How Do You Prove That Islam Is A Religion Of Justice And Compassion?

They will all go to hell, but you might end up joining them.

By Yusseri Yusoff, Malaysian Insider, 30 April 2009.

If there is one thing that demonstrates that we are probably just a bunch of people who happen to live on the same land, it is the issue of religious conversion. This is the one thing that shows, starkly, why we still have some distance to go before we can safely say that we are one united nation.

Last week, five ministers sat down and came up with the policy that a child is to be raised in the faith of the parents when they were married even if one spouse then decides to become a Muslim. It was a decision that was greeted warmly by the non-Muslims, as well as the odd Muslim or two. But for seemingly the majority of Muslims, it was not received very well.

Firstly, let's consider the reason why this policy even needed to be made and announced. The core is that there has been a slew of cases where a marriage broke down and one of the spouses converted into Islam. And in what feels a bit like a “package deal” the saudara/i baru then converts the children into Islam too. Usually, well … obviously, without the consent of the other parent.

The cases are numerous, more numerous than most people think, and invariably they involve Indian families. Why that is so, I'd imagine that the sociologists could tell us eventually.

Malik Imtiaz Sarwar, the lawyer who is probably one of the most prominent persons involved in these sort of stuff, was quick to laud the decision though he expressed reservations as to how the policy would actually translate into practice.

He also wrote that in his opinion, the policy seems to adhere to the Constitution, where the word “parent” is also to be understood to mean “parents”.

Why was that pertinent? Because Zulkifli Noordin (and it had to be him, didn't it?), among others, objected to the policy, stating that there was already precedent in this matter, citing the case of R. Subashini where the court decided that under Article 12 (4) of the Constitution, any one of the parent or legal guardian is allowed to decide on the faith of the child(ren).

At that point, we start to slide down the slippery slope of logical fallacy and vacuous reasoning.

I say that because, well, let's examine the protests made by those who object to the policy.

Zulkifli argues that the matter is resolved in spite of the policy because the court asserted that one of the parents can decide which faith the child is to be in. What Zulkifli did not say, but seemed to imply, is that the one parent is to obviously be the Muslim parent. What Zulkifli did not say, but seemed to imply, is that the moment one of the parents converts into Islam, that parent is automatically elevated in status and therefore has the upper hand.

But then, Zulkifli has also always believed that converting a child into Islam is not really conversion but more of a reversion. Because he believes that every child that has not reached puberty is considered Muslim under certain interpretations of Syaria law. This, of course, might be rather shocking news to the parents of the children, but try telling that to Zulkifli.

Similarly, the Muslim coalition of NGOs calling itself Pembela protests the policy where one of the members, Yusri Mohamad, said: “In Article 12 section 4 of the Constitution, the faith of a child who is not yet an adult is determined by the parents. The courts have interpreted that the parents have the right to decide regardless if they are the husband or wife.”

Pembela's argument was that the policy would deny the parent who converted his or her right and responsibility over the future of the children, saying that it would not be fair to those who want to convert into Islam.

What is not said, but seemingly implied, is that as long as one of the parents is a Muslim, then he or she can convert the children, even if the other one disagrees. Because as a Muslim, the parent has a responsibility to raise the children to be faithful and good Muslims.

To make clear why this reasoning breaks down, let's flip it the other way. Say that the other parent who has not converted decides that the children should be in the religion of the unconverted parent, how is the “right to decide” not applied to the parent?

Or, let's say that the other parent who has not converted then decides to convert from, for example, Hinduism to Catholicism, just as his or her erstwhile partner converts into Islam. How is the “right to decide” not applied to the now Catholic parent?

If denying the right of the converted Muslim parent to raise the children in his or her faith is unfair, how is it fair to deny the unconverted parent the right to raise the children in her or his faith?

Wait, you know what, I'm going to stop beating about the bush and get straight to the point. The basic foundation of the protests by the Muslim groups is that Islam is the one true religion, the faith of the one true God, the Absolute Truth and that every other religion on the face of the earth is false. False deities, false faiths, false, false, false. As such, certain rights are inalienable to the Muslims, and absolutely alienated from the non-Muslims.

And this reasoning scares the pants out of some non-Muslims in Malaysia, and pisses off a lot of the others. In some cases, achieving both at the same time.

I write this as a Malay, ergo a Muslim. I write this as a Muslim who looks on uncomfortably at all the custody battles and conversion arguments. I write this as a Muslim who finds it hard to accept that it's okay to assume primacy over others, simply because their beliefs are considered false … rendering them as less than worthy of the same consideration as Muslims.

Islam is a religion of justice, fairness, equality and compassion. It's well past time that we prove it, isn't it? And stop scaring the pants out of, and pissing off, our fellow Malaysian brothers and sisters. They will all end up going to hell, of course, but you never know, you might end up joining them.

Swine Flu Alert

Telegraph.co.uk; Last Updated: 11:49AM BST 28 Apr 2009

Q: What is swine flu?

A: It is a contagious respiratory disease of pigs caused by type A influenza viruses. Pigs are hit by regular outbreaks. There are many different types of swine flu and the current cases involve the H1N1 strain of type A influenza virus.

Q: How do humans catch it?

A: While people do not normally catch it, humans can contract the virus, usually if they have been in close contact with pigs. It is also possible for the constantly changing infection to spread from person to person, which has happened in the latest outbreak. Experts believe it spreads in the same way as seasonal flu - through coughing and sneezing.

Q: What are the symptoms?

A: The symptoms of swine influenza in people are similar to the symptoms of regular human seasonal influenza infection and include fever, fatigue, lack of appetite, coughing and sore throat. Some people with swine flu have also reported vomiting and diarrhoea.

Q: What is the difference between swine flu, avian flu and the flu commonly seen in the UK during the winter?

A: Influenza viruses are commonly circulating in the human and animal environment, with different strains causing illness in humans, bird and pigs. Seasonal influenza is caused by viruses that are adapted to spread in humans.

Humans have some natural immunity to the strains that are in common circulation, and this immunity can be boosted by immunisation with a vaccine.

