Predictably, Umno president Datuk Seri Najib Razak delivered a fierce and highly-charged speech at the opening of the party's general assembly in PWTC this morning.
Firing the troops for war, as it were.
His voice was two decibles higher, I think.
Umno must win and be given the mandate to lead. In order to do that it has to be strong. So let's cut the chase -- stop all this politicking and sabotaging. Step in line, be disciplined, be loyal
if you want to win this war.
The dynamics and demographics of Malaysia has changed -- so Umno has got to win the hearts and minds of not just the Malays but the non-Malays -- the rural and urban rakyat. The young. The fence sitters and the new 2.9 million new voters.
Umno is the rakyat's champion and together with its coalition partners -- is the choice for a better future for the rakyat,
It was not lost on so many people when the secretary-general (who spoke just before Najib) ended his speech with "Hidup Umno, Hidup Barisan, Hidup Malaysia!".
And then the party president ended on the same note.
My imagination, perhaps. But didn't it use to have "Hidup Melayu" in the past?
He certainly set the tone.
Here is the full text of Najib's speech..
Thursday, November 29, 2012
Wednesday, November 28, 2012
Umno's Biggest Challenge..
THE Umno general assembly this time will be the last before the general election. I'm saying it because analysts said the same thing of the party general assembly last year. But there was no general election.
This assembly is therefore crucial. Umno president Datuk Seri Najib Razak has already made it clear ahead of the assembly that Umno has to show not only to the Malays but the rest of the country that it is stronger and more solid now to face the general election.
"What is this general assembly about? Simple, it is about the general election and it is about making sure Umno remains in power," a senior Umno leader told this blogger...
Najib has been in full gear the past three years touring the country, going to the ground to meet the people and at the same time implementing the government and economic transformation programmes. Besides fulfilling his international engagements, including buttressing relations with the US in 2010.
This is the final home stretch for Umno. Now it is up to Umno delegates to take it up from there.
Some Umno leaders this blogger spoke to said they hoped the Umno president will be forthright in his address which will set the tone for the assembly,
"I think his forthrightness will be appreciated", said former Wanita Umno chief Tan Sri Rafidah Aziz.
"It is a bitter medicine that we have to swallow. At this time, he has to be cruel to be kind. For Umno, it is make or break. We have to regain our lost ground", she added.
In previous assemblies, the party president had always called for the party to close ranks, to be united, to put party interst above self and so forth.
After 1999, when the party faced losses in the general election, a recurring message had been reform reinvention, re-engineering, renewal, rejuvenation and revival.
Political observers and analysts had a field day making their assessments -- protest against Anwar Ibrahim's sacking, rejection of Umno by Malays and so forth.
But in 2004, Umno and the BN swept the general election with a landslide victory and increased popular votes.
This was after Tun (then Datuk Seri) Dr Mahathir passed the premiership to Tun (then Datuk Seri) Abdullah Ahmad Badawi.
Again analyses abound -- feel good factor, Pak Lah being the benign face of Umno, rejection of PAS Islam, endorsement of Umno's moderate brand of Islam, Pak Lah's promises to fight corruption and so forth,
BN won 198 of the 219 seats in parliamnent with Umno 109, increasing its number from the last elections. MCA and MIC too gained a few more seats.
PAS won only seven (Opposition leader Hadi Awang lost his parliamentary seat), DAP got 12 and Keadilan lost four of the five seats contested (Dr Wan Azizah Ismail was the sole Keadilan MP in parliament).
Then, four years on, it was a drastic change, a shocking scenario.
In 2008 general election which everyone calls a political tsunami, the BN lost five states. It won 140 of 222 parliamentary seats - (Umno 79, MCA 15, MIC 3 and Gerakan 2). Keadilan won 31, PAS 23 and DAP 28. With a total number of 82, they quickly cobbled up a "pakatan".
So many factors conspired to bring down the BN. Many said the oppositon won by default because the BN was arrogant, because of the son-in-law (Khairy Jamaluddin who is Pak Lah's son-in-law), Hindraf and so forth.
Whatever.
It is no different this time. Najib's message is for Umno to be stronger and more united. But circumstances are not the same.
After the devastation in 2008, it is not, and cannot be, business as usual for Umno although Umno, pointed out an observer, had always delivered. It is clearly the strongest component in the coalition.
"We are facing a different Malaysia. Umno cannot be rallying for the Malays only. It should appeal to the non-Malays as well. More so now, with MCA and MIC in a weakened position," said a senior Umno leader.
Najib has set the tone since he took over as PM and party president.
"He is the face of Umno and he is the face of the BN. He is a popular leader. Anywhere he goes, people support him. He has convinced people that he is the leader and the champion of Malays and non-Malays. If this were a prime ministerial race, he will win. But I cannot say the same about Umno," said a senior MCA leader.
The rest of the country will be keenly following -- as always -- proceedings in the Umno general assembly which begins on Thursday at the Putra World Trade centre in KL.
Malays and non-Malays will want to know what Umno is made up of, Has it reformed? Is it sensitive to changes in the country.
For one thing, Umno has got to convince the Malays-- who are so divided that it is the only party that can represent and protect their interests. And we're not talking just about rural Malays but also those in ubran areas.
For another, Umno has got to strike a balance -- promoting Malay interest but at the same time convincing non-Malays that it is also there for them. That is a just party for all.
"The history of Umno is one of inclusiveness, as evident since we achived independence when the Malay leaders invited the non-Malays to be part of the Malayan government in power-sharing and guaranteed their rights and interests.
"People have forgotten this and the opposition has exploited this and have kept smearing Umno with a racist label, relentlessly pushing that perception.
"This is the time for Umno to remind Malaysians that the party looks out not just for the Malays but everyone else, that proposals and propositions in the assembly translate to national policies for everyone's interest," said an Umno veteran.
Umno should be reminded of the 2006 general assembly when it for the first time it was telecast live.
Passionate debates on driving the Malay agenda spooked non-Malays who perceived them to be extremist.
All said and done, post assembly, Umno leaders and members have got to work hard for Umno to be returned to power and for the mandate from the rakyat.
They have to reach out to the people because that was how PAS, DAP and PKR did it in 2008.
