MySinChew: A Malaysian, again? — Lim Mun Fah

A Malaysian, again? — Lim Mun Fah

JAN 15 — When the Singapore-Cambridge General Certificate of Education (Ordinary Level) Examination results were released last year, the country’s leading Chinese-language newspaper Lianhe Zaobao used the headline: Top O-Level student again a Malaysian”.

I was attracted by the word “again”.

Her name is Lai Kai Rou and same as top student last year Haw Sue Hern, she studied in SRJK (C) Lick Hung before going to study in Singapore.

The report stressed that in SRJK (C) Lick Hung, everything is taught in Chinese except for English subject. I would like to add that SRJK (C) Lick Hung is a Chinese primary school.

Lai, who has again won glory for the country, is one of the 17 foreign students among the 43 top O-Level scorers.

I must mention here that among the above-mentioned 17 foreign students, 11 of them are from China and six of them are Malaysians. The number is equal to 40 per cent of the 43 top scorers.

Singaporeans exclaimed in surprise. They wondered why there were so many foreigners among the top scorers.

“In fact, leaving home is no longer about the pain of ‘homesick’ but the freedom without fear!” At the same time, we also exclaimed in surprise. We wondered why so many top students have gone to Singapore.

Singaporeans were wondering why the top O-Level student was not a Singaporean and why Singaporean students were lack of spirit compared to foreign students.

Meanwhile, we were wondering why we always lose talents.

Lai said: “I like the freedom given by the peaceful Singapore, it allows me to move around without worry.”

In fact, leaving home is no longer about the pain of “homesick” but the freedom without fear!

Of course, a little girl’s way of thinking is relatively simple. For her parents (both graduates of the University of Malaya), studying in Singapore allows her to enjoy other freedoms. For example, the freedom of choosing a university, the freedom of choosing a major and the freedom of getting a scholarship based on academic results without the so-called quota system and colour distinction.

How many Malaysian students, like Lai and her younger brother, have been flocking to further their studies in Singapore right after they have completed their primary schools with the scholarship provided by Singapore every year?

And how many Malaysian students from Chinese independent high schools (second-class students and copycats for Singapore Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew and historian and academician Prof Emeritus Tan Sri Khoo Kay Kim) have been enrolled into prestigious universities of the Lion City every year and end up settling down while contributing to the prosperity of the country?

There are many shining stars who are originated from Malaysia in Singapore. For example, founder, Group Chief Executive Officer, and President of the Singapore-based Hyflux Group Olivia Lum used to be an orphan from Perak; and Chief Executive Officer of Jetstar Asia Chong Phit Lian was just a little girl selling pineapples at her own doorstep in Kulai, Johor when she was six.

The current Health Minister of Singapore Khaw Boon Wan is also originated from Malaysia. He used to study in the Penang Chung Ling High School.

In fact, there are too many similar stories to tell. — mysinchew.com

---------------ooooo00000ooooo--------------------

My Comments (DQ):

As I have stated on countless occasions, we Malaysians must seriously consider what standards we wish to attain. 

Are we simply interested only in more of the same tired jingoistic national shibboleths of "Malaysia Boleh" or even "1Malaysia" and yet remain trapped within a melted down mindset of incorrigible ethnocentricity and self-interests, that we can no longer see beyond the horizon of challenges which are rapidly but surely sweeping us by. 

This competitive world can no longer tolerate profligacy, wastage and leakages. Certainly, it can no longer suffer fools and incompetency, despite many of our lawmakers bungling and inane antics and self-seeking performances...

We must strive for excellence and respect that only then can we at least have a greater chance of improving our crumbling state and institutions. 

Wake up Malaysians and fight the real war of national strength and power, and not simply indulge in mindless politicking and turf-protecting battles which only serve to weaken our foundations even more!

Keruah Usit-Malaysiakini: From the ashes of fires lit by racist politicians

From the ashes of fires lit by racist politicians

Keruah Usit
Jan 13, 10, 10:35am

How should Malaysia respond to this spate of cowardly attacks on places of worship? What is the way forward? Decent, reasonable Malaysians are divided in their views.

Some Christian spokemen want peace at all cost. They entreat the Catholic weekly Herald, to 'turn the other cheek', and to stop using the word 'Allah' in its Bahasa Malaysia section, even though Sabah and Sarawak Christians have used the word for generations.

 
This gives rise to a troubling thought. The editor of Herald, Father Andrew Lawrence (left) and other Malaysians like him (Muslim and non-Muslim alike) have stuck their necks out, in a collective attempt to build a plural, inclusive nation.

These courageous Malaysians refuse to nod their heads in rhythm to the jarring 1Malaysia tune. One people, one nation, one leader? We have heard all that before.

It seems perfectly all right to turn one's own cheek when struck, but would it not be somewhat presumptuous to instruct other people to take abuse and look the other way?

At any rate, Christian moral teachings can hardly be boiled down to this single statement, 'turn the other cheek', interpreted identically in all possible situations. The history of Christianity is full of defiant rebels as well as stoic hermits - and pragmatic men of the world.

There are, of course, the usual diatribes urging retaliation: 'An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth'. This is stupid. Any violent response by Christians would be wrong, and would play straight into the hands of the Umno warlords.

Who stands to gain the most?

The New York Times quoted Pakatan Rakyat de facto leader Anwar Ibrahim as saying: "This is the last hope - to incite racial and religious sentiments to cling to power...since the disastrous defeat in the March 2008 general election, they have been fanning this."

Many observers say Umno has behaved shamefully, in tacitly supporting protests against the Dec 31, 2009 Kuala Lumpur High Court decision, that overturned the Home Ministry's ban on the use of the word 'Allah' by Herald.

Who stands to gain the most from this conflict? Umno's very existence hangs in the balance. Survival depends on the Malay vote. We should not be surprised that Umno is straining every sinew to achieve 'Malay unity', since the split in the Malay vote helped put Pakatan in power in five states initially.

Umno's chieftains must have calculated that the prospective gain it stands to make from championing 'Malay solidarity' against some imagined, bogus threat from Malay-educated Christians, might outweigh any loss in support from non-Muslim voters.

 
After all, the politics of race is the politics of 'counting heads', as Malaysiakini columnist Sim Kwang Yang has pointed out. Malays make up 60 percent of the population and wield even greater influence in elections, thanks to Umno-friendly constituency gerrymandering, and a disproportionate rural vote weightage.

Umno appears to have discounted the political voice of Sabah and Sarawak Christians, who make up 47 percent of the population in the two states. Indeed, Sarawak and Sabah ministers kept eerily silent over the use of 'Allah', before the firebombs.

Even after the attacks, they could say nothing more than meaningless platitudes. According to the Borneo Post, Federal minister Peter Chin, ignoring the High Court's decision, urged Sarawakians "to let Prime Minister Najib handle the use of the word 'Allah' by Christians...We need to cool down and let the PM deal with the matter. He has said he has ways to resolve the matter".

The authoritarian control exerted by the Sabah and Sarawak governments, and the RTM domination of information arriving at scattered rural communities, are powerful tools indeed. The deep-rooted tradition of buying votes from an impoverished population may also soothe any fears of a backlash in the coming elections.

Umno's history of brinkmanship

Many Malaysians are concerned that the vandalism of churches may turn out to be another racial 'crisis' manufactured in preparation for a crackdown to allow a strongman to consolidate power.

These incidents have littered our political history, from the May 13 massacres that swept Najib Abdul Razak's father to power in 1969, to the rabid protests against Chinese schools (led by Najib as Umno Youth leader) in 1987, that preceded Mahathir's Operasi Lalang.

