdens. Thus (are ye commanded): but if it had been Allah's Will, He could certainly have exacted retribution from them (Himself); but (He lets you fight) in order to test you, some with others. But those who are slain in the Way of Allah,- He will never let their deeds be lost."

8:39: "And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is all for Allah. But if they cease, then lo! Allah is Seer of what they do."

9:123: "O ye who believe! Fight those of the disbelievers who are near to you, and let them find harshness in you, and know that Allah is with those who keep their duty (unto Him)."

And many, many other verses in the Quran -- they all should be immediately banned and deleted from the copies of the Quran found in Malaysia, and anybody who posseses a copy of the Quran with those verses (as well as those who print or import the Quran with verses in those words especially in languages other than Bahasa Melayu, since the kafirs are deemed not holy enough for Bahasa Melayu) should be detained indefinitely without trial under the ISA for suspicion of incitement to violence and hate.

It is only fair, in order to prevent 'confusion' among, and to protect the 'sensitivity' of, non-Muslims (for a change). After all, this is a government for all races and religion, and our Prime Minister is the "Prime Minister of all Malaysians", so let's see the non-Muslims getting some 'protection' for a change.

I say the Herald should fight all the way in the court because otherwise, one thing will lead to another. Today it is about 'Allah', tomorrow it could be many other things! The moment you accept government interference with your internal communications, that's it -- next time they might even stop you from telling the virgin Mary story because it would be an abomination of 'Allah' to suggest that 'Allah' could beget a son and the Christians would be accused of trying to 'confuse' Muslims again!! (Quran, 6:101 and 9:30) (Which would be a wet dream comes true for many extremist Muslims, I tell ya.)

This is simply ridiculous -- which means the ulterior motive is very obvious.

Can Blogging Help?

2007-09-23T10:23:00.000+08:00

Sometimes, I fail to understand why certain things could happen. I don't really buy the super-natural explanations like 'plan' and 'love' from above, I just don't think this should be allowed to happen, under the watch of law enforcement officials and whoever is 'above'.

But if those explanations could help one gets through the pain, to each his own.

However, as a blogger/blog commentator, I think we as a group are pretty much useless, especially in a situation like this. Can the power of the pen, free speech and ideas really make any difference in the world? In fact, I begin to hesitate the use of the word 'power' in that sentence. Well, at least it's not for ME to use. There might be others for whom the use of that word is fit.

Rest in peace, Nurin.

Lina Joy - Malaysian Islamists Won the Battle But Losing the War?

2007-06-03T14:30:00.006+08:00

As I said, the reason why I blog is to look for complications in things. In this post, I'm trying to do that with regard to the Lina Joy case.

While most people take the view that the majority's judgment in Lina Joy is bad for civil liberties in this country, I think the Federal Court has just given the 'liberals' more ammunition to fight the next battle. (Assuming My Understanding of the Judgment is Correct...)

You have read the majority’s judgment?
Do you notice what has been said and what has not?

Could you see what has been said very loudly (but less significant) and what has been whispered quietly and in passing (but highly significant)?

The Chief Justice (in the majority) says:

"(13) ABIM, Muslim Lawyers Association and the Malaysian Syarie Lawyers Association, also as watching brief, have in turn gave their respective opinions which are briefly as follows:

(a) Article 11 of the Federal Constitution used the words ‘profess and practice’. Hence, the matter of leaving Islam should follow the related laws. A person could leave {26} Islam but has to follow its procedures...

(14) Regarding the views at paragraphs (12) and (13) above I agree with the views at paragraph (13).”

1, The Federal Court agreed that in Malaysia, a person could legally (not talking about theologically or spiritually) leave Islam, by virtue of the guarantee in Article 11.

On the other hand, the Court never said that Muslims do not have the freedom to apostate. In particular, the Federal Court did not say that because of Article 121(1A), Article 11 has been completely denied to the Muslims.

In this case, the Court only decided on which is the appropriate court (which has jurisdiction) to do this, that’s all. No doubt has been cast over Muslims’ Article 11 freedom at all.

In other words, the Federal Court has confirmed that Muslims could go to that destination (apostasy) (because of Article 11); it’s just that for now, the court has prescribed a particular mode of transportation (because of Article 121(1A)).

So, when it comes to Muslims, Article 121(1A) has only burdened Article 11, but has not eliminated it.

And that’s great news for Muslims who want their religious freedom, don't you think?

(Even though you can't just take the shortcut of deleting the IC...)

This point (which I think is significant) seems to have been missed by all newspaper reports.

The Islamists who argue that there is absolutely no freedom to leave Islam actually did not ‘win’ in this case, because the Chief Justice of the Federal Court has just confirmed that you CAN ACTUALLY APOSTATE (well, at least in theory). ABIM has been opposing Lina Joy’s appeal by arguing that Muslims should not be given the right to leave Islam, but the Chief Justice has just disagreed with that view.

2, The Federal Court did not say what and where are the appropriate ‘laws and procedures’ for leaving Islam, neither did they point to any which currently exists in Malaysia. But based on what they have said, these must exist, because otherwise, what they have said would be a complete nonsense or empty talk – like asking an alcohol drinker to buy wine from the mosque. Of course the highest court in the land would not pronounce nonsense or hot air - they are, in fact, telling us what is the highest law in the land.

It seems that all they have suggested was that such matters are to be dealt with by the Syariah Court, which means that if there is no such ‘laws and procedures’ in the Syariah Court, then some must be created to allow the leaving to happen. But if the Syariah law-makers refuse to do that, then of course the Syariah Court would no longer be the appropriate place to deal with apostasy because the rationale for going to the Syariah Court in the first place is the availability of such ‘laws and procedures’.

However, if after confirming that the Syariah Court lacks those ‘laws and procedures’, the Federal Court still insists that the apostate must go there, the Federal Court would be mocking Article 11 of the Federal Constitution – and the very basis of its own existence. So, if the Syariah Court does not have or exercise them, then the civil court would have to become the appropriate, default place to deal with the matter.

After all, I'm sure the Federal Court still believes that, Islamic law or otherwise, when there is a right (to leave Islam... according to the proper laws and procedures of course), there must be a remedy.

3, If any such ‘laws and procedures’ created is so burdensome that it could practically prevent a Muslim’s leaving of Islam and rendering the freedom to leave illusory or just a joke, then those ‘laws and procedures’ must be nullified for contravening the Federal Constitution, i.e. unconstitutional.

4, And further, if there is any ‘laws and procedures’ which actually penalize the exercise of the freedom to leave Islam, then they must all the more be nullified as unconstitutional.

Such as these:

SYARIAH OFFENCES ENACTMENT (MELAKA STATE) 19916/1991

PART IV: OTHER OFFENCES

Section 66 - Trying of Apostasy.

(1) Whenever a Muslim deliberately, by conduct or word or whatever other way, admit to want to leave Islam or declares himself to be non-Muslim, then the [Syariah] Court shall, if satisfied that that person has done something which could be interpreted as has tried to change iktikad (faith) and belief in Islam whether it is by his own admission or conduct, make order so that the person is detained in Pusat Bimbingan Islam (Islamic Guidance/Rehabilitation Center) for a period not more than 6 months for the purpose of education and such person be requested to repent in accordance with Hukum Syarak.

(2) If any person who has been ordered so that is detained under subsection (1) -

(a) repents immediately, the [Syariah] Court shall, after confirming his repent, free that person; or

(b) if that person at any time during detention has repented, the Observing Officer shall report the matter to the [Syariah] Court and the Court shall call that person and after confirming his repent, shall make an order to free him.

(3) The Observing Officer shall send a progress report about that person being detained to the Syariah Court every week.

(4) The Islamic Guidance/Rehabilitation Center shall be gazetted as a detention centre.

And these:

SYARIAH CRIMES ENACTMENT (PERAK STATE) 19923/1992

PART IV: OFFENCES RELATING TO THE HONOUR OF THE RELIGION AND ITS INSTITUTIONS

Section 13 - Act or word of Apostasy.

A Muslim who deliberately, whether by conduct or word or whatever other way, admits wants to leave Islam or declares himself as a non-Muslim is committing an offence offending Islam and shall, when found guilty, be given punishment of fine not more than RM3,000.00 or jail for for a period not more than 2 years or both together.

[### Perak has no qualm about calling it jail instead of 'education'. The frankness is commendable! ###]

And also these:

Takfir.

(1) Depends on subsection (2), any person who says or indicate by words, whether verbal or written, or by sign or picture, or by any act, activity or conduct, or by organizing, promoting or create any activity or otherwise by any way, that any person professing Islam or people who are categorized in any group, entity or description of people who profess Islam-

(a) is a kafir/unbeliever;

(b) no longer profess Islam;

(c) should not be accepted, or could not be accepted, as professing Islam; or

(d) do not believe, follow, profess or group within, Islam,
is committing an offence and when found guilty can be fined not more than RM5,000.00 or jailed for a period not more than 3 years or both together.

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to -

(a) any which is done by any [Syariah?] Court or religious authority created, formed or appointed or under any written law and is given power to make or issue any decision regarding any matter related to Islam; and

(b) any which is done by any person according to or following any decision made or issued by the [Syariah?] Court or any such authority, whether the decision is written or if written, whether it is published in the Gazette.

*** Found, in similar wordings, in at least:

ENAKMEN KESALAHAN JENAYAH SYARIAH (TAKZIR) (TERENGGANU) 20017/2001, BAHAGIAN II KESALAHAN YANG BERHUBUNGAN DENGAN 'AQIDAH, Seksyen 38

ENAKMEN JENAYAH SYARIAH (SELANGOR) 19959/1995, BAHAGIAN II KESALAHAN YANG BERHUBUNGAN DENGAN 'AQIDAH, Seksyen 6

JOHOR ENAKMEN KESALAHAN JENAYAH SYARIAH 19974/1997, BAHAGIAN V KESALAHAN PELBAGAI, Seksyen 31

KEDAH ENAKMEN KANUN JENAYAH SYARIAH 19889/1988, BAHAGIAN II KESALAHAN-KESALAHAN, Seksyen 24

[### Note that these are not the so-called 'laws and procedures' mentioned by the Chief Justice because just because you have been fined, jailed and 'educated' under these criminal provisions does not mean that the Syariah Court will therefore give you an apostasy order. (But I don't know whether they'll give you a 'Certificate of Graduation from the Guidance Course', though. ###]

Because all these laws criminalizing the word or act of apostasy would be directly in conflict with Muslims' freedom of religion under Article 11, which the Federal Court has just confirmed that Muslims have.

Is there a 'Next' Battle?

So, it seems that this is not the end of the road yet -- for both sides. The true Battle Royale would come when a Muslim (Lina Joy or someone else):

- follows the advice of the Federal Court to go through the 'laws and procedures' of the Syariah Court and go to apply for an apostasy order,

- but got arrested the moment she makes the application, under 1 of the laws above,

- found guilty of committing an offence (of claiming apostasy) and punishment given out,

- appeals to the whatever appeal court they have in the Syariah system but is rejected,

- THEN apply to the civil court to declare that her punishment is unconstitutional because it violates her, Muslim's, freedom of religion under Article 11, and want the civil court to nullify all these criminal provisions.

The Federal Court would then have to consider doing the 'unthinkable' -

a, either to nullify all those laws as unconstitutional for infringing on that Muslim's Article 11 freedom of religion which she no doubt has, albeit 'burdened'; or

b, to complete their abdication of their constitutional duty by deciding:

"Although Muslims no doubt have the freedom of religion, (WE CONFIRM ONCE AGAIN, don't worry!), but it is still up to the Syariah Court to interpret what is the actual meaning and width of Muslims' 'freedom' or civil liberties (in Arabic if they so wish), and for them to decide whether any particular syariah law actually infringes those freedoms and civil liberties or not (and therefore also whether that law is unconstitutional).

The Syariah Court has complete jurisdiction (clearly implied!) with regard to Muslims, including their constitutional freedom and liberties. So, please go back there, again."

Appellant: "But I have followed your previous advice to stay the course, follow through all the laws and procedures, and they still put me in a deadend (after jailing me)!"

Federal Court: "Errr... hhmm... Then, we guess you just have to wait for the Wahhabists to take over the Parliament and abolish Article 11... sorry."

For the Sake of the Nation's Long Term Unity and Harmony

But is the next battle going to help national unity? Of course not, especially if it has to go through the courts again.

Therefore, I believe that the task of giving a way out - in the Syariah Court or otherwise - to the apostates can no longer be avoided. Although it could be more tempting to just amend the Federal Constitution to deny Article 11 to the Muslims, that is only going to suppress, not resolve, the minority's grievances, and is going to do a permanent, possibly irreparable damage to national unity in the long term.