This assembly is therefore crucial. Umno president Datuk Seri Najib Razak has already made it clear ahead of the assembly that Umno has to show not only to the Malays but the rest of the country that it is stronger and more solid now to face the general election.
"What is this general assembly about? Simple, it is about the general election and it is about making sure Umno remains in power," a senior Umno leader told this blogger...
Najib has been in full gear the past three years touring the country, going to the ground to meet the people and at the same time implementing the government and economic transformation programmes. Besides fulfilling his international engagements, including buttressing relations with the US in 2010.
This is the final home stretch for Umno. Now it is up to Umno delegates to take it up from there.
Some Umno leaders this blogger spoke to said they hoped the Umno president will be forthright in his address which will set the tone for the assembly,
"I think his forthrightness will be appreciated", said former Wanita Umno chief Tan Sri Rafidah Aziz.
"It is a bitter medicine that we have to swallow. At this time, he has to be cruel to be kind. For Umno, it is make or break. We have to regain our lost ground", she added.
In previous assemblies, the party president had always called for the party to close ranks, to be united, to put party interst above self and so forth.
After 1999, when the party faced losses in the general election, a recurring message had been reform reinvention, re-engineering, renewal, rejuvenation and revival.
Political observers and analysts had a field day making their assessments -- protest against Anwar Ibrahim's sacking, rejection of Umno by Malays and so forth.
But in 2004, Umno and the BN swept the general election with a landslide victory and increased popular votes.
This was after Tun (then Datuk Seri) Dr Mahathir passed the premiership to Tun (then Datuk Seri) Abdullah Ahmad Badawi.
Again analyses abound -- feel good factor, Pak Lah being the benign face of Umno, rejection of PAS Islam, endorsement of Umno's moderate brand of Islam, Pak Lah's promises to fight corruption and so forth,
BN won 198 of the 219 seats in parliamnent with Umno 109, increasing its number from the last elections. MCA and MIC too gained a few more seats.
PAS won only seven (Opposition leader Hadi Awang lost his parliamentary seat), DAP got 12 and Keadilan lost four of the five seats contested (Dr Wan Azizah Ismail was the sole Keadilan MP in parliament).
Then, four years on, it was a drastic change, a shocking scenario.
In 2008 general election which everyone calls a political tsunami, the BN lost five states. It won 140 of 222 parliamentary seats - (Umno 79, MCA 15, MIC 3 and Gerakan 2). Keadilan won 31, PAS 23 and DAP 28. With a total number of 82, they quickly cobbled up a "pakatan".
So many factors conspired to bring down the BN. Many said the oppositon won by default because the BN was arrogant, because of the son-in-law (Khairy Jamaluddin who is Pak Lah's son-in-law), Hindraf and so forth.
Whatever.
It is no different this time. Najib's message is for Umno to be stronger and more united. But circumstances are not the same.
After the devastation in 2008, it is not, and cannot be, business as usual for Umno although Umno, pointed out an observer, had always delivered. It is clearly the strongest component in the coalition.
"We are facing a different Malaysia. Umno cannot be rallying for the Malays only. It should appeal to the non-Malays as well. More so now, with MCA and MIC in a weakened position," said a senior Umno leader.
Najib has set the tone since he took over as PM and party president.
"He is the face of Umno and he is the face of the BN. He is a popular leader. Anywhere he goes, people support him. He has convinced people that he is the leader and the champion of Malays and non-Malays. If this were a prime ministerial race, he will win. But I cannot say the same about Umno," said a senior MCA leader.
The rest of the country will be keenly following -- as always -- proceedings in the Umno general assembly which begins on Thursday at the Putra World Trade centre in KL.
Malays and non-Malays will want to know what Umno is made up of, Has it reformed? Is it sensitive to changes in the country.
For one thing, Umno has got to convince the Malays-- who are so divided that it is the only party that can represent and protect their interests. And we're not talking just about rural Malays but also those in ubran areas.
For another, Umno has got to strike a balance -- promoting Malay interest but at the same time convincing non-Malays that it is also there for them. That is a just party for all.
"The history of Umno is one of inclusiveness, as evident since we achived independence when the Malay leaders invited the non-Malays to be part of the Malayan government in power-sharing and guaranteed their rights and interests.
"People have forgotten this and the opposition has exploited this and have kept smearing Umno with a racist label, relentlessly pushing that perception.
"This is the time for Umno to remind Malaysians that the party looks out not just for the Malays but everyone else, that proposals and propositions in the assembly translate to national policies for everyone's interest," said an Umno veteran.
Umno should be reminded of the 2006 general assembly when it for the first time it was telecast live.
Passionate debates on driving the Malay agenda spooked non-Malays who perceived them to be extremist.
All said and done, post assembly, Umno leaders and members have got to work hard for Umno to be returned to power and for the mandate from the rakyat.
They have to reach out to the people because that was how PAS, DAP and PKR did it in 2008.
Friday, November 23, 2012
Truce In Gaza
After eight days of fighting --punishing Israeli airstrikes on Gaza and a barrage of Hamas
rocket fire on Israel -- a ceasefire was invoked.
So far 161 Palestinians, including 71 civilians, 37 of whom were children, were killed. Thousands others were injured.
On the Israeli side, two soldiers and four civilians, were killed and dozens others wounded by rockets fired into residential neighbourhoods.
So far five Israelis and 162 Palestinians including 37 children children were killed. Thousands of Palestinians were injured.
But how long the Egyptian-brokered truce will last remains to be seen. But for now, let's hope everyone abides by the truce.
Wednesday, November 21, 2012
It Is Not A War. It Is Murder...
says author Noam Chomsky
Prof. Noam Chomsky
November 17, 2012
(WASHINGTON DC) - The following statement by Noam Chomsky indicates a different stand toward Israeli aggression than Prof. Chomsky has revealed in the past:
"The incursion and bombardment of Gaza is not about destroying Hamas. It is not about stopping rocket fire into Israel, it is not about achieving peace.
The Israeli decision to rain death and destruction on Gaza, to use lethal weapons of the modern battlefield on a largely defenseless civilian population, is the final phase in a decades-long campaign to ethnically-cleanse Palestinians.
