World Bank Says Malaysia's Governance Worsen In The Last Five Years

By Lee Wei Lian

KUALA LUMPUR, June 30 — A study by the World Bank suggests that Malaysia’s governance has deteriorated since 2003. The country fared worse in four out of six good governance categories in the World Bank study and improved in only two as of 2008.

The nation also lags well behind the scores of high income countries such as Australia, Japan and Switzerland. It scored better than Indonesia but remained far behind Singapore. Indonesia, however, saw its governance scores improve across the board since 2003.

Malaysia saw its performance drop in four categories — voice and accountability (level of democracy), political stability, regulatory quality and control of corruption.

In terms of its relative position to other countries, Malaysia also fell further behind countries in the same categories. It recorded an improvement in performance and relative position in only two categories — government effectiveness and rule of law.

The World Bank study uses a percentile method to show the relative ranking of a country. For example, a country with a ranking of 60 means that its score is higher than 60 per cent of countries in the study.

Malaysia has a rank of 32 (2003 ranking — 38) for voice and accountability, 50 (57) for political stability, 84 (80) for government effectiveness, 60 (70) regulatory quality, 65 (63) for rule of law and 63 (65) for control of corruption.

It is an indication of the divergent paths that Malaysia and Singapore took upon their split in 1965 that Singapore is the highest ranking country in three categories and near the top in all except for voice and accountability, where it ranked in the bottom third with Malaysia.

While Indonesia ranked in the bottom half for all categories, it nevertheless saw both its relative position and raw scores rise in the past five years. Significantly, Indonesia appears to be doing better than both Malaysia and Singapore when it comes to the practice of democracy.

While the study does not make a link between a country’s income and good governance, broadly speaking, countries that enjoy high incomes such as Australia, Canada, Sweden and Switzerland tend to score and rank near the top in all categories, while the poorest countries are likelier to cluster near the bottom.

Malaysia’s numbers suggest that the government’s emphasis on service delivery over the past five years is gaining traction but it is losing the fight against corruption despite numerous promises to eradicate the scourge.

Voice and accountability, defined as the extent to which a country’s citizens are able to participate in selecting their government, as well as freedom of expression, freedom of association, and a free media also deteriorated during this period.

In the category of political stability and absence of violence/terrorism, which measures the perceptions of the likelihood that the government will be destabilised or overthrown by unconstitutional or violent means, including domestic violence and terrorism, Malaysia peaked in 2005, the year after the ruling Barisan Nasional government won its biggest ever mandate.

It went downhill from there and reached its lowest point in the last five years in 2008, which saw protestors and police clash on the streets and was also the year that the opposition made record gains at the ballot box.

The World Bank study, called the Worldwide Governance Indicators project, reports aggregate and individual governance indicators for 212 countries and territories over the period from 1996 to 2008.

We Cannot Afford Another Anwar Prosecution

30 Jun 09 : 8.00AM

By Datuk Ambiga Sreenevasan

editor@thenutgraph.com

The following is an excerpt of a public lecture by Datuk Ambiga Sreenevasan titled Democracy, Law and Human Rights in an Era of Globalisation that was delivered on 23 June 2009 to commemorate the 25th anniversary of the Chevening Scholarship Programme.

THE Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim prosecution is seen by many as the political persecution of the leader of the opposition. The question is, can we, as a nation, go through a second Anwar prosecution?

Lawyer Tommy Thomas had this to say in an article titled A Second Prosecution of Anwar Ibrahim — Is it in the national interest?: "The starting point is the previous prosecution of Anwar for sodomy in 1998[,] which imposed incredible strains on our legal system, and made Malaysia the laughing stock in the legal world.

"It would be sufficient to remind ourselves of the conduct of the prosecution in the 1998 case, the unfair publicity given by the mass media, the denial of bail, the 'irrelevant' rulings by the trial judge, the conduct of the trial itself, the amendment of the charges, the shameful parading of the mattress, the expungement of 'inconvenient' evidence, the finding of guilty, the lengthy sentence, the appeal to the Court of Appeal, and finally the appeal to the Federal Court."

I personally recall being utterly horrified and disgusted by the charges against Anwar the first time round. The initial charges carried wording I cannot repeat in good company. I also remember the terrible injustice done to Sukma Darmawan. And then to Dr Munawar Ahmad Anees, who to this day has not been vindicated by our courts although they have had the opportunity to do so. We must not forget these and other unfortunate people who all became innocent victims in this political war against Anwar.