A local commentator speculates that Umno might use the religious unrest created by the church attacks to declare emergency law in Selangor, the eye of the storm. The first three attacks on churches certainly appeared to be planned and co-ordinated.

If Umno could seize power, it would then achieve its publicly declared ambition of taking back Perak and Selangor, two of the wealthiest states in the federation.

It remains clear that the hysteria surrounding the use of the word 'Allah' is a political, and not a religious, issue. In December 2007, the Home Ministry sent a fax to Lawrence, reversing its earlier decision to ban the use of the word 'Allah' in Herald.

 
This fax preceded the 12th general election by four months. The Home Ministry, run at the time by Umno's Syed Hamid Albar (left), saw nothing wrong in the use of the word 'Allah' by the Catholic newspaper. Two years later, we have come full circle.

It is conceivable that Umno has simply returned to form. Revoking an unjust ban did not appear to help it win votes in 2008, so it has now turned to a tried and tested monologue of hatred and bad faith.

The recent wave of racial venom emanating from Utusan Malaysia and its allies, protests against a Hindu temple using a severed cow's head, and now the defacement of Christian churches, may be seen as Umno's latest experiment in 're-branding', to distinguish itself from less racist parties like the PKR and PAS.

When politicians play with fire, other people's fingers get burnt.

A way forward

In order to move forward, we must reverse and oppose the damage done to our national fabric. Malaysians' refusal to take the bait and stage a violent response is laudable, and crucial.

Rejecting racist parties will be our way forward. Rebuilding crippled institutions, including the judiciary and the police, is another important step.

Over the years, Umno has shown the same disdain for the courts as the hackers who recently hacked the Malaysian judiciary's website, and threatened the nation's judges over the High Court's decision. (The police, as usual, are still investigating.)

National reform can only begin if Sabah and Sarawak Barisan Nasional, Umno's loyal supporters, are defeated in elections. Pakatan's clumsy efforts to gain support in these states will not succeed unless it commits resources at the community and grassroots level.

Pakatan will have to buckle down to earn trust and spread information, previously denied, to the rural populations. And finally, a genuine, concerted effort at inter-faith dialogue can bridge the gaps between religions. PKR and PAS have begun this difficult task with Christian groups.

Only if we move together on this path, can we hope that something worthwhile will rise from the ashes of these fires lit by racist politicians.

KERUAH USIT is a human rights activist - 'anak Sarawak, bangsa Malaysia'. This weekly column is an effort to provide a voice for marginalised Malaysians. Keruah Usit can be contacted at keruah_usit@yahoo.com.

Irrational fears give nuclear power a bad name, says Oxford scientist

Wade Allison says misplaced health stigma has prevented the full benefits of nuclear energy being explored

• Alok Jha and Sarah Boseley
• guardian.co.uk, Sunday 10 January 2010 20.32 GMT

Protesters carry a mock-up of a nuclear waste drum during a demonstration against Germany's nuclear power policies. Photograph: Theo Heimann/AFP/Getty Images

The health dangers from nuclear radiation have been oversold, stopping governments from fully exploiting nuclear power as a weapon against climate change, argues a professor of physics at Oxford University.

Wade Allison does not question the dangers of high levels of radiation but says that, contrary to scientific wisdom, low levels of radiation can be easily tolerated by the human body.

Most scientists who have responded disagreed with Allison's conclusions, but his comments have highlighted the lack of understanding of how the body deals with low doses of radiation, a crucial issue given it is increasingly used in modern medical procedures such as scanning and cancer treatment.

Nuclear crises, from the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki to the meltdown of a nuclear reactor at Chernobyl, have created widespread fear and distrust of nuclear power, and global pressure to keep radiation at the lowest possible level, according to Allison, a particle physicist who makes his arguments in a self-published book, Radiation and Reason. He says long-term data on the health of survivors of the atomic bombs have demonstrated how good the human body is at protecting itself from radiological and chemical attack.

"The ability to repair damage and replace cells, we discovered in the last 50 years, show how radiation doesn't cause damage except under extreme circumstances," he says. "The radiation that a patient gets in one day from a course of radiotherapy treatment, it would take a million hours of exposure for someone standing in the radioactive waste hall of Sellafield. And, if you have radiotherapy, it goes on for several weeks."

Ionising radiation, the type from nuclear reactions, can break strands of DNA in cells and these can make a cell cancerous unless the body's machinery can fix the damage. Scientists have used data from Hiroshima and Nagasaki, plus that from experiments on animals and cell cultures, to create a measure of how much damage is caused by high levels of radiation. This has then been extrapolated back, in a straight line, to estimate the potential damage from low levels of radiation to create what is called the linear non-threshold (LNT) model.

"The problem with a lot of these discussions is that you eventually get to the point where you don't have any more data," said Professor Gillies McKenna of Oxford University, Cancer Research UK's expert on radiation oncology. "Even the data from Hiroshima and Nagasaki – there weren't enormous numbers of cancers created in those cases, so we have to extrapolate what we think would happen at low dose."

Since the end of the second world war, scientists have worked on the basis that there is no dose of radiation so low that it is not dangerous. Allison, however, believes there is a threshold below which any radiation exposure is fully repaired by the body – but this is a view mainstream scientists disagree with.

"I wouldn't say Allison's ideas are fanciful but when you weigh up all the evidence, the scientific authorities come to the conclusion that the LNT dose-response relationship for low doses is the best we can do," says Richard Wakeford, an epidemiologist specialising in the health effects of radiation at the University of Manchester.

Allison's hypothesis assumes that all of the DNA damage caused below a threshold of radiation dose can be fixed by the cells' internal machinery. "I can't see and nor do the majority of experts in the field how these processes can be 100% effective," said Wakeford.

"Radiation is particularly effective at causing double-strand DNA breaks, which make it difficult for the repair mechanisms in the cells to repair them properly."

Where McKenna and other scientists do agree with Allison is that fear of radiation is a problem. McKenna's expertise is in the use of radiation to kill cancer cells. "People become so fearful of radiation that they avoid diagnostic tests that might save their lives or avoid radiotherapy when they have cancer that is much more likely to kill them than exposure to radiation. He [Allison] is right that it has become a little bit hysterical. People are now avoiding CT scans or avoiding building nuclear power stations when in most aspects, radiation is a very useful thing."

Half of cancer patients will be given radiotherapy and more than half of those will be cured by it, McKenna said. "In most instances, where you use radiation – certainly in medicine and in most other forms of industry – the benefits greatly outweigh the risks."

Treatment involves a dose of radiation directed at the cancer cells which is 10 to 20 times the dose that would be fatal directed to the whole body.

Some areas of the country, such as Devon and Cornwall, have naturally high levels of radiation in the rock, and yet they do not have high incidence of cancer. "It would suggest to me that we can tolerate relatively higher doses of radiation, unless you add things on top like smoking," said McKenna, adding that there were good scientists on both sides of the debate, "but you reach a point where you can't generate the data you need and I do think we need to be careful not to exaggerate the risks and increase the fears."

Nothing has generated quite as much cancer concern in the UK as Sellafield power station in Cumbria. Concern about radiation leaks at the plant, known as Windscale when it was commissioned in 1956, grew over the years until in 1983, Yorkshire Television produced a documentary called The Nuclear Laundry, suggesting low-level radiation emissions posed a risk. In the 1990s clusters of childhood leukaemia cases were identified near the site.

