How narrow-minded do they think we are??? September 13, 2008
Posted by Jannah in Malaysia, Opinion, Politics, Public, Religion.2 comments
It really infuriates me when politicains say things like “Hak keistimewaan melayu, sistem raja-raja dan perkara-perkara yang berkaitan dengan agama Islam adalah isu sensitif dan tidak sepatutnya dibincangkan secara umum”. As a malay, I honestly feel insulted by this. Not “protected”, insulted.
How stupid do they think we are? Do they think that lack such intelligence so as not to be able to stand up for ourselves? Do they think we are that narrow-minded? That immature??
C’mon laarr…we are living in the 21st century for God’s sake. Most of us are now well-educated, able to distinguish between what’s right and what’s wrong. Most of us are able to think for ourselves. We are not children who needs to be “protected” all the time. What’s the harm in arguing? In discussing what we are “fighting” for? If we believe that what we “stand” for and believe in is right, then shouldn’t we be able to defend it? When we keep saying that it’s a sensitive issue and should not talk about it openly, we are indirectly proving that our stand doesn’t have a strong basis. Embarassing don’t you think? I personally feel embarassed when our so called Malay fighter leaders say these kind of things. It just shows how unintellectually stimulated they are. We chose our leaders not just to fight for our “rights”, but to also represent us. To be a representative of our race to other people. That means they should be able to explain why certain thins are the way they are. By sweeping things under the carpet, you won’t make it go away. All it does is make it more and more dirty as time passes by.
This issue about malay rights is one thing. I personally do not agree with some of it. To me, by saying that we need these special treatments, we are incapable of fighting for ourselves. I agree there was a time when probably the malays needed a litle bit of a push to help us going. But that was 50 years ago. I dare say right now that we are, if not at par with the other races, just a little bit left behind. And from what I can see, all this special treatments that we are getting are not helping us, it’s just making us more complacent (stressing that I’m only talking about a minority here). It’s sad that some of us actually think that we are not good enough to compete with the other races and come up tops in the end.
Futhermore, I absolutely do not agree that Islam should be considered as a sensitive issue. We as muslims know and believe that Islam is perfect. Then what is there to be afraid of talking about it? Allah Himself says that agama Islam is for those who think. We can see the how magnificent Allah is through His creations, thru thinking. So, if we do not discuss Islam with our friends of different religions, how are we to fulfill our duties as caliphs in this world? Think about it. If during the time of Rasulullah (pbuh), he said, “owh, religion is a sensitive issue. don’t talk about it” what would happen to Islam? it would never spread as wide as it has today. By arguing (in a good and mannarable way of course), we stimulate our minds into thinking. When we think, then only are we able to distinguish between what is wrong and what is right.
I really do hope in my heart that a time will come when we can talk about things openly – without fights breaking out or people hurting each other. A time when we really, truly are a civilised nation. An intelectually stimulated nation.
P/s: The words that I chose to put under inverted comas are arbituary in meaning of it’s uusage in this particular context.
RPK arrested! September 12, 2008
Posted by Jannah in Malaysia, Politics.add a comment
This. is. stupid.
| Raja Petra ditahan bawah ISA |
| Sep 12, 08 1:37pm |
| Blogger Raja Petra Kamaruddin telah ditahan di bawah Akta Keselamatan Negeri (ISA), kata isterinya Marina Lee Abdullah.Menurutnya, 10 anggota polis datang ke rumah mereka di Sungai Buluh pada kira-kira jam 1.10 tengahari tadi untuk menahannya.Ketika Malaysiakini menghubunginya pada jam 1.25 tengahari, anggota polis masih berada di rumahnya.Raja Petra kemudiannya dibawa polis dari rumahnya pada jam 1.50 tengahari ke lokasi yang tidak diketahui.