Israel uses sophisticated attack jets and naval vessels to bomb densely-crowded refugee camps, schools, apartment blocks, mosques, and slums to attack a population that has no air force, no air defense, no navy, no heavy weapons, no artillery units, no mechanized armor, no command in control, no army… and calls it a war.
It is not a war, it is murder.
When Israelis in the occupied territories now claim that they have to defend themselves, they are defending themselves in the sense that any military occupier has to defend itself against the population they are crushing. You can't defend yourself when you're militarily occupying someone else's land. That's not defense. Call it what you like, it's not defense.”
Chomsky Statement on Israel's War on Gaza
Prof. Noam Chomsky
November 17, 2012
(WASHINGTON DC) - The following statement by Noam Chomsky indicates a different stand toward Israeli aggression than Prof. Chomsky has revealed in the past:
"The incursion and bombardment of Gaza is not about destroying Hamas. It is not about stopping rocket fire into Israel, it is not about achieving peace.
The Israeli decision to rain death and destruction on Gaza, to use lethal weapons of the modern battlefield on a largely defenseless civilian population, is the final phase in a decades-long campaign to ethnically-cleanse Palestinians.
Israel uses sophisticated attack jets and naval vessels to bomb densely-crowded refugee camps, schools, apartment blocks, mosques, and slums to attack a population that has no air force, no air defense, no navy, no heavy weapons, no artillery units, no mechanized armor, no command in control, no army… and calls it a war.
It is not a war, it is murder.
When Israelis in the occupied territories now claim that they have to defend themselves, they are defending themselves in the sense that any military occupier has to defend itself against the population they are crushing. You can't defend yourself when you're militarily occupying someone else's land. That's not defense. Call it what you like, it's not defense.”
Israel. Murderer.
Who is Doing the Killing in Gaza? Noam Chomsky and Others Challenge World's Media
By Noam Chomsky and others
(LONDON) - The degree of terror felt by ordinary
Palestinian civilians in Gaza is barely noticed in the media, in stark
contrast to the world's awareness of terrorised and shock-treated
Israeli citizens.
WHILE COUNTRIES across Europe and North America
commemorated military casualties of past and present wars on November
11, Israel was targeting civilians.
On November 12, waking up to a new week, readers at
breakfast were flooded with heart rending accounts of past and current
military casualties.
There was, however, no or little mention of the fact that the majority of casualties of modern day wars are civilians.
There was also hardly any mention on the morning of
November 12 of military attacks on Gaza that continued throughout the
weekend.
A cursory scan confirms this for Canada's CBC, Globe and Mail, Montreal's Gazette, and the Toronto Star. Equally, for the New York Times and for the BBC.
According to the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights (PCHR)
report on Sunday November 11, five Palestinian civilians including
three children had been killed in the Gaza strip in the previous 72
hours, in addition to two Palestinian security personnel.
Four of the deaths occurred as a result of Israeli
military firing artillery shells on youngsters playing soccer. Moreover,
52 civilians had been wounded, of which six were women and 12 were
children. (Since we began composing this text, the Palestinian death
toll has risen, and continues to rise.)
Articles that do report on the killings overwhelmingly focus on the killing of Palestinian security personnel. For example, an Associated Press article
published in the CBC world news on November 13, entitled 'Israel mulls
resuming targeted killings of Gaza militants,' mentions absolutely
nothing of civilian deaths and injuries. It portrays the killings as
'targeted assassinations.' The fact that casualties have overwhelmingly
been civilians indicates that Israel is not so much engaged in
"targeted" killings, as in "collective" killings, thus once again
committing the crime of collective punishment.
Another AP item on CBC news
from November 12 reads 'Gaza rocket fire raises pressure on Israel
government.' It features a photo of an Israeli woman gazing on a hole in
her living room ceiling.
Again, no images, nor mention of the numerous
bleeding casualties or corpses in Gaza. Along the same lines, a BBC headline
on November 12 reads 'Israel hit by fresh volley of rockets from Gaza.'
Similar trends can be illustrated for European mainstream papers.
News items overwhelmingly focus on the rockets that
have been fired from Gaza, none of which have caused human casualties.
What is not in focus are the shellings and bombardments on Gaza, which
have resulted in numerous severe and fatal casualties. It doesn't take
an expert in media science to understand that what we are facing is at
best shoddy and skewed reporting, and at worst willfully dishonest
manipulation of the readership.
Furthermore, articles that do mention the Palestinian
casualties in Gaza consistently report that Israeli operations are in
response to rockets from Gaza and to the injuring of Israeli soldiers.
However, the chronology of events of the recent flare-up began on November 5,
when an innocent, apparently mentally unfit, 20-year old man, Ahmad
al-Nabaheen, was shot when he wandered close to the border. Medics had
to wait for six hours to be permitted to pick him up and they suspect
that he may have died because of that delay.
Then, on November 8,
a 13-year-old boy playing football in front of his house was killed by
fire from the IOF that had moved into Gazan territory with tanks as well
as helicopters. The wounding of four Israeli soldiers at the border on
November 10 was therefore already part of a chain of events where Gazan
civilians had been killed, and not the triggering event.
We, the signatories, have recently returned from a
visit to the Gaza strip. Some among us are now connected to Palestinians
living in Gaza through social media. For two nights in a row
Palestinians in Gaza were prevented from sleeping through continued
engagement of drones, F16s, and indiscriminate bombings of various
targets inside the densely populated Gaza strip.
The intent of this is clearly to terrorise the
population, successfully so, as we can ascertain from our friends'
reports. If it was not for Facebook postings, we would not be aware of
the degree of terror felt by ordinary Palestinian civilians in Gaza.
This stands in stark contrast to the world's awareness of terrorised and
shock-treated Israeli citizens.
An extract of a report sent by a Canadian medic who
happened to be in Gaza and helped out in Shifa hospital ER over the
weekend says: "the wounded were all civilians with multiple puncture
wounds from shrapnel: brain injuries, neck injuries, hemo-pneumo thorax,
pericardial tamponade, splenic rupture, intestinal perforations,
slatted limbs, traumatic amputations. All of this with no monitors, few
stethoscopes, one ultrasound machine. …. Many people with serious but
non life threatening injuries were sent home to be re-assessed in the
morning due to the sheer volume of casualties. The penetrating shrapnel
injuries were spooky. Tiny wounds with massive internal injuries. …
There was very little morphine for analgesia."