Avian influenza is caused by influenza viruses adapted for infection in birds. Similarly, swine influenza is caused by influenza viruses adapted for infection in pigs.

However swine flu can pass between human to human, while this is rare with avian flu viruses.

Q: How dangerous is it?

A: Thousands of people have been made ill by swine flu - with some cases proving fatal.

The World Health Organisation has warned the outbreak has "pandemic potential" and countries have been advised to step up surveillance and preparation in case the infection spreads rapidly. Flu viruses have the ability to change and mutate, making it difficult for drugs manufacturers to ensure effective vaccines are available.

The new version of the H1N1 virus is a mix of different animal and human versions of the disease. Mixing can lead to the development of changed viruses to which humans have little immunity.

However, testing has shown that the antiviral drugs oseltamavir (Tamiflu) and zanamivir (Relenza) appear to be effective against the human swine influenza H1N1 strain.

Q: What is a pandemic?

A: If the flu spreads over a wide geographic area and affects a large proportion of the population it goes beyond an epidemic and becomes a pandemic.

According to the Health Protection Agency, an influenza pandemic is defined as a new or novel influenza virus that spreads easily between humans.

When new influenza viruses are introduced into the environment, humans do not have any natural immunity to protect against them.

Therefore, there is a risk that new influenza viruses could develop into a pandemic if the virus passes easily from human-to-human.

Q: What is being done in the UK to prevent the spread of the infection?

A: Seven people who were in contact with the two infected individuals in Scotland are being "appropriately cared for" after showing "mild" symptoms which have not been confirmed as swine flu. They are receiving drugs at home, not in hospital.

The HPA has advised people to follow general infection control practices and good hygiene to reduce transmission of all viruses.

This includes covering their nose and mouth when coughing or sneezing, disposing of dirty tissues promptly and carefully, washing hands frequently with soap and water and cleaning surfaces which are regularly touched.

The Foreign Office is also advising Britons to avoid all but essential travel to Mexico.

Don’t Neglect Youths’ Emotional Needs; Don't Spoil Them Either

Star Online, Monday April 27, 2009

PETALING JAYA: Emotional development in young people is being neglected in today’s fast-paced Malaysian society, say experts.

The emotional needs of the young are often overlooked as both parents work to fulfil their children’s material and educational needs, says Inte-grated Psychology Network Sdn Bhd’s consultant psychologist Valerie Jaques.

“As such, more young people are starving for attention and end up confusing sex with love,” she said.

Jaques said that youths, especially girls, were not taught to speak up.

“Many girls are not taught to be assertive and say no or to complain about those who have taken advantage of them,” she said.

Among the ways to deal with this, she said, was for parents to attend parenting courses and learn how to communicate with a child.

Women’s Aid Organisation executive director Ivy Josiah said the authorities and parents needed to acknowledge that young people were getting more curious about sex at an earlier age now.

“More young people are exploring and experimenting,” she said.

Josiah said there was an urgent need for formal sex education in schools as it was the only way to ensure that teenagers treated sex responsibly and knew the consequences of their actions.

These young people, she said, should have the chance to express themselves and speak to someone other than their parents about concepts they were unfamiliar with like sex and relationships.

“They are coping with raging hormones, they have the need to be loved and to learn what having a relationship means,” she said.

She also warned that it was too simplistic to think that children whose parents were both working would be more inclined to be involved in underage sex.

Deputy Women, Family and Community Development Minister Senator Datin Paduka Chew Mei Fun said there were many reasons why young girls got involved in underage sex.

“Each individual has her own unique story, background and experience,” she said.

Crisis In The Land Of The Indigenous People

The first time I heard of Baram was when I received an email from my friend, Lana, the director of CREST. There have been floods in the district of Baram, near Miri, Sarawak. She was sourcing for volunteers for the crisis relief team and for finance to help the villagers affected by the floods. “This really is not the right time,” I thought as I glanced at the files in my office. Writing a cheque to CREST should be enough on my part. I could not get a good night’s sleep since then. So I volunteered to join the relief team.

On 16 March, we took a flight from LCCT (KL) to Miri airport. There were 4 members in this team. All except me were men. Being a rose among thorns has its advantages: my “brothers” carried all the heavy loads including my baggage (kononnya nak tunjuk macho), nobody complained (at least I did not hear of any) when I hoarded the bathroom, I was given the front passenger seat and I have a room all to myself throughout this trip.

From Miri to Kuala Baram, we travelled by taxi. The road is straight and newly tarred, thanks to SHELL. Then we took the express long boat to go up the river. For the next 4 days, we travelled from one village to another: Marudi, Long Ikang, Long Lama and Long Bemang; on the river by a small motor boat and on land by a Toyota Hilux 4WD. Purchased and distributed the relief supplies to the villagers. When we travelled on the river, I remained on the lookout for crocodiles. To my disappointment, I spotted only a five feet basking under the sun throughout this entire trip. The ones I saw in the JB zoo were larger than that. No, I am sure that I did not miss anything. Believe me, we had to take a small boat that was only slightly wider than my hips and had to cling on to both sides for our dear lives. I paid my utmost attention to the waters around us.

The villagers (mostly Kayans, Ibans and Penans) did not ask for much, only for what is necessary to survive the crisis and to move on with their lives.

Tok Kampung of Long Ikang was once a brave warrior. However, he could not protect his village from the floods. He looked so defeated and resigned to fate. He was grateful to the churches that contributed when we arrived with the relief supplies for his people. We were told that the river has changed. It used to be clear, deep and teeming with marine life. The massive logging, quarry and clearing of the land for palm oil plantations have eroded the lands. This caused the soil to be flushed by the rain into the river. Years of accumulation of the soil has raised the level of the river.

Tok Penghulu of Long Bemang informed us that the floods were more frequent in the recent years. There were 10 times last year. Our government has sent representatives to estimate the extent of the crisis. Each family has been given RM50. That was a month ago.

