Thursday, February 28, 2008
Let's Go Nurul, Let's Go!
That's Shazee, stealing my thunder on nomination day in Bangsar for the Lembah Pantai seat. Well, at least its Nurul Izzah who's contesting.
Well here we are as the impending elections sink into the septic pool it is. I've stopped reading the newspapers now for a couple of weeks, the amount of propaganda makes my eyes bleed. Now I can't decide which is worse, how docile we may actually be, or how docile the government thinks we are. Either way the answer is revolting.
Funny world we live in.
Or just Malaysia.
God it must be hell to be a politician. Pleasing a nation of whining rat-asses that we are. At least over here public policy still overshadows the rights of an individual, thankfully so. I can't bear to imagine having to cater (in theory) to the rights of individuals, from individual to individual.
That's where the system kinda gets screwy, doesn't it? In a secular society where there is no "fixed" yardstick of morals (a bill of rights doesn't count, since it can always be amended) allows for an ever-changing mould of society. All that is needed is for an idea's voice to become loud enough, and hey presto!
Its the new black.
The idea isn't exactly far-fetched, take homosexuality as an example. 50 years ago, to be gay was unbelievably taboo. Now however, if your homosexual you get a parade. It doesn't matter what your views on homosexuality are, the fact is something that was thought to be wrong is now a right, due to its constant lobbying. Development of consciousness you say? It took civilisation God knows how many hundreds of years to develop that consciousness?
Kuala Lumpur, Bangsar, Brickfields, is a beautiful place at night, when the stars litter the sky, the honking of cars has settled for the day, the vibrancy of the Indian community illuminating the philistinism of Barisan Nasional supporters. The campaign posters of the Photoshopped celebrity that is Sharizat take a backseat to the cadence of the unanimous roar erupting from around the corner.
What happened was midway through this post, I upped and left for a ceramah down in Brickfields where Nurul Izzah, Anwar Ibrahim, and a splendid supporting cast of names that surpass me gave short speeches each. The atmosphere, the friendliness of the audience, the veracity of the words spoken, the passion in the swelling crowd lent to the redolence of an impending victory. Can you smell the air? It smells like....
MAKKAL SAHTI!
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
PM dissolves Nation
13/02/08
The Prime Minister of Malaysia today announced the dissolution of Parliament, and the rest of the nation with it, at a press conference in his Putrajaya office today.
Looking amused with himself behind his oak podium and speaking into a RM10,000 microphone, YBH Sir Datuk Tan Seri Tun Abdullah Badawi, OBE, stated that he wanted to "surprise" the people by initially denying the dissolution of Parliament on the 13th, his favourite number, and then changing his mind because he thought it would be "funny".
"You should have seen the look on your faces!" roared the Prime Minister, as he slapped his knees in obvious glee.
"Its not hard to dissolve Parliament", he went on to say, "JUST ADD WATER!" as recorded cheers and applause were heard coming from the direction of the Deputy Prime Minister, YBH Sir Datuk Tan Seri Tun Najib Razak, MBE.
"Oh Abby, you practical joker, you!" he choked. "Gets me every time!"
When pressed on their campaign strategy, the pair exchanged grins and began sniggering to themselves.
"Campaign strategy? Oh, we'll just do what we always do!" they said, before breaking out into uncontrollable laughter.
After regaining composure, the Prime Minister began answering questions on his projected campaign results.
"I project a victory! And so will the news agencies! However, we do expect some setbacks in certain areas. We have not gotten an efficient stranglehold, er, I mean representation on the Internet. Nevertheless, we are well "represented" in other media" he added with a sideways glance to Information Minister Zainudin Maidin, who nodded vigourously.
"We also have many things the opposition lack", he continued, "These include police, autonomous bodies, gangsters, phantom voters, supporters over 100 years old, newspaper licenses, plus budak Election Commission itu is my super-kawan!
"But don't worry. I don't influence him. ELECTIONS WILL BE FAIR! AND FREE! NO CHARGE!", he bellowed, to more applause.