Some people have suggested making clear rules and procedures to make apostasy possible but with strict, discouraging (but not penalizing) quid pro quo, such as requiring the apostate to promise not to disparage Islam after leaving, to pay hefty 'compensation taxes' to the Muslim community as the payback for having enjoyed the benefits and privileges which come with the position of being a bumiputra, and to make that option available to only those who are of a mature enough age, say 21, (therefore not easily swayed by the 'enemies of Islam').

I think that is the only way out - striking a balance between allowing individual freedom of conscience (and to avoid the inhumanity of mentally and spiritually torturing those who no longer has a heart for Islam), while not disrupting the choice of the pious Muslim majority to live the comprehensive Muslim lifestyle they crave.

But above all, the Muslim elites should study the real reason why Musims want to leave the Malaysian 'legal' Islam in the first place (rather than fooling themselves with the imaginary, distracting, blame-it-on-others and self-deceiving/deluding reasons like 'exposure to the poison of Christian missionary, American culture and internet' blah blah blah).

Doing away with discriminatory laws such as 'easy' polygamy, and anti-choice laws such as regulating women's dress and compelling marital conversion would perhaps have pre-empted many from thinking about converting out of Islam.

For a start, we would probably never hear about Lina Joy and she would have happily married her Christian boyfriend and live happily and quietly together as wife and husband -- Muslim and Christian.

Now, wouldn't God have liked and praised that ending?

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

You should also read 'Lina Joy, The Decision (Counsel’s Explanation)' by The Idiot Behind the Iron Mask, who has tried to give the explaination by apparently some of the lawyers involved in the case for some of the concerns I happen to have about going to the Syariah Court. This is my comments (in black) posted there (with some changes):

“Whether a person such as Lina will succeed or not in the Syariah court will depend on the grounds that she gives to the Court i.e. she will have to state why she is leaving the religion… the Court [can] go through the body of Muslim jurisprudence in order resolve her problem.”

Q: what are the grounds normally acceptable?

Q: would the counsel agree that it would make people have more confidence in the syariah system’s transparency and accountability if the requirements for leaving islam are clearly written down for all to know - since it is such a sensitive issue.

from the other side of the divide, it does look like apostates are being sent to a ‘black hole’ or sent on a wild goose chase -- while there r MANY serious offences CLEARLY written down to punish whoever claims to b an apostate, on 1 hand, NONE of the ‘requirements’ and ‘conditions’ for apostasy application is written down.

those who r used to the civil court common law system knows that the judges write down the reasons for their decisions, and the confidence is boosted by the expectation that like cases would b treated alike (they call it ‘binding precedent’?), therefore nobody could accuse the civil court system of favouritism against any one party.

but syariah court doesn’t seem to inspire that kind of confidence.

i’m NOT trying to disparage the syariah court system, but only hope that muslims understand why going to
syariah court is such a non-starter for most non-muslims.

“In the state of Negeri Sembilan, there are special provisions for Muslims to leave Islam.”

which means the rest of the states/territories DON’T have. why?

wouldn’t it make things look less ’suspicious’ to the non-muslims if they r written down?

“The Court may impose counseling on the would-be apostate for a certain period until the Court is able to satisfy itself that there is no hope for the applicant to return to Islam.”

Q: is there any safeguard in place to prevent any ill-treatment? i’ve heard of people being torturned (physically n mentally - brainwashed is the minimum) during the ‘counselling period’.

(which is another reason that scares apostates away, i guess.)

“Once the court declares that she is an apostate, she cannot be charged for any offence which other Muslims are subject to. If she is charged, she can raise her defence under Article 11 (1) of the Constitution.”

Q: ok, is this only in N. S., or all states?

“Negeri Sembilan… Of the 89 applications made between 1984 and 2003, 16 applications were allowed, 29 applications were dismissed and 39 postponed. In 2005, there were 5 successful applications; in 2006 (until August) there were 3 successful applications…”

Q: i think it’s reasonable to say that getting the order is still much less likely than not?

(that’s why, i feel that clear rules and procedures should b written down.)

“The application by a person to leave Islam is a civil suit/ proceeding and not a criminal proceeding. No one will be charged under Islamic criminal law for making such an application. Federal Court judge Justice Malanjun (a Kadazan Christian from Sabah) is misled for saying in the Lina Joy case that a person will incriminate himself and can be charged for a criminal offence if he applies to leave Islam in a Syariah court.”

Q: true, the application might b a civil application, but could the authorities LATER/AT THE SAME TIME/BEFORE YOUR APPLICATION IS DECIDED, charge u with a criminal offence in a PARALLEL, SEPARATE criminal proceedings, for MAKING the application (which seems to be caught by the wording of those criminal provisions)?

Is there any assurance (explicitly written) that they would not?

Q: any express provisions/syariah principles to guarantee that she wouldn’t b charged? for a start, those criminal provisions DO NOT give an EXCEPTION to that kind of application. their wordings r very wide - ‘by word, conduct, … or by any manner at all’ surely, it’s reasonable for most people (including Justice Malanjun) to make that conclusion.

(some muslims like to say, “that’s why we keep saying non-muslims should not interfere with syariah matters BCOS THEY DON’T UNDERSTAND!!”

but they never bother to EXPLAIN and PERSUADE by telling us, unambiguously, what is REALLY the fact. they just stop there, n broke off the conversation. frankly, asking someone to ’stop asking’ in the middle of a conversation/discussion is quite rude. at the very least, it shows that they r not interested in engaging others.)

many non-muslims, myself included, ARE WILLING to listen n understand what the other side is thinking. if we don’t understand, PLEASE EXPLAIN and point to CLEAR examples. then, we’ll b persuaded.

maybe not all of us, but many would.

“As to the fact that some states have enacted Islamic laws making apostasy a crime, these laws are seldom enforced.”

Q: i won’t dispute that these laws r seldom enforced. but the fact is, they r THERE. from the other side, it does seem like the clerics r just WAITING for the time to ’strike’ (to snatch your wife & children from your home, etc). i’m not saying that this perception is correct, but there r a lot of things MUSLIMS could do to achieve greater understanding.

if the laws r not frequently enforced, that still does not answer the fact that the syariah system IS TRYING TO SCARE apostates. now, in that situation, how can u expect the apostates to willingly go to the syariah court? again, i’m not criticizing u on this, but just hope u’ll see things from the other side’s perspective.

I'll update if there's any reply by him.

Magical Powers of MyKad

2007-06-03T14:28:00.002+08:00

VMY 2007 Tourist Information Brochure Series: What is the purpose of stating 'Islam' in the Malaysian Identity Card?

As part of the ongoing efforts to introduce Malaysia to the world during the Visit Malaysia Year 2007: “Celebrating 50 Years of Nationhood – We Are Still too Polite to Say NO WAY” campaign, we shall introduce to you, in this post, one essential feature of Malaysian life: The Identity Card.

This Brochure would also help you understand the meaning and the complex historical, political and social background to the now world famous landmark judgment in the Lina Joy case by our highest court, the Federal Court.

One hassel we are trying to avoid is to have ignorant, unbelieving visitors asking uninformed questions like the one asked by one of our own ignorant morons here at Lina Joy: The aftermath:

Although required by law, why is it necessary for the NRD to specify a muslim’s faith on his/her identity card? What were the circumstances leading to this requirement?

This blogger, being also the incumbent VMY 2007 Assistant Propaganda Chief, has attempted to set the record straight by providing the following answer at that post:

-----------------------------------------------

bcos it’s the MAJOR instrument of controlling muslims.

before the days of mykad, the islamic authorities had hard time enforcing islamic rules such as catching people drinking alcohol, not fasting, khalwat and zina (especially when doing it with non-muslims).

having mykad makes it a lot easier to conduct raids bcos u no longer have to guess, from the name n the look, whether a person is/not muslim.

now, mykad has made it even possible to catch even pan-asian faced muslims who dont look like malays at all.

lina joy tried to get married, but her ic stood in her way.

the corpse of nyonya tahir was grabbed solely bcos her ic stated that she was islam.

before mykad, u only heard 1 or 2 cases here n there in a decade about this sort of religious disputes. after mykad, u hear moorthy, nyonya tahir, rayappan n lina joy all in the space of 2 years.

it all began with mykad. mykad is like the invention of the magic wheels which unleashed the forces of islamicization, which make the islamic revolution possible.

ask yourself - without mykad (stating ‘islam’), how is a state religious authority going to enforce ‘no-exposing of aurat’ law by catching the young, sexily-dressed chicks walking on the streets, n fine her on the spot - without the need to get into a long, drawn-out debate/proof of whether she’s a muslim or not?

-- many would deny they r ‘muslims’ at the precise moments when syariah laws r being shoved down their throats against their wills; they still want to b a muslim, still believe in allah swt n the qu’ran, but just cant stand the man-made, repressive laws called ’syariah’.

put it another way - they want to b spiritual muslims, not malaysian legal muslims.

those r the main reasons (aside from want marry non-muslims who dont want to convert) why so many want to covert out - not bcos they doubt the basic tenets of islam.

so, to sum up my answer to your question, my view is that mykad is the lock which would ‘unite’ (read: confine, bind, chain) the muslims together in the ‘gas chambers’, where the conservative, fascist, nazi clerics could begin to release the 'gas' - to use the tools of the police state to strip muslims of their rights piece by piece, n turn the muslim nation in malaysia into a repressive, totalitalian theocracy. with mykad, there’s now no way to escape.

(few years back, there was a proposal to imbed dna codes into mykad chip. they said it’s to facilitate tracking down of criminals, i say it’s to make it easier to identify offsprings of muslims who (r by definition muslims) might have evaded the ‘net’…)

[Sorry, I wasn't supposed to disclose the last paragraph in the bracket, because it is part of the Government's secret programs. So, please don't tell my boss.]

--------------------------------------------------------

Ok, now back to the educational part of the Brochure.

The Identity Card is affectionally known as MyKad, or officially known as The Government Multipurpose Card.

Before any visitor gets the wrong idea, note the word 'Government'. It should be obvious that the main purpose of that Kad is to facilitate the Multipurposes of the Government, not of the citizens - duh!!

We are going to introduce some of these 'purposes' to you in this post (but we obviously cannot tell you all, as most of them relates to national security and government secret programs).

However, due to space constraint, we'll only focus on the most exciting category of MyKad-holders - the Green group - as it has the biggest membership group (and, the rest of the Kad-hodler groups are not really important and the features of their Kads are pretty dull anyway).

The following are the main benefits of MyKad as highlighted by the Government, and we shall, you should be reminded, ignore the non-Green groups:

One Card For All

GMPC replaces the National Identification Card and Driving License and is the access key to other services and entertainments available exclusively for all Kad-holders. such as:

Religious Zealots Mid-Night Hotel Safaris/Raids;
Ongoing, 24-hour, comprehensive Way-of-Life mentoring programs to prepare and guide the Kad-holders in the 'Be A Good Green Person in this Life' lifelong marathon race;
Guidance and Educational Programs in the many 'Green Rehabilitation Centers' (gazetted) found at every corner of the country for all the indifferent, apathetic Green people who have lost stamina (and thinking of quitting halfway) in the 'Be A Good Green Person in this Life' lifelong marathon race;
Execution services for those idiots who can't even follow the merciful, compassionate Guidance and Educational Programs for crying out loud;
Access to the expert counselling services offered at the Polygamy Advice and Promotion Bureau, for all you love-sick teenagers (minimum registration number being 5, 1 Male and 4 Females. Sorry, currently we do not offer such services to groupings with only 1 Female); and
24 hour government surveillance program - to ensure that you stay on the right path and avoid the crooked, at all times.

Quick Exit & Re-Entry

Availability of racial and religious information in the GMPC facilitates efficient exit and re-entry of Kad-holders at Malaysian religious checkpoints.

*Exit services are available to non-Green Kad-holders exiting from non-Green groups only. Entry services are available for all Kad-holders into the Green group only, whereas Re-Entry services are designed exclusively for those who wish/manage to exit from the Green group. (Re-Entry into the Green group, of course.)

Reliable Identification of Data

The chip and biometrics technology ensure that the data kept are secures and accurate. GMPC security features protect the holder from any kind of forgery and misuse of the card such as misidentification of racial or religious data.

(And because the Government seldom, if ever, make any mistake on such data, any correction required would have to go through an elaborate, seemingly obscure process at the Green courts -- not for the faint-hearted; so you people better think twice, and the Government suggests you just forget about it.)

Facilitate transportation needs

Functions like a Touch ‘n Go card. Reload value to pay for toll, parking, bus fares and theme park fares, as well as the transportation of Green Kad-holders from non-Green sections of the country and places of ill-repute such as unlighted cinema theatres, Jom Heboh concerts, discos, unsegregrated shopping malls and residences of non-Green Kad-holders, back to where they really belong.