Apparently such scenes are not newsworthy for the New York Times, the CBC, or the BBC.
Bias and dishonesty with respect to the oppression of
Palestinians is nothing new in Western media and has been widely
documented. Nevertheless, Israel continues its crimes against humanity
with full acquiescence and financial, military and moral support from
our governments, the U.S., Canada and the EU.
Netanyahu is currently garnering Western diplomatic
support for additional operations in Gaza, which makes us worry that
another Cast Lead may be on the horizon. In fact, the very recent events
are confirming such an escalation has already begun, as today's
death-count climbs. The lack of widespread public outrage at these
crimes is a direct consequence of the systematic way in which the facts
are withheld and/or of the skewed way these crimes are portrayed.
We wish to express our outrage at the reprehensible media coverage of these acts in the mainstream (corporate) media.
We call on journalists around the world working for
corporate media outlets to refuse to be instruments of this systematic
policy of disguise. We call on citizens to inform themselves through
independent media, and to voice their conscience by whichever means is
accessible to them.
Antoine Bustros, Canada
Noam Chomsky, U.S.
David Heap, Canada
Stephanie Kelly, Canada
Máire Noonan, Canada
Philippe Prévost, France
Verena Stresing, France
Laurie Tuller, France
Wednesday, November 14, 2012
Tuesday, November 13, 2012
Friday, November 09, 2012
It's About Saving Lives, Stupid!
LET me tell you about a country that has devised a tool to catch criminals in the act of breaking the law, writes Rita Sim (columnist with the New Straits Times)
This tool enables enforcement authorities to track down wrongdoers in many locations, punish them and effectively reduce deaths of innocent people.
For some reason, however, there are people opposing the use of this tool. They say that the tool will "burden" the criminals.
They say that there should be signs put up to alert wrongdoers about the tool, so that they can avoid them (and go on to commit the same atrocity elsewhere, presumably).
The country is Malaysia. The tool is the Automated Enforcement System (AES) and the "criminals" are drivers who speed on the road and run red lights, putting themselves and other road users in danger.
As for those opposing the AES? They are the usual suspects -- political players who see the potential to cause disruption and cast doubt on the project by making opaque statements about "having the people's best interests at heart".
The number of fatal accidents in the country is alarmingly high. Everyone should be concerned.
I'm sure we all are - except for some idiotic people bent on playing politics.
It seems most Malaysians want or need to blame someone.
Poor enforcement, poor roads ..poor everything. Never themselves.
So, just blame the weather-lah.
This tool enables enforcement authorities to track down wrongdoers in many locations, punish them and effectively reduce deaths of innocent people.
For some reason, however, there are people opposing the use of this tool. They say that the tool will "burden" the criminals.
They say that there should be signs put up to alert wrongdoers about the tool, so that they can avoid them (and go on to commit the same atrocity elsewhere, presumably).
The country is Malaysia. The tool is the Automated Enforcement System (AES) and the "criminals" are drivers who speed on the road and run red lights, putting themselves and other road users in danger.
As for those opposing the AES? They are the usual suspects -- political players who see the potential to cause disruption and cast doubt on the project by making opaque statements about "having the people's best interests at heart".
The number of fatal accidents in the country is alarmingly high. Everyone should be concerned.
I'm sure we all are - except for some idiotic people bent on playing politics.
It seems most Malaysians want or need to blame someone.
Poor enforcement, poor roads ..poor everything. Never themselves.
So, just blame the weather-lah.
Wednesday, November 07, 2012
Obama Re-elected for Second Term.
President Obama won re-election for a second term, defeating Republican challenger Mitt Romney, with broad support from women, young voters and minorities in Democratic strongholds and key battleground states.
He notched the decisive 270-vote threshold in the Electoral College with victory in swing state Ohio, and a later in another swing state -- Virginia which gave him 303 electoral votes.
Romney obtained 206.
Read Obama's victory speech HERE.
And Romney's concession speech HERE.
It has been described as a grueling campaign that set the stage for the Nov 6 showdown.
More than USD1 billion was poured into the campaign - by far the most expensive.
The presidential election officially kicked off in January 2012. In the run-up, three presidential debates and one vice-presidential debates were held.
Obama's win over the electoral colleges was sizeable.
There was a broad range of interesting analyses of the outcome. One of the points made was that Romney won mostly the white vote and fared poorly among African Americans and minorities.
A study of the results also showed that he lost the youth vote by a huge margin.
One analyst said that had there been a high percentage of white voters in some of the states, Romney would have won.
One concluded that race factored signifcantly in the election.
Expectedly, some Republican leaders are now talking about "reinventing" the party, that they must now look at the "changing demographics"...in states that have a sizeable number of non-white ethnic groups such as Latinos, Asians and African Americans.
The elections over, both sides will be conducting a post-mortem. But more importantly, Obama has a gargantuan task before him -- fixing the economy at home and, foreign relations.
And facing a house divided (with Congress held by Republicans, and the Senate, Democrats.)
Monday, November 05, 2012
Han Suyin (September 12, 1917 – November 2, 2012)
She was best remembered for her best-selling semi-autobiographical novel “A Many-Splendored Thing".
Bapak had an entire collection of her books, one of which, for me stood out. It was "And The Rain My Drink", a novel she wrote when she was married to Leon F. Comber, a British officer who worked in the Malayan Special Branch in Johor after the World War Two.
Han Suyin's pseudonym was Elizabeth Comber.
Some people believe that the book - a vivid depiction of pre-independent Malaya - was also semi-autobiographical as Han Suyin used to work at the Johor Bahru General Hospital during the Emergency.
Here is The Washington Post article on her death.
Thursday, October 25, 2012
The Glorious Haj
After a night in Mina, they left for the Mount of Arafat in the early hours today.
The Hajj is the great pilgrimage to Mecca - a journey that every Muslim, with the means to, must make before they die.
The passage to Mina marks the official launch of the hajj on the eighth day of the Muslim calendar month of Dhul Hijja.
The day is known as Tarwiah (Watering) as pilgrims in the past stopped at Mina to feed their animals and stock up for the following day's trip to Mount Arafat.
"O my Lord, here I am at Your service, here I am.
There is no partner with You, here I am.