Pada 6 September lalu, Menteri Dalam Negeri, Datuk Seri Syed Hamid Albar telah memberi amaran bahawa editor lamanweb Malaysia Today itu mungkin dikenakan ISA kerana menyiarkan komen yang didakwa menghina Islam dan Nabi Muhammad. Jabatan Kemajuan Islam Malaysia (Jakim), Yayasan Dakwah Islamiah Malaysia (Yadim), Majlis Agama Islam Wilayah Persekutuan (Maiwp) dan Jabatan Agama Islam Wilayah Persekutuan (Jawi), telah membuat laporan polis terhadap Raja Petra berhubung perkara itu. Mereka mendakwa komen beliau dalam artikel yang bertajuk “I Promise to be a good, non-hypocritical Muslim” didakwa menggunakan ayat-ayat yang menghina orang Islam. Lamanweb Malaysia Today telah disekat sejak minggu lalu, tetapi sekatan itu telah ditarik balik semalam. Raja Petra, yang popular dengan panggilan RPK, juga didakwa telah membenarkan komen-komen disiarkan dalam lamanwebnya yang menghina Islam dan Nabi Muhammad, dalam artikel bertajuk “Not all Arabs are descendants of the Prophet”. Sementara itu, Marina berkata, mereka masih belum melantik peguam untuk mengendalikan perkara itu. Ini adalah kali kedua Raja Petra ditahan di bawah ISA, yang membenarkan tahanan tanpa bicara. Kali pertama, beliau ditangkap di bawah ISA pada 11 April 2001 ketika gerakan reformasi di mana sembilan orang telah ditahan. Pada masa itu, beliau merupakan webmaster lamanweb FreeAnwar.com Raja Petra dibebaskan selepas ditahan selama 52 hari. Bagaimanapun, enam daripada pemimpin reformasi itu dihantar ke Kem Tahanan Kamunting di Tapiling di mana mereka ditahan selama dua tahun. Taken from Malaysiakini |
If you have time… September 10, 2008
Posted by Jannah in Politics, Public, Reflection, Religion, random.add a comment
Owh, and if you have some spare time on your hands, read this…
Makes you appreciate how lucky you are doesn’t it?
Tudung oohh tudung~ September 10, 2008
Posted by Jannah in Opinion, Reflection, Religion.3 comments
I was inspired to write this entry after reading a couple of articles written by RPK on Malaysia Today ; The great tudung debate & The trees from the forest.
I’m not actually going to comment or say anything with respect to the articles because God knows my religious knowledge pun takdelah tinggi mane, takat belajar agama kat sekolah biase jer, tu pun sekolah convent (no offence ustazah ngehe 
) But I have learnt (or probably the best word to use is realize) a thing or two through my personal experience of wearing the hijab.
I have to admit, the first time that I donned the tudung, it was “forced” on me by my parents, meaning to say that I was somewhat reluctant to wear it. Most of my close friends back in school were non-muslims, you see. So it was a bit awkward in a sense. Don’t get me wrong, they didn’t have any problem with me wearing it – although there were the occasional “Why do you have to wear a tudung?” “You have such beautiful hair! What a shame!” “Lagi cantik if you tak pakai tudung” Owh I’m sure you know what it feels like, wanting to be accepted. Plus considering the fact of how insecure I was back then, lagilah! I was so concious of what people would think of me and how it would affect my appearence – dahlah muka time tuh tembam, bile pakai tudung, habis jadi bulat terus! 
So, in order to somewhat ‘reduce’ the effect, I started wearing it only when I went out with my family. I didn’t wear it to school. I thought, if I wore it outside, in the general public, no one knows me so who would notice? So yeah, it was relatively easier that way.
The first day I wore a tudung to school was when I was in form 2. I still remember that day vividly in my mind. I remeber wlaking up the stairs form the primary school to the canteen. The first look I got was from a fellow muslim friend. All she did was smile but that simple gesture meant the world to me 
So teruslah jalan sampai masuk hall. Did the usuals, sat in a corner where my friends and I usually sit while waiting for the bell to ring. Most of them came during reading time so no one really had a chance to say anything. But they did give me supporting smiles and a few questionning looks I must say. Buat bodoh jer, I told myself. The rest of the day was pretty normal (normal being ade yang puji, ade yang terkejut and there were a few who didn’t say anythimg really) except for one particular incident. This incident I think will be crafted in my memory for all eternity – in a good way 
What happened was, when we got to class, the girl who was sitting in front of me – a malay, muslim girl – turned around, looked at me for about a milisecond and laughed 
Litterally laughed. I was flabbergasted! and embarrassed to say the least. rase nak nangis dah time tuh 
– yes, I cry a lot back then. By God’s grace, my friend who was sitting next to me, told her off. Hah! I can’t remember exactly what she said but it ran on the lines of “Asal ko gelak? Menyibuk jer!” More or less. I swear I could have kissed her at that moment. I have never, ever been so proud to be friends with someone more in my life than that particular moment. Syukur sangat2. After that, it was basically uneventful and as years go by, I think I’ve learned a thing or two about tudungs and the schenanigans that comes with wearing it.
Regarding all the dalils about wearing a hijab, itu biarlah saya serahkan kepada mereka yang lebih berilmu. I have my own personal reasons for wearing it, and I’m sure everyone does too. The essential thing is, for me, it is more important to have that conviction for wearing it rather than the act itself. It’s crucial that we understand why we wear it, be it for God, to protect our own chasity etc. Without understanding, without really believing in your own personal rationale, it’s useless. Pointless. That is why we see a lot of people do a chipsmore with the hijab nowadays – now you see it, now you don’t.