Contrary to what I have learnt in my Form 3 Geography, the long-houses are no longer made of wood or bamboo. They are about 100 units of modern concrete buildings joined together to form a long-house. If an estimated value of each unit is RM20,000, then a long house will cost RM2,000,000. Therefore, it is unrealistic and impractical to expect the people to shift to higher grounds. Most of the villagers are farmers and fishermen, hence, could not afford to build another long-house. The massive logging and quarry activities together with deforestation are choking the river and robbing the livelihood of these indigenous people. The increasingly frequent floods not only damaged the long-houses but also destroyed the padi and the fields.

The whole eco-system in this district has been brutally jeopardised. Even the wild animals are dwindling in numbers. That was why I could not spot anymore crocodiles. The greed of human beings in the name of “development” has no bounds. When will enough be enough?

When we left for KL on 20 March, I was caught in a dilemma. On one hand, I could sleep peacefully knowing that I have done my part. On the other, there remained so much to do...

Today is Earth Day, the annual celebration on the 22^nd of April all over the world. It is intended to inspire awareness for the Earth’s environment on a daily basis; to promote a sustainable environment and to protest against environmental pollutions. How do you and I play our parts? Here are some suggestions:

1.  Cultivate the habit of recycling,
   
2. Cut down on petrol, electricity and water consumption,
   
3.  Call on our government to recognise and protect more lands as reserved lands for the indigenous people,
   
4.  Protest against the industries that cause pollutions,
   
5. Boycott the product(s) or investment(s) of those industries,
   
6. Apply more pressure on our government and legislators to promote and enforce eco-friendly legislation, and
   
7. Set an example for the next generation.
   

Guess: What is it? Earthquake?

Rodeo cum roller coaster ride in a Toyota Hilux 4WD from Long Lama to Long Bemang, Sarawak. Two hours journey. I felt as if my head was jerked from my body and I suffered slight concussion. But it was fun!

The same vehicle broke down on the return trip to Long Lama; at 8.30 pm, in the middle of the jungle, in the midst of a thunderstorm. Our heroes, the driver and team leader had to walk in the rain for more than an hour to get help. 3 of us were left in the vehicle in pitch-dark. The thunder ceased after a while but the lightning continued to flash. I was comforted. God knew I was afraid, so He lit up the sky.

 

Science Unlocks Secrets Of Our Deepest Love

The mystery of what drives us to offer

unconditional love is being unravelled

Jonathan Leake From The Sunday Times

April 12, 2009

THE secrets of unconditional love, one of the most mysterious emotions, are being uncovered by scientists tracing the unique brain activity it creates.

They have found that the emotion, experienced as a desire to care for another person without any thought of reward, emerges from a complex interplay between seven separate areas of the brain.

Such brain activity has only limited overlap with the cerebral impulses seen in romantic or sexual love, suggesting it should be seen as an entirely separate emotion.

Professor Mario Beauregard, of Montreal University’s centre for research into neurophysiology and cognition, who led the study, said: “Unconditional love, extended to others without exception, is considered to be one of the highest expressions of spirituality. “ However, nothing has been known regarding its neural underpinnings until now.”

Scientists are interested in unconditional love as evolutionary theory suggests we should feel such emotions only for people who help us pass our genes to future generations, such as spouses and children.

Our fascination with the many forms of love is reflected by Hollywood, with films such as War of the Worlds, where Tom Cruise’s character risks his life to save his estranged daughter. The unconditional love he displays contrasts with the obsessive sexual emotions in films such as Basic Instinct or the romantic love portrayed by Nicole Kidman and Hugh Jackman in the epic Australia.

In the real world, however, unconditional love is often experienced towards people with whom there is no connection. The question is: why? To carry out the study, Beauregard recruited subjects with a proven ability to feel strong unconditional love: low-paid assistants looking after people with learning difficulties. Beauregard asked them to evoke feelings of unconditional love and hold them in their minds while they had a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan.

Of the seven brain areas that became active, three were similar to those of romantic love. The others were different, suggesting a separate kind of love.

Beauregard’s discoveries showed that some of the areas activated when experiencing unconditional love were also involved in releasing dopamine. This chemical is deeply involved in sensing pleasure, with rising levels strongly linked to feelings of reward and even euphoria.

In a research paper in an academic journal, he said: “The rewarding nature of unconditional love facilitates the creation of strong emotional links. Such robust bonds may critically contribute to the survival of the human species.”

CHRIST the Lord is risen today

CHRIST the Lord is risen today; Hallelujah!

Sons of men and angels say:

Raise your joys and triumphs high:

Sing, ye heavens; thou earth, reply:

Love's redeeming work is done;

Fought the fight, the battle won:

Vain the stone, the watch, the seal;

Christ hath burst the gates of hell:

Lives again our glorious King!

Where, O death, is now thy sting?

Once He died our souls to save:

Where's thy victory, boasting grave?

Soar we now where Christ hath led,

Following our exalted Head:

Made like Him, like Him we rise;

Ours the cross, the grave, the skies:

King of glory! Soul of bliss!

Everlasting life is this,

Thee to know, Thy power to prove,

Thus to sing, and thus to love.

By Charles Wesley (1707-1788)

This glorious Easter hymn which finds its inspiration from the accounts of the Ressurection in the four Gospels and in 1 Corinthians 15, first appeared in Hymns and Sacred Poems (1739) with the title "Hymn for Easter Day". Many would agree with W. T. Stead who said, "This hymn has long been accepted as the best English Easter hymn."

Look, Ma! No Mens Rea!

Establishing Motive

By Hakim Joe

Malaysian Today. Saturday, 11 April 2009 16:44

One of the general orthodox principles in criminal law is intent. However, in criminal jurisprudence, motive is only paramount to the investigation of the case before trial as the relevance of a defendant's intentions to his or her criminal liability cannot exculpate someone who has committed a criminal act.

However, motive and intent are part and parcel of the same felony as both are construed to be referring to whether the individual plans to commit an act that is defined as a crime. The conventional opinion is that motive and intent is inconsequential after a crime has been committed. It does not matter what the reasons are for someone to commit a crime but that he or she is culpable of that particular offence.