The whole prosecution was a disgrace. I remember someone saying then that the trial robbed this country's citizens, in particular our children, of their innocence, as we had a daily fare of sodomy, semen-stained mattresses and the like.

Thomas argues, and I agree, that since those disgraceful events, the judiciary has taken steps to repair itself. He argues that a second prosecution would (I'd say could because, of course, the court could throw out the case) undo all the repair the judiciary has carried out to improve its image.

And it is no coincidence that Anwar is the opposition leader who has brought sweeping changes to the political landscape.

Thomas argues: "If Anwar were not a potential prime minister, and only an ordinary citizen, he would not face this prosecution. It is as simple, plain and obvious as that."

The prosecution, Thomas argues, is economic and political suicide. He adds that the people of Malaysia are deeply divided on this issue, and that Malaysia's international image will, no doubt, suffer.

He then concludes with these words: "History is replete with examples of leaders who refused to learn from past mistakes, and were doomed to repeat them. It would be a tragedy of ancient Greek proportions if our leaders do not learn the lessons from 1998.

"It is abundantly clear that all the factors point in one direction: it is not in the public interest to subject the nation and its citizens to the trauma of a second trial..."

Ultimately, the powers-that-be must appreciate the consequences of this prosecution. If they win, they lose; if they lose, they lose. Actually, the nation loses. If you were a betting person, what would you do with those odds?

One thing must be made clear, it is my opinion that what we are doing to Anwar Ibrahim is starkly similar to what is happening to Aung San Suu Kyi. I ask, show me the difference between the two. I ask, how can we condemn the latter and do the former?

I call on the government to immediately review the Anwar prosecution in the public interest and because it is the right thing to do. If the government takes this step, it will certainly regain some credibility.

The AG's role

It is important in our justice system to appreciate the duties and responsibilities of the Attorney General, particularly in criminal prosecutions.

The Attorney General cannot act arbitrarily. In a judgment relating to the Attorney General's discretion over prosecutions, the Federal Court held that:

"The public of whose interest he [or she] is the guardian has a right to expect him [or her] to act honestly, without fear of powerful national and local figures or of the consequences to him [or her] personally or politically, and without favouring his [or her] relatives and friends and supporters, his [or her] principal concern being to maintain the rule of law so that there will be no anarchy and to maintain standards in public life and the private sector."

Our institutions must work to regain their credibility. I started my speech with a quote from Aung San Suu Kyi that fear of losing power corrupts those who wield it. I hope this is not what we are seeing today in Malaysia.

Rule of law

You would have appreciated by now that democracy, rule of law and human rights are all interlinked. The essential distinction between rule of law and rule by law must be noted.

Many dictatorships or military regimes can quite honestly say that everything that they do is in accordance with laws they have passed. Does our Internal Security Act, for example, accord with the rule of law? No — that is rule by law.

Laws passed by Parliament must accord with the rule of law. They must encompass basic fundamental liberties and values. These laws must be acceptable to a large number of people. They must be fair.

In Malaysia, even after 50 years of Merdeka, there are still in existence four declarations of emergency! We still have the archaic Sedition Act, Official Secrets Act, and Printing Presses and Publications Act. It is time for us to review all these pieces of legislation.

Within our borders

So, if there are human rights abuses outside our borders, can we in today's world fail to act? The answer is no. We must reach across our borders on issues of human rights.

But more important is what we do within our borders. Do we have the right to condemn apartheid, as we did, when we allow racist rhetoric to abound in our country? What about the right to condemn Aung San Suu Kyi's suffering while we treat Anwar Ibrahim the way we do? Can we criticise the kidnapping and disappearance of people overseas when it happens in our country?

We must have the moral authority to criticise others by ensuring we do not behave in the same way.

---

Datuk Ambiga Sreenevasan is former Bar Council chairperson and a recipient of the US Secretary of State's 2009Award for International Women of Courage.

http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2009/07/13/malaysia-politics-drive-upcoming-anwar-trial

(July 13, 2009) - The Malaysian government should immediately drop politically motivated criminal charges against opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim, Human Rights Watch said today. On July 15, 2009, the Kuala Lumpur High Court will hear Anwar's application to strike out a sodomy charge against him, and an ongoing defense request for evidence it says is crucial to properly prepare for trial.

This is the second time Anwar has been charged with sodomy. He spent six years in prison before his previous conviction for sodomy was overturned in 2004.

Human Rights Watch said the current charge appears politically motivated and lacks credibility.