Investigating those concerns has been the preoccupation of Comare, the government's expert committee on the medical aspects of radiation, since it was set up in 1985. After years of painstaking work and many reports, it has yet to establish a link between radiation and childhood leukaemia. The evidence for some sort of infection, possibly caused by the movement from one area to another of people working at the plant, is far stronger.

Comare's chairman, Alex Elliott, a professor of clinical physics at Glasgow University, says there is a wide spectrum of views on the dangers of low-level radiation. "There are those who believe people like me are part of an international conspiracy to hide the dangers of radiation from the public," he said. At the other end are the believers in "radiation hormesis", who say we live in a beneficent soup of low-dose radiation, which is essential for life and may even prevent cancer deaths.

Elliott steers a middle path. "The Comare view, along with the consensus worldwide, is that the current risk estimates are broadly correct," he said. "They keep being revised but if they are wrong, it is by no more than a factor of two or three in each direction." And, he said, "we believe the linear hypothesis should continue to be used."

It is almost impossible, he said, to carry out experiments that would prove that low-level radiation is dangerous or is not, because the risks are so small.

But radiation generates fear, he said. "Because we can't see, hear, smell or touch it, we are much less tolerant of radiation than anything else. We are definitely hysterical about radiation. We go to enormous lengths on the precautionary principle.

"I don't know how many people are killed on the roads each year, but we live with that. We're not thinking of banning trucks. We're incredibly bad at risk-benefit analysis."

But Wakeford said that calculating the risks of low-level radiation is becoming increasingly important. "One of the big issues today is just how you manage these new, relatively high-dose diagnostic procedures like CT scans. This is probably the big issue as far as low doses are concerned. In the US, remarkably, the average citizen receives more dose from medical diagnostic procedures than he receives from background radiation, which is a dramatic increase from the last time this was assessed about 20 or so years ago. When you come to make an assessment about balance of risk about whether to give a child a CT scan or not, these are real considerations, not hypothetical at all."

Comare, in a rare respite from studying leukaemia clusters at nuclear installations, recently produced a hard-hitting report on sunbeds, calling for a ban on their use by under-18s. "At the minute, it would appear that more people are damaged by sunbeds than by nuclear power in the UK," Elliott said.

Reasons to be fearful? Expert views

Mike Clark, scientific spokesman for the Health Protection Agency
"There is an international scientific consensus about the health effects of ionising radiation which is based on decades of research worldwide. This is the so-called linear hypothesis, by which you extrapolate health effects observed at high doses to calculate risks at low doses. There are scientists who disagree with this and clearly Professor Allison is one of them. However there are also some scientists who claim the linear hypothesis can underestimate risks.

"The Health Protection Agency accepts the scientific consensus and bases its advice on recommendations from the International Commission on Radiological Protection."

Professor Steve Jones of Westlakes Research Institute, who published research on the health of the former British Nuclear Fuels workforce and the link between high radiation doses and heart disease
"One of the problems, is that the effect of radiation at low doses is very difficult to determine from observational science because the effects are small. The cancer risk to any group of people over a lifetime is 25% and if you look at whether radiation will increase over that you will struggle to get a clear result. Another reason to be cautious is because some studies suggest that the risk of radiation may be an increase in circulatory diseases as well. A good judgement based on all the scientific information available is it would be unwise to move away from what we have."

Richard Wakeford, visiting professor of epidemiology at the University of Manchester
"I do not find [Allison's] these arguments particularly convincing. I have to say, when I've reviewed the evidence, it is very difficult to detect the adverse effects of radiation at low levels because the predicted excess risk of cancer is small and is easily hidden in the noise of other factors like smoking and diet and drinking. All the people who hang on to these arguments are missing the point. If you take the evidence as a whole from radiation epidemiology, there's probably a risk from cancer arising from small doses of radiation [and] they're around about what you get from a linear no-threshold dose response."

Susan Short, clinical senior lecturer in oncology at University College London
"I do have sympathy with the view that the effects of radiation have been overestimated but it reflects ignorance in the community about radiation; it's still portrayed as a dangerous unknown though we understand a lot about it really. People have such poor understanding of risk – these people who go and demonstrate against local nuclear power plants are the same as those who will happily smoke 20 cigarettes a day or lead high-risk lifestyles and don't see the irony."

Kua Kia Soong: RPK the cyber anarchist?

RPK the cyber anarchist?

Kua Kia Soong
Malaysiakini, Jan 7, 10, 12:23pm

 

I don't consider myself a “fanatical fan” of RPK (Raja Petra Kamarudin) nor am I a “bottom feeder” in the fetid Malaysian political aquarium. ('Cyber anarchist with belligerent agenda', Jan 2, New Straits Times) I have been observing Malaysian society since the 50s and the pretentious apologists in the mainstream media have never failed to amuse me by providing so much comic relief. To call them prostitutes would be a gross insult to sex workers.

Their attempts to discredit RPK will surely fail now that these formerly imperious state propaganda pieces have been reduced to “old newspapers” and have to compete with us, the people in cyberspace. What a leveler the Internet is!


First of all, is it Malaysian to discredit somebody by labeling him an “anarchist”? The obscurantists in the establishment would want Malaysians to believe that anarchists are irresponsible troublemakers who do not care about society.

Little do they know that one of the world's greatest public intellectuals, Noam Chomsky, is an anarchist by political persuasion.

The positive and constructive contributions by Chomsky (right) to freedom, democracy and human rights in the post-war world have been universally recognised.

His commitment to the Palestinian cause precedes Umno's and he is consistent in championing many other anti-imperialist causes as well unlike the selective populism of Umno.

Anarchists (or anarcho-syndicalists) were in control of many areas of Catalonia during the Spanish Civil War, a war which inspired freedom-loving people like George Orwell and many other famous writers to fight fascism during the early part of the 20th century.

Michel Foucault, the well-known philosopher and profound critic of capitalist state institutions has sometimes been categorised as a neo-anarchist too.

What do anarchists stand for? Shelley has touched on its ideals in this poem:

“The man
Of virtuous soul commands not, nor obeys:
Power, like a desolating pestilence,
Pollutes whatever it touches, and obedience,
Bane of all genius, virtue, freedom, truth,
Makes slaves of men, and, of the human frame,
A mechanised automaton.”

Anarchists place a high premium on liberty.

They recognise, however, that individuality is a social phenomenon since we need other people in order to develop, expand, and grow.

Anarchists want to create a society based on three principles: liberty, equality and solidarity.

Liberty is essential for the full flowering of human intelligence, creativity, and dignity. One could say that these are also the avowed aims of education in so-called enlightened societies.

Domination stifles innovation and personal responsibility, leading to conformity and mediocrity. While liberty is essential for the fullest development of individuality, equality is essential for genuine liberty to exist. There can be no real freedom in a class-stratified and unequal society.

As Marx has analysed in 'Capital Volume I', liberty in capitalist society is at best the "freedom" to choose one's boss.

Finally, solidarity means working voluntarily and co-operatively with others who share the same goals and interests. But without liberty and equality, society becomes an exploitative system based on the domination of the masses by the ruling class.

Anarchists are not idealists who think that people or ideas develop outside of society. Individuality and ideas grow and develop within society, in response to material and intellectual interactions and experiences, which people actively analyse and interpret. That is why anarchists are also described as libertarian socialists.

So, would you call RPK an anarchist? I always say, “If the cap fits…” I notice he wears a red star on his green beret!

An apt epithet

Looking at the laudable efforts of RPK during the last decade, “cyber anarchist” would be an apt epithet to confer upon him.