Wrapping up the press conference, the Prime Minister said, "But do you know why we are going to win the election? Its for one simple reason."
"This reason is that Thaipusam is now a public holiday! MALAYSIANS LOVE HOLIDAYS!" he said, as he stepped down from the podium to a thunderous standing ovation.
The Prime Minister of Malaysia today announced the dissolution of Parliament, and the rest of the nation with it, at a press conference in his Putrajaya office today.
Looking amused with himself behind his oak podium and speaking into a RM10,000 microphone, YBH Sir Datuk Tan Seri Tun Abdullah Badawi, OBE, stated that he wanted to "surprise" the people by initially denying the dissolution of Parliament on the 13th, his favourite number, and then changing his mind because he thought it would be "funny".
"You should have seen the look on your faces!" roared the Prime Minister, as he slapped his knees in obvious glee.
"Its not hard to dissolve Parliament", he went on to say, "JUST ADD WATER!" as recorded cheers and applause were heard coming from the direction of the Deputy Prime Minister, YBH Sir Datuk Tan Seri Tun Najib Razak, MBE.
"Oh Abby, you practical joker, you!" he choked. "Gets me every time!"
When pressed on their campaign strategy, the pair exchanged grins and began sniggering to themselves.
"Campaign strategy? Oh, we'll just do what we always do!" they said, before breaking out into uncontrollable laughter.
After regaining composure, the Prime Minister began answering questions on his projected campaign results.
"I project a victory! And so will the news agencies! However, we do expect some setbacks in certain areas. We have not gotten an efficient stranglehold, er, I mean representation on the Internet. Nevertheless, we are well "represented" in other media" he added with a sideways glance to Information Minister Zainudin Maidin, who nodded vigourously.
"We also have many things the opposition lack", he continued, "These include police, autonomous bodies, gangsters, phantom voters, supporters over 100 years old, newspaper licenses, plus budak Election Commission itu is my super-kawan!
"But don't worry. I don't influence him. ELECTIONS WILL BE FAIR! AND FREE! NO CHARGE!", he bellowed, to more applause.
Wrapping up the press conference, the Prime Minister said, "But do you know why we are going to win the election? Its for one simple reason."
"This reason is that Thaipusam is now a public holiday! MALAYSIANS LOVE HOLIDAYS!" he said, as he stepped down from the podium to a thunderous standing ovation.
Monday, February 11, 2008
Go Archbishop, Its Your Birthday
Doesn't Archbishop Rowan Williams have the strangest eyebrows and the swankiest beard ever? That's facial hair to rival a mullah.
Poor guy, getting stick for proposing a new idea. Balls of steel though, why the head of the Anglican Church would talk about the possibility of Shariah incorporation is beyond me. If only he didn't talk so metaphysically, and well, knew more of what he was talking about.
The Archbishop's comments were a little myopic to say the least, but hardly "untimely" with the swirling of democracy everywhere. Which is where we start to get a good overview.
Ah, democracy. I'm truly tiring of the word. Democracy this, democracy that, democracy owns, democracy kicks ass, democracy is absolute, democracy=freedom, democracy equals human rights, etcetera, etcetera etcetera. And of course the endless debate (or rant) of whether Islam is compatible with democracy. Hoo boy.
First off, let me start by stating that Islam has never had a problem with adopting democracy. I can't remember the exact quote in the Qur'an, but it goes something like,
"Oh you who believe! We have created you into nations and tribes so that you may know one another. Verily the best among you are those who are pious."
Or something to that effect. The point is that Islam demands equality, that in the sight of God all are naked and alike, irregardless if religion, race or creed. Equality also contains The Rule of Law, where all are equal before the law, that all are accountable. This funny concept, strangely enough, is fundamental in democracy, and even stranger, is present in Islamic teaching.
During the fasting month, Muslims can opt to pray an extra prayer, which I usually attend at the mosque. There we stand, or bow, or prostrate as a single unit, shoulder to shoulder. Even the bigot of a deputy prime minister prays amongst us, morphing into a mortal.