Vision

To provide uncompromising quality and customer service through highly secured solutions on single card to spearhead the nation into the Information Age and to achieve the Malaysian Green Apartheid Utopia by the year 2020.

Objectives

To provide Government and payment applications and other future applications on a single card.
To provide enhanced customers service and improve the ease for Malaysians to conduct routine transactions with Government and private companies.
To ensure full segregation and comprehensive control of thoughts and activities of the Green Kad-holders and to regulate, discourage, with the ultimate target of completely banning the Green Kad-holders' interactions with the non-Green group.
To divide and rule in order to enhance the entrenchment of the Great Ruling Party of the Motherland.

[Note to visitors: We also aim to deforest the entire nation by 2010, so rest assured, and please be clear, that the colour Green has absolutely no connection with the subversive environmental movement currently plaguing most of the developed, non-Green world.]

Lina Joy – English Translation of the Majority Judgment

2007-06-03T08:52:00.004+08:00

Introduction

This is my translation of the Federal Court's majority judgment in the Lina Joy case announced on 30 May 2007. The original judgment was written in the Malay language, so most (especially the international audience) would not be able to understand it even if they are interested to read the judgment in full. My effort here is to cater for those needs.

I have also added some personal thoughts in the judgment. They are made on the assumption that I understand the judgment correctly.

And I wonder if they (Federal Court majority) realize that it was a major PR blunder for the majority to choose to write in Malay instead of English (or both English and Malay), because if the international audience / Malay-illiterate observers have had the chance to read the judgment by themselves first hand, and try to understand the full rationale (which, in my view, is founded, though I personally disagree), then they might not have thrown around those Islam/Malaysia-bashing and, strictly speaking, inaccurate headlines (like Guardian's "Malaysia rejects convert's bid to be recognised as Christian".). On the other hand, the minority, English judgment has been making more impact all around.

A judgment should not just aim to pander to your own constituency (Muslims), but also aim to persuade the non-Muslims. Unless, you don't really care whether they accept it or not...?

If it were up to me, after reading the judgment, I would have reported it as something else more neutral or even positive, like "Religious Freedom for Muslims Yes, but...", "Silver Lining for Malaysian Muslim apostate", or "Malay Christian asked to go to Syariah Court to legalize apostasy from Islam".

Notes on 'How to Read' this Translation

Anyway, come back to my translation.

1, I must confess I am not 'that' fluent in Malay, especially when it's written in legalese. So, I've tried my best to translate the text by being as 'literal' as possible - while making some sense to the readers.

When I'm in doubt about the meaning of a particular Malay word, I reproduce the original Malay word with a *, then my guess of the correct translation in [square bracket] with a '?'.

If you are in doubt about the accuracy of my translation (well, you should!), please consult the original Malay version found at the Malaysian Bar Council's website - the minority judgment, in English, is also found there.

2, All lawyers out there - HELP!! I've had a hard time trying to translate a few 'funny' terms; I hope I've gotten them reasonably accurate. E.g. one strange phrase called 'peguam terpelajar' (a way to address the lawyers?) has been simply translated as 'lawyer'.

So, if you guys could help me improve any word or sentence, PLEASE drop me a line.

3, I've tried to preserve the authenticity of the text as much as I could, by sticking to the original paragraphing and page numbers. If you see {x}, it means from that point onwards, it's equivalent to page x of the original text.

All underlining and bold of the judgment text are my additions. There seem to be some underlining in the original text but I've omitted them because I don't know whether they were underlined by the writer or the person who scanned the text before scanning it.

4, I've added my own comments in [### comments ###] in the body of the text. I don't believe that just because a court's judgment is supposed to be technical, that a social science/humanities major could not understand it well. But feel free to ignore them, or if you so incline, challenge, criticize or just correct them.

5, Lastly, I apologize if any part of my translation sounds ridiculous or I've misunderstood the original meaning.

Copyright - No such thing here. You are WELCOMED to copy, reproduce or modify for whatever use you wish, commercial or not, COMPLETELY WITHOUT any claim by me.

Here we go...

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

IN THE FEDERAL COURT, MALAYSIA
AT PUTRAJAYA (APPELLATE JURISDICTION)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 01-2-2006 (W)

Lina Joy
(Appellant)

vs

1. Islamic Religious Council of the Federal Territory
2. Government of Malaysia
3. Director of National Registration
(Respondents)

Quorum: Ahmad Fairuz bin Dato’ Sheikh Abdul Halim, KHN
Richard Malanjum, HBSS
Alauddin bin Dato’ Mohd Sheriff, HMP {2}
---------------------------------------

JUDGMENT OF THE MAJORITY
[Except Richard Malanjum, the judge in the minority]

(1) The appellant was given leave to appeal to this court on the following questions:

(a) whether the National Registration Department (‘NRD’) is entitled in law to impose a requirement that the appellant produce a certificate or a declaration or an order from the Syariah court that she has apostatised before the word "Islam" in the applicant's identity card (‘IC’) is deleted?

(b) whether the NRD has correctly construed its powers under the National Registration Regulation 1990 especially Rules 4 and 14, to impose the requirement as stated above when it is not expressly provided for in the 1990 rules?

(c) whether the case of Soon Singh a/l Bikar Singh vs Kedah Islamic Welfare Body, Malaysia (PERKIM) (1999) 1 MLJ 489 was rightly decided when it adopted the implied jurisdiction theory propounded in the case of Md Hakim Lee vs Federal Territory Islamic Religious Council, Kuala Lumpur (1998) 1 MLJ 681 and not following the case of Ng Wan Chan v Federal Territory Islamic Religious Council, Kuala Lumpur & Anor (No.2) (1991) 3 MLJ 487 {3}
---------------------------------------
and Lim Chan Seng vs Director of the Department of Islamic Religion, Penang and 1 other case (1996) 3 CLJ 231 which declared that if no express jurisdiction is conferred on the Syariah court, the civil courts will retain their jurisdiction?

(2) Appellant was born a Muslim. Because she intended to marry a Christian man, [### Not because she wanted to undermine, confront, humiliate or insult Islam. It’s just a simple wish to lead a private life she desires with the person she loves. (For those who do not know, Malaysian Syariah laws in all states stipulates that a Muslim must only marry another Muslim (or a new Muslim convert). In theory, a Muslim man is allowed to marry another ‘follower of the books’ but it is not available in practice.) But the NRD’s IC requirements stood in her way… I am personally aware of many Muslims who wish to convert out simply because of marriage, not necessarily because of they want to embrace another religion. However, because to many Islamic authorities the excuse of ‘no longer profess Islam’ is not enough, (meaning, simply becoming an atheists is not a good enough reason; they always require proof of the choosing of another religion) that’s why these ‘apostates’, in their application, would state that they have embraced ‘another religion’. ###] Appellant made application to NRD on 21 February 1997 to change her name from Azlina binti Jailani to Lina Lelani on the reason that she had already embraced Christianity. This application was not approved by the Third Respondent (Director of National Registration). On 15 March 1999 the Appellant applied once again to change her name by this time from Azlina binti Jailani to Lina Joy. In her statutory declaration, he Appellant once again said she wanted her name to be changed because she had already embraced Christianity. On 2 August 1999, the Appellant, acting on the advice of an officer at NRD, made another statutory declaration in which she gave the reason of her wish to changed her name as deliberately choosing that name and not because she changed her religion. [### To me, this shows that Lina Joy had tried to do things quietly and cooperated with the NRD, without making it public or taking any confrontational approach right from the beginning – as what ABIM’s President has suggested, on behalf of PEMBELA. ###] In November 1999, the Appellant was given her new Identity Card but the NRD inserted the word ‘Islam’ at the front of her IC and her previous name a the back of that card. On 3 January 2000, the Appellant applied to the NRD to have the word ‘Islam’ deleted. This application was rejected and the Appellant was told that her application was incomplete without an order from the Syariah Court which {4}
---------------------------------------
stated that she had already left the religion of Islam. The Appellant then made application to the High Court for several declarations against the Federal Territory Islamic Religious Council and the Government of Malaysia. The Declarations applied for were based on infringements of her basic right to the freedom of religion as guaranteed by Article 11(1) of the Federal Constitution. Nevertheless, the High Court rejected that application. The Appellant then appealed to the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal by majority rejected her appeal. The Appellant then made application for leave to appeal to this court and her application was granted on the questions as stated at the beginning of this judgment.

(3) At the Court of Appeal the parties agreed (and this is clear from the grounds of judgments of the majority and dissent) that only one issue needed to be considered by the court – namely, whether the NRD was right, under the law, when it rejected the Appellant’s application to delete the word ‘Islam’ from her IC and to require a certificate or order of apostasy from the Syariah Court beforehand. The majority judgment of that court decided that the NRD was not wrong under administration law when rejecting the appellant’s application; (2005) 6 MLJ at page 213. The Appellant in her application to NRD stated that there was an error in her IC and the said error was her religion was described as ‘Islam’. Hence the majority judgment was of the view that the Appellant’s statement had indirectly {5}
---------------------------------------
meant that the Appellant said she had already left Islam. Because of that, NRD could require the Appellant, under Rule 4(c)(x) of the 1990 Regulation, to produce documentary evidence to support the accuracy of her claim that she was no longer a Muslim. The majority judgment also ruled that whether a person had left Islam is a question which is related to Islamic law, and that question is not within the NRD’s jurisdiction which was not equipped or qualified to decide that matter. Because of that, the NRD maintained a policy to require confirmation by the religious authority before the NRD acted to delete the word ‘Islam’ from a Muslim’s IC. This policy is completely reasonable, according to the majority judgment; (2005) 6 MLJ at page 209.

(4) In this court, Appellant’s lawyer argued that only the 1990 Regulation formed the written source of powers under which the NRD could require an apostasy order. According to the lawyer, the 1990 Regulation did not contain provision which permitted the NRD to require that documents from the Appellant. The lawyer then went on to stress that the document specified under Rule 14 was only a statutory declaration. Therefore, by requesting the production of a document and that document was however not provided for or permitted by Rule 14, the NRD acted ultra vires its powers under the 1990 Regulation. This, the lawyer argued, is not valid under administration law. That lawyer {6}
---------------------------------------
then argued that the majority judgment should have decided that way and their failure to do so should become the reasons upon which this court, as an Appellate Court, must set aside that judgment.

(5) The 2nd and 3rd Respondents’ lawyers stressed that the Appellant’s application was to delete the word ‘Islam’ from her IC. Therefore, that application falls under Rule 14(1)(c) which is to correct the details of her religion. Rule 14(1) reads:

“(1) A person registered under these Regulations who –
(a) Changes his name;
(b) Acquires the citizenship of Malaysia or is deprived o his citizenship of Malaysia; or
(c) has in his possession an identity card containing any particular, other than his address, which is to his knowledge incorrect,

shall forthwith report the fact to the nearest registration office and apply for a replacement identity card with the correct particulars.”

The lawyer then referred to Rule 4 which reads:

“4 – Any person who is required to register under regulation 3(1) or 3(2) or to re-register under regulation 18 or 28 or who {7}
---------------------------------------
applies for a replacement identity card under regulation 13 or 14, shall --
(a) …
(b) …
(c) give the following particulars to the registration officer as aforesaid, namely:
(i) his name as appearing in his Certificate of Birth or such other document or, if he is known by different name, each of such names, in full;
(ii) his previous identify card number, if any;
(iii) the full address of his place of residence within Malaysia;
(iv) his race;
(iva) his religion (only for Muslims);
(v) his place of birth;
(vi) his date of birth and sex;
(vii) his physical abnormalities, if any;
(viii) his status as a citizen of Malaysia or other citizenship status;
(ix) such other particulars as the registration officer may generally or in any particular case consider necessary; and
(x) produce such documentary evidences the registration officer may consider necessary to support the accuracy of any particulars submitted.”

The lawyer then stressed that Rule 4(c)(ix) and (x) are the powers which justified the NRD introducing the condition of the need for apostasy certificate. {8}
---------------------------------------
(6) Regarding these arguments, I agree with the majority agreement that Rule 14(1) is related to:
(a) change of name under paragraph (a); and
(b) to correct particulars which are not true under paragraph (c).