He has done more than any politician in this country to expose the illegitimate institutions of the Malaysian state, as John Dewey has described the capitalist state, “domination by business for private profit through private control of banking, land, industry, reinforced by command of the press, press agents and other means of publicity and propaganda.”
libertarian
RPK has gone beyond the sociological theses about the shared interests of the ruling elite – he has literally stripped bare the integuments of the Malaysian state; exposed the machinations of the police and shameful harassment of whistleblowers.

He has posed questions surrounding the unsolved murder of Altantuya which all patriotic and justice-loving Malaysians want answered.

The “hapless prey” in this case happens to be the most powerful person in this country!

Far from throwing “fantasist allegations”, RPK has produced statutory declarations which should prompt any just and responsible public prosecutor to take action.

Besides these documents, he has produced video interviews on YouTube with the private investigator in the Altantuya murder case who has claimed that he was coaxed and harassed by interested parties to change his statutory declaration and to leave the country. “Get real!” as they say…

The nemesis of bumiputeraism

Bumiputeraism has been used as a populist ideology by the Malay ruling class in their ascent to political power after May 13, 1969. It was intended to rally the Malay community behind this ruling class as it reaped the economic benefits from this policy while discriminating against the “Nons”.

But it was only a matter of time before the contradictions in the “bumiputera” policy imploded because their crony capitalist policies invariably create not only inter-ethnic but also intra-ethnic inequalities.

These fissures within the Malay community have appeared during the 70s (Baling and Hamid Tuah incidents), the 80s (the Umno split), the 90s (Reformasi) right into the 21st century.

Much to the chagrin of the Malay ruling class, more and more Malay intellectuals have risen up to question the legitimacy of this bumiputeraist policy and to expose the iniquities of the state.

RPK can be seen as just this nemesis of bumiputeraism and what a nemesis! He taunts them in cyberspace all the way to hell. You couldn't find a more exemplary model of the rational, non-racist Malaysian intellectual who is not afraid to castigate not only the ruling class but also the spineless and the opportunists in ALL the ethnic communities in Malaysia.

The wind is blowing
And thank Pete for Malaysia Today! At no time in our country's history has alternative journalism been more exciting and refreshing and websites such as Malaysia Today under RPK has shown that we can beat these mainstream rags at their game.

For all the pompous braying by the apologists of the state, at least Malaysia Today has the graciousness to publish their pieces. Most progressives have given up writing to the establishment newspapers because of their shameless censorship. So who's afraid of rational debate?

So here's wishing RPK (photo, left) “Good Speed” and assuring him of our support in his campaign for truth, justice and democracy.

He is the best judge of the system of justice in this country, so if he decides to keep on running, we hope he keeps on writing and take comfort in these lines from the Song of the French partisan:

“Oh, the wind, the wind is blowing
Through the land the wind is blowing
Freedom soon will come
Then you'll come from the shadows…”

KUA KIA SOONG, a former MP, was principal of the New Era College, Kajang. He is also a director of human rights group Suaram.

'Allah' use might have opposite effect

Without prejudice, sharing another perspective:  'Allah' use might have opposite effect
Terence Netto
Jan 6, 10 12:28pm

I came to a rather interesting conclusion about the rapidly escalating controversy over the High Court's decision to allow the Catholic weekly Herald to use the term 'Allah' in its Bahasa Malaysia edition.

Purveyors of the concern that Muslims could be 'confused' have not considered the opposite prospect: when the term becomes common among Malaysian Catholics, it could pave the way for easier conversion to Islam.

As any Christian theologian would know, explaining concepts to laymen such as the Trinity, Original Sin and the dual nature of Christ is difficult.

In contrasts, Islamic doctrine is much more clear-cut. Islam's rigorous insistence on the oneness of Allah, His total unlikeness to humans, and its view of sin not as an aspect of human nature (the claim of Original Sin), but as something done against the bounds of God's law, make it an easier religion to teach compared to Christianity.

You do not have to be too learned to know that one of the explanations by Christians for the rapid spread of Islam in the seventh century of the Common Era was the failure of Christian theologians to solve the riddle of the Trinity and Christ's dual nature.

In this view, Islam is a monophysite religion (opposite of hypostatic, which is the term for the dual nature of Christ) that's simple in creed and remarkably impervious to heresy. This explained the speed of its spread.

Malaysian Catholics shunned 'Allah'

There is anecdotal evidence that Malaysian Catholics who were educated in the faith before the New Education Policy made Bahasa the medium of instruction in national schools from 1971 onwards, were uncomfortable over the use of the term Allah in liturgy and prayer.

That use became imperative in the churches when the effects of the language switch became evident by the early 1990s when Christian children in rural and semi-urban areas could no longer speak even a modicum of English.

Holdouts for English in the liturgy saw that their discomfort with Bahasa usage was selfish on account of its inevitability as a medium of discourse in all of Malaysian life and thus began to participate in masses said in Bahasa with greater enthusiasm.

Nevertheless, they were always uneasy with the use of the word 'Allah' for God the Father, thinking of it as a term specific to the Muslim understanding of their faith.

Even when they learned that Arab Christians used the term well before the inception of Islam in the 7th century of the Common Era (this marking of dates used to be rendered as AD for Anno Domini which means the year of the Lord), they were reluctant to use it.

But being members of a hierarchical church - and thereby conditioned to obey what the hierarchy decides on matters of faith - they confined their misgivings to murmurs among their peers.

The doubters conceded, however, that having been educated in the English language, they lacked appreciation of the need for the use of the term 'Allah' by Catholic kids whose entire schooling in Bahasa meant that the only biblical texts they could comprehend were the Bahasa Indonesia editions, Al-Kitab, where the term 'Allah' is freely used for God the Father.

Now this party of the uneasy, watching the current attempt by some quarters to stir Muslims to anxiety over last week's High Court decision, are rueful over their stance of acquiescence in the hierarchy's decision to seek judicial review of the Home Ministry's proscription.

A man after the Catholics' own heart

It must be said that this section of the Catholic faithful have for some time since written off the Umno-led BN as irredeemably corrupt.

In the corresponding period they watched with great expectation, tempered by a little trepidation, the battle between the liberal and conservative wings of PAS, hoping, praying even, that the liberals would triumph.

Shah Alam PAS MP Khalid Samad's visit to a Catholic church in his constituency, in the aftermath of the March 2008 general election, was interpreted by these self-same Catholics as a momentous event, the beginnings of hope for a concordat between activists of both faiths in quest of higher standards of morality in Malaysian public life.

Khalid is now, arguably, the favourite PAS politician of Catholics, more so after he came out in support of the High Court decision.

Regarded as faintly reprobate by some Muslims, the widely read Khalid, a man with an admirably determined belief in persuasion through reasoned argument, is perhaps keenly aware of medieval history when Christian bewilderment about the Trinity and the hypostatic nature of Christ paved the way for Islam's spread at an electrifying pace.

Catholics viewing last week's favourable court decision with a sense of vindication would be well advised to mull the thought that nothing is exempt from the law of unintended consequences.

A deeper grasp of that law would lead to the view that life, that history, is tragic, a dimension that tends to be left out from abstract approaches to human affairs.

Alfred North Whitehead, a mathematician, observed, the "inner feeling belonging to the grasp of the service of tragedy is peace - the purification of emotions."

Christians recognise this as the peace that transcends all understanding.

SOURCE: http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/121244

Marina Mahathir: Confident People Do Not Get Confused

Confident People Do Not Get Confused

I found by chance this article the other day:

Prophet Muhammad’s Promise to Christians

The document is not a modern human rights treaty but even thought it was penned in 628 A.D. it clearly protects the right to property, freedom of religion, freedom of work, and security of the person, says Muqtedar Khan.