Yet motive is critical in establishing blameworthiness. For example, the Law states that it is a crime to kill another human being. What if the defendant killed in self-defense? Will the defendant suffer the same consequences as someone who kills for money, revenge, fun or on orders from a superior? Justice will therefore not be served if motive is disregarded completely.

In the case of the Altantuya murder, the prosecution has proven beyond a doubt that the two defendants were guilty as charged. It would have taken a shorter court time to prosecute if their cautioned statements were admissible but what about motive thence? The two defendants did not possess any motive or intent to commit murder. Yes, monetary rewards were spoken of here but as Corporal Sirul Azhar Umar's statement remained inadmissible, the requirement to investigate who was offering this "reward" becomes insignificant to the court. The prosecution is therefore only concerned about proving guilt.

Someone has been killed and the perpetrators will be punished accordingly. It is besides the point that the two defendants belong to a civil enforcement agency or that they could have been formally ordered to terminate the victim. Owing to the fact that this case involved a lot of high profile people, the news is being carried by quite a few international media. While it can be said that justice has now been served with the death sentences, a few pertinent questions remain unanswered.

Both defendants did not know the victim when she first arrived in this country. They were both ordered to "assist" RB in this case, which was when they first encountered the victim. The person doing the ordering must have a motive here as no official police report was lodged by RB. Did this person, who happens to be the ADC to the PM (DPM during the time of murder), know the victim beforehand? Negative, as it was established from RB that he only seeked assistance from the ADC when he could no longer stand the victim's harassment anymore. Did this ADC therefore voluntarily decide to help his friend by ordering the two defendants to look into the case or was he impelled to doing so by some higher authority? That was never established, as the ADC was never summoned to appear in court. It was therefore never questioned during the trial who was offering the reward, if any, for services rendered.

What about the expunging of the victim's immigration records to show that she has never legally entered this country? Police officers do not have the capability or authority to perform this action but yet it was accomplished accordingly. We are now talking about two distinct branches of the civil service being involved – the police and the immigration department, and this plot to commit murder and to cover the tracks later could only have been completed by someone possessing the authority to involve both the two mentioned civil services.

Why an investigation into this conspiracy was never initiated only causes to reinforce this fact. Additionally, why the ADC was never called up in court points to the fact that the AG's chambers is also involved and that makes three different civil services, not two, that are implicated in this plan to suppress the motive from ever being revealed. Without an official investigation into the motive, the real murderer remains anonymous.

Moreover, why did the court deem Corporal Sirul's cautioned statement inadmissible? Such a written statement can only be rejected by the court in order to protect the defendants and since there was no indication of it being illegally obtained by force, why then the decision to make it inadmissible?

As Corporal Sirul has later admitted in court that the victim's jewellery were kept "at his house after he has murdered her", it would point out that his cautioned statement is legally admissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. However, even the defendant's admittance to committing the crime was expunged from court records as the Judge deemed it prejudicial to the defendant.

What we have here are no longer three civil services but four that is abetting in this conspiracy to end this case here without the requirement to reinitiate another investigation. Without establishing motive, the sentencing of the two accused becomes the reason for closing this file permanently.

Who are these people seen to be protecting then? Well, RB was never that important a figure to have involved four civil services coming to his aid even though he was eventually acquitted. That is a fact.

Unless the two accused did the crime on their own volition without incentive or orders from any third party, it can be adduced that they were acting as professional killers and this can be demonstrated by the fact that Corporal Sirul's cautioned statement indicated a monetary payment after the job is satisfactorily completed.

If that was the rationale and the basis for assumption, then who was the one doing the hiring and why was it so important that the victim needed to be disposed of in the manner that it happened? 

The Return Of Mahathirism

Agence France-Presse - 4/4/2009 7:24 AM GMT

Malaysia's Mahathir Returns To Ruling UMNO Party

Malaysia's former premier Mahathir Mohamad on Saturday rejoined the ruling UMNO party which he quit last year and immediately pledged to strengthen the beleaguered party.

Mahathir left the party after falling out with his successor Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, who was replaced by Najib Razak on Friday as the new prime minister.

Mahathir, who spent more than two decades in power, had hand-picked Abdullah to replace him in 2003 but was enraged by Abdullah's decision to dismantle several of his pet projects.

"The image of UMNO has suffered in the last few years," Mahathir told reporters after handing over party membership forms to Najib, together with his wife Siti Hasmah and son Mokhzani Mahathir.

"The first thing is to clean the image of UMNO," he added.

Mahathir said he hoped his return would spur other former members to rejoin the party.

"I hope many other ex-UMNO members will return to the party. I am prepared to help UMNO regain the people's trust," he said.

UMNO, or the United Malays National Organisation, is the dominant political party in the country and leads the ruling Barisan Nasional coalition.

Mahathir last week endorsed a landmark speech by Najib in which he outlined radical reforms to UMNO following humiliating elections last year, when the opposition claimed five of the 13 states and a third of seats in parliament.

For a start, Mahathir said he would help campaign in two by-elections -- in Perak and Kedah -- to be held on Tuesday and which the opposition has expressed confidence in winning.

A third by-election will be held on the same day in the eastern Sarawak state of Batang Ai.

Mahathir defended his attack on the party leadership under Abdullah.

"I criticise UMNO because my criticism is to build UMNO ... not to destroy UMNO," he said.

Najib said Mahathir's return would help rejuvenate the party.

"Mahathir's return will revive the party and strengthen the Barisan Nasional," he said.

Najib takes office at a time when the economy is in dire straits and with minorities deserting the ruling coalition as demonstrated in the 2008 elections.  

Mahathir left the party after falling out with his successor Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, who was replaced by Najib Razak on Friday as the new prime minister.

Mahathir, who spent more than two decades in power, had hand-picked Abdullah to replace him in 2003 but was enraged by Abdullah's decision to dismantle several of his pet projects.

"The image of UMNO has suffered in the last few years," Mahathir told reporters after handing over party membership forms to Najib, together with his wife Siti Hasmah and son Mokhzani Mahathir.

"The first thing is to clean the image of UMNO," he added.

Mahathir said he hoped his return would spur other former members to rejoin the party.