Truly the praise and the provisions are Yours,
and so is the dominion and sovereignty."
Whose Moderate Muslim?
By Iain Buchanan
Who gets to decide what a “moderate Muslim” is? In this extended piece, Iain Buchanan argues that as the West demands Muslims fit themselves into its definition of the moderate Muslim, it ignores that it has itself failed to abide by its own standards. The way to initiate true dialogue between moderates, he says, is for the West to take steps to address its own failures.
This is a tiresome time for Muslims. Especially in the West. Collectively, they are seen as wild, narrow-minded, and unevolved; a relic society still stuck in the Middle Ages. They are the world's biggest troublemakers, a demographic time-bomb in the heart of Europe. So Muslims have a great deal to account for, a great deal to live down. Of course, there are many Westerners who are happy to accommodate Muslims in the world they both share -- even cheek by jowl in the same city or state. But there is a quid pro quo. To be accepted by civilised society, Muslims must declare their peaceful intentions, their integratedness, their moderation. "Moderate Muslims", as it were, must wear on their arms the badge of a yellow crescent.
But what, exactly, is a "moderate Muslim"? Our definition of what a "moderate Muslim" is will depend on our definition of many other things. Firstly, it will depend on who demands the definition, and what they want from it. Secondly, it depends on the definitions of the two extremes between which "moderate" sits. Thirdly, it depends on the qualities – social, political, ecological, religious – that are being calibrated and tested for "moderation". So it is, perhaps, a thankless exercise. There can be a great many definitions of just what a "moderate Muslim" is. And there will never be agreement between all these definitions -- or those who make them. After all, we make of words exactly what we want to make of them.
"Moderation", like honesty, should be a virtue we can all agree upon, whatever our religious calling. It is, after all, the mark of a good human being – treating others fairly, making modest demands on our fellow beings and on the rest of God's creation, whether it be the land we occupy, the trees we use, the creatures we eat. Moderate people do not exploit, over-eat, abuse living things, waste resources. Moderate people are sympathetic, understanding, and calmly disposed. Moderate people do not make war, torture, or oppress ...
We could go on. But it would be evading the real issue. And the real issue is not a question of moderate human beings. It is a question of moderate Muslim human beings – and a question, ultimately, of geopolitics. And, ultimately, the issue is the right of the Christian West to pass judgement on others, and to demand their submission to a view of the world that the Christian West holds. For the growing demand for Muslim moderation is not so much a Muslim initiative, for Muslim benefit-it is much more a reactive demand to Western pressure, which seeks definitions and undertakings that please the Christian West.
At a simplistic level, there seems little to argue about. Christian Westerners, for the most part, consider a "moderate Muslim" to be the kind of Muslim they can live with: one who is quiet and unassuming, loyal, predictable, law-abiding, unthreatening in any way. This sounds reasonable enough, at least within the Christians' own lands. But the world is much bigger than the Christians' own lands: there are Muslim lands, and the lands of many others, often with very mixed populations. And the Christians have long had a decisive (and often very destructive) presence in all of these lands – as well as an unfortunate tendency, still, to want their writ to run over every single one of them. And so, at the very least, if Muslims accept a Western-defined "moderation" for themselves, perhaps they should examine more carefully the credentials of their definers.
Historically, of course, there is a problem. Whatever Christianity is as a religion, its followers have all too often been anything but "moderate" in their dealings with one another and their dealings with everyone else. For well over a thousand years, Christian history has been defined by the unholy marriage of power and the Bible. All too often, the gospel of the poor and needy has been suppressed, and Christians have shown themselves to be brutal, greedy, and war-mongering – and have justified their actions on the basis of holy scripture. Perhaps this only proves that human beings devise their holy scriptures to serve human ends – and that those ends are sometimes good and sometimes bad. Or perhaps it demonstrates that, however virtuous and well-intentioned their scriptures, human beings will usually be led by their baser instincts, and will readily misinterpret the book they claim inspires them. Clearly, there is a disconnection between what people say they believe, and what they do. And that disconnection has been particularly strong in European (and Christian) history.
And the reason is not hard to see. Over the centuries, as European (and eventually American) culture came to dominate the world, its use of the Christian gospel as motif and justification expanded dramatically. As powerfully as its secular patrons, the Gospel came to represent the hegemony of an imperial culture over a diverse but subservient world. In profound and complex ways, the Christian gospel became so institutionalised, as part of the dominant culture, that it became hard to tell where the West's secular personality ended and its spirituality began. And this conflation has had the direst effects -both on the integrity of Western and non-Western cultures alike, and on the reputation of the Christian gospel itself. Above all, it is essential to recognise that, all too often, what is seen as the Christian way is in fact the way of Western culture – and what is seen as Western culture is often, in many a mangled form, the Christian way as well.
Read the article HERE
lain Buchanan is the author of Fatimah 's Kampung (Consumers Association of Penang, 2008) and The Armies of God (Citizens International, 2010).
Who gets to decide what a “moderate Muslim” is? In this extended piece, Iain Buchanan argues that as the West demands Muslims fit themselves into its definition of the moderate Muslim, it ignores that it has itself failed to abide by its own standards. The way to initiate true dialogue between moderates, he says, is for the West to take steps to address its own failures.
This is a tiresome time for Muslims. Especially in the West. Collectively, they are seen as wild, narrow-minded, and unevolved; a relic society still stuck in the Middle Ages. They are the world's biggest troublemakers, a demographic time-bomb in the heart of Europe. So Muslims have a great deal to account for, a great deal to live down. Of course, there are many Westerners who are happy to accommodate Muslims in the world they both share -- even cheek by jowl in the same city or state. But there is a quid pro quo. To be accepted by civilised society, Muslims must declare their peaceful intentions, their integratedness, their moderation. "Moderate Muslims", as it were, must wear on their arms the badge of a yellow crescent.
But what, exactly, is a "moderate Muslim"? Our definition of what a "moderate Muslim" is will depend on our definition of many other things. Firstly, it will depend on who demands the definition, and what they want from it. Secondly, it depends on the definitions of the two extremes between which "moderate" sits. Thirdly, it depends on the qualities – social, political, ecological, religious – that are being calibrated and tested for "moderation". So it is, perhaps, a thankless exercise. There can be a great many definitions of just what a "moderate Muslim" is. And there will never be agreement between all these definitions -- or those who make them. After all, we make of words exactly what we want to make of them.