The Appellant’s case falls under the particulars which are not true according to paragraph (c). Nonetheless, Rule 14 did not state what should be given in the cases of untrue particulars but Rule 14(1) certainly requires the Appellant to report facts regarding untrue particulars to the nearest Registration Office and to apply for a replacement IC which contains the correct particulars. When it comes to this, Rule 4 becomes relevant because that rule clearly states that whoever applies for a replacement IC under Rule 13 or 14 shall follow Rule 4. Based on that, I agree with the 2nd and 3rd Respondents’ lawyers that the NRD has justification under Rule 4(c)(x) to require confirmation from the Islamic religious authority regarding the Appellant’s apostasy or her leaving o f Islam. Based on that, I agree with the majority judgment which states that the Appellant in her 3rd application stating the error in her IC is regarding the statement of her religion as ‘Islam’ and the Appellant wants that error to be corrected by removing the word ‘Islam’ from that IC. This is the same as the Appellant saying that she has already {9}
---------------------------------------
left Islam. Therefore, the NRD can, following Rule 4(c)(x), require the Appellant to produce documentary evidence which supports the accuracy of her insistence that she is no longer a Muslim. I also agree that if the NRD receives a person’s admission that he has already left Islam based on declaration made by him then the NRD took the risk when mengecapkan* [stamping?], erroneously, that a person as non-Muslim while according to the Islamic laws that person still has not left Islam. This would also make it easy for those who were born and educated as a Muslim but has the attitude of acuh tak acuh* [apathy?] or tidak peduli* [indifference?] towards Islam be classified as non-Muslims solely to avoid being penalized for offences under Islamic laws. All these would result in celaan* [disparagement?] from the Muslim society. [### It seems that the Chief Justice is against those Muslims who don’t take their religious obligations in Islam seriously, and agree, indirectly, that it is acceptable for laws to be shoved down the throats of these ‘indifferent’ Muslims in order to force them to be a good, observant Muslims. Could this be interpreted as a ‘licence’/ ‘invitation’ to the states to create more laws to ‘produce’ more good Muslims?? ###] It is because of these reasons, same as the views of the majority judgment, that I believe, the NRD adopted the policy that statutory declaration alone is not enough to enable the word ‘Islam’ be removed from the IC of a Muslim. This is because the matter of leaving Islam is a matter which is related to the Islamic laws and because of that the NRD adopted the policy which requires confirmation from the Islamic religious authority before the NRD could act to delete the word ‘Islam’ from a Muslim’s IC. Based on the considerations as enumerated above I agree with the majority judgment that rightly the NRD policy is something which is completely reasonable. {10}
---------------------------------------
(7) Regarding this NRD policy, the Appellant also argued that by requiring the apostasy certificate, the NRD has delegated its power and duties under Rule 14 to a 3rd party so that the 3rd party would decide whether to approve the application to delete the word ‘Islam’. This, according to the Appellant, cannot happen except when being permitted by the relevant laws. Hence, that NRD policy without permission under Rule 14 conflicts with the laws. Then the Appellant’s lawyer argued that the court’s job is not to confirm that a policy is reasonable; but what the court has failed to appreciate is that such matters are for the legislators and not for the court to decide whether reference should be made to another religious body.

(8) On that argument by the Appellant, I am of the view that, as argued by the 2nd and 3rd Respondents’ lawyers, that Rule 4(c)(x) clearly gives the power to the Registration Officer to require documentary evidence which is deemed important to support the accuracy of any particulars which has been put forward. Therefore the reference to an authority of Islamic law is provided for by the laws and hence it is not wrong under the laws as argued by the Appellant. The reference does not mean that the Syariah Court is asked to decide whether {11}
---------------------------------------
to permit the application to delete the word ‘Islam’. The Syariah Court is merely asked to confirm whether the Appellant is of the religion of Islam or not based on Islamic laws. Guided by this decision then, it is within the NRD’s discretion to decide whether the approval could be given to delete the word ‘Islam’ or not. [### ‘discretion’ – Is the Chief Justice saying that even after the Syariah Court has given you the apostasy certificate (after your long, heart-wrenching battle…), the NRD could still create troubles for you by refusing to delete the word ‘Islam’?? So, just how many steps do apostates have to go through?? Is that the ultimate strategy – to wear them down?? ###]

(9) Appellant’s lawyer has also referred the case of Ismail bin Suppiah vs Director of National Registration (R-1-24-31 year 1995) to this court. According to that lawyer, both the Ismail case and the case under appeal at this court are about:-

(a) change of name because of change of religion;
(b) powers of NRD under Rule 14;
(c) a certificate from the Religious Council as a pre-condition before the NRD could consider the application under Rule 14;
(d) the freedom of a person to choose religion guaranteed under Article 11 of the Federal Constitution;
(e) third party cannot decide on what religion a person should choose; and {12}
---------------------------------------
(f) Rule 14 did not introduce a condition that a certificate to be obtained from the Religious Council.

The lawyer then showed that I was the judge in the Ismail case and I had dismissed the NRD’s decision which required a certificate from the Religious Council as ultra vires Rule 14. [### Cheeky lawyer!! Basically asking the Chief Justice to eat his own words and slap his own face?! HOW DARE YOU!! J ###]

9.1 The Plaintiff in the Ismail case was a Muslim since birth. The Plaintiff applied so that his Muslim name as stated in his IC be changed to a Hindu name on the reason that, as stated in his statutory declaration, he had already left Islam and embraced Hinduism. NRD was insistent on requiring the approval of the Johor Department of Islamic Religion or the Grand Qadi of Johor about the Plaintiff’s action in leaving Islam. The NRD still refused to approve the Plaintiff’s application even though the Plaintiff’s lawyer had already reported to the Grand Qadi of Johor about the fact that the Plaintiff had already left Islam. Hence the NRD referred the matter to and for the action of the Johor Department of Islamic Religion. Because of that the Plaintiff applied and obtained from Kuala Lumpur High Court a declaration that the approval of the Johor Department of Islamic Religion was not required and that any reference by the NRD to that Department was ultra vires Rule 14, the 1990 Regulation, s 141(2) of the Administration of Islamic Law Enactment 1978 Johor State, and Article 11(1) of the Federal Constitution. The Plaintiff also {13}
---------------------------------------
applied and obtained an order so that the NRD issued temporary IC with the Plaintiff’s new name.

9.2 Regarding the Appellant’s argument that the NRD did not appeal against the High Court’s decision in that Ismail case and because of that the NRD could not take a stand in this appeal which conflicts with the High Court decision.

9.3 The majority’s judgment stressed that the Ismail case was a case which involved application to change name in the IC whereas the Appellant’s appeal in this court is to delete the word ‘Islam’ from her IC. Because there was no reasons for judgment in that Ismail case, the reasons for the High Court in making such a decision could not be known. [### WHAT?? Is that possible? I don’t understand – I thought all civil judges have to give reasons for their decisions? How transparent is our court, really?? ###] Hence the Court of Appeal only managed to make a few guesses regarding why I decided like that in the Ismail case. [### Oh isn’t this CLASSIC?! The judges have to GUESS each others’ reasons!!! Wow… Malaysia boleh! Or is it like that everywhere in the Commonwealth courts??? Should this be in the Guinness Book of World Record? ###] Those guesses originates from saying that I looked at the Ismail case from the angle that it should be decided in the context of Johor laws. I was said to have perhaps [### ‘perhaps’ lagi!!! Guess is not enough!! Double maybe’s?! WTF?? Is that how laws are made in this country?!?! Or is this just part of the entertainment for VMY 2007?? ###] held the view that the NRD was wrong when required the consent of the Johor Department of Islamic Religion before the Plaintiff could leave Islam whereas according to the Johor Enactment the correct authority was the Qadi under s 141(2). Section 141 of the Johor Enactment says: {14}
---------------------------------------
“141
(1) Whoever entered anybody to embrace Islam shall immediately report the matter to the Qadi by giving evidence which is required for registration.

(2) Whoever found that a Muslim has already left Islam shall immediately report to the Qadi regarding his decisioin to leave Islam by giving evidence required and the Qadi shall declare that the person has left Islam, and shall be registered.”

9.4 It is also the guess of the majority judgment that I might [### ?!?!! ###] have held the view that NRD had misunderstood s 141 because at para 10 of the affidavit of NRD dated 28.7.1995, the NRD officer seemed to have said that sub-section (2) only applied to a person who previously embraced Islam under sub-section (1). The majority judgment also guessed that I might have held the view, from the clear words of sub-section (2), that in Johor, the Qadi himself also did not have the right to give or not give consent to a Muslim to leave Islam. That matter is left only to the relevant person. The Qadi’s job was only to announce the facts {15}
---------------------------------------
of a person leaving Islam and then register it. That job was only mechanical. Deducing from this, I was guessed to hold the view that:
(a) In Johor, a Muslim was free to leave Islam and he does that by only saying so;
(b) no approval or determination by any religious authority was required;
(c) the NRD should have accepted the Plaintiff’s statutory declaration which stated that the Plaintiff had already left Islam as the proof that the Plaintiff was no longer a Muslim; and
(d) the NRD should have approved the Plaintiff’s application to change his name.

9.5 From the guesses [### OMG!!! ###] as enumerated above, it is clear [### Question: What’s the difference between a fortune-teller and the Malaysian Federal Court judges? Answer: Both engage in guesses and speculations, but while a fortune-teller is not capable of deriving CLEAR/FIRM answers from his guesses, our judges boleh!! ###] that the Ismail case should be analyzed in the context of Johor laws. S 141(2) of the Administration of Islamic Law Enactment 1978 Johor State clearly showed that even the Qadi had no right to give or not give consent for the leaving of Islam. Hence the guess of the majority judgment was correct [### I think I just heard a sigh of relief from those ‘guessers’ in the Court of Appeal… phew, we were right!! ###] when it is said that because of the clarity of the words in s 141(2), the NRD should have accepted the Plaintiff’s statutory declaration which stated that the Plaintiff had left {16}
---------------------------------------
Islam as the proof that the Plaintiff was no longer a Muslim and the NRD should have approved the Plaintiff’s application to change his name. It should be stressed at this stage that the above enumeration shows that Article 121(1A) and item 1, list 2, Schedule 9 of the Federal Constitution did not arise in the Ismail case. [### Well, but then the argument on Article 11 was made... (See paragraph (9) above. Besides, I'm sure the judge knew about Article 121(1A) and Schedule 9 all the time, right? If those 2 laws would not allow him to decide against NRD in the Ismail case, how could he now decide in favour of NRD???? I just don't understand... Can someone help out please? "Sorry, I screwed up last time" seems to be the hardest words for our judges... Oh well, I guess the Chief Justice must have ‘guessed’ that he did not decide on that issue (and confirms his own guess as ‘correct’). Simply brilliant. ###]

(10) The next issue argued by the Appellant is whether the Federal Territory Syariah Court had the jurisdiction to decide on apostasy. Appellant argued that the NRD had so far taken the same position regarding the Appellant’s various applications i.e. the Appellant must first obtain an apostasy order from the Syariah Court or, as later said by the Director in his affidavit, from any other Islamic authority. The Appellant also argued that the Administration of Islamic Laws Act (Federal Territory) 1993 (Act 505) did not have provision regarding apostasy. The Syariah Court or any other Islamic body was not given the jurisdiction in apostasy matter and neither was any power given to any authority under that Act to issue apostasy order. This was the situation at all time which is material in the Appellant’s case from February 1997 to January 2000 and until today. According to the Appellant again, section 46(2)(b) Act 505, as found today, listed matters in which the Syariah Court could exercise its civil jurisdiction and under this section the matter of apostasy is not found under that list. The majority judgment accepted that Act 505 {17}
---------------------------------------
did not contain any provision regarding apostasy. That judgment then considered the Appellant’s argument that the Federal Court’s decision in the case of Soon Singh (supra) had shaped the procedure followed by the NRD in requiring the confirmation from the Syariah Court before the department accepts the fact that a Muslim has left Islam. The decision in the case of Soon Singh, according to the majority judgment, is and still authoritative in administration laws, from the angle of that decision, the NRD acted correctly when named the Syariah Court as the authority which could issue apostasy confirmation and the NRD will accept the confirmation as proof that the Appellant is no longer a Muslim. The majority judgment, nonetheless, held the view that the question of whether the decision in Soon Singh was correct or not was not important because the appeal before it was already agreed by the parties to the appeal to be deemed to be about the correctness of the NRD decision according to the administration laws and no longer about constitutional questions. Therefore the Appellant argued in the Court of Appeal that the NRD’s action in introducing the condition that the order of the Syariah Court should be obtained was an action which was not reasonable according to the case of Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corp (1948) 1 KB 223. This was because, according to the Appellant, that order was impossible to obtain because of the lack of provision about apostasy in Act 505. At this stage, I should state my agreement with the part of the majority agreement which states that what he NRD wanted was a confirmation {18}
---------------------------------------
from someone who has the power to make it and if the NRD acted in accordance with that confirmation, then the NRD was free from any mistake or from being faulted by the public in a matter which is so important and sensitive. Hence the majority judgment decided that the unwillingness of the NRD to act without the confirmation form the Islamic religious authority was reasonable. The judgment also decided that the question of whether a Muslim was an apostate or not was a question which was related to Islamic laws. And if the court decided that the NRD’s unwillingness was not reasonable, then it would mean that the court required the NRD to accept the fact that according to Islamic laws a Muslim could be considered by the world as having left Islam and was no longer a Muslim when that person said he had already left Islam.