"I hope many other ex-UMNO members will return to the party. I am prepared to help UMNO regain the people's trust," he said.

UMNO, or the United Malays National Organisation, is the dominant political party in the country and leads the ruling Barisan Nasional coalition.

Mahathir last week endorsed a landmark speech by Najib in which he outlined radical reforms to UMNO following humiliating elections last year, when the opposition claimed five of the 13 states and a third of seats in parliament.

For a start, Mahathir said he would help campaign in two by-elections -- in Perak and Kedah -- to be held on Tuesday and which the opposition has expressed confidence in winning.

A third by-election will be held on the same day in the eastern Sarawak state of Batang Ai.

Mahathir defended his attack on the party leadership under Abdullah.

"I criticise UMNO because my criticism is to build UMNO ... not to destroy UMNO," he said.

Najib said Mahathir's return would help rejuvenate the party.

"Mahathir's return will revive the party and strengthen the Barisan Nasional," he said.

Najib takes office at a time when the economy is in dire straits and with minorities deserting the ruling coalition as demonstrated in the 2008 elections.  

Mahathir left the party after falling out with his successor Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, who was replaced by Najib Razak on Friday as the new prime minister.

Mahathir, who spent more than two decades in power, had hand-picked Abdullah to replace him in 2003 but was enraged by Abdullah's decision to dismantle several of his pet projects.

"The image of UMNO has suffered in the last few years," Mahathir told reporters after handing over party membership forms to Najib, together with his wife Siti Hasmah and son Mokhzani Mahathir.

"The first thing is to clean the image of UMNO," he added.

Mahathir said he hoped his return would spur other former members to rejoin the party.

"I hope many other ex-UMNO members will return to the party. I am prepared to help UMNO regain the people's trust," he said.

UMNO, or the United Malays National Organisation, is the dominant political party in the country and leads the ruling Barisan Nasional coalition.

Mahathir last week endorsed a landmark speech by Najib in which he outlined radical reforms to UMNO following humiliating elections last year, when the opposition claimed five of the 13 states and a third of seats in parliament.

For a start, Mahathir said he would help campaign in two by-elections -- in Perak and Kedah -- to be held on Tuesday and which the opposition has expressed confidence in winning.

A third by-election will be held on the same day in the eastern Sarawak state of Batang Ai.

Mahathir defended his attack on the party leadership under Abdullah.

"I criticise UMNO because my criticism is to build UMNO ... not to destroy UMNO," he said.

Najib said Mahathir's return would help rejuvenate the party.

"Mahathir's return will revive the party and strengthen the Barisan Nasional," he said.

Najib takes office at a time when the economy is in dire straits and with minorities deserting the ruling coalition as demonstrated in the 2008 elections.

  

Marriage or exploitation?

Virgin brides off the shelf

The Star Online, Saturday April 4, 2009

INSIGHT: DOWN SOUTH WITH SEAH CHIANG NEE

Its reputation as a stable, affluent society and the close affinity in culture, skin colour and food has made Singapore a special choice of Vietnamese women.

MOVE over, China ladies; hello, Vietnam! In their dependency on foreign brides to correct a marriage imbalance, more Singaporean men are turning to Vietnamese women in recent years. But this growing marriage bond has become mired in controversy and charges of exploitation that are earning Singapore’s image a black eye. For years, the city-state has gone on a global binge on almost everything in life, including the institution of marriage.

With educated women rising, a marriage gap has been building in Singapore between a small army of middle-aged, less-educated men and independent-minded women who shun them as spouses. Some 40% of marriages in Singapore today are with foreigners. Last year, 6,520 male Singaporeans and permanent residents married foreign brides, the highest number in 10 years, according to the Department of Statistics. Yet, one out of three citizens does not have a spouse and some 30% of the men are wife-less.

These social statistics are quite sobering for Singapore and are building up into a huge dependency on foreign spouses to keep life in balance. The biggest numbers still come from Malaysia and China. But in recent years, the Vietnamese women are making up for lost ground. Many of them are flocking here – and to other Asian cities – seeking a better life.

“Many of them take a tremendous risk marrying foreign men – some having met for only an hour – so they can send money home to their families,” said a marriage agent. Vietnam is famous for beautiful girls and obedient, hard-working wives, a contrast to their more Westernised, educated Singapore sisters. The exact number who arrived is unknown. One unconfirmed report said that between 2000 and 2006, the arrivals had risen by 42 times.

Singapore is very small compared with bigger markets like South Korea, Taiwan, Malaysia, and China in the transnational matrimonial business. But the republic’s reputation as a stable, affluent society has made it a special choice of the Vietnamese women, despite the language obstacle. A major reason is the close affinity in culture, skin colour and food. 

For every Singaporean who goes to Ho Chi Minh City to find a wife, there are thousands of women who want to come here. Aired over TV, an 18-year-old Vietnamese girl was asked whether she would marry any Singaporean and she nodded her head. “Will you marry someone even if he’s 60?” Her reply without hesitation: “Yes.”

The practice of paying for a bride has raised anger in the West and among Asian liberals who say Singapore – with clean, transparent advocacy – is condoning trafficking in women. A letter signed by more than 1,000 Vietnamese appealed to Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong to stop some of the 30 Singaporean agencies offering “certified Vietnamese virgin brides” for sale. A human rights office in Ho Chi Minh also protested to Lee about this “shameful form of modern-day slavery”.

Those in support argue that arranged weddings or dowry payments have always been part of Asia’s traditions. Even modern weddings still involve some exchanges in cash, red packets or in gifts (either jewellery or ceremonial lavishness) demanded by the bride’s parents. “So why is the idea of a brokered marriage through an agency so wrong?” one representative asked.

The answer lies in the undignified, inhuman way many businesses are advertising or parading Vietnamese girls (86% do it to get out of poverty) in their premises like they are selling branded shoes. The economic crisis has delivered a sharp blow to the practice, resulting in further insults. One outlet advertised a half-price discount – from S$8,000 to S$4,000 – for the prospective husband. The supply of cheap, virgin brides from hard-hit countries seems inexhaustible. Cambodia has banned marriage brokers. Vietnam, however, can’t stop its poor, rural families from “selling their daughters” as long as poverty exists.