Whether all that is a political ploy I refuse to speculate.
There are plenty of other examples that a scholar could better present. My point is, that there is no reason for Islam not to be compatible with democracy, or vice-versa. It's worth noting that democracy is adopted with other government forms existing before. As far as history goes, Muslims have yet to adopt a democracy that self-proclaimed democrats can be satisfied with.
The world is not ready for democracy.
It was an idea conceived by men who envisioned a completely enlightened society. Democracy is meant to give the power of decision to the people, provided they can make an informed one. Freedom of speech is meant to give voice to the people, provided they speak and argue intelligibly. What was supposed to stimulate discourse, ideas and productivity has only caused the rapid degradation of society. Democracy is for a utopia, not for the real world.
But its purportedly the best available, so we can excuse the sciolism.
You can draw your own conclusions, but one can summarise the reasons for the ideological rift between Islam and democracy, which boils down to a few points.
1) Failure of Islam to adopt a democratic government system - This boils down to sheer ignorance and illiteracy, where the polarisation of religious knowledge and everything else has created an unwillingness of Muslim leaders to accept a "western" idea. What's so wrong in borrowing something good, especially one which compliments Islam and gives growth to its understanding? Democracy is knowledge, knowledge is the way to understand the world, and God keeps it spinning.
2) Failure (or unwillingness) of "democracy" to accept Islam as democratic - Algeria 1992, Hamas elections in Palestine 2006. Hey, they were elected democratically!
3) Failure of Muslims to be good citizens of their country (Islamic or not) as well as good Muslims. Noone said the two are impossible. You live in Britain, you play by their rules.
4) Incompetence in the actual aspects of law, civil and Shariah alike.
This is where we return to Mr. Williams.
Civil Law - the principles of a defining document (generally a constitution) embodied in legislation to ensure its enforcement as well as its safeguard.
Shariah Law - the principles of a defining document (The Qur'an, Hadith) embodied in legislation to ensure its enforcement as well as its safeguard.
Same principle.
What's the difference?
Nothing, well other than the fact that one can be amended.
Generally speaking, the principles of the relevant document remain unchanged. It is however, our understanding of the principles with the continual development of our psyche, the implementation of the principles with accordance to the ever changing nature of the social, economic and political climate and the drafting of legislation based on those factors which are subject to the sands of time.
There is much hullabaloo about Shariah law, simply because those bleating don't understand law themselves, as well as the lateness of the due amendments in Shariah legislation. When i say amendments here, I mean the kinks that should have been worked out ages ago now that feudalism and absolute monarchy have been filed under "superannuated".
Maybe the Archbishop in stating his case, should have presented it from a "Islam is compatible with democracy" angle, instead of the "We should incorporate Islam into our democracy" line. In essence the two are one in the same, but the vagaries of language give birth to Islamophobic nuances. I figure his point must have been that a government should take care of its citizens, culturally even, with neither him nor the rest of the world aware of the similarities that already exist. I'm no Shariah or civil law expert, but this whole issue was a lot of hot air.
In many ways the utopia of Islam and democracy are similar. Both are meant for enlightened societies where every problem has its discussion, where every problem has its practical solution, where education and ingenuity runs riot in a society that demands it in excess, where enlightenment rids society of its diseases.
Poor guy, getting stick for proposing a new idea. Balls of steel though, why the head of the Anglican Church would talk about the possibility of Shariah incorporation is beyond me. If only he didn't talk so metaphysically, and well, knew more of what he was talking about.
The Archbishop's comments were a little myopic to say the least, but hardly "untimely" with the swirling of democracy everywhere. Which is where we start to get a good overview.
Ah, democracy. I'm truly tiring of the word. Democracy this, democracy that, democracy owns, democracy kicks ass, democracy is absolute, democracy=freedom, democracy equals human rights, etcetera, etcetera etcetera. And of course the endless debate (or rant) of whether Islam is compatible with democracy. Hoo boy.