10.1 Regarding the majority’s judgment that the NRD’s action was reasonable when the NRD required a certificate / declaration / order from the Syariah Court which stated that the Appellant was an apostate, I wish to add by stressing that item 1, list 2 in Schedule 9 of the Federal Constitution provided that, among others, that the Syariah Courts shall have jurisdiction only over persons who practices Islam and only regarding matters which are included in that paragraph (item 1) and one of the matters in that paragraph is “Islamic laws”. In relation to this, {19}
---------------------------------------
Article 74(4) of the Federal Constitution stressed that the width of the general expressions in the Schedule 9 could not be deemed to be limited by the specific expressions found in that Schedule 9. Article 74(4) is as follows:

“74
(4) Where the general as well as specific expressions are used in describing any of the matter enumerated in the Lists set out in the Schedule 9 the generality of the former shall not be taken to be limited by the latter”.

As such it was reasonable for the NRD to introduce those conditions because this matter of apostasy, according to the majority judgment (and I agree with it), is a question which is related to Islamic laws and as stated by the Supreme Court in the case of Dalip Kaur vs District Police Officer, District Police Station, Bukit Mertajam & Anor (1992) 1 MLJ 1 that the answer to the question of whether a person is a Muslim or has already left Islam before he passed away, is included in the world of Syariah laws which require serious considerations and due interpretation based on those laws. In this situation, I agree with the 2nd and 3rd Respondents’ lawyer’s argument that the condition that a certificate or declaration or order from the Syariah Court that the Appellant has become {20}
---------------------------------------
apostate is not a decision which is unreasonable until so excessive in deviating from logic or accepted moral standard such that no rational person who has concentrated his thinking to the question which needs to be decided could reach that decision.

(11) Regarding the 2nd and 3rd Respondents’ lawyer’s argument that the NRD is entitled to enter the word ‘Islam’ at the front of the Appellant’s IC in November 1999 because of amendments to Rule 4(c)(iva) and Rule 5(2) have been made effective retrospectively to 1 October 1999 and this retrospective effectiveness was allowed because the amendments were in the nature of procedure, the Appellant argued that so long as the amendment was not gazetted the executive (such as the NRD) could not apply that amendment and act on it. The Appellant brought attention to the fact that her application for IC was made on 25 October 1999 whereas on 1 October 1999 that amendment was not gazetted. The Appellant stressed that the real state of the laws at that time was that the Appellant was entitled to a new IC with the name Lina Joy without any statement about religion placed on that IC. That amendment according to the Appellant could not be made effective retrospectively because it affected the existing right of the Appellant.

11.1 On the issue of retrospective effectiveness I wish to refer to the case of Sim Seoh Beng @ Sin Sai Beng & Anor vs Tunas Muda Sungai Ara Cooperative Limited (1995) 1 CLJ 491 {21}
---------------------------------------
which states that the correct test to be applied to determine whether a written law is prospective or retrospective is to first ascertain whether it would affect substantive rights if applied retrospectively. If it would, then, prima facie that law must be construed as having prospective effect only, unless there is a clear indication in the enactment that it is in any event to have retrospectivity. The Federal Court in the case of Lim Phin Khian vs Kho Su Ming (1996) 1 MLJ 1 has said that the question that falls for determination is whether the prima facie presumption against retrospectivity has been displaced by contrary Parliament intention, and if so, to what extent. The case of Attorney General vs Bernazar (1960) 3 AIIER 97 says but it is different when the statute is retrospective either because it contains clear words to that effect or because it deals with matters of procedures only; for then Parliament has shown an intention that the Act should operate {22}
---------------------------------------
on pending proceedings, and the Court of Appeal is entitled to give effect to this retrospective intent as well as court of 1st instance. In the case of Yew Bon Teow vs Mara Bus Vehicle (1983) 1 MLJ 1 the Privy Council has said that the question of whether a statute is to be construed in a retrospective sense, and if so to what extent, depends on the intention of the legislature as expressed in the wording of the statute, having regard to the normal canons of construction and to the relevant provisions of any interpretation statute. I wish to also refer to section 19 of the Interpretation Act 1948 and 1967 which states:

“19
(1) The commencement of an Act or subsidiary legislation shall be the date provided in or under the Act or subsidiary legislation or, where no date is so provided, the date immediately following the date of its publication in pursuance of section 18.
(2) Acts and subsidiary legislation shall come into operation immediately on the expiration of the day preceding their commencement.” {23}
---------------------------------------
(3) Notwithstanding section 2(1) and (2) and section 65(2), subsections (1) and (2) shall apply –
(a) to all Acts enacted after the 31st December 1968 including Acts which amend laws enacted before the commencement of Part I of this Act; and
(b) to all subsidiary legislation made after the 31st December 1968, whether made under a law enacted before or after the commencement of Part I of this Act whether or not that law has been revised under the Revision of Laws Act 1968.”

In the appeal in this court there is clearly a direction (as mentioned in the case of Sim Seoh Beng) that amendments to 1990 Regulation, except for Rule 19, shall be deemed to have come into operation on 1 October 1990). Hence amendments to Rule 3, Rule 5 and 1st schedule is effective retrospectively. Therefore the NRD’s action to issue the IC with addition of the word ‘Islam’ is valid legally.
[### I wonder whether they had purposely created those amendments because of Lina Joy’s actions at that time. Just shows you the great length they would go through to make sure nobody could leave. ###]

(12) The Bar Council, HAKAM, and Malaysian Consultative Council of Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism and Sikhism, as watching brief, have in turn given their respective opinions which are briefly as follows:

(a) if a person no longer profess Islam, then he could no longer be under the jurisdiction of the Syariah Court. If he is said to be still under {24}
---------------------------------------
the Syariah Court’s jurisdiction then that act is an invasion on his human rights under Article 11(1) and 8, of the Federal Constitution;
(b) apostasy is not included in item 1, list 2 of Schedule 9 of the Federal Constitution;
(c) apostasy confirmation is clearly in conflict with the provision of basic freedom under Article 11;
(d) the Appellant’s declaration that she is a Christian means that she professes Christianity and this means that she could no longer be regarded as a Muslim or a person professing Islam;
(e) Chua H in the case of Re Mohamed Said Nabi, deceased (1965 (3) MLJ 121) has referred to the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary for the meaning of ‘profess’. That dictionary states: “profess” means ‘to affirm one’s faith in or allegiance to (a religion, principles, God or Saint etc)’. This means the NRD was not entitled to introduce the condition that the Appellant produces a certificate because the Syariah Courts have no jurisdiction over the Appellant who no longer professes Islam. The Appellant still lives and has already made statutory declaration and affidavits which show that she professes Christianity. Hence, there is o need for any Islamic authority to decide whether she is an apostate or not; {25}
---------------------------------------
(f) The Malaysian Government has represented at the international level and to her citizens, that she subscribes to the norms of freedom of comprehensive faith, thought and conscience as declared under Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Hence the Appellant has legitimate expectation that the Government of Malaysia and her agencies would not act in conflict against that representation; [### I think the Chief Justice has completely ignored this argument in his reasoning later... :( ###]
(g) The Appellant has been, because of her application to delete the word ‘Islam’ was disallowed, denied her rights to marry someone who professes Christianity or to marry someone according to her wish. This is a denial of her rights under Article 5(1) of the Federal Constitution.

(13) ABIM, Muslim Lawyers Association and the Malaysian Syarie Lawyers Association, also as watching brief, have in turn gave their respective opinions which are briefly as follows:

(a) Article 11 of the Federal Constitution used the words ‘profess and practice’. Hence, the matter of leaving Islam should follow the related laws. A person could leave {26}
---------------------------------------
Islam [### !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!?????? ###] but has to follow its procedures. If follows the whims and fancies of a person then the ummah and Islam would be in chaos. Therefore the confirmation by the Syariah Court is in accordance with the requirements of Syariah laws and hence it cannot be in conflict with Article 11;
(b) Regarding the equal rights under Article 8 of the Federal Constitution, Article 8 is subject to provisions which regulate personal law.

(14) Regarding the views at paragraphs (12) and (13) above I agree with the views at paragraph (13). [### THIS COULD BE THE SILVER LINING WHICH ALL NEWSPAPER REPORTS SEEM TO HAVE MISSED... The Islamists who argue that there is absolutely no freedom to leave Islam actually did not ‘win’ in this case, because the Chief Justice of the Federal Court has just confirmed that you CAN ACTUALLY APOSTATE (well, at least in theory). ABIM has been opposing Lina Joy’s appeal by arguing that Muslims should not be given the right to leave Islam, but the Chief Justice has just disagreed with that view. ###] In the appeal before this court now, there is no firm determination that the Appellant no longer professes Islam. So, the statement that the Appellant could no longer be under the jurisdiction of the Syariah Court because the Syariah Court only has jurisdiction over a person professing Islam cannot / should not be stressed. The manner for a person to leave a religion must follow the rules or laws or practices which have been fixed by that religion itself. [### Do these judges know that there is actually NO such ‘rules or laws or practices’ fixed by Islamic laws in this country for leaving Islam?? But that on the other hand, there are severe penalties against those to try to apostate under Syariah laws in this country?! See some of the state laws criminalizing apostasy found at http://www.esyariah.gov.my and reproduced by comment on Thursday, May 31, 2007 4:21:00 PM at Walski's post on , Joy Overload, and comment No. 20 on 31 May 2007 @ 4:55 pm, at Aisehman's post on 29 May 2007, 'Just Do It'. If you believe these judges are ignorant about these draconian laws, then I’m sure you would believe that Christians have complete freedom to build Churches in Saudi Arabia. ###] The Appellant is not prevented from marrying. [### Not true – she tried to register her marriage at the civil marriage registry, but they said they could not do that for her because she was a Muslim in law. She wants to marry a Christian man under Syariah law but that law requires the boyfriend to convert first. Maybe we need to re-define what is the meaning of ‘not prevented’? ###] The freedom of religion under Article 11 of the Federal Constitution requires the Appellant to follow practices or rules of Islam especially regarding leaving that religion. When the requirements of Islam are followed and the Islamic authority confirms her apostasy then the Appellant {27}
---------------------------------------
could profess Christianity. In other words a person cannot enter and leave a religion as she likes it. When she professes a religion, common sense itself requires that she follows the practices and laws of that religion. [### Ok, can the Chief Justice confirm whether these so-called ‘practices or rules of Islam especially regarding leaving that religion’ actually exist in Malaysia? On the other hand, there are Syariah laws criminalizing apostasy, as I have suggested above. ###]

(15) The Appellant then argues that the NRD could not act in a way which memperkosakan* [undermines?] the rights to freedom of religion of every citizen under Article 11 of the Federal Constitution or in a discriminatory way mencabuli* [violates?] the guarantees under Article 8(2) of the Federal Constitution which prohibits any discrimination on grounds of religion. The Appellant stressed that Article 11 gives her unconditional freedom to leave Islam and become a Christian. According to her that freedom cannot be lawfully restricted or regulated by any laws such as the Administration of Islamic Laws Act (Federal Territory) 1993 by the Syariah Court, or any other authority. Hence, the Appellant applied that the High Court confirms that her act of leaving Islam was proper and valid under Article 11 of the Federal Constitution. This, stressed the lawyer for the Malaysian Muslim Lawyers Association, assumes that the Civil Court has jurisdiction to make the declaration applied by the Appellant (hence it raises the 3rd question).