However, to stop the exploitation, the Hanoi government is considering setting up a government centre to handle the marriage of Vietnamese women abroad. An estimated 15,000-20,000 Vietnamese do so every year. On the positive side, the families often get a better life, or have debts repaid or may receive a steady allowance from their sons-in-law.

In one Vietnamese island nearly every peasant – or his neighbour – has a daughter who is married abroad in an Asian country. There is also another downside for the Vietnamese. The average Singaporean man who is seeking a bride in China or elsewhere has a high-educated profile today. One agency said that five years ago, its clients rarely had more than a secondary 2 education. Now, seven out of 10 have at least a bachelor’s degree. This doesn’t appear to apply to Vietnam, where the “husbands from Taiwan, South Korea and Singapore are often older, unskilled workers who are unable to attract a woman back home”, said a Hanoi official.

That would imply that because the price is so affordable that more of the elderly bachelors in the state are making a beeline for the women there. As Vietnam gets richer, the number of its women willing to be sold into marriage will drop. But, as a British Telegraph columnist wondered, what would happen if the UK were to slide into prolonged recession, and economic power continues to shift to Asia? “I wonder if 10 or 20 years down the line, (whether) it will be British women coming to Singapore, Beijing or even Hanoi to find a rich Asian husband,” he quipped.

He could have been 'Father of Freedom'

The Sun (Fri, 03 Apr 2009) 

PETALING JAYA (April 2, 2009) : Many Malaysians would probably still remember that Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi was known as Mr Nice Guy long before he was sworn in as prime minister on Oct 31, 2003.

Abdullah waves to Mindef staff.

He is still a very nice man but having been drawn into survival politics --- and all that it entails in the Malaysia context --- many are probably wondering whether he is still the same Mr Nice Guy they knew before he moved into Seri Perdana.

It is difficult not to be charmed by Abdullah. His smile is most disarming and his commonplace remarks often put those who meet him at ease almost immediately.

A journalist who works for a foreign newspaper, who had several unpleasant encounters with the autocratic Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad, was bowled over by the "work with me, and not for me" call that Abdullah made just a day after being sworn in.

After Abdullah made the pledge in Parliament a few days later to put an end to corruption in the government and to uphold democracy, the journalist exulted "this is the prime minister for me!" loudly during a dinner with fellow scribes.

And after Abdullah made that surprise visit to the Immigration Department a fortnight later and told those manning counters that they should provide good service and cause less inconvenience to the public, he was most effusive in his praise for the prime minister, even though it was the only such visit.

He was estatic when Abdullah attended a Christmas reception at the Evangelical Lutheran Church in Brickfields where he announced that he is the "prime minister of all Malaysians."

It was one of his missed opportunities. Abdullah could have built on that to promote genuine racial integration.

Most Malaysian voters were delighted to receive a letter from Abdullah sent to their home addresses advising them to be careful when they drive home to vote in the 2004 general election and telling them that they must exercise their right to vote.

But a few months after the general election, the journalist, like other Malaysians, was noticed to be less enraptured by Abdullah, especially after his new cabinet was more or less a re-hash of the old one that he had inherited and was doing little to root out corruption.

When Abdullah did not tick off those who waved the keris, those who made ketuanan Melayu a new war cry or moderate the call for the extension of the new economic policy, the journalist was back being his old cynical self.

Most Malaysians were delighted when Abdullah --- to the horrors of some of his ministers --- declared he was all for a more open society and invited them, especially members of the Barisan Nasional, to tell him the truth.

Those in the media were overwhelmed, especially after Mahathir had in his 22-year rule tightened laws governing publishing, printing and broadcasting to such an extent that government’s control was near absolute.

If only Abdullah had amended some of the laws to allow the media to at least have recourse to the courts over some of the unjust decisions of the government, he could have been hailed as the "Father of Freedom."

Even though he did not do that, there is no doubt that the openness that he declared gave way to more open discussions on matters that were discouraged previously. But it also brought problems --- perhaps as a result of poor management --- to his administration.

So far it has not been heard by what appellation he would be known considering all his predecessors were given popular names. Tunku Abdul Rahman was "Bapa Merdeka" or "Bapa Malaysia", Tun Abdul Razak Hussein was "Bapa Pembangunan", Tun Hussein Onn was "Bapa Perpaduan" and Mahathir was "Bapa Pemodenan".

Abdullah, the nature of the man that he is, had a lot of good intentions when he was prime minister but it was unfortunate that he was unable to press on with many of the more meaningful initiatives that he started when the challenge to them became strong.

Often, he would go back on his words, so much so that much of his six years as prime minister was characterized by numerous U-turns.

One glaring example is the Independent Police Complaints and Misconduct Commission or IPCMC which was recommended by the Royal Commission to Enhance the Operation and Management of the Royal Malaysian Police.

Had it been implemented as recommended, which he promised it would, Malaysia would have one of the best police forces in the world. He would go down in history as the man who had dared to go where others had failed to tread.

Even on Islam Hadhari, a pet project which he genuinely believe would lead Muslims in the country to become more progressive like those who lived during the Golden Age of Islam where they were free to innovate and experiment, he was challenged at every turn.

Instead of supporting and helping him, most religious leaders and mosque officials continued to preach the restrictive form of the religion that frowns on innovation and progressive thought.

He is sad that Islam Hadhari is given a cold shoulder in the country when it is accepted by other countries like Indonesia and those in the middle east, he told newspaper editors when he had lunch with them on Tuesday.

He should have known that "a prophet is not without honour, save in his own country, and his house".

THE SOCIAL CONTRACT - correcting the misconceptions

From: www.loyarburok.com

By Art Harun · Monday, March 30th, 2009

The in-thing nowadays seems to be the phrase "social contract". Every Tom Dick, hairy or otherwise, seems to be so well versed with this subject. You make a bit of noise about the Federal Constitution and you would be referred to the "social contract". You question a teeny wee bit about equality and you would surely be referred to the "social contract". I think the next time somebody cuts you off in a traffic jam, you should shout "social contract" at that socially inept moron!