First off, let me start by stating that Islam has never had a problem with adopting democracy. I can't remember the exact quote in the Qur'an, but it goes something like,
"Oh you who believe! We have created you into nations and tribes so that you may know one another. Verily the best among you are those who are pious."
Or something to that effect. The point is that Islam demands equality, that in the sight of God all are naked and alike, irregardless if religion, race or creed. Equality also contains The Rule of Law, where all are equal before the law, that all are accountable. This funny concept, strangely enough, is fundamental in democracy, and even stranger, is present in Islamic teaching.
During the fasting month, Muslims can opt to pray an extra prayer, which I usually attend at the mosque. There we stand, or bow, or prostrate as a single unit, shoulder to shoulder. Even the bigot of a deputy prime minister prays amongst us, morphing into a mortal.
Whether all that is a political ploy I refuse to speculate.
There are plenty of other examples that a scholar could better present. My point is, that there is no reason for Islam not to be compatible with democracy, or vice-versa. It's worth noting that democracy is adopted with other government forms existing before. As far as history goes, Muslims have yet to adopt a democracy that self-proclaimed democrats can be satisfied with.
The world is not ready for democracy.
It was an idea conceived by men who envisioned a completely enlightened society. Democracy is meant to give the power of decision to the people, provided they can make an informed one. Freedom of speech is meant to give voice to the people, provided they speak and argue intelligibly. What was supposed to stimulate discourse, ideas and productivity has only caused the rapid degradation of society. Democracy is for a utopia, not for the real world.
But its purportedly the best available, so we can excuse the sciolism.
You can draw your own conclusions, but one can summarise the reasons for the ideological rift between Islam and democracy, which boils down to a few points.
1) Failure of Islam to adopt a democratic government system - This boils down to sheer ignorance and illiteracy, where the polarisation of religious knowledge and everything else has created an unwillingness of Muslim leaders to accept a "western" idea. What's so wrong in borrowing something good, especially one which compliments Islam and gives growth to its understanding? Democracy is knowledge, knowledge is the way to understand the world, and God keeps it spinning.
2) Failure (or unwillingness) of "democracy" to accept Islam as democratic - Algeria 1992, Hamas elections in Palestine 2006. Hey, they were elected democratically!
3) Failure of Muslims to be good citizens of their country (Islamic or not) as well as good Muslims. Noone said the two are impossible. You live in Britain, you play by their rules.
4) Incompetence in the actual aspects of law, civil and Shariah alike.
This is where we return to Mr. Williams.
Civil Law - the principles of a defining document (generally a constitution) embodied in legislation to ensure its enforcement as well as its safeguard.
Shariah Law - the principles of a defining document (The Qur'an, Hadith) embodied in legislation to ensure its enforcement as well as its safeguard.
Same principle.
What's the difference?
Nothing, well other than the fact that one can be amended.
Generally speaking, the principles of the relevant document remain unchanged. It is however, our understanding of the principles with the continual development of our psyche, the implementation of the principles with accordance to the ever changing nature of the social, economic and political climate and the drafting of legislation based on those factors which are subject to the sands of time.
There is much hullabaloo about Shariah law, simply because those bleating don't understand law themselves, as well as the lateness of the due amendments in Shariah legislation. When i say amendments here, I mean the kinks that should have been worked out ages ago now that feudalism and absolute monarchy have been filed under "superannuated".
Maybe the Archbishop in stating his case, should have presented it from a "Islam is compatible with democracy" angle, instead of the "We should incorporate Islam into our democracy" line. In essence the two are one in the same, but the vagaries of language give birth to Islamophobic nuances. I figure his point must have been that a government should take care of its citizens, culturally even, with neither him nor the rest of the world aware of the similarities that already exist. I'm no Shariah or civil law expert, but this whole issue was a lot of hot air.
In many ways the utopia of Islam and democracy are similar. Both are meant for enlightened societies where every problem has its discussion, where every problem has its practical solution, where education and ingenuity runs riot in a society that demands it in excess, where enlightenment rids society of its diseases.