15.1 The Appellant’s lawyer then brought this Court’s attention to the conflicting decisions of the High Court. Cases such as Ng Wan Chan v {28}
---------------------------------------
Federal Territory Religious Council (No. 2) (supra) and Lim Chan Seng v Director of the Department of Islamic Religion (supra) decided that without jurisdiction which is clearly given to the Syariah Court on a particular matter, the civil court should maintain its jurisdiction on that matter. However, the case of Md. Hakim Lee v Federal Territory Islamic Religious Council (supra) put forward the theory of implied jurisdiction. According to that theory, it is sufficient if the matter has been specified for Syariah Court under item 1, list 2, in Schedule 9 of the Federal Constitution. According to that lawyer again, the case of Soon Singh (supra) has resolved that conflict by applying the theory of implied jurisdiction as put forward by the case of Md. Hakim Lee. The Appellant’s lawyer then referred to the decisions of the Federal Court in cases of Penang Islamic Religious Council v Shaik Zolkaffily (2003 (3) MLJ 705) and Azizah binti Shaik Ismail v Fatimah binti Shaik Ismail (2004 (2) MLJ 529) which followed the decision of the Soon Singh case. Be that as it may, the lawyer firmly argues that the Soon Singh case is wrong in law because:

(a) that decision failed to consider that all state Islamic law enactments creates 2 different entities, i.e. Religious Council and Syariah Court. In those enactments, the Religious Council plays the role of administration whereas the Syariah Court is a judicial body. That lawyer later {29}
---------------------------------------
referred to Act 505 which through sections 24, 7 and 10 provided matters of establishment, membership, functions, duties and activities of the Religious Council whereas section 46 provided for the Syariah Court’s jurisdiction. The Soon Singh case (supra), says that lawyer, made a mistake because of not distinguishing between the Council and the Syariah Court. Due to the above error the Soon Singh case is accordingly wrong when it considered that Syariah Court anywhere is the authority which manages and deals with matters of embracing Islam. Sections 139-141 of the Kedah state Enactment refer to the Council as the authority which handles matters of embracing Islam. So are sections 77-89 of the Penang Enactment which refers to the Registry of Embracing Islam and section 82 shows that it is the Council which keeps the record of those embracing Islam. This is also the same for Act 505 which through sections 85-95 explains that it is the Council which handles matters of embracing Islam. Hence, the lawyer stressed, the statement by the Soon Singh case tht all state enactments give jurisdiction to the Syariah Court in matters related to the embracing of Islam is clearly wrong.

(b) Authorities used by the case of Soon Singh as the basis for the implied jurisdiction theory does not support its decision. If those authorities are studied, {30}
---------------------------------------
the authority “Craies on Statute Law (7th edition) page 112 actually states that express and unambiguous language are needed to alter the jurisdiction of courts of law. The authority case Albon v. Pyke (1842 (4) M&G 421) shows that Tindal CJ at para 424 says that the general rule undoubtedly is that the superior courts’ jurisdiction is not taken away, except by express words or necessary implication.

(c) The errors of the Soon Singh case as enumerated in paragraph 15(a)-(b) above has caused the Soon Singh case to summarise that the Syariah Court’s jurisdiction does not need to be given by laws but sufficient by referring to the state list in the Schedule 9 as done by the Md Hakim Lee case. This, says the lawyer, contradicts the principle of creating laws by the legislator and the rule that a written law must be made by the legislator and it cannot be effective until that law is made know by gazette. According to the lawyer again, the effect of the Soon Sing case is that a {31}
---------------------------------------
law is regarded as already exists even though the matter is only found in item 1, list 2, Schedule 9 of the Federal Constitution and the legislator has not made laws on that matter. The Soon Sing case has failed to identify the difference between power to make laws on a matter and the making of the laws itself. The lawyer then quoted what the Supreme Court of India says in the case of Calcutta Gas Co v State of Weat Bengal (AIR 1962 SC 1044 at 1049) i.e. the power to legislate is given to the appropriate Legislatures by Article 246 of the Indian Constitution. The entries in the 3 lists are only legislative heads or fields of legislation: they demarcate the area over which the appropriate Legislatures can operate. Hence, the Appellant’s lawyer stressed, the decision of Soon Singh that the right to make law on a matter is the same as making the laws itself should be rejected as bad precedent.

(d) Section 67 of the Interpretation and General Clauses Act 1967 declares that every Act of Parliament or State Enactment is an Act or Enactment for general and it could be given judiciary notice. The case of Soon Singh has already exempted the need to publish the laws or the process of making laws by the stage of {32}
---------------------------------------
draft laws and ends with the King’s recognition. Hence the Soon Singh case should be corrected immediately, as pressed by the Appellant’s lawyer. In proceeding with his arguments on this Soon Singh case, the lawyer quoted the observation by Hashim Yeop Sani in the case of Dalip Kaur a/p Gurbox Singh vs District Police Officer, District Police Station, Bukit Mertajam & Anor (supra) which among other things, says that the new clause (1A) of Article 121 of the constitution effective from 10 June 1988 has taken away the civil courts’ jurisdiction in respect of matters within the Syariah Court’s jurisdiction. But that clause does not take away the jurisdiction of civil court to interpret any written laws of the states enacted for the administration of Islamic law. For that lawyer, that observation clearly showed that the civil court should decide whether a matter is within its jurisdiction or the jurisdiction of the Syariah Court.

15.2 The lawyer for the 2nd and 3rd Respondents however took the position that the Md Hakim Lee case was decided correctly. Hence, he was of the view that the cases of Soon Singh and Shaik Zolkaffily {33}
---------------------------------------
contain the correct principles regarding the jurisdiction of Syariah Court.

15.3 1st Respondent’s lawyer referred to the implication word as found in “Bernion’s Statutory Interpretation 2nd Edition” at page 362 i.e. Implication may arise from the language used, from the context, or from the application of some external rule. The that lawyer stressed that because Act 505 contained provisions regarding matters related to the embracing of Islam as under the Syariah Court’s jurisdiction (s 87 and s 91 read with s 46(2)(b) Act 505) then by implication, matters regarding apostasy and leaving Islam are also within the Syariah Court’s jurisdiction.

15.4 In the Soon Singh case, the Appellant applied so that the High Court issue declaration that he was not a Muslim. The lawyer for the Department of Religion of Islam Kedah (JAIK) made opposition early applied so that the Appellant’s application be rejected because the High Court had no jurisdiction on matter that a person is not Muslim. That matter is under the Syariah Court’s jurisdiction. The High Court agreed with the lawyer of JAIK and rejected the Appellant’s application who later appealed to the Federal Court. In {34}
---------------------------------------
its judgment the Federal Court said that the question before it was regarding the jurisdiction of Syariah Courts under Article 121(1A) of the Federal Constitution. The Federal Constitution also admitted that there were no express provisions in the Kedah Enactment to deal with the question of apostasy. After that the Federal Court referred to Craies on Statute Law, the case of Albon v Pyke, Bennion’s Statutory Interpretation and the case of Dalip Kaur.

15.5 Regarding the Appellant’s lawyer’s criticism on the reference made by the Federal Court to Craies on Statute Law and the case of Albon v Pyke, I only need to stress that Tindal CJ also used words of necessary implication. Hence the Federal Court was of the view that it was logical for the Syariah Court, which has been clearly given jurisdiction to deal with matters related to the embracing of Islam do, by necessary implication, also have jurisdiction to deal with matters related with a Muslim’s leaving of Islam or apostasy. I do not see any defect in that reasoning of the Federal Court. Therefore I have no choice except to answer the 3rd question by saying that the Soon Singh case was decided correctly. {35}
---------------------------------------
(16) Like already enumerated at the previous paragraph, the Soon Singh case clearly showed that the matter of apostasy is within the Syariah Court’s jurisdiction. At paragraph (10) I also referred to item 1, list 2, Schedule 9 of the Federal Constitution to show that the important word used there was ‘matters’ and because ‘Islamic Law’ is one of the ‘matters’ which is found in item 1 and when read in the background of the Dalip Kaur case, then it is very clear that rightly the matter of apostasy is a matter which is related with Islamic Law and clearly therefore it is within the Syariah Court’s jurisdiction and because of Article 121(1A) of the Federal Constitution, then the Civil Courts cannot interfere in the matter.

(17) A few arguments are also made about a few of the Appellant’s rights under the Federal Constitution. Also it has been argued that the need to produce certificate/confirmation from the Syariah Court/Authority to confirm that the Appellant is an apostate is in conflict with the freedom under Article 11 of the Federal Constitution. According to that argument Article 11 of the Federal Constitution gives freedom to the Appellant to profess whichever religion and to leave from any religion. Nobody and nothing could stop her from doing so. Any action stopping the Appellant from doing as she likes in choosing religion or to leave from any religion is in conflict with Article 11 of the Federal Constitution.

17.1 Article 11 of the Federal Constitution is as follows: {36}
---------------------------------------
“11.
(1) Every person has the right to profess and practice his religion and, subject to Clause (4), to propagate it.
(2) No person shall be compelled to pay any tax the proceeds of which are specially allocated in whole or in part for the purposes of a religion other than his own.
(3) Every religious group has the right -
(a) to manage its own religious affairs;
(b) to establish and maintain institutions for religious or charitable purposes; and
(c) to acquire and own property and hold and administer it in accordance with law.
(4) State law and in respect of the Federal Territories of Kuala Lumpur, Labuan and Putrajaya, federal law may control or restrict the propagation of any religious doctrine or belief among persons professing the religion of Islam.
(5) This Article does not authorize any act contrary to any general law relating to public order, public health or morality.”
17.2 What is clear in Article 11 is that the use of the words “…right to profess and practice his religion…” As said by Abdul Hamid Mohamad HMR (at that time) in the case of Kamariah bte Ali v Kelantan State Government, Malaysia (2002 (3) MLJ page 657 at page 665): “words ‘has the right’ applies to ‘profess’ and also ‘practice’.” Following the case of Che Omar bin Che Soh v Public Prosecutor (1988 (2) MLJ 55). Islam is not only a gathering of dogmas and rituals but it is also a complete way of life including all fields of activities {37}
---------------------------------------
of humans, private or public, laws, politics, economy, social, culture, moral or judiciary. And if studied, Articles 11(1), 74(2) and item 1 in list 2 in Schedule 9 of the Federal Constitution is clear that Islam includes among other things, Islamic laws. Hence, as argued by the lawyer for the Malaysian Muslim Lawyers Association watching brief, if a Muslim wishes to leave Islam, he should use his right in the contexts of Syariah laws which has its own jurisprudence about the issue of apostasy. If a person professes and practices Islam, surely it means he should follow Islamic laws which determines the way of entering Islam and also the way of leaving Islam. That is the meaning of professing and practicing Islam. And what has been done by the NRD officer is only to decide the Appellant was no longer professing Islam like the way which has been decided by Islam. Hence, I cannot see how that action could be said to conflict with Article 11(1) which by itself provides the need to follow the requirements of that religion before he leaves Islam. Professing and practicing Islam surely means practicing not only the theological aspect in that religion but also the laws of that religion. [### So, the Catholic Church of Malaysia could now require any Catholic who wishes to convert to Islam to obtain the Pope’s ‘apostasy certificate’ from Vatican as a precondition? The Hinduism Governing Body could require any Hindu to obtain the same approval when any Hindu wants to leave the Hindu caste system to convert to, especially, Islam? The Buddhists – get the same apostasy cert from Shaolin Temple in China (and beat the 18 Shaolin martial art monks if that’s part of the requirement? ###]

17.3 The Appellant in the Kamariah case (supra) argued that Article 11 not only gives her the freedom to profess any religion, but also to leave {38}
---------------------------------------
any religion. The Appellant says that the laws cannot prevent her from doing so. The laws, according to the Appellant, cannot require her to follow a rule whether to embrace or leave a religion. Laws like that, the Appellant argues, is in conflict with Article 11 and therefore not valid and void.

17.4 On this argument by the Appellant, Abdul Hamid Mohamad, HMR in the Kamariah case says:

“If that is the meaning of that provision then not only the laws which determines the manner for a person to embrace Islam and leave Islam are not valid, but the laws which make it an offence if a Muslim commits adultery, close proximity, not paying zakat and so on are also all not valid. Because, following that argument, Article 11 gives the right to a person to practice his religion, and it is up to him whether he wants to practice any of the direction which he wants to practice and which not, follow whichever prohibition he wishes to follow and which not. Therefore, following that argument, any law which requires a person {39}
---------------------------------------
to carry out a matter or to abandon a matter is in conflict with the freedom given by Article 11 and therefore all not valid.

In my view, in relation to Islam (I do not decide regarding other religions), Article 11 cannot be interpreted so wide until it nullifies all laws which requires a Muslim to pursue a religious obligation of Islam or prohibits them carrying out a matter which is prohibited by Islam or which determines other methods to carry out a matter related to Islam.

This is because the position of Islam in the Federal Constitution is different from the position of other religions. Firstly, only Islam, as a religion, is mentioned by its name in the Federal Constitution, i.e. as ‘the religion of the Federation’ – Article 3(1).

Secondly, the Constitution itself gives power to the State Legislative Body (for states) to codify Syariah Laws in matters mentioned in List II, State List, Schedule 9, the Federal Constitution (‘List II’). In accordance with the requirements of that List II, Syariah Courts (Criminal Jurisdiction) Act 1965 [*666] (‘Act 355/1965’) {40}
---------------------------------------
and various enactments (for States) including as mentioned in this judgment, have been codified.

So, if those laws, including s 102 of Enactment 4/1994, do not conflict with the provisions of List II, and do not conflict with the provisions of Act 355/1965, then they are valid laws.