Speak For Those Who Can't

Silence Is Rotten

29 Jun 09 : 8.00AM
By Yasmin Masidi
editor@thenutgraph.com

I HAVE little affection for fairy tales, especially with regards to the moral lessons they purportedly teach. What I got from the stories I read as a child was anger at a world that would force children, particularly girls, through suffering that was only lifted by the intervention of a "saviour". I also raged at a deep sense of injustice perpetrated against those least able to fight against it.

I particularly loathed the story of the child who pointed out that the emperor had no clothes. I knew deep inside that in real life, the child would have been beaten, possibly executed, for having the temerity to upset the social order by embarrassing a monarch.

I don't remember when I learned this lesson, though I do remember vividly incidents where I or other women have been silenced. As a student, I lived next door to a woman whose partner abused her. I remember tentatively bringing it up in a group of acquaintances, and recall how badly it affected me, to say nothing of the woman in question. Instead, I was told sharply that the woman should have been smart enough to leave her partner and I shouldn't have felt what I felt.

The person who said it never even asked, what happened?

I see the same kind of dismissive silencing of women's experiences and women's lives, over and over. We live in a world where women are often seen disparagingly as chatterboxes who'd be better off being silent — despite various studies showing that men actually talk more than women — and where persistent myths about rape discourage women from reporting sexual assault.

No one wants to raped, and no one wants to be violated again. Imagine a raped woman having to face largely unsympathetic police officers in police stations. And her ordeal continues in court at the hands of clueless judges and defence lawyers who use women's histories of sexual relationships and alleged immorality to secure an acquittal.


Women are expected to act in certain victimised ways. This contributes to low conviction rates. Some of the major contributing factors leading to an abysmally low conviction rate — about 4% in a study done by the Women's Centre for Change in Penang — essentially boil down to a blame culture against survivors of sexual violence. That she didn’t “act like a real victim”, or that she “should’ve known better”, or that she wasn’t “a good girl” anyway, or what she said couldn’t possibly be true.

I still regret that the young student I was then didn't have the knowledge I do now of the many whys and hows women are trapped in violent situations. I regret, too that I allowed myself to be persuaded that there was nothing I could do about it. I will carry that regret for the rest of my life. It will be a reminder that my life's work fundamentally affects me and the women I love, that it isn't just about a hypothetical mass of women to be written into a funder's report.

Playing out the Penan

Here we are again: silence upon silence, from those we feel we should hear, and those we would prefer not to. These silences are not merely imposed from on high by a government that pays lip service to equality but refuses to commit to justice for women.

These silences also emanate from our homes, where many still feel that violence against women, when it happens within families, is a domestic matter to be resolved privately. As well, they include attempts by self-appointed public guardians to silence women who have the temerity to claim what is already theirs by right.

It is quite clear by now that the government is attempting to duck any commitment to make public the report by the task force set up to investigate allegations of sexual assault against Penan women and girls. Much has already been said as to why this silencing is unacceptable and why the public has the right to know. I will add that whatever will or will not happen, whether the publication of this report will (inevitably) be dismissed as political football, the survivors of this gross violence have a right to claim justice.

In burying the evidence needed to end the impunity the perpetrators have enjoyed thus far, the government is denying these women an essential component of accessing the justice system — information. And by extension, the government is denying society as a whole one of the means for us to learn from our mistakes. The predators who lived off these women's suffering include those among us who looked the other way, and who don't give a damn as long as they're making money or have cheap palm oil.

Altantuya and Manohara

I was often sickened by media coverage of the murder of Altantuya Shaariibuu, who was often described as a "Mongolian beauty" or "Mongolian model". I felt that this played up a suggestion of salaciousness for the consumption of human vultures. The alleged details of extramarital relationships and political conspiracies distracted from the fact that a human being was murdered, and justice was and continues to be denied to her grieving family.

I am reminded of Altantuya again when I see the coverage of Manohara Odelia Pinot, who is described repeatedly as a "former teen model", as if this has any bearing on a case of domestic abuse. The allegations of domestic violence were dismissed by Deputy Prime Minister Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin as a "personal matter". Pinot herself has been tarred as a gold-digger or an attention-seeker.

I have even seen comments that hold up her press conferences as "evidence" that she couldn't actually have been abused, and they boggle the mind. This is a world where survivors of sexual violence who seek legal redress are still judged on whether they behave like "real victims", despite the range of responses to the trauma of sexual assault. This is also a world where domestic violence is still seen as a mere personal matter. So, can anyone really blame Manohara for doing whatever she can to ensure that her speaking up will be taken seriously?