"Moderation", like honesty, should be a virtue we can all agree upon, whatever our religious calling. It is, after all, the mark of a good human being – treating others fairly, making modest demands on our fellow beings and on the rest of God's creation, whether it be the land we occupy, the trees we use, the creatures we eat. Moderate people do not exploit, over-eat, abuse living things, waste resources. Moderate people are sympathetic, understanding, and calmly disposed. Moderate people do not make war, torture, or oppress ...
We could go on. But it would be evading the real issue. And the real issue is not a question of moderate human beings. It is a question of moderate Muslim human beings – and a question, ultimately, of geopolitics. And, ultimately, the issue is the right of the Christian West to pass judgement on others, and to demand their submission to a view of the world that the Christian West holds. For the growing demand for Muslim moderation is not so much a Muslim initiative, for Muslim benefit-it is much more a reactive demand to Western pressure, which seeks definitions and undertakings that please the Christian West.
At a simplistic level, there seems little to argue about. Christian Westerners, for the most part, consider a "moderate Muslim" to be the kind of Muslim they can live with: one who is quiet and unassuming, loyal, predictable, law-abiding, unthreatening in any way. This sounds reasonable enough, at least within the Christians' own lands. But the world is much bigger than the Christians' own lands: there are Muslim lands, and the lands of many others, often with very mixed populations. And the Christians have long had a decisive (and often very destructive) presence in all of these lands – as well as an unfortunate tendency, still, to want their writ to run over every single one of them. And so, at the very least, if Muslims accept a Western-defined "moderation" for themselves, perhaps they should examine more carefully the credentials of their definers.
Historically, of course, there is a problem. Whatever Christianity is as a religion, its followers have all too often been anything but "moderate" in their dealings with one another and their dealings with everyone else. For well over a thousand years, Christian history has been defined by the unholy marriage of power and the Bible. All too often, the gospel of the poor and needy has been suppressed, and Christians have shown themselves to be brutal, greedy, and war-mongering – and have justified their actions on the basis of holy scripture. Perhaps this only proves that human beings devise their holy scriptures to serve human ends – and that those ends are sometimes good and sometimes bad. Or perhaps it demonstrates that, however virtuous and well-intentioned their scriptures, human beings will usually be led by their baser instincts, and will readily misinterpret the book they claim inspires them. Clearly, there is a disconnection between what people say they believe, and what they do. And that disconnection has been particularly strong in European (and Christian) history.
And the reason is not hard to see. Over the centuries, as European (and eventually American) culture came to dominate the world, its use of the Christian gospel as motif and justification expanded dramatically. As powerfully as its secular patrons, the Gospel came to represent the hegemony of an imperial culture over a diverse but subservient world. In profound and complex ways, the Christian gospel became so institutionalised, as part of the dominant culture, that it became hard to tell where the West's secular personality ended and its spirituality began. And this conflation has had the direst effects -both on the integrity of Western and non-Western cultures alike, and on the reputation of the Christian gospel itself. Above all, it is essential to recognise that, all too often, what is seen as the Christian way is in fact the way of Western culture – and what is seen as Western culture is often, in many a mangled form, the Christian way as well.
Read the article HERE
lain Buchanan is the author of Fatimah 's Kampung (Consumers Association of Penang, 2008) and The Armies of God (Citizens International, 2010).
Monday, October 22, 2012
The Bad Bad Palm Oil...
This lowdown on palm oil is featured in an article listing the 6 worst natural ingredients.
Well, either it is part of a smear campaign against palm oil and Malaysia (as a producer of palm oil) or simply a poorly-researched piece.
Here's what is said: (I will "bold" the contentious bits)
Behind the label: Palm oil became the go-to replacement for partially hydrogenated vegetable oils, after the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) instituted trans-fat-labeling rules on processed foods, but that replacement didn't do much for public health.
A number of studies suggest that palm oil is as bad for your heart as the trans fats hidden in by partially hydrogenated oils.
The most recent, from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, found that it raised bad LDL cholesterol levels as much as partially hydrogenated soybean oil.
In addition to its heart-damaging health problems, enormous tracts of rainforests and peat bogs have been razed or filled in to make room for palm oil plantations.
Peat bogs are ecologically valuable, because they sequester globe-warming carbon dioxide, and rainforest destruction has led to the endangerment of 140 animal species in Indonesia and another 50 in Malaysia, the world's two largest producers of palm oil.
Your move: Palm oil is mostly used in crackers, cookies, and other baked goods, so scrutinize labels. Safflower or sunflower oil are healthier and don't carry the problems associated with other genetically modified vegetable oils made from corn, canola and soy.
If your favorite product does contain palm oil, call the manufacturer and ask how it was sourced. Some companies use palm oil produced under an industry group called the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil, which is trying to develop standards that would protect vital species habitats.
Well, either it is part of a smear campaign against palm oil and Malaysia (as a producer of palm oil) or simply a poorly-researched piece.
Here's what is said: (I will "bold" the contentious bits)
Behind the label: Palm oil became the go-to replacement for partially hydrogenated vegetable oils, after the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) instituted trans-fat-labeling rules on processed foods, but that replacement didn't do much for public health.
A number of studies suggest that palm oil is as bad for your heart as the trans fats hidden in by partially hydrogenated oils.
The most recent, from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, found that it raised bad LDL cholesterol levels as much as partially hydrogenated soybean oil.
In addition to its heart-damaging health problems, enormous tracts of rainforests and peat bogs have been razed or filled in to make room for palm oil plantations.
Peat bogs are ecologically valuable, because they sequester globe-warming carbon dioxide, and rainforest destruction has led to the endangerment of 140 animal species in Indonesia and another 50 in Malaysia, the world's two largest producers of palm oil.
Your move: Palm oil is mostly used in crackers, cookies, and other baked goods, so scrutinize labels. Safflower or sunflower oil are healthier and don't carry the problems associated with other genetically modified vegetable oils made from corn, canola and soy.
If your favorite product does contain palm oil, call the manufacturer and ask how it was sourced. Some companies use palm oil produced under an industry group called the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil, which is trying to develop standards that would protect vital species habitats.