This provision could be compared with provisions about marriage and divorce. Syariah Laws requires a man and a woman who wish to stay together to marry according to particular conditions and regulations. Current needs require laws be made about it, including, among others, requiring the marriage be registered and application for divorce be made at the Syariah Court and order be given, if given, be registered (for me the law last mentioned which is frequently called ‘administration law’, is a part of the development of Syariah Laws also.) Are these laws also not valid and void on the basis that it conflicts with Article 11 because, following that argument, it prevents the freedom of religion which is guaranteed by Article 11? In my opinion, no.”

17.5 Based on the above authorities it is very clear that: {41}
---------------------------------------
(a) The issue of changing religion is directly related to the rights and duties of the Appellant a a Muslim before the change happens;
(b) Article 11(1) should not be argued as a provision which gives the right to unlimited freedom;
(c) The right to profess and practice a religion should always be subject to the principles and practices as determined by that religion.

18. Based on the reasonings enumerated above my answers to the questions at paragraph (1) above are as folliows:-
(a) NRD is entitled to;
(b) NRD is correct; and
(c) The case of Soon Singh has been decided correctly.

In this situation, this appeal is rejected without order on cost.

Date 30 May 2007
Signed by Tun Dato’ Sri Ahmad Fairuz bin Dato’ Sheikh Abdul Halim
The Nation’s Chief Justice

Lawyers [omitted]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

If you are interested, here is my assessment.

The Malaysian Prime Minister – Our Kepoh* Nation Wants Answer!!

2007-03-09T08:49:00.000+08:00

UPDATE 6/6/2007: The Prime Minister's Office has finally announced that the 'rumours' have become reality. Like I said, we should wait for them to announce such a private matter whenever they are ready.

So, a big CONGRATULATIONS to the Prime Minister. May you and your new wife live happily ever after.

SHEPHERD
No. No. I don't want to check a
polling sample to see if this is
okay, like I'm asking permission
to stay out an hour past curfew.
This isn't the business of the
American people.

A.J.
Mr. President, the American people
have a funny way of deciding on
their own what is and what is not
their business.

The American President (1995, Directed by Rob Reiner, written by Aaron Sorkin, starring Michael Douglas, Annette Bening, Martin Sheen, Michael J. Fox)

Prologue – My ‘Motive’

When I was writing this post I kept thinking (while flattering myself) that I am ‘kind of like’ OJ Simpson’s defence lawyer. I wonder how I ended up spending my time defending AAB, the most ridiculed and chastised sleepy PM Malaysia has had so far. No amount of spinning would make this dumb ass ‘prime-ministerial’, yet I’m doing this. I must be nuts.

Maybe I was one of those “cyber-patrols to visit the various Blogs and post comments rebutting the lies” hired by AAB’s spin doctors (hey Dato’ Seri, where’s my final instalment??).

Or maybe, I just got the kick out of taking up controversial and unpopular causes, because that’s the easiest way to become notorious, aka “now everybody will hear about me”?

Anyway, I’m sick and tired of having to explain my motive everytime I say something different from the ‘mainstream’. So, if you want to waste your time second-guessing my motives, be my guest, but also do me a favour to check the meaning of ad hominem.

1 line to Sum Up My Position in This Post:

Basically, I agree with what The American President is trying to say about the President’s private life. (I’ve also stated my position briefly in my comments over at Wedding? What wedding?)

1 line to Pak Lah’s Political Enemies:

Be careful, don’t inadvertently turn him into some kind of a ‘hero’ like ‘President Andrew Shepherd’ - by allowing him to romanticise this relationship in the eyes of the public...

So, What’s My Beef?

‘Rumour’ has it that the Prime Minister of Malaysia (aka Pak Lah) has / will soon get married again.

Many people got very excited, and are eager to find out whether it’s true or not. Pak Lah said it’s just ‘rumours’, but many are not happy with his answer.

According to Susan Loone (the closest thing Malaysia has to Bob Woodward) in her masterpiece on the leadership virtue of being able to give straight answers “Don’t say rumour lah…just say yes or no”, she shared her wisdom thus:

“It’s not that Pak Lah is not nice. I guess as a person he is. But he can’t give straight answers. That’s a fact. So, that makes him boring… I just want him to give me straight answers. To be honest. Because that is what people want in a leader. Wrong or right, be quick and straightforward.”

So, looks like journalists are hired only to get the 'straight answers', not to dig deep for them, and the whole world owes them that obligation to 'give the straight answers'.

Actually, Susan didn’t have any ill-intention, but merely trying to save “us ordinary people a lot of time” by trying to find out the answer to a question which, also according to her, they are actually NOT “so concerned about”:

“Not that we are so concerned about him remarrying. I would be the first to celebrate. But I just wish he would not play with words. It saves us ordinary people a lot of time.”

What other intentions could be more innocent or relevant than that???

But her pal over at wordpress.com, Mr kickdefella, has a much more noble and patriotic purpose – he’s seeking the answer ‘demi Negara yang tercinta’ (for the beloved country) and for the good citizens of Malaysia too.

In his inspirational tour de force on democracy, citizenship and leadership Sheih on Sheih: Rumours LAH, on behalf of the entire nation, he reminded Pak Lah who is the boss, and spoke out against INSUBORDINATION:

“Nevertheless, we will equally respect his decision if Pak Lah chose to remain a bachelor through out his Premiership. Having said that, Pak Lah should know who is the boss. We, the citizens of Malaysia are your boss. You are answerable to us. Keeping it from us, is an act of insubordination.”

The obvious reason being:

“Whether Abu, Ah Chong and Balan are married or not is a personal matter. However, in regards of an elected leader of the democratic country, it is not.”

So, our patriotic Guru of democracy has basically reminded all those good people out there who aspire to serve the nation:

if you want to fuck up your privacy and lose your right to a private life, go become “an elected leader of the democratic country.”

Anyway, enough of the theoretical discourse, we now come to the facts. So, what’s this INSUBORDINATION all about?! Is Pak Lah going to, or has he:

1 – Married a second / third / fourth wife (which is allowed for Muslims in Malaysia) ??

2 – Married a fifth wife (which is not allowed for Muslims in Malaysia) ??

3 – Fooled around behind his wife’s back with another chick (which is not nice anywhere in the world) ?? Or

4 – Fucked someone else’s wife (which might sound erotic but because of it you deserve to get killed, everywhere in the world) ??

For which UNFORGIVABLE SIN has Pak Lah committed, warranting the censure and serious charge of INSUBORDINATION by these 2 Malaysian intellectual giants?!

For those who do not know about Pak Lah’s notorious ‘marital history’, his beloved wife, fondly known as ‘Kak Endon’ to the nation, passed away in 2005 because of cancer. For an old man in his 60s to lose his only life long companion (of a monogamous marriage, you got to give him credit for that) after a long period of painful and suffering illness, I don’t want to pretend to know how Pak Lah felt, and might still feel, about Kak Endon.

His spin doctors have tried to portray that he loved Kak Endon very deeply, that he has always been a loyal and loving husband to her, that he still misses her very much. Maybe it’s true, maybe it's just some PR crap; but whatever your attitude towards that is, you can’t rule out the genuine possibility that this single, old man – whose children have already formed their own families – could be lonely…

Any lonely single man could try to look for a new girlfriend or a wife, even in Malaysia (yes, that's true, I'm not kidding). But in Malaysia, the day you become “an elected leader of the democratic country” aka sold your soul to the Devils / Syaitan of Malaysia, NO NO – you got to apply for our approval first! And if we, the People of Malaysia, are happy, we’ll issue you an Approved Permit to get 1 girlfriend, for now…

Man, from the moment you took the oath of office, you must always remember “who is the boss. We, the citizens of Malaysia are your boss. You are answerable to us.” Because “Keeping it from us, is an act of insubordination.” GET IT, Dollah?!

For all the esteemed visitors to Malaysia, let me repeat once again loud and clear so that you finally get it into your head, before you step onto tanah tumpahnya darahku (our soil, where we spill our blood) and throughout the whole time your smelly feet remain on it:

In Malaysia, for a single, adult man to have a private, romantic relationship or even friendship with another single, adult woman, you must:

a) give a ‘straight answer’ when being asked (because most of our morons are just too fucking idiotic to read the writings on the wall or simply too lazy to figure out for ourselves); and

b) obey the People of Malaysia and not keep it from us (because we fucking own every inch of your stinking body and soul),

-- if you happen to be one of our ‘elected leaders.’

I hope now you understand why each and everyone of our ‘elected leaders’ is of such unparalleled, most excellent calibre, which you can’t find anywhere else in the world.

Because all our best and brightest are just too fucking willing to fuck up their privacy and lose their right to a private life, in order to serve the soil upon which they spill their blood. That’s why each and everyone of our ‘elected leaders’ is world class. I guess now we know why.

And, you know, if you don’t have anything else to attack the ‘elected leaders’ with… Oh no no, delete that. Actually, if you already have too much bullets on your hands to attack the ‘elected leaders’ with, you’ll still need to screw up his private life, for good measure.

In Malaysia, that doesn’t at all make you look desperate or like that annoyingly nosey aunty next door – it only makes you look wise and intellectual.

Raja Petra Kamarudin is, from the bottom of my heart, the Malay Muslim intellectual whom I admire the most. But to my great disappointment, even he got excited about sabotaging other people’s private life in public, in The protégé turned prodigal:

“Anyway, while on the subject of the Prime Minister’s wife, some say Pak Lah married Jean Danker on 22 January 2007 while others say he will be marrying her tomorrow, 22 February 2007. Now, which one is true we do not quite know yet but she is already following Pak Lah on his overseas trips. In the trip he made to Perth to officiate his brother’s Nasi Kandar restaurant, it seems his daughter, Nori, went berserk when she found Jean in Pak Lah’s bedroom. Only after Pak Lah explained that there is nothing sinister about the whole thing because they are already married did Nori calm down and, like it or not, accept the fact that her father had remarried.

The word being spread through a whispering campaign is that, just before she died, Kak Endon had endorsed Pak Lah’s marriage to Jean. It seems, according to the spin, Kak Endon told Pak Lah that if he ever gets lonely after she has gone then he should take Jean as his wife. This, according to those close to the late Kak Endon, is a spin meant to legitimise the marriage. They dispute this and argue that Pak Lah had already been eyeing Jean even while Kak Endon was still alive. Jean used to be married to Osman Mahmud, Kak Endon’s brother, so this makes Jean her sister-in-law. Kak Endon was in fact very upset and that was why she stayed in the US and refused to come back to Malaysia. To explain why she was in the US and not in Malaysia, they spun the story that Kak Endon was undergoing treatment which was not true. In fact, the doctors had suggested that she return to Malaysia as there was nothing much they could do for her any longer.”

I am an avid reader of his columns about political gossips ‘in the corridors of power’ but Pete, this was totally unnecessary. Frankly, it’s none of your damn fucking business.

Gossips about power struggles and manoeuvres and relentless attacks on the fella’s incompetence and hypocrisy yes. Exposing how his family members abused their access to power, I have no doubt, is also in the public interests.

But this?? You guys have crossed the line this time. He only needs to give you a ‘straight answer’ if the question is any of your fucking business.

Leave his private life alone, shall we? Our political culture is sick enough already.

N.B. I’m not arguing that our public figures’ private life should under no circumstances be subject to public scrutiny. Kindly read on.

Epilogue

My Stand on This Sort of Things:
(Reproducing what I said in my comments to “Wedding? What wedding?”)

on 1 hand, we admire the strong american human rights regime such as free speech, individual liberty n protection of privacy.

on the other hand, we dont want to learn their repsect for privacy, including those of public figure's. we cannot wait to use our public figure's (proper) private life as WEAPONS to gun them down.

yes, their newspapers r even more eager to report about such gossips but that's more out of curiosity than trying to use it as a weapon, except when it comes to IMPROPER conduct, like monica lewinsky.

pak lah is a widower. he's old, n he's lonely. so, there's NOTHING WRONG for him to have a new girlfriend or wife.

it would b perfectly legitimate for us to gossip about his private life IF he's married n trying to fool around (like the najib type), but this is too much.

leave his personal life alone. or, if u really want to talk about it, don't talk in a manner which is suggestive of impropriety, such as what Raja Petra is doing in “The protégé turned prodigal”, which is really disappointing.

i dont think that man deserves to b the PM but i definitely think that he also deserves to b treated fairly, n to have a private life.

using gossip about personal life to "take their minds off difficult and unpleasant topics" only works if we as a people do not have any respect whatsoever for other people's private life. do we???

he's single, so it doesn't necessarily have to be LUST. even if it's LUST n not love, it's between 2 consenting single adults so it's really none of our damn f**king business.

this culture of using (proper) private life as political WEAPONS has got to stop. at the very least, it smacks of desperation on the part of his political opponents (n i wonder y they should b, given that there's SO MANY negative news out there already).