Make no mistake, these assassinations on Manohara's character are a form of silencing, and this kind of silencing is possibly the most pernicious and the hardest to fight. It is strengthened by the perpetuation of stereotypes and assumptions based on gender that happens on all levels of society: from the home to the school to the highest government echelons.

It is easy to criticise a party like PAS for its resolution to investigate and potentially ban Sisters in Islam and force its members into rehabilitation camps. Of course, PAS should rightly be criticised, because the actions advocated are clear violations of human rights. These actions are abhorrent when advocated by any political party, let alone one claiming to be working towards the ideals of democracy and good governance. But there are many ways a voice can be silenced, and not all of them are perpetrated by "them" or "those people".

Often we, too, fail to listen, and to ask the right questions.

Yasmin Masidi works at an NGO based in Kuala Lumpur. She hopes to learn how to breathe and encourage others to speak, and to open her hands to ask, "What can I do for you?"

Less Detainees Doesn't Mean No Detainee; Say No! To Detention Without Trial!

Only 12 ISA detainees left in Kamunting: Hishammuddin

Friday, 26 June 2009 10:44am

©The Sun (Used by permission) KUALA LUMPUR (June 25, 2009): There are only 12 Internal Security Act (ISA) detainees left in Kamunting, comprising six Malaysians and six foreigners, says Home Minister Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Hussein. He said eight of them were still under detention for involvement in miltant activities and the others for forging documents. Hishammuddin said since 2004, 100 individuals were detained under the ISA for forging of documents (29), duplication of RM1 coins (17) and involvement in Hindraf five), Darul Islam (17), Jemaah Islamiah (18) and Malaysian Militant Group (one). Others were also cases of producing writings that insulted Islam (one), smuggling of illegal immigrants (one), acting as foreign intelligence agents (seven), Southern Thai Separatist Movement (three) and nuclear component supplier (one). Replying to questions from Datuk Mohd Jidin Safee (BN-Setiu) and Siti Zailah Mohd Yusoff (PAS-Rantau Panjang), Hishammuddin said several political party leaders were also detained under the ISA. "However, the government would like to stress here this was not based on political offence or agenda. It was based on the individuals' activities which threatened the country's security and public order," he said. To a supplementary question from Dr Lo' Lo' Mohd Ghazali, Hishammuddin said cases involving terrorists or militants, with extensive global networking, could not be solved within days. "The Opposition MPs should not twist the facts. Our investigations, including the witnesses we questioned, cannot be exposed to the public, otherwise, it will affect their safety. "Do not simply accuse us. What the Barisan Nasional (BN) government is doing is actually for your own good, to take care of the safety of the MPs here too," he said, adding Lo' Lo' can raise any specific case in the Dewan and she will get the replies. Lo' Lo', in her question, said Opposition members were also placed under the ISA although they were not involved in the alleged activities, adding one of them had yet to be released probably due to his wife's active involvement in the Abolish ISA Movement. "If the government has proof of their activities, they should be tried in court and be given a chance to defend themselves," she added. Hishammuddin said the ministry was reviewing the laws under its purview, including the ISA, and as long as they have yet to be amended, the existing laws remain. The amendments would deal with four aspects namely, the 60-day-long detention, appointment of independent investigating officer, the list of threats and limiting the length of detention extension order. Later in Parliament lobby, Hishammuddin said amendments to the ISA would be tabled in Parliament's next session, followed by other outdated laws under the ministry. "We have 33 Acts governing the (home) minister's power. And we have old laws like the Restricted Residence Act 1933, Explosives Act 1957, Corrosive and Explosive Substances and Offensive Weapons Act 1958 and Second Hand Dealers Act 1946. "These were necessary in those days. They were drafted during the confrontation era and emergency period when the main threat was the communists," he said. Hishammuddin said the government was seriously listening to the stakeholders when reviewing the laws to suit current needs. Asked whether Opposition members would also be invited to contribute their views, he said: "They should just give me their proposals because I am worried they may lack maturity and rationale in their views."

Broken Families, Please Pray

Only marriage can mend broken Britain, says top judge

By TIM SHIPMAN
Last updated at 1:27 AM on 17th June 2009

Marriage should be promoted by the Government to end the 'social anarchy' of family breakdown, a senior judge said last night.

Mr Justice Coleridge accused mothers and fathers who fail to commit to each other of engaging in a game of 'pass the partner' that has left millions of children 'scarred for life'.

In a hard-hitting speech in Parliament, he called for a change of attitude that would attach a 'stigma' to those who destroy family life and said a National Commission should be established to devise solutions for the 'epidemic' of broken homes.