KUALA LUMPUR - in the Top 10 City Skylines
Reuters published the list but has not endorsed it.
Anyway, KL is eighth on the list of top 10 city skylines. Here's what is said of our capital city skyline.
"There's something particularly majestic about Kuala Lumpur's defining skyscrapers, the Petronas Towers. Malaysia Truly Asia, as the tourism board's tagline goes, is a wonder of multiculturalism, awe-inspiring landscapes and white-sand islands (our picks are Langkawi and Borneo). But Kuala Lumpur, one of the fastest growing cities in the area, quickly gives visitors a faster paced perspective on the country. The Petronas and Kuala Lumpur towers both illuminate each evening, providing a taste of what's to come in this cultural mecca."
See the list HERE.
Top of the list is Hong Kong. KL comes after Chicago and beat Shanghai and Moscow.
Steady-lah.
Saturday, October 20, 2012
Never Hurt A Robber, Burglar or Intruder...
...because he maybe killed in the process and you can be charged for murder.
Crazy, right?
Well, apparently not.
As the case of brothers Frans Hiu, 22, and Dharry Frully Hiu, 20 who were found guilty of a crime they committed two years.
The High Court in Shah Alam sentenced them to death on Oct 18..
The brothers were jointly charged with having a common intention in the murder of 26-year-old R. Khartic at a shophouse in 3A Jalan 4, Taman Sri Sungai Pelek in Sepang at 11am on Dec 3, 2010.
They were caretaker of the premises.
Justice Nurchaya Arshad ruled that the prosecution had successfully proven the case beyond reasonable doubt and sentenced the men to death.
Read it HERE
Okay. Do you get the feeling that there's something not right about this case -- the charge and the conviction. How the two boys (they are Indonesians) got to be charged under that particular section of the penal code that is punishable by death.
I'm no lawyer but ...
Anyway, weren't these boys defending themselves against an intruder who broke into their "home"?
What were they supposed to do?
What are we supposed to do when someone breaks into our home?
What kind of signal is the court sending?
But I'm glad several groups are calling for a judicial review into the death sentence.
In my humble opinion, the sentence is extreme. But why were they charged under that section in the first place?
Is there something only the court - the judge, prosecutors and the boys' lawyers - knows?
Crazy, right?
Well, apparently not.
As the case of brothers Frans Hiu, 22, and Dharry Frully Hiu, 20 who were found guilty of a crime they committed two years.
The High Court in Shah Alam sentenced them to death on Oct 18..
The brothers were jointly charged with having a common intention in the murder of 26-year-old R. Khartic at a shophouse in 3A Jalan 4, Taman Sri Sungai Pelek in Sepang at 11am on Dec 3, 2010.
They were caretaker of the premises.
Justice Nurchaya Arshad ruled that the prosecution had successfully proven the case beyond reasonable doubt and sentenced the men to death.
Read it HERE
Okay. Do you get the feeling that there's something not right about this case -- the charge and the conviction. How the two boys (they are Indonesians) got to be charged under that particular section of the penal code that is punishable by death.
I'm no lawyer but ...
Anyway, weren't these boys defending themselves against an intruder who broke into their "home"?
What were they supposed to do?
What are we supposed to do when someone breaks into our home?
What kind of signal is the court sending?
But I'm glad several groups are calling for a judicial review into the death sentence.
In my humble opinion, the sentence is extreme. But why were they charged under that section in the first place?
Is there something only the court - the judge, prosecutors and the boys' lawyers - knows?
Friday, October 19, 2012
Alvin and Vivian
...are two young lovers who have an active sex life and want to share it with the rest of the world .
So, they uploaded their explicit sex acts on Facebook for all to see, and enjoy, as they did.
Well..they caught the attention of people. Not that people are voyeurs but Alvin and Vivian think it's cool for everyone to watch them in the privacy of their bedroom and in the full glory of their nakedness.
Today, the very young couple is famous...or infamous - depending on where you're standing.
You might say Alvin and Vivian "tak malu" or "tak ada malu" for exhibiting their private moments (in the bedroom) and for basking in, unabashed, their new-found and almost instant, er..fame or infamy.
One thing - they are unrepentant.
Although, they must have some sense of something...because they "blurred out the critical parts" and have already deactivated their erotic blog after the furore it had caused.
Here is their story...
and here.
and here.
what about here from Vivian
here too...
so why are you oldies and dinosaurs fretting about? Don't be unsporting. Alvin's and Vivian's peers are okay with their exploits. Read THIS.
It seems, psychologists have studied people like Alvin and Vivian. There's a reason for their open display of their sex play. Could they be crying for attention?.Read it here.
You know if you ask me -- I'd let them be. Although I must confess, I wondered "what were they thinking?"
Yes. they are budak2 yang tak malu, aren't they? But they're not too young, nor too naive, to not know the consequence of their action. They should. If they didn't or don't, then they must be so thick-skinned. Surely the overall reaction to what they had done would be an indication.
They're certainly different from a lot of kids I know.
We should know - and I did when I was at their age -- what is right and wrong, what is acceptable and what is not.
Yes, we live by our own definition but we do not live alone in our own little island. Yes, we should push the parameters, the barriers...but we do need to conform to certain norms.
Alvin and Vivian can't be that dense, that stupid. Vivian from Johor, after all, is a graduate. And Alvin is an Asean scholar, reading, for heaven's sake, law at Singapore's NUS.
They know what they are doing, surely. What they had done.
So, it is their choice to have made public what is supposed to be sacredly private.
(Unless they were high on something which I seriously doubt. Just high on a lot of love and lust.)
Certainly, I wouldn't want my kids, my nieces or nephews to do what Alvin and Vivian had done. No right-thinking person would want that. It is not acceptable - in any society in this modern, yes, modern world..
And it has nothing to do with being prudish, liberal, modern or whatever. Make no mistake about that.
Neither has it got to do with upbringing as we have read the response from their families.
Alvin and Vivian clearly and I say this without prejudice - are shameless. Unashamed.
We can admonish them -- we already have -- and tell them off. But really...that's all that we can do. Besides, their parents sudah marah.
As for Alvin, we'll see if NUS will deal with him when he goes back to college. I hear they've called to meet him.