Muslims and Christians together constitute over fifty percent of the world and if they lived in peace, we will be half way to world peace. One small step that we can take towards fostering Muslim-Christian harmony is to tell and retell positive stories and abstain from mutual demonization.

In this article I propose to remind both Muslims and Christians about a promise that Prophet Muhammed (pbuh) made to Christians. The knowledge of this promise can have enormous impact on Muslim conduct towards Christians. Muslims generally respect the precedent of their Prophet and try to practice it in their lives.


In 628 AD, a delegation from St. Catherine’s Monastery came to Prophet Muhammed and requested his protection. He responded by granting them a charter of rights, which I reproduce below in its entirety. St. Catherine’s Monastery is located at the foot of Mt. Sinai and is the world’s oldest monastery. It possesses a huge collection of Christian manuscripts, second only to the Vatican, and is a world heritage site. It also boasts the oldest collection of Christian icons. It is a treasure house of Christian history that has remained safe for 1400 years under Muslim protection.


The Promise to St. Catherine:

"This is a message from Muhammad ibn Abdullah, as a covenant to those who adopt Christianity, near and far, we are with them.
Verily I, the servants, the helpers, and my followers defend them, because Christians are my citizens; and by God! I hold out against anything that displeases them.
No compulsion is to be on them. Neither are their judges to be removed from their jobs nor their monks from their monasteries. No one is to destroy a house of their religion, to damage it, or to carry anything from it to the Muslims' houses.
Should anyone take any of these, he would spoil God's covenant and disobey His Prophet. Verily, they are my allies and have my secure charter against all that they hate.
No one is to force them to travel or to oblige them to fight. The Muslims are to fight for them. If a female Christian is married to a Muslim, it is not to take place without her approval. She is not to be prevented from visiting her church to pray. Their churches are to be respected. They are neither to be prevented from repairing them nor the sacredness of their covenants.
No one of the nation (Muslims) is to disobey the covenant till the Last Day (end of the world)."

The first and the final sentence of the charter are critical. They make the promise eternal and universal. Muhammed asserts that Muslims are with Christians near and far straight away rejecting any future attempts to limit the promise to St. Catherine alone. By ordering Muslims to obey it until the Day of Judgment the charter again undermines any future attempts to revoke the privileges. These rights are inalienable. Muhammed declared Christians, all of them, as his allies and he equated ill treatment of Christians with violating God’s covenant.

A remarkable aspect of the charter is that it imposes no conditions on Christians for enjoying its privileges. It is enough that they are Christians. They are not required to alter their beliefs, they do not have to make any payments and they do not have any obligations. This is a charter of rights without any duties!

The document is not a modern human rights treaty but even thought it was penned in 628 A.D. it clearly protects the right to property, freedom of religion, freedom of work, and security of the person.

I know most readers, must be thinking so what? Well the answer is simple. Those who seek to foster discord among Muslims and Christians focus on issues that divide and emphasize areas of conflict. But when resources such as Muhammad’s promise to Christians are invoked and highlighted it builds bridges. It inspires Muslims to rise above communal intolerance and engenders good will in Christians who might be nursing fear of Islam or Muslims.

When I look at Islamic sources, I find in them unprecedented examples of religious tolerance and inclusiveness. They make me want to become a better person. I think the capacity to seek good and do good inheres in all of us. When we subdue this predisposition towards the good, we deny our fundamental humanity. In this holiday season, I hope all of us can find time to look for something positive and worthy of appreciation in the values, cultures and histories of other peoples.

Dr. Muqtedar Khan is Director of Islamic Studies at the University of Delaware and a fellow of the Institute for Social Policy and Understanding.

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

Now, when that delegation from St Catherine's monastery came to meet with Prophet Mohamad (pbuh), I suppose it's fair to assume that they spoke Arabic to one another. And when they were conversing, surely the word 'God' must have come up. As in "May God Be With You" and such like. What word did the Prophet (pbuh) use for 'God' I wonder? And what did the St Catherinians use in return? For monotheists like them, was there a 'your God' and 'my God' type of situation, or did they understand that they were both talking about the same One?

While some idiots are mourning over the 'loss' of the word 'Allah' and therefore basically telling the world that they are people easily confused by nomenclature, and others are predicting riots over  what is basically a 'copyright' issue, let me define what I think a confident Muslim should be:

1. A confident Muslim is unfazed by the issue of God's name. God speaks to all of humankind in the Quran and never said that only Muslims could call him by the name Allah.

2. A confident Muslim has 99 names to choose from to describe that One God. My favourites are Ar-Rahman (The All-Compassionate) and Ar-Rahim (The All-Merciful).

3. A confident Muslim never gets confused over which is his/her religion and which is other people's. For instance, a confident Muslim knows exactly what the first chapter of the Quran is. And it's not the Lord's Prayer.

4. A confident Muslim will not walk into a church, hear a liturgy in Malay or Arabic where they use the word 'Allah' and then think that he or she is in a mosque. A confident Muslim knows the difference.

5. A confident Muslim is generous, inclusive and doesn't think that his or her brethren is made exclusive through the use of a single language. The confident Muslim is well aware that in the Middle East, all  services of ANY religion are in Arabic because that's what they all speak.

6. A confident Muslim knows the basis of his/her faith are the five pillars of Islam and will not be shaken just because other people call God by the same name.

7. A Muslim believes in only One God. Therefore it makes sense that other people should call God by the same name because there is no other God.

 ART THOU NOT aware that it is God whose limit­less glory all [creatures] that are in the heavens and on earth extol, even the birds as they spread out their wings? Each [of them] knows indeed how to pray unto Him and to glorify Him; and God has full knowledge of all that they do:(Surah Nour, Verse 41) (Asad)

So I would ask those people demonstrating against the Court decision, have you no pride? Are you saying you're easily confused?  

And before anyone says I have no qualifications to say these things, read what Dr Asri Zainal Abidin (who does have qualifications no matter what JAIS says) has written about this very subject here.

And here's something interesting.  In 2007, the Majlis Agama Negeri Perlis, which is a large majlis filled with people very learned in Islamic religious knowledge, discussed the question of the use of 'Allah' by non-Muslims. Their unanimous decision? They issued a fatwa to say that there is absolutely nothing wrong with non-Muslims using the word at all.(This was told to me by Dr. Asri but I cannot find the fatwa anywhere online because all the religious departments' websites are so useless.)

Are we now going to excommunicate the whole of Perlis?

Why is your Allah not my Allah?

Why is your Allah not my Allah?

Erna Mahyuni
Jan 6, 10
10:22am

comment As an East Malaysian, I am neither surprised nor angry about Malay/Muslims being up in arms over the 'Allah' High Court ruling.

It was to be expected, really.

What does anger me is getting comments from West Malaysian Christians that it is 'silly' for Christians to lobby to use the word 'Allah'.

One rather un-enlightened Christian said that "Allah is also a word used to describe one particular god in a pagan religion...so for Christians to use 'Allah' is strange and silly."

The whole 'Allah' debacle highlights a bigger, more endemic problem in the Malaysian, or should I say West Malaysian mentality: General ignorance of how the 'others' or 'lain-lain' live.

It seems very hard for most West Malaysians to understand that:

• Not all bumiputeras are Malay.

• Not all bumiputeras are Muslim.

It isn't just West Malaysian Muslims who have a very limited worldview but Christians as well.