The latest outburst on the social contract had to of course come from Hishamuddin Hussein, the newly minted UMNO Vice-President. In his last speech as the UMNO Youth Chief - of course, it was also a speech designed to garner votes for his VP-ship - Hishamuddin branded those who question the social contract as "arrogant". In his words :-

"Mereka begitu angkuh, sombong dan bongkak mempersoalkan kontrak sosial dan mempertikai hak kedudukan orang Melayu dan kaum Bumiputera. Kontrak sosial telah sengaja disalah tafsir dan dijadikan tajuk untuk menyemarakkan api perkauman."

Before we talk of something important and of far reaching consequence, we should know what we are talking about. We should not just blabber aimlessly and throw about allegations and accusations as if it is our God given right to belittle other people. What is this creature called the "social contract"? Is there such a thing? Is it like any other contract? Must it be signed? And stamped? If so, who signed it? Before that, who drafted it? What are the terms and conditions? Can they be changed? What if it is breached? What are the consequences of such breach? Does anybody know?

Allow me to explain this concept.

Human Beings and Their Natural Rights

Early philosophers, such as Plato and Aristotle postulated the existence of natural justice or natural rights. These concepts were premised on the theory that human beings were born with and naturally follow a set of "natural" morality and behavioural patterns which are independent of human made regulations. The concepts of "good" and "evil" for example, are inherent in every human being. Thus being the case, the people?s grasp of and adherence to such "natural rules" are independent of human made regulations and their enforcement.

If we accept the postulations that human beings are born with a set of natural behavioural patterns, than we must also accept the fact that human beings are also entitled to several basic rights. These are rights so fundamental to the existence of a human being that the denial or transgression of such rights would render his or her existence as a human being almost meaningless. The most basic of these rights are rights which are universal to every human being, regardless of creed and breed, of cultures and upbringing, of religion and school.

The advent of civilisations had seen humans transformed from being individualistic and stateless animals into socio-politico creatures. Cities were built and societies developed. Governments and states were born. The rise of the states and the ensuing assumptions of power by the states and their governments would see the surrender of certain individual rights to the states and governments for the greater good of the society in general.

The Social Contract as a Concept

If it was human nature to be able to roam free anywhere and at any time, and to take whatever was thought to be necessary to survive, why would humans then surrender these basic rights to the states or governments for such rights to be regulated or even curtailed? Why must a human being respect a property which belongs to another and who, in that instance, defines and decides on the ownership of such property in the first place? Why would the people agree to follow and obey executive orders when the people, by nature, are born to be free of constraints?

Here lies the premise of social contracts. The earliest known articulations on social contracts were by Plato who postulated that members of any given society implicitly agree to be bound by the social contract by their continued presence within that society. Implicit in most forms of social contracts is "freedom of movement", which later was termed as one of the "natural rights". The postulations of a social contract existing between a society, a state or a government and the people centre on the needs of the people to build nations and to maintain social orders within their nations. Thus, for the benefit of the nation, the people implicitly agree to surrender some of their rights to the state or government in exchange for social order and greater benefits to all.

Thomas Hobbes explained it clearly. In a state of nature, human beings have unlimited natural freedoms. However, these unlimited natural freedoms would impinge on each other's rights as each person would feel free to do anything against each other (also described as "the rights to all things"). Men then created civil societies where these rights were governed in order to establish a social order. In exchange for subjecting themselves to the state or government, the people gained "civil rights", which were sacrosanct and unalienable, even to the state or government.

Social Contract as a Living Document and the Consequence of its Breach

John Locke argues that the social contract and the civil rights are living documents in that their terms could be renegotiated to suit the needs of changing times. These contracts and rights are only legitimate to the extent that they benefit the general interest. Locke even posits the rights of rebellion in the event the social contracts lead to tyranny. 

The breach of these social contracts by the people would result in some form of punishment on the defaulting party, which could entail the loss of any or some of their civil rights. Thus, a thief may lose his rights to freedom when he is sentenced to imprisonment for stealing. A Government which breaches the social contract by abusing its powers may consequently, argues Locke, be overthrown. We have seen many instances where Locke's position has been taken to its natural conclusion. In Thailand and the Philippines for example, the people rose to overthrow Governments which were perceived to have breached the social contract by various abuses of their powers and transgressions of human rights.

However, in modern states, especially in a democracy, it is submitted that the natural consequence to a Government for its failure to uphold the social contract through abuse of its powers would rest with the people's vote in an election. The real power therefore rests with the members of the state, namely, the people and the voters to elect a new Government at an opportune time.

The Rights of the State vs the Rights of the People

The concept of social contracts also appeals to later day philosophers, such as John Rawls (1921-2002). He branded states which violate human rights as "outlaw states" and "benevolent absolutism" and argued that these states should not command mutual respect and toleration from "liberal and decent people". Rawls of course premised his postulations on the assumptions that human beings are both "reasonable and rational" and that we are reasonable only to the extent that we are able to achieve an end together within a set of specific regulatory principles. In going about achieving this end, we, as the people, would affirm some fundamentally basic liberties or freedoms, such as "freedom of conscience, expression and association".

Analysing all the concepts of the states or government versus the rights of the people, as well as the concept of the social contract between the two elements, the question is of course one of the quantity and quality of rights which the people are ready and willing to surrender to the state or government in exchange for the greater societal benefits which may be yielded from the state. Are there in existence, for example, rights which are so basic and fundamental, which ought not to be surrendered at any cost? Or is the greater good of the state or society a justification for the transgression by the state of the people's fundamental rights? Are there rights which are so fundamental to the existence of the people that these rights are universal in nature? Or are there values, cultural, religious or otherwise, which make these rights vary from one society to another?