And the Malaysian government is keenly following his case.
I read somewhere that a deputy minister had called for action to be taken against these two kids because they have shamed the country.
Oh really..The only ones they have shamed are themselves. So, please, let's not waste anybody's time in taking action against them in the name of the country.
So, is all this fuss and the fame surrounding their sex video delightfully intoxicating them?
For now, perhaps.
They certainly seem to be enjoying it.
So, they uploaded their explicit sex acts on Facebook for all to see, and enjoy, as they did.
Well..they caught the attention of people. Not that people are voyeurs but Alvin and Vivian think it's cool for everyone to watch them in the privacy of their bedroom and in the full glory of their nakedness.
Today, the very young couple is famous...or infamous - depending on where you're standing.
You might say Alvin and Vivian "tak malu" or "tak ada malu" for exhibiting their private moments (in the bedroom) and for basking in, unabashed, their new-found and almost instant, er..fame or infamy.
One thing - they are unrepentant.
Although, they must have some sense of something...because they "blurred out the critical parts" and have already deactivated their erotic blog after the furore it had caused.
Here is their story...
and here.
and here.
what about here from Vivian
here too...
so why are you oldies and dinosaurs fretting about? Don't be unsporting. Alvin's and Vivian's peers are okay with their exploits. Read THIS.
It seems, psychologists have studied people like Alvin and Vivian. There's a reason for their open display of their sex play. Could they be crying for attention?.Read it here.
You know if you ask me -- I'd let them be. Although I must confess, I wondered "what were they thinking?"
Yes. they are budak2 yang tak malu, aren't they? But they're not too young, nor too naive, to not know the consequence of their action. They should. If they didn't or don't, then they must be so thick-skinned. Surely the overall reaction to what they had done would be an indication.
They're certainly different from a lot of kids I know.
We should know - and I did when I was at their age -- what is right and wrong, what is acceptable and what is not.
Yes, we live by our own definition but we do not live alone in our own little island. Yes, we should push the parameters, the barriers...but we do need to conform to certain norms.
Alvin and Vivian can't be that dense, that stupid. Vivian from Johor, after all, is a graduate. And Alvin is an Asean scholar, reading, for heaven's sake, law at Singapore's NUS.
They know what they are doing, surely. What they had done.
So, it is their choice to have made public what is supposed to be sacredly private.
(Unless they were high on something which I seriously doubt. Just high on a lot of love and lust.)
Certainly, I wouldn't want my kids, my nieces or nephews to do what Alvin and Vivian had done. No right-thinking person would want that. It is not acceptable - in any society in this modern, yes, modern world..
And it has nothing to do with being prudish, liberal, modern or whatever. Make no mistake about that.
Neither has it got to do with upbringing as we have read the response from their families.
Alvin and Vivian clearly and I say this without prejudice - are shameless. Unashamed.
We can admonish them -- we already have -- and tell them off. But really...that's all that we can do. Besides, their parents sudah marah.
As for Alvin, we'll see if NUS will deal with him when he goes back to college. I hear they've called to meet him.
And the Malaysian government is keenly following his case.
I read somewhere that a deputy minister had called for action to be taken against these two kids because they have shamed the country.
Oh really..The only ones they have shamed are themselves. So, please, let's not waste anybody's time in taking action against them in the name of the country.
So, is all this fuss and the fame surrounding their sex video delightfully intoxicating them?
For now, perhaps.
They certainly seem to be enjoying it.
Newsweek To Go All-Digital
"When I returned to print with Newsweek, it did very quickly begin to feel
to me (like) an outmoded medium. While I still had a
great romance for it, nonetheless I feel this is not the right medium
anymore to produce journalism." - Tina Brown editor-in-chief.
Well, that's the way to go for the print media. Even a giant and an icon like Newsweek which has been around for nearly 80 years has to go with the flow or go bust...
So, when it's time to go, it's time to go....digital, that is.
Newsweek is one of the most internationally recognized magazine brands in the world. In face of stiff competition from tablets and mobile devices, its exces have decided to cease publishing the magazine in print.
Well, that's the way to go for the print media. Even a giant and an icon like Newsweek which has been around for nearly 80 years has to go with the flow or go bust...
So, when it's time to go, it's time to go....digital, that is.
Newsweek is one of the most internationally recognized magazine brands in the world. In face of stiff competition from tablets and mobile devices, its exces have decided to cease publishing the magazine in print.
The final print edition of this weekly current affairs magazine will hit newsstands on Dec 31.
Well, it has finally happened.
Wednesday, October 17, 2012
Penang and Polygamy
This is going to unsettle and upset a lot of Muslim women because it is open to abuse. Or have we forgotten?
If they have studied the matter carefully and after so much thought...what can I say?
Sisters In Islam, Angkatan Isteri2 Pertama....what say you?
If they have studied the matter carefully and after so much thought...what can I say?
Sisters In Islam, Angkatan Isteri2 Pertama....what say you?
Penang men no longer need to seek permission from their first wife in order to take on another bride. Instead, they now only need to get permission from the Syariah court to do so.
This was announced by Penang Islamic
Religious Department director Datuk Sazali Hussein, who said the move
can help curb the problem of unmarried women.
"For
those who wish to practice polygamy, they only need to get approval
from the syariah court to waive the need to present the first wife's
approval to take on another wife."
"However, they need to provide solid reasons before it can be considered."
"Maybe if the reason given is solid and can bring benefits, the judge will grant the request," he was quoted as saying in Utusan Malaysia today.
Sazali
was asked to comment on a suggestion by a reader in the newspaper's
Forum column. The reader, identified as Syed Abdullah Syed Osman
Jamalulail from Ampangan, Seremban, had suggested that polygamy
conditions be eased to help women of an advanced age who are still
unmarried.
Syed Abdullah had
suggested that the authorities loosen the condition which stipulates
that men who wish to marry women over 30-years-old need to obtain the
consent of their first wife.
He had
also suggested that another condition which should be relaxed was the
requirement for the man to produce his salary slip or confirmation of
wages from employers, as per normal procedure.
He believed that it was sufficient that the prospective newlyweds come to a mutual agreement on their union. (source: Malaysian Digest)
Tuesday, October 16, 2012
Saturday, October 13, 2012
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)