Friday, February 01, 2008
Dried Ink
Maybe I left the cap on, the pen ran dry spilled all over the floor rapaciously, draining the ink into the crevasses of a parquet floor, or maybe this ridiculous weather has had my brains fried into neurotic mush that Gray's Anatomy could better explain.
The book, not the show.
Whatever the excuse, its been awhile since I've been able to bring myself to write anything remotely significant. But what does one consider significant anyways? Politics? Racial issues? Religious misunderstanding? Movie reviews? "What I did today"?
Well I got my university application almost sorted out. And I mean almost strictly here, because educational bureaucracy stamps its foot in my way by proclaiming my English impotency. Maybe its just me because I regard my language ability as the only thing I have, therefore it especially pisses me off. But generally speaking, the entire system is designed to deny countless their right to education. Not just at Monash, were i'm headed, but tertiary education in general.
I remember from the movie "Accepted", a dialogue between dean and student :
"You know what makes universities special? Rejection."
People spew about minimum requirements, academic achievements, an excellence of character as criteria in order to be accepted into a top-grade university. All for what? The maintenance of exceptional quality graduates and the standard of academic brilliance that plays on everyone's lips, whilst denying a healthy education to others.
Idealistically speaking I would have gone to LSE to study a PPE. but I didn't apply, simply because my grades wouldn't have been regarded, not to mention the sale of my soul (or rather, my parents). But that's not to say I don't deserve to study there. Just because I don't meet the requirements means I'm not able enough for their program, while a friend of mine who has a bottomless pockets snags a place? There is no measure for intelligence or genius, neither is there a measure for importance. Mental class societies are what destroy us all, the farcical believe that one should breathe a cleaner air as compared to another, that one is more deserving than another; all those who work, work hard, all those who strive, strive hard.
Bureaucracy determines who gets the best education, the best credentials, and the best chance of making an impact, while at the same time ensuring the poor remain illiterate and uneducated. There is so much talk of education and alleviation of poverty, but what we really stand for is our sickening kleptocratic society.
But then again the system exists for reasons that probably surpass me, and this may just be a rant of one denied a dream education. That said I, as well as the rest of the world, deserves the best education there is available, but its the institution that denies us that right.
The book, not the show.
Whatever the excuse, its been awhile since I've been able to bring myself to write anything remotely significant. But what does one consider significant anyways? Politics? Racial issues? Religious misunderstanding? Movie reviews? "What I did today"?
Well I got my university application almost sorted out. And I mean almost strictly here, because educational bureaucracy stamps its foot in my way by proclaiming my English impotency. Maybe its just me because I regard my language ability as the only thing I have, therefore it especially pisses me off. But generally speaking, the entire system is designed to deny countless their right to education. Not just at Monash, were i'm headed, but tertiary education in general.
I remember from the movie "Accepted", a dialogue between dean and student :
"You know what makes universities special? Rejection."
People spew about minimum requirements, academic achievements, an excellence of character as criteria in order to be accepted into a top-grade university. All for what? The maintenance of exceptional quality graduates and the standard of academic brilliance that plays on everyone's lips, whilst denying a healthy education to others.
Idealistically speaking I would have gone to LSE to study a PPE. but I didn't apply, simply because my grades wouldn't have been regarded, not to mention the sale of my soul (or rather, my parents). But that's not to say I don't deserve to study there. Just because I don't meet the requirements means I'm not able enough for their program, while a friend of mine who has a bottomless pockets snags a place? There is no measure for intelligence or genius, neither is there a measure for importance. Mental class societies are what destroy us all, the farcical believe that one should breathe a cleaner air as compared to another, that one is more deserving than another; all those who work, work hard, all those who strive, strive hard.
Bureaucracy determines who gets the best education, the best credentials, and the best chance of making an impact, while at the same time ensuring the poor remain illiterate and uneducated. There is so much talk of education and alleviation of poverty, but what we really stand for is our sickening kleptocratic society.
But then again the system exists for reasons that probably surpass me, and this may just be a rant of one denied a dream education. That said I, as well as the rest of the world, deserves the best education there is available, but its the institution that denies us that right.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