They don't understand that in East Malaysia, with its high population of indigenous Christians, Bahasa Malaysia is used in services.

Most of these Sabahan and Sarawakian Christians have spent their whole lives thinking, praying and referring to their God as Allah Bapa (Father God).

And now the government says they can't. That only Muslims can use the word 'Allah' when that isn't true in other countries.

Look at Indonesia, the country with the largest Muslim population in the world, which allows the printing and dissemination of bibles in Bahasa Indonesia that refer to God not as 'Tuhan' but as 'Allah'.

The Indonesian Muslims don't worry that their brethren will be 'confused' by these bibles. So why is our Home Ministry and all these religious groups up in arms?

The answer to that is politics. Religion is, unfortunately, something as mixed up with politics as is race. Political parties unabashedly use religion as a tool to win debates, with Umno often accused of trying to 'out-Islam' PAS.

Religion is not a private matter in this country and is, instead, aired like so much dirty laundry. What other Southeast Asian country has officially sanctioned civilian peeping Toms who consider it their civic duty to weed out fornication?

Malay is our language, too

Despite the many varied ethnicities in Sabah, they have managed to get along without bloodshed or May 13-like incidents.

How have we managed it when West Malaysia's three main races mostly give each other a wide berth? It's called tolerance, people.

All Sabahans speak a slightly modified version of Malay with the funny little suffix 'bah' tagged behind a lot of words or sentences.

In rural areas, this heavily-accented version of Malay is the only means for most people to communicate with each other. They speak, think, dream and yes, even pray in the language.

Sabahan Michelle Quek asks: "Is it more important to recognise that some Muslims lay claim to the word as being exclusive to their faith, or recognise that a practical need for the word exists for East Malaysian Christians?"

Her question embodies the difficult balancing act that Malaysia has in attempting to address the needs of its varied peoples as well as the gulf between East and West Malaysia.

Kavin Ch'ng, who is married to a Sabahan says that locally, for many generations, Malay-speaking Christians have always referred to Allah and Tuhan in the same breath.

"Why only now does the government kick up such a fuss?" he asks. What is important, Ch'ng says, is mutual respect.

"I think there is a way to co-exist - if only our government can actually wrap its head around the concept of context."

Sarawakian El'Bornean finds it disturbing that West Malaysians now want to dictate how one's personal faith is practiced.

"The true Malaysians are here in Sabah and Sarawak," he says, citing examples of his Muslim friends who have no qualms sitting with friends in non-halal stores and visiting churches.

Despite being surrounded by Christians, East Malaysian Muslims do not consider their faith easily shaken, he asserts.

Sabahan Dusun Zara Kahan has a humorous, if facetious, solution.

"If (some) Muslims insist on ownership of the term 'Allah' then Christians must do the same with the term 'Tuhan'. Do you know how many Hari Raya songs will be in jeopardy? End of issue!"

No, we don't want to convert you

In West Malaysia, technically Christian worship services in Malay are illegal. But Sabahan and Sarawakian students ask for them anyway.

Many of these Malay-speaking East Malaysians feel uncomfortable attending worship services in English because the terms are unfamiliar. Muslims often cite the 99 names of Allah and for Christians in East Malaysia as well as Lebanon and Syria, Allah is their name for God.

All this talk about 'confusion' is really the product of West Malaysians not mixing with their East Malaysian brethren.

If you visit the Dusuns in Ranau, you could well meet locals as fair as highland Chinese with slanted eyes who would greet you with the traditional Muslim salam.

Wander into an East Malaysian Chinese coffee shop and you would see tanned, Malay-looking locals happily digging into char siew or other pork dishes

In East Malaysia, you can't easily tell what faith someone professes or what race his forefathers were just by looking.

This is very disturbing to the West Malaysian psyche. I have met West Malaysians who get very agitated when I refuse to tell them either what religion I profess or what race I am.

They don't know what to do with me because they can't categorise me. I don't fit into their safe little boxes which decide how they will treat me.

What annoys me as well is this West Malaysian paranoia that Christians have a secret ongoing campaign to convert Muslims on the sly.

Let us be honest. If converting Muslims to Christianity was as easy as pouring holy water into your drinking water or putting the word 'Allah' in all available religious literature, the Pope would have sanctioned it years ago.

Christians don't get 'brownie points' by forcibly converting unwilling Muslims.

I suppose all the Malay-looking Christian East Malaysians really confuse the locals to the point they rabidly proclaim that churches are succeeding in their nefarious campaign to take over Muslim souls.

In East Malaysia, Christians and Muslims come in various sizes, shapes and colours. Even huge extended families often have different religions, sometimes staying under one roof.

It is not unusual for an East Malaysian to have not just Christian, but Buddhist, Muslim and animist relatives. A friend of mine says it is a convenient excuse to celebrate the many public holidays with more gusto.

When told that someone is marrying a person of another race, the common reaction is: "Oh, your kids will be cute!" No heated discussion about traditions or religious differences because the unspoken assumption is that the couple will work them out.

Because they do.

Be Malaysia, not 1Malaysia

A well-known comedian talked about the recent Al-Islam undercover foray into churches. Its so-called investigative journalists entered churches on false premises and desecrated the communion wafer.

Did the Christians protest? asked the comedian. Did they declare bloody war? Did they have angry sermons and plan noisy demonstrations outside churches on Sunday?

No. What did the Christians say? "Forgive them-lor. Pray for them-lor."

The comedian mused that the incident was actually excellent public relations for the church.

Despite our annoyance with West Malaysian intolerance, do you see East Malaysians picketing?

We gripe, we grumble, we send politely worded statements. Yet we still believe in the Malaysia that our Tourism Ministry tries to sell, but which seems to be a myth in West Malaysia.

Do you want to know why? Deep in the heart of most East Malaysians, we truly believe in tolerance. We believe in the ideals of Malaysia.

We don't have to give 'muhibbah' a name because we live it. Since 1963, we have lived as Malaysians, believing in true tolerance and that race or religion matters little.

We truly do believe that West Malaysians can and should get over us using 'Allah' to worship God. Isn't Allah the God of all mankind? Isn't your Malaysia our Malaysia too?

Erna Mahyuni, a Sabahan, is a Malaysiakini team member.

MySinChew: Allah can’t be substituted with Tuhan in Bible translation — Dr Ng Kam Weng

Allah can’t be substituted with Tuhan in Bible translation — Dr Ng Kam Weng

JAN 6 — Muslims in other parts of the world (Arabs, Persians, North Africans, Pakistanis and Indonesians) have no objection and are not worried about getting confused when Christians using the word “Allah”. In contrast, some Malaysian Muslims claim to be confused; a strange phenomenon indeed.

This observation lends credence to the suggestion that the Allah issue is an artificial Malay issue and not a genuine Muslim issue. The truth is that the current orchestrated protests against the recent High Court decision to allow the Catholic Herald (and Christians) to use the word Allah must be seen to be as cynical manipulations by Malay politicians to gain votes from their community.

I am more interested in going beyond these political manoeuvres. Politicians (and that includes government bureaucrats) are happy just to stay at the level of vague suggestions since they have no competence nor care to address real issues of translation. In contrast, Christians must ensure their arguments for the right to use the word Allah are based on concrete evidence supported by a coherent linguistic philosophy of translation of Scripture.

One major demand from the Malay protestors is that Christians stop using the word Allah on grounds that Christians can find a simple alternative, that is, simply substitute the word Allah with the word Tuhan. Unfortunately, this demand only betrays the ignorance of the protestors.