Mahathir Mohammad and Lee Kuan Yew are perfect examples of the propagator and practitioners of "benevolent absolutism". Both share a common perspective towards democracy. Under the guise of "Asian values", they argued that democracy in Asia, particularly in Malaysia and Singapore, cannot and should not entail the concept of absolute "freedom" as practised in the West. Freedom, according to Mahathir, should be curtailed for the greater good of the country. What Mahathir and his ilk failed to address is the fact that no reasonable citizen of this country would question the curtailment of freedom for the greater good of the nation. But what is being demanded is that such curtailment must be done in accordance with the law. Such curtailment should not, at any rate, be done without the due process of the law. That basic right is cast, almost in stone, in the Federal Constitution and that is a part of the social contract, if we want to harp on the same. In truth, the Asian values which were being brandished about by Mahathir and LKY are but a lame excuse for benevolent absolutism. Pure and simple.

Underlying the "agreement" of the people to surrender some of their rights to the State for the greater good of the society as a whole is a system of "check and balance" which is ingrained in our justice and administration system. Now, what is left to the people if such check and balance mechanism is obliterated by the Government? Isn't that a blatant breach of the social contract?

The point is this. Nobody in their right mind, and that includes me, is questioning the need for a controlled curtailment of some individual rights in favour of an orderly society. I hope I have made that clear. What is being questioned is the mechanism of such curtailment. It must be done with due process of the law. That is the social contract. It stems from the realisation that the primacy of the individual has to be balanced with the paramountcy of society (to borrow the words of Shashi Tharoor in his excellent dissertation, "Are Human Rights Universal?" appearing in the World Policy Journal). And in my opinion, the element which provides the leverage between the two seemingly opposing rights is nothing but the law and justice system.

The Malay Annals ("Sejarah Melayu") and the Social Contract

Just as the Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights 1689 defined early social contracts between the subjects and the English King or States, the Malays have their own version of a social contract. This is contained in the Malay Annals, an excellent satirical work by Tun Sri Lanang which consists of and is believed to have been based on facts which were romanticised with folklores. In it was narrated the story of Sang Utama Sri Tri Buana (the Palembang ruler from whom all Malay royalty claims descent) who, in his quest to rule the people, made a pact with Demang Lebar Daun, who represented the people.

"Demang Lebar Daun promised that "the descendants of your humble servants shall be the subjects of your majesty's throne, but they must be well-treated by your descendants. If they offend, they shall not, however grave their offence, be disgraced or reviled with evil words: if their offence is grave, let them be out to death, if that is in accordance with Muslim law". To which Sang Utama replied " I agree to give the undertaking for which you ask, but I in turn require an undertaking from you ... that your descendants shall never for the rest of time be disloyal to my descendants, oppress them and behave in an evil way to them." To which Demang Lebar Daun agreed " ... but if your descendants depart from the terms of the pact, then so will mine.. subjects shall never be disloyal or treacherous to their rulers, even if their rulers behave cruelly and immorally ... and if any ruler puts a single one of his subjects to shame, that shall be a sign that his kingdom shall be destroyed by Almighty God." (as taken from the Tuah Legend website)

Thus was born the oft-quoted Malay saying, "Raja adil Raja disembah, Raja zalim, Raja disanggah", which forms the basis of the loyalty of the Malay subjects to their King. The Hang Jebat rebellion against Sultan Mansur Shah was an illustration of how this social contract was practised.

The Social Contract is not Cast in Stone

As pointed out above, Locke argues that the social contract is a living document and its terms may be renegotiated as and when the needs arise. Rawl on the other hand posits that we, as human beings, are reasonable only to the extent that we are able to achieve an end together within a set of specific regulatory principles. Thus, by no means is a social contract an unmovable object. As society evolves, generations and consequently values and cultures change, internal and external dynamics would redefine the society?s priorities and needs. It follows that the social contract would change and vary in order to achieve newer objectives and ends.

Thus in India, we would now see the practice of suttee, where a surviving widow would be burned alongside her husband?s body, being outlawed. Slavery in the United States and other parts of the world become a practice which is frowned upon. Gay marriages are now permitted, even in Singapore. Such is the power of time and progress.

The Federal Constitution for example, had never contained provisions for the New Economic Policy or a new education policy. In the aftermath of May 13th 1969 however, the NEP was introduced out of societal necessities as well as, probably, political necessity. Thus a new social contract was born. What about the new education policy, where the English took a back seat, as opposed to the pre-Merdeka policy where a certain degree of emphasis was given to the English language? Wasn?t that a change to the social contract?

The Federal Constitution is, to my mind, the social contract between the people of Malaysia and the State or Government. But it has been amended countless time to suit the needs of the society (although one could present a really substantive argument that it was amended for political expediency on countless occasions). The Judiciary for example, in whom was imbued judicial power in the original Federal Constitution (and thus the original social contract), was later deprived of judicial powers save and except provided for by the Parliament through yet another amendment of the Federal Constitution. Wasn't that a change to our social contract?

Hishamuddin talked about the actions of some parties who dare to belittle our Royal institution. With respect, that is almost hypocrisy. Under the original social contract, the Malay Rulers cannot be sued in any Court. No legal action may be brought against any of the Rulers. Mahathir Mohammad's regime amended the Federal Constitution to allow the Rulers to be sued in a special Court. Many of us would have read the recent suit by a bank against one of the Malay Rulers. Wasn't that a change to our social contract? How about the necessity for Royal assent to a bill of law before that bill could legally become law? Originally that was the position. But again,

the Federal Constitution was amended to do away with such requirement. Wasn't that yet another change to the social contract?

Hishamuddin and his ilk should realise that nobody is questioning the rights of the Malays and the status of Islam as enshrined in the Federal Constitution. What is being questioned is the implementation of the Government's affirmative policy. There are obvious differences between the two. In any event, the social contract, as proven above, has been varied and changed on countless occasions, by none other than the BN Government itself. Of course, the BN Government would argue that those changes were necessary for the betterment of the society as a whole.

Why then, when anybody other than the BN leaders stand up to raise a question on the social contract, or when he or she would even dare to suggest a discussion on, let alone a change to the social contract, he or she would be deemed arrogant, or in Hishamuddin's own words, "sombong, angkuh dan bongkak"?

This entry was posted on Monday, March 30th, 2009 at 4:26 pm and is filed under Human Rights