Am I an "ardent defender of AAB"??
(a standard question to which you must give a 'straight answer' if you participate in the Malaysian public discourse, part of Malaysia's age-old, multi-racial customs.)

well, i've always tried (but sometimes fail) to defend/attack on principles, not persons. so, it's not surprising that people would get the impression that i'm a defender of, say, AAB (here) or NST's Brenden P (the plagiarism debate over at Rocky's Bru).

frankly, i don't know about the others but it's becoming quite tiring for me to have to make 'disclaimers', to say that i m actually not a fan of the person whom i m speaking up for, everytime i open my mouth... sigh.

My Ultimate Goal (my turn to make some 'grand' statements… can I?)

We deserve the kind of politicians which our cultures would breed.

Would YOU, having a decent and bright-future job, want to live in an aquarium, if u have a choice? If not, what kind of POLITIKUS does that leave us? IMHO, that's the bigger picture which we should bear in mind...

It takes time for these bad habits in our cultures (all races in m'sia, mind u, not just AAB's race) to b changed. hope we can all do our own small parts to inculcate a more sensible culture in 'the malaysian bloggerhood' bcos if even the (supposedly) more mature n intelligent cyber-elites/opinion-leaders can't behave sensibly, what can we expect from the masses...??

UPDATES:

Et tu, Aisehman??

I happen to agree with Rocky's approach.

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

*Kepoh = Busybody, Nosey, Chiak (eat) Bah (full) Sio (too) Eng (free), kind of like Mat Skodeng??

Brought to you by the Visit Malaysia Year 2007 Promotion Board: “Celebrating 50 Years of Nationhood – We Are Not Kids Anymore”

Hello... (Guestbook)

2006-12-20T08:34:00.000+08:00

Welcome.
Just out of curiosity, what brought you here?
Feel free to leave some comments, at this post or others.

Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of... MALAYSIA?

2006-11-10T12:17:00.001+08:00

The most creative comedy in recent years, one of the best ever (well, according to me at least...).

Borat is a Cambridge-educated prankster. The dumbest thing any person could do - let alone a whole country - is to underestimate him by taking him seriously, again and again (until you finally see the joke and respond with some humour) -- because his jokes are funny if and only if people take him seriously.

In other words, the joke is not really on Kazakhstan, and it's actually not him who is hilarious or talking like an idiot, but those who responded seriously -- on and off the screen. Those who got angry at his jokes are only providing an 'extension' or 'continuation' to his jokes, becoming part of the entertainment -- because their responses have indirectly exposed just how 'slow' they were (in not getting the joke), and how they ended up -- often inadvertently -- helping to complete it.

But one thing the Glorious Nation of Malaysia should ponder over is the room given to the freedom of expression for sophisticated, creative talents (not just in the arts). I would LOVE to see an American or British -style political/social satire show on our national TVs someday. (I hope that will happen during my lifetime...)

So, Malaysia -- are we mature enough to handle this? Do we have a sophisticated enough sense of humour to appreciate (let alone to produce) such brilliant artists?? If it was Malaysia which was 'picked on' instead of Kazakhstan, what would we have said or done??!! (Demonstrations in front of the British High Commission?)

Some food for thought:

"As the Internet invades more aspects of everyday life, its addressing system is not just a matter of free expression, but also a matter of freedom of assembly and ultimately, freedom of thought. That is why the deletion of one comedian's Web site and other small skirmishes in cyberspace are as troubling as they are funny."

p.s. Go and see it if the movie comes to Malaysian movie theatres. I hope you'll love it -- if you are broad minded enough to 'get it'. [Warning: Not suitable for people with heart or mind problems (either too weak or too 'narrow') or who take life a little too seriously.]

Maths Genius

2006-11-09T14:29:00.000+08:00

there's been too many depressing news lately.

so, hope to lighten up a bit... :)

Free Speech - Are Malaysians Ready? (About this Blog)

2006-11-04T12:06:00.000+08:00

"Because if the First Amendment [under the United States Constitution, safeguarding the freedom of speech, etc] will protect... A scumbag like me... then it'll protect all of you. 'Cause I'm the worst."

- Woody Harrelson as Larry Flynt, in The People vs Larry Flynt (1996).

[Larry Flynt was the publisher of Hustler Magazine, an obscenely and offensively lewd (by almost-universal standard, definitely by Malaysian (all races) standard), pornographic publication.]

Judging from the behaviours of our bloggers and commentators (including myself!), I don't think we are mature enough yet... Are we?

ABOUT THIS BLOG

FREQUENCY: I'll only post something when I feel that other bloggers have not raised it, or their space does not allow me to express my extended views (due to their censorship or space constraint).

I don't have time to blog on a 'regular basis', but I quite often post comments on other blogs.

COMPLICATIONS: When I feel that certain events have been over-simplified by others, I'll try to add my own perceptions and to show, to the best of my limited ability, that certain matters might not be as simple as they seem. You are welcome to add yours.

'HISTORY': I was driven away/suppressed/censored by Jeff Ooi (when I complained about Jeff's absurd censoring of perceived 'obscene' and 'defamatory' comments in August 2006) and Rocky's Bru (when I held a different view about the correct application of the concept of Plagiarism and accused him of hypocricy in criticising others of censorship).

MOTIVATIONS: I've obviously irked Jeff and Rocky with my fierce criticisms, which must be rude and obnoxious to them. They couldn't take it, so they censored me (justifiably to them, but not so according to me). I don't believe in censorship, not even of what you believe to be obscene or obnoxious or loud or simply irrelevant.

I think I'm NOT - and also NOBODY (except God) is - qualified or authorised, morally, to impose their standard of what's acceptable and what's not on any other person. Because more often than not, when we try to impose our standard, we are influenced by our SUBJECTIVE preferences AND shortcomings.

I might consider myself smart (well, 'smart' enough to spill ink here, I guess?) but I believe there are many, many out there who are smarter and wiser than I am. (Besides, whether we should use 'smart' and 'wise' as a pre-requisite of enjoying the right to free speech is debatable in itself, because it's elitist.)

Even what I believe to be 'unworthy' views today might not be so, after my wisdom has (hopefully) grown the next day. In other words, perhaps a view might be 'unworthy' to me now only because I'm not wise enough to appreciate its wisdom today? Besides, because this is intended to be a PUBLIC conversation, it's up to the readers and commentators to JUDGE what view is valid, and what is not.

Above all, I'm only asking questions here - those others might not have asked.

And if anyone is offended - I'm sorry, truth often hurts. And please don't come here if you don't want to get 'hurt'.

So, I'm a LIBERTARIAN when it comes to free speech, and that's how I try to 'maintain' this blog - by doing nothing about the comments. Therefore, it would be very MESSY (if the traffic is heavy), with lots of junk/spam perhaps? Some have tried to use the excuse of 'need to maintain 'standard' in my blog' to censor dissent. But that's the price of free speech, if you ask me.

CONVERSATIONS: Bloggers often take the firm attitude of "I'm right, my enemy is wrong" - often because they have an agenda to advance. This attitude defeats the whole purpose of conversations which, to me, is to educate, persuade and influence each other.

What if we are all right in our own ways? What if we are all wrong to a certain extent? I hope we are all open to that possibility, given our finite mind and uneven maturity.

What is sad is to see blogs like:

a) Rocky's Bru, where all the pages sounded like a parrot-sex orgy is going on - because all you hear is "yes, yes, yes... oh YES!! YES!!! YESSSS!!!!"
All dissents are blocked off in the name of 'avoid diversion' or 'to maintain blog standard';

and

b) Screehshots, where the pages all sounded like a scratched CD, because you see [DELETED] ..... [DELETED].... all over the place.

The sad way they 'moderate' the comments only exposes how petty and biased they are (while they still pretend to be able to tolerate dissent). To me, that is not how an open and frank debate should be, nor how free speech should be enjoyed.

Yes, they (as they like to boast) blog with their real identity, they are the so-called 'gentleman bloggers'. However, we all know the reasons why we don't blog with open identity in this country. At the very least, to blog with open identity might reduce the effectiveness of some bloggers/commentators.

But I firmly believe that the validity or forcefulness of a person's speech should not, and does not, depend on the person's identity or lack thereof (unless the identity is somehow relevant to the issue, such as one's double standard).

Indeed, to attack the identity of (or lack thereof) the messenger (often done when one runs out of ideas...) instead of focusing on the message only shows one's desperation. It's rather pathetic, actually.

GUARANTEE: NO CENSORSHIP, not even of spam and junk. Because God never gave me that authority to pronounce what is or is not worthy, valid or wise. (Well, I guess except when you post something that threatens national or world security, like posting the formula for making nuclear bombs?? That would be naughty...)

The only agenda I have here is free speech. Welcome.

Creative Copying, or in Defense of Mimicry

2006-11-02T11:33:00.000+08:00

The NST reported today that its group editor Brendan Pereira had resigned. According to some, it is because of a plagiarised article written by Mr Pereira.

While I do not weep for, nor rejoice in, Mr Pereira's resignation, (and I actually got into a debate with Rocky's Bru's owner and his commentators because of bigger issues of Dr Mahathir and journalistic bias, rather than to defend this Brendan Pereira chap who is a spin-doctor, people I don't like;) I am concerned about the application of this 'plagiarism' concept.

If applied too broadly, it would suffocate the creativity of writers - one manifestation of which is to creatively mimic or imitate the style and spirit of another's writing, perhaps because the imitator wishes to borrow the same frame of mind/ethos generated by the imitated writing. That might not be very 'original', but it's a way to be creative, nonetheless.

Besides, if we were to give credit too all literary styles we have borrowed, then our writings would be so heavily annotated as to be not feasible to write in the end. After all, which living writer is not influenced by past literary masters?

To me, Mitch Albom's article about how the world changed since 9/11 conveys a particular 'state of mind' or 'mood'. Maybe, Mr Pereira wanted to borrow that 'state of mind' or 'mood' when he wrote about Dr M's attack on Abdullah, that's why Albom's literary style and expressions were borrowed. (Whether the 'borrowing' was successful in conjuring the same 'mood' or not is a different question.)

Rocky Bru's evaluation was, "Some say imitation is the greatest form of flattery. I call this plagiarism."

He did not offer SPECIFICS as to why is plagiarism, and how to differentiate between plagiarism (especially when it is applied in the context of creative writings, not academic research) and imitation (acceptable).

That's what worries me.

While I'm not knowledgeable enough to explain or enumerate what constitutes unacceptable plagiarism and acceptable imitation/mimicry, I just hope we remember that there is a difference between the 2 concepts - which neither Rocky's Bru nor Screenshots (who began the charge) bothered to explain.

Like the concept of 'sedition' under Malaysian laws, I personally felt that this concept of plagiarism has been applied quite bluntly in this case by Mr Pereira's personal foe, ie. turned into an offensive weapon, rather than purely out of respect for journalistic integrity.

I just hope we bear in mind that there is a need for a careful distinction between the 2 concepts, and for a more sophisticated appreciation of literary styles and creative writing. The following is one perspective.

----------------------------------------

NWP Publications
The Quarterly Fall 2002
Creative Copying, or in Defense of Mimicry
By Rebecca Dierking
http://www.writingproject.org/cs/nwpp/print/nwpr/448

"...First, the difference between mimicry and plagiarism is intent. The student who takes information from a source and says, “Hey, this is my stuff. I am sole possessor of this knowledge” is plagiarizing. He has stolen the work of another—usually research, facts and figures—and has published that information as his own.

Mimicking, on the other hand, is deliberate as well, but the intent is not to say, “Hey, this is my own work” but rather to say, “Hey, Williams is an awesome poet, so I’m going to try to write like him in a few poems and eventually maybe some of it will rub off on me and be a natural element of my writing style.”

...And even professional writers subconsciously (or consciously) are guided by the writing of other professionals they admire... Writers reflect (insert “mimic”) their reading material.

So why is mimicry okay? It’s acceptable because the writer is integrating into his own writing elements of the style of another writer that he admires. His goal is to make his writing better. He would not mimic a bad writer; he mimics those writers who are making an impact on him personally or who are achieving a style he finds worthy.

Mimicking, unlike plagiarizing, is an approach by which the author tries to better himself, to become more skilled. Just as a student musician is influenced by the playing or composing style of those he admires, a student writer is also influenced by other writers.

..I think it is important that these young writers understand that writers have always drawn on the work of other writers. Shakespeare himself stole plots from mythology, history, and even his contemporaries. No one seems offended by these borrowings. Rather, we are awed by his ability to transform the mundane into the sublime.

...but in creative writing there are somewhat different rules. You can’t take someone else’s words and use them as your own; that’ll still get you in trouble. However, if you use their idea or technique to improve your own, it’s okay.”

--------------------------------------------