Tradition: Mr Justice Coleridge believes marriage would help solve the problem of 'social anarchy' caused by family breakdown

He said: 'The reaffirmation of marriage as the gold standard would be a start.'

Currently, one in three marriages ends in divorce. One in ten children lives with cohabiting parents and a quarter live with a single parent.

Children from single-parent families are far more likely to do badly at school, suffer poor health, fall into crime, drug abuse, binge drinking and teenage pregnancy.

Sir Paul Coleridge, 60, who is married with three adult children, is a leading family judge, having presided over the divorce of Sir Paul McCartney and Heather Mills.

He also made the ruling in Britain's largest divorce settlement in which Beverley Charman received £48million when she divorced insurance magnate John Charman.

The judge's comments stopped short of condemning the Government or any other political party for the breakdown of family life.

But his support for marriage will be music to the ears of Conservative leader David Cameron, who has made clear that a Tory government would support marriage through the tax system.

By contrast, Labour ministers insist alternative family set-ups are equally valid.

In his speech to the Family Holiday Association charity of which he is a patron, Mr Justice Coleridge said: 'I am drawing attention to the endless game of "musical relationships", or "pass the partner", in which such a significant portion of the population is engaged.'

Single parent epidemic: One in three marriages ends in divorce, leaving children 'damaged, miserable and scarred for life'

Condemning the 'endless and futile quest for a perfect relationship', he said many parents were in 'a complete and uncontrolled free-for-all where being true to oneself and one's needs is the only yardstick for controlling behaviour'.

He added: 'The children are caught up in the conflict of their parents' unresolved relationship issues and it can leave them scarred, sometimes severely scarred, for life.'

The judge also said government should support 'those who chose not to marry but live a committed life with a partner', since they provide stability for children.

Calling for 'a fundamental change in individual attitude and behaviour', he said: 'What is a matter of private concern when it is on a small scale becomes a matter of public concern when it reaches epidemic proportions.

'I am not suggesting that all relationship breakdown and termination can be avoided in all cases. Of course it cannot.'

But he concluded: 'The time has come for a major examination of all the issues surrounding family life, its support and maintenance, and especially the mechanisms and laws for its termination.'

The Speck Of Sawdust In Your Sister’s Eye

2009-06-10 18:26

PAS has found an ally in its attack on the Sisters in Islam (SIS) in Parti Keadilan Rakyat Member of Parliament for Kulim-Bandar Baru, Zulkifli Noordin.

He has joined in the fray and accused SIS of misappropriating the word "Islam." [See Article in Nutgraph, 9 June 2009].

"In fact,” Zulkifli, who is also a lawyer, blogged Tuesday, “I suggest that this group change its name to the Cosmopolitan Women's Alliance, in line with their image since most of them do not wear tudung and some of them are not even married.”

His party as well as DAP, which are partners with PAS in the Pakatan Rakyat opposition coalition, have both rejected PAS’s controversial stance on SIS [See Article here].

A resolution was passed undebated at PAS’ recently concluded muktamar or general assembly calling for the Muslim women’s rights group to be investigated and declared "haram" if it is found to be anti-Islam.

The Islamist party also said SIS members should undergo religious rehabilitation should the Muslim women's rights organisation be found to go against Islam.

Raising an anti-Islam allegation is as good as labelling someone a heretic or infidel. And this is no small matter. This sounds like the Inquisition. What terrible sin did the younger sisters in faith commit?

Interestingly, although the resolution against SIS was tabled by the women’s or muslimat wing of its Shah Alam division headed by its urbane Shah Alam MP Khalid Samad, some of its women leaders seemed to have distanced themselves from the move.

Central working committee member Dr Lo' Lo Mohamad Ghazali was quoted as saying,” I have a more open attitude … if you don't agree with them, you can just state your views."

She preferred engagement to exclusion.

Former central working committee member Dr Siti Mariah Mahmud was quoted as saying, “
"I don't agree with banning them because I believe everybody needs to be able to speak their minds."

She too preferred engaging with SIS and added that while she did not agree with everything SIS did or said, she respected that SIS performed good work in protecting the legal rights of Muslim women.

"So if they invite me to their functions, I will go, because I don't have any problems with them," she said.

The intolerance is evident during its just concluded general assembly where one of its male delegates poured scorn on non-Muslim women journalists present during the event for not covering their heads and chided them for mixing freely with their male counterparts.

So why is the Sisters in Islam such an abomination?