Mind you, I am in no way judging the ones that do not wear them. In fact ever since I went to the UK, I have a newfound respect and totally different view of those who do not wear it. Lebih baik tak pakai tudung tapi hati bersih and iman kuat daripada pakai tudung tapi perangai tak mencerminkan perwatakan seorang muslim. I think mabe it’s a Malaysian, or rather, a Malay’s mentality. Or is it just me? Hmmm 
At the end of the day, biarlah ape sebab pun we put on the hijab, yang penting, kita ikhlas and InsyaAllah, Allah will repay us for it I have never regretted the fact that my parents pushed me to wear the hijab. In fact, when I think back, I am glad they did. As you grow older, you see things differently and what mattered to you before might seem so feeble now. All I know is, the longer I wear it, the more I understand why God made us do it.
As an afterthought, I do agree with RPK that sometimes our prioritizations are pretty messed up. We tend to focus on the little little things rather than the bigger, more crusial problems that we are facing. Humans do that. Like this thing with the Bukit Bendera UMNO chief – totally bollocks I have to say. And jsut to point out, I don’t swear. Especially not in public.
My Dream Guy… September 9, 2008
Posted by Jannah in random.add a comment
Correction: It’s not the guy that I dream of (eventhough I still love you Brian ), it’s the type of relationship that I crave for. One day InsyaAllah
An overdose of stale tactics September 7, 2008
Posted by Jannah in Malaysia, Politics.add a comment
I came across this article in The Star today. Can’t say that I agree more..
Sunday September 7, 2008
An overdose of stale tactics
SHARING THE NATION
By ZAINAH ANWAR
We are 51 years old and we still do not know how to disagree rationally, civilly, and intelligently.
IN Barack Obama’s inspiring acceptance speech at the recent Democratic National Convention, he used a line that I felt also described the state of public debate on contentious issues in our country: “ if you don’t have any fresh ideas, then you use stale tactics to scare the voters.”
Over the past few weeks we have had an overdose of this display in Malaysia. We are 51 years old and we still do not know how to disagree rationally, civilly, and intelligently.
From the reaction to Tan Sri Khalid Ibrahim’s proposal that 10% of Universiti Teknologi Mara’s (UiTM) enrolment be made up of non-bumiputra and international students, to the Bar Council forum on conversion to Islam, to the PKR’s Malaysian Economic Agenda, those opposed to alternative ideas could only respond in the only way they knew best – scare mongering and demonising.
Why the fear of open discussion on issues of public interest?
Noisy dissent: From the reaction to Khalid’s proposal that 10% of UiTM’s enrolment be made up of non-bumiputra and international students, to the Bar Council forum on conversion to Islam, to the PKR’s Malaysian Economic Agenda, those opposed to alternative ideas could only respond in the only way they knew best – scare mongering and demonising. — FilepicWhy fly the flag of ethnicity and religion, questioning someone’s ethnic and national loyalties and Muslimness every time a person comes up with an idea that you do not agree with or you do not know how to counter with a better idea?
Be it the issue of affirmative action for the Malays, Islamic laws and policies, Chinese and Tamil education, those who anoint themselves as protectors of these sectional interests tactically reduce any attempt to discuss and redress the impact of these policies on citizens’ rights and national aspirations as moves that, in the end, will kill the special position of the Malays, the legitimate rights of the minorities and the mother of all accusations, constitute an insult to Islam.
These so-labelled traitors to the cause should therefore be detained under the ISA or charged under the Sedition Act or be declared an apostate.
This is not the way to move forward in our search for solutions to the dire challenges we face today. That among those most obstructive and most belligerent are political leaders themselves turns this into a dangerous game. In the contest for power, it is easy to resort to race and religion to demonise your opponent and totalise the discourse by defining differing viewpoints as evil and dangerous.
As Obama said in his speech, one of the things that we need to change today in our politics is “the idea that people cannot disagree without challenging each other’s character and patriotism”.
Misleading accusations
To accuse Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim and Tan Sri Khalid as traitors to the race for pushing for a more inclusive multi-racial agenda, or to accuse Prof Mehrun Siraj as bersubahat (in conspiracy) with the enemies of Islam for defending the right of the Bar Council to organise a forum on the impact of conversion to Islam in a plural legal system, is a strategy used by fascists and extremists to appropriate truth only to their own discourse.
Thus others are demonised, their ideas portrayed as threatening to race, religion and country and therefore all public discussion must be halted.
Actually, it is not that all public discussion must be stopped; it is that those who hold a different viewpoint from the orthodoxy do not have the right to speak out, lest their ideas take hold among the voters who no longer believe in the traditional ideologies of the ruling elite.
Take the issue of affirmative action for the Malays. How can we conduct a public discourse and minimise the polarisation given the divergent ideas, beliefs and fears, founded and unfounded?