I would have thought that any Malay would know that the meaning of the words Allah (God) and Tuhan (Lord, Rabb) are not the same. How can they suggest that Christians simply use the word Tuhan to substitute the word Allah? To express the issue linguistically, Allah and Tuhan have different senses even though they have the same reference.

Both the terms Allah and Tuhan are used in the Malay Bible. Following the precedent set by Arab Christians, Allah is used to translate el/elohim and Tuhan (or TUHAN in caps) is used to translate Yahweh (YHWH). The two words are sometimes paired together as Yahweh-Elohim in 372 places in the Old Testament (14 times in Genesis 2-3; 4 times in Exodus; 8 times in Joshua; 7 times in 2 Samuel; 22 times in Chronicles; 12 times in Psalms; 32 times in Isaiah; 16 times in Jeremiah and 210 times in Ezekiel, etc.).

More importantly, the word Tuhan is also applied to Jesus Christ in the New Testament. Thus we read of the LORD Jesus as Tuhan Yesus (The word LORD was used to translate the word kurios 8,400 times in the Septuagint, the Greek version of the Old Testament. It refers to human beings in only 400 times and refers to God 8,000 times. Of these 8,000 times, 6,700 are substitute for the word YHWH). The transference of the title kurios LORD/YHWH to Jesus Christ is testimony to the belief in the deity of Christ right at the beginning of Christianity.

This simple statistical survey shows clearly that the demand by Muslim demonstrators that Christians simply substitute the word Allah with Tuhan is unreasonable since it renders many Biblical references to God and Jesus Christ incoherent. First, the substitution is incorrect since the meaning of Allah and Tuhan are different.

Second, it creates an absurd situation when Christians try to translate the paired words Tuhan Allah (LORD God). Are Christians now required to call the LORD God, Tuhan Tuhan? This sounds like committing linguistic redundancy. Worse still, the repeated words Tuhan Tuhan come across to Malay readers as suggesting that Christians believe in a plurality of Lords/Gods (since the plural form in Malay is expressed by repeating the noun and setting them in apposition).

Finally, Christians are unable to express the Lordship of Jesus Christ as one who is distinct from the Father and yet shares with the God of the Old Testament, the name that is above every other name — kurios/Tuhan (Philippians 2:9, cf. Isaiah 45:23). In other words, Christians are rendered unable to affirm the deity of Jesus Christ and teach the doctrine of Trinity without the foundational words that maintain the semantic relationship between the words Allah and Tuhan as they are applied distinctively in the Malay Bible.

Christians in Malaysia would do their utmost to maintain religious harmony in Malaysia. Indeed, the Christianity community has made many concessions to accommodate the concerns of the Malay community.
 
However, it cannot accept the demand that it abandons the use of the word Allah and adopts the word Tuhan as the substitute simply because some ill-informed Malays take offence at their practice — an offence which would not have arisen if only these people set aside emotions and prejudices and examine the historical and linguistic evidence in a calm and rational manner. At the very least, Malays (or rather Muslims) should understand that believers are not at liberty to change the meaning of their Scriptures, the word of God, to satisfy the unfounded scruples of man.
 
Postscript
I refer readers to the accompanying post, “Translating the Names of God” published in the learned journal (The Bible Translator) that gives more concrete examples of how the names of God are translated in the Malay Bible.

The article also discusses the controversy among some scholars on how words Allah and Tuhan should be used in the revision of Shellabear’s version of the Malay Bible. In any case, all the scholars in the controversy agree that Christians need to use both the words Allah and Tuhan in the Malay Bible. Please note that the article is reproduced (partially) with permission from the author Dr D Soesilo. — mysinchew.com

Malaysiakini: 'Allah' row: Who is threatening whom?

'Allah' row: Who is threatening whom?

Dr Lim Teck Ghee
Jan 6, 10
6:19pm

The Dec 31 High Court ruling reversing a Home Ministry ban on the use of the word 'Allah' for the Catholic weekly newsletter 'Herald' in its Bahasa Malaysia section appears to have given the religious hardliners the perfect New Year present to continue their crude campaign aimed at fanning Islamic religious sentiments in the country.
Malaysians – those not religiously affiliated to Catholicism or Islam – are wondering if the extremist reaction by Utusan Malaysia and its fellow travellers serves any purpose, especially since the prime minister has assured that the government is aware of the sensitivities of Muslims, and called for calm and for the matter to be resolved through the court process.

Below is an example of what Utusan has been feeding the Malay public (from Utusan Malaysia, Jan 3).

Starting from the banner splashed across its front page and items filling up pages two, four and five, the paper ran headlines and opinions ranging from 'Court does not respect sensitivities of Muslims'; to inexplicably calling for the civil case to be heard in Syariah Court; to appealing for Muslim unity; suggesting for the Religious Affairs Department to act as intervener in the court process; and beseeching intervention by the Council of Malay Rulers.

The tally of 16 news articles does not include other lengthy op-eds in the middle pages about the mission to defend Islam, including one by Dr Mohd Ridhuan Tee Abdullah. The flagship Utusan editorial by Awang Selamat invoked Perak Mufti Harussani Zakaria's claim that 'all these happen due to the weaknesses and disunity of Muslims'.

Playing Cassandra, Awang Selamat proclaimed that the Malay 'discord and foolhardiness in politics, has pushed Islam to the corner', and added, 'It is embarrassing that Islamic parties cannot unite in ensuring the survival of Islam'. He laid the blame at the door of 'certain liberal- thinking leaders in PAS like Khalid Samad, who is a great supporter of the use of the term 'Allah' by other religions'.

In what is probably the single most fear-mongering statement made by a newspaperman, Awang Selamat made the absolutely ridiculous claim that 'status quo Islam di Malaysia boleh berubah bila-bila masa kerana angkara pemimpin Islam sendiri' (the status quo of Islam in Malaysia can change at any time because of Muslim leaders themselves).

My other distinct impression is that Utusan and the racial and religious hardliners aligned to it – and that appears to include Dr Mahathir Mohamad – are spoiling for a fight. They should not and will not get a fight. What they are getting instead is reasoned and calm arguments on why this issue should not be blown out of proportion.

According to 'Herald' editor Father Lawrence Andrew, Christian natives in Borneo have been using the term 'Allah' for 400 years and clearly long before Sabah and Sarawak agreed to merge with the peninsula. Hence, it is quite simply a matter of language and terminology which has nothing to do whatsoever with the ridiculous suspicions and concerns of backdoor conversions and worse that are now being bandied about.

Sane and sensible Malaysians following the ugly and pugnacious words coming from the extremist side must be wondering how in God's name could Muslims perceive that there is a threat to Islam in Malaysia given Malay and Muslim dominance in almost all sectors of the body polity.

According to the Catholic Hierarchy organization, there are about 784,000 Catholics in our country of 24.74 million or 3.17% of the total population. Can anyone believe that such a tiny minority of the country's population could threaten the position of Islam in Malaysia or undermine the Islamic faith?

Mahathir, from whom one would expect a higher sense of public responsibility, has been reported to have said that he is concerned that the term 'Allah' may be used in such a way that could inflame the anger of Muslims, or in his own words, 'they may use it on banners or write something that might not reflect Islam'. This is a statement that stoops so low that it is almost beyond belief that it could have come from a former prime minister.

Surely the ex-prime minister is aware that not only are there 13.37 million Muslims in the country or 52% of the population of 25.72 million if the latest 'CIA World Fact Book' is to be believed. The primacy of the position of Islam is fully guaranteed both through Islam's status as the religion of the federation enshrined in the constitution, and the position of the Yang Di Pertuan Agong and Malay state rulers as heads of the religion.