According to the PAS resolution, it was SIS's liberal views that have caused confusion and were a threat to Muslims' faith, especially to the younger generation and to those who have a secular education.

The issue at hand is PAS cannot tolerate the liberal position taken by Sisters in Islam. The correctness of SIS’ liberalism or otherwise is subject to public discourse. PAS must not see itself as keepers of the faith.

PAS call to “mengharamkan” SIS is not to only “ban” but to declare their sisters in faith as “unclean” as the word in its proper context suggests.

PAS should be reminded: Why do you see the speck of sawdust in your sister’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? (By BOB TEOH/MySinchew)

SIS slams PAS' call for its ban

NGOs slam PAS' call to ban SIS

Enlighten group members instead, says Nik Aziz

Zaid: SIS need not drop “Islam”

Khalid Samad Admits Overlooking SIS Resolution

You Are Not Qualified To Talk About Islam: How To Respond To Attempts To Close The Public Domain

Allah Peduli

Berita NECF, May-June 2009, page 9

The Selangor Islamic Religious Council (MAIS) has banned an Indonesia song which contains the word "Allah" to "prevent Muslims from being confused".

Anyone found playing or singing the song, "Allah Peduli" (God Cares) may be fined up to RM1,000.00 under the Non-Muslim Religious Enactment 1988. However, praise Allah, the ban is confined to the state of Selangor only as matters of religion come under state jurisdiction.

My comment: In the true spirit of Article 11 (freedom of religion) of our Constitution, you can catch this song at this link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-x_0ChywET8

Why ban a song? Why is there no ban on corruption, abuse of public authority or abuse of public funds?

When are they going to realise that the word "BAN" will immediately propel the song to the top of the popularity chart?

Good News! Ladies Can Start Stabbing

I have been very concerned for a while after reading a male chauvinist's article entitled, “Sex Work” from www.

Loyarburok.com (where else?) Note: the fact that I am addicted to this site does not mean that I approve of all their nonsense.

Being concerned is to put it mildly, the truth is I was shocked. Not because the discussion was on prostitution.

Shocked because the author has put forward that-

1) sex is, according to the author, nothing more than "a biological drive manufactured by your brain to get you to reproduce and keep the species thriving", and

2) any attempt on the suppression of this biological drive will unleash the rapist and/or molester from within a person.

Where did the author get these findings from? The advanced theory of evolution? Even Charles Darwin did not propose them (see The Origin Of Species). Darwin was a smart man, knew that a man should not make this kind of senseless and baseless statements where his wife could read them. Now, this is the kind of man to command my respect. Obviously, the author is the other kind of man.

Anyway, I am not going to condemn the author to the deepest hell. In fact, he may receive my sympathy. He was conceived, as he thought, due to his parents' biological urge. Nothing more, nothing less. I will be depressed if I were him.

My parents fell in love and married. My mother gave birth to me because my parents were taught and agree till today that children are descendants. Not quite the author's sense of "keep the species thriving" but children are the product of the love and commitment of a man and a woman. The evidence of the couples' existence and a legacy to leave behind.

Having sex without having a commitment to love and cherish each other is having "pleasure without conscience" (see my posting, Eight Blunders of the World).

The truth is the truth. It does not matter if it comes from a donkey's mouth. A religious and self-righteous man may have sinned against God and another person, but that does not change/alter the truth. Hating the deed of such man does not mean we can do as we please.

I believe in a Creator and human beings are created instead of evolved from a pool of primordial soup. My life is not the product of a series of accidents. This entails a sense of value in life. However, I agree with Darwin in relation to natural selection (micro-evolution). All organisms are constantly evolving to compete for survival after creation. In my belief, since we are so wonderfully created, hence, all of us must be precious in the Creator's eyes. The argument to put the entire human race at the same level of animals or even beasts is not only simplistic but insulting.

My point is: How can we advocate for human rights, justice and equality for all when we use each other to satisfy our "biological drive"? Even in consensual sex other than in marriage, are we not using each other for own selfish desires? Where is the human dignity?

Today, I found hope when I read an article and that lifted my spirit, see “Angry Chinese Rally Behind ‘No. 1 Heroine’”. It states that, "Hotel pedicurist Deng Yujiao, accused of fatally stabbing a government official who allegedly tried to rape her, has become China’s latest folk hero — triggering what some commentators say is one of the country’s largest civil rights movements in recent years."

Well, since men cannot be depend on to have self-control, women now have another option. This is what I call justice and equality for all. Ladies, get your weapons ready.