First, it would be helpful to generate a rational and intelligent discussion on the New Economic Policy if we stop labelling those who question, challenge, raise the shortcomings and abuses in implementation, the unintended consequences of the policy and those who offer alternatives as pengkhianat bangsa (traitors to the race), merampas hak Melayu (seize Malay rights), menjolok sarang tebuan (stir the hornet’s nest) and other such sinister representations.
Second, it would also be helpful if the media stop inflaming public opinion with such ominous language and headlines, without providing any counter viewpoints.
What the media must do is to promote understanding and rational debate with more fact-based understanding and analysis on why there is a demand for a review of the NEP, even among the Malays.
It must research and verify whether the fears and dire consequences articulated are supported by facts or mere gut reaction.
Third, it is necessary to build public understanding that any affirmative action policy is temporary by nature.
Such a policy puts in place temporary measures to redress the unequal and unjust status of a community that has historically been disadvantaged – be it on the basis of race or sex or disability.
Questioning the NEP, its strengths and weaknesses, and its future standing does not tantamount to seizing Malay rights or treachery to the Malay cause or to the repeal of Article 153 of the Federal Constitution. The NEP is but a policy instrument of Article 153.
What is being questioned is whether as a policy instrument it remains the most effective and just means to achieve its twin objectives of eradicating poverty and economic restructuring by eliminating the identification of race with function.
Fourth, the time has come for the Government to channel all this bursting energy and anger into a third National Consultative Economic Council (MAPEN III) to develop a new national development agenda.
Given the contentious debate on the NEP and the way forward for Malaysia to remain competitive in a new global environment, a new consultative process must be established.
MAPEN I and II produced the National Development Policy and the National Vision Policy respectively. In spite of the consensus reached, there are obvious dissatisfactions from all sides with the way these policy instruments have worked or not worked.
MAPEN III must also evaluate the escalating demand for a more equitable policy based on need and whether this would be more just and appropriate in a more challenging and competitive world.
Given the fact that bumiputras form the majority population and the majority of the poor, any new policy instrument will still benefit the bumiputra community the most.
Fifth, any review of the NEP must be an inclusive, collective and transparent process if the outcome is to be credible and accepted by all. It must reflect the views of a cross-section of Malaysian society, rather than just ethnic-based political parties and the business community.
If the Government does not have the will to take the lead on this, then it is the Pakatan Rakyat’s alternative Malaysian Economic Agenda that will form the basis of demands for change to deal with the abuses and injustices, perceived and real, of the NEP and the challenges of a globalised world.
How is it today that what Anwar Ibrahim espouses – recognition of the special position of the Malays and the legitimate interests of other communities in the Malaysian Economic Agenda – seems like new reason to the ears of many young Malays and most non-Malays, when this so-called”ethnic bargain” has actually been constitutionally enshrined since 1957 and formed the basis of negotiations within the Barisan Nasional councils to resolve the competing demands of the different ethnic groups?
Changed expectations
March 8 and Permatang Pauh have clearly shown that the language of ketuanan Melayu does not work at the national level.
For confident young Malays who can stand on their own two feet, the NEP is no longer the crutch they need to survive and thrive.
For disenchanted Malays who feel, whether rightly or wrongly, that the NEP has been so abused to benefit Umnoputras and the ruling elite only, the sense of fairness inherent in the “bargain” is something they can live with.
Umno’s leadership must decide whether it wants to share power fairly and equitably with its partners in the Barisan Nasional like it used to or it wants them to be subservient to ketuanan Melayu.
It behoves the leadership to go back to the country’s and the coalition’s founding vision as enshrined in the Constitution and re-formulated in the objectives of the Rukunegara:
> to achieve a greater unity of all her peoples;
> to maintain a democratic way of life;
> to create a just society in which the wealth of the nation shall be equitably shared;
> to ensure a liberal approach to her rich and diverse cultural traditions; and
> to build a progressive society which shall be oriented to modern science and technology.
Can we please begin to have an intelligent, rational and civil discussion on the relevance of these objectives and the way forward in today’s confused and contentious times?
Note: the highlightings were made by me
The difference between man and animals are that God granted us with brains, akal. The mere fact that some of us have to stoop down to a level where we use personal attacks be it race, religion, social background or even their “personal” life to argue, is just right down uncivilised.
Being independant means that we are able to stand on our own to feet. It means that we are able to make up our own minds. To use the akal that God has granted us to think. So why is it that so many of us are afraid of thinking? Of arguing?
We need to change this mentality that our society posess of not b eing able to take criticisms personally. When one scrutinizes a poliicy it doesn’t neccessarily mean that that person is also condemning the people who came up with it. Why can’t we discuss, argue in a mannarable and civilised manner without getting personal and attacking one another? That just proves that we lack enough knowledge to be able to present our arguments and convince others why our theories are right. How embarassing.
I