If he is not, then other Muslims in the country should tell 'Utusan', Mahathir and others of similar ilk how confident and secure they feel about their religion in the face of this 'historic' and 'unprecedented' threat from non-Muslims.

The real threat to Islam is in the feverish minds of the extremists rushing to prove their 'purer' Islamic credentials. If they can purge themselves of these imagined furies, we will all be able to sleep more peacefully in Malaysia.

Art Harun's Take on Materialistic Malaysia--soulless, valueless, honourless...

Below is Art Harun's piece. 

 

He's a lawyer. He writes very well. What he says about Malaysian society these days is very true, in my opinion as well. For that matter, it can apply throughout the world. All materialistic sadly.  

 

Tuesday, December 22, 2009

 

Ladies and gentlemen, and the award goes to.....

The theft of not one, but TWO F5-E fighter jet engines from the Royal Malaysian Air Farce, eh sorry, Air Force,  perhaps aptly defines the year 2009 as far as Malaysia (1 or otherwise) is concerned.

The absurdity of it all. And not to mention the audacity of it all. And as if to further add sodium chloride to the wide gaping wounds that all of us, Malaysians, suffer every time our so called leaders forget to take their medications, we are told that so and so have been sacked or told to leave their job, some even earning pensions and whatever.

First it was some plastic explosives being taken out from the storage to blow to smithereens some poor woman from far away lands, whose entry into Malaysia was erased from record. Just like that. As if C4 explosives from the people who are supposed to protect our country are just some cheap chewing gum which could be taken by anybody, at any time, for whatever reason. As if Immigration records are notations made on some scrap book which could be altered, amended or erased by anybody, at any time and for whatever reason.

 

And nobody even shake their butts to do anything. No report. No investigation. No blinking nothing. Just like that.

 

At the same time, the public has to endure living in fear of crimes. We have to keep even our rubbish bins in locks and chains. Our drainage cover has to be welded lest it will be stolen in bright day light. Our roads and lanes have instant holes as the sewage covers are stolen. The women can't even walk on the side of our roads for fear of being dragged to their death by handbag snatchers.

 

Nowhere is safe. Not even in the police lock-ups, as Kugan found out the hard way. Not at the MACC office either, if reports of torture and even death are to be believed. Meanwhile, those upon whom are entrusted the duty to protect us are busy tracing individuals like Raja Petra Kamarudin, who apparently had so insulted Islam that he was, and still is, deemed to be a threat to national security. Even then, with all the might and powers of the State behind them, they are not able to trace him!

 

If RPK had insulted Islam, what about those who had walked after Friday prayers with bloodied and severed cow head with the policemen standing by the side doing nothing for fear of "making the situation worse"? Haven't they insulted Islam? What about those who said non-Malays are second class citizens? And those who wrote that the Kelings are so lucky to be in Malaysia that they should just shut up and count their blessings? Oh well, they are given a pat on their shoulder because the newspaper they wrote for is the "voice of the people".

 

And at the same time, billions are squandered, pillaged and stolen. PKFZ have become really dirty alphabets. And what do we all get? Yes. We get engineers, architects and some minions charged for falsifying claims and the likes. Now, the questions are, were all those false claims paid? If so,why? And who are the beneficiaries of those payments? Who authorised those payments? Aren't they guilty of something too? Elsewhere we are the masters of sloganeering and self-glorification. We shout and scream 1 Malaysia at every possible instant and opportunity. Why? Even our mandatory "salam" has been reviewed to "Salam Satu Malaysia".

 

We have become, or been reduced to, a society which is shallow. Which is no deeper than our skin and the colour of it. We are obsessed with some drama actress becoming the second wife of a Member of Parliament who ironically declared that women "leaked" once a month. Never mind the FDIs. Never mind the proposed GST. Never mind the Copenhagen Conference failing to reach any kind of tangible consensus on climate control. Never mind. Because we are a society who love celebrities and their weddings. And divorce too.

 

An old Professor of mine remarked something profound to me over tea some months ago. After leaving Malaysia for Japan for so many years, he observed that Japan had gone through a period of extreme physical and material transformations. Coming back to Malaysia briefly after some years, he also noted that Malaysia had achieved so much physical and material transformations, just like Japan.

 

But there is one marked difference. Japan and her people have not seen their values and honour change. Their values and old aged honour are still part of their society. They still know their responsibilities. Their duty to account. They still possess a deep sense of honour. And all that despite their physical and material achievements.

 

Malaysia and her people, according to him, have lost their sense of honour. We have changed our values. We are now measured not by our honesty, honour and sense of responsibility. We are now measured by the location of our house and mansions; by the Cayennes, X6 and whatever road going behemoth  that we drive; by how much  power we could wield to bend the rules and laws in our favour;  by how much favour we could call our friends in high places to do us. And of course by the trophy wives and girl friends (and vice versa) who are seen beside us with the obligatory gold and diamond crusted watch, LV handbag and Blahnik shoes.

 

Because that is what we are now. How we acquire those material possessions is not important. The question is what we do possess.

 

We are a society which is almost bereft of any spiritual and moral guidance. As if whatever is fair is foul and foul is fair. As if the very fabric of our existence has changed. And for worse, that is. It is little wonder that two whole jet engines could be stolen from our royal air force. It is a right royal embarrassment, by any count. But what do we care? They are old engines. We could buy thousands more. We have the money. We have oil and gas which we plunder from some states without compensation. And the persons whom we think are responsible for this shameful, dastardly and treasonous act have left.

 

Never mind any criminal offence which have quite obviously been committed by these people. They have after all been punished by being told to quietly leave. That was what we did to Ahmad Ismail, remember? And Isa Samad, remember? We dealt with them internally. They have served their sentence. And they, as everybody else, deserve a second, or even a third, chance. Why? Even Anwar Ibrahim, a convicted criminal, is now a Member of Parliament.

 

And so we are told that we do have a fool-proof system which would ensure these kinds of things do not happen. But is this system fool-proof? Because if it is not, then there will always be some fools who can't even operate within a fool-proof system. That is quite obvious.

 

And so we are told that there will not be a cover up. Yes, we, the people expect that there will be no cover up. But of course what constitute a "cover-up" is subject to interpretation, isn't it? Like "we will not discuss it ever because the matter concerns national security". Is that a cover up? Or "we cannot charge them because matters concerning national security should not be discussed in open Courts". Is that a cover-up? Or "we can only charge them behind closed doors because the matter concerns national security". Is that a cover-up?

 

And we are left to wonder how it all happens. And why did it take a full year before the whole magical act was discovered by our ever vigilant military who is supposed to protect our nation from rogues countries, evil terrorists, Islam-insulting individuals scum of the Earth and hell and Ketuanan Melayu evil objectors who really should just go back to wherever they came from (never mind the fact that these people were born in this country). And quite why it takes another full year before this event is made known to all of us, the stupid, gullible and irrelevant stakeholders of the military? Well, never mind. We will tell you what we think is relevant. And at the most opportune moment as deemed by us.

 

Would it be a severe case of paranoia if we, the people, start to wonder what else has been stolen from our military? Like our defence strategy? Or tactical blueprint? After all, these are sensitive and highly protected secrets (or supposed to be). Remember what they said in Parliament when questions were raised as to why there was no open tender for the submarines that we bought? It was said that open tenders should not be called because that will expose our national security matters unnecessarily. Oh well, why must we worry. We still have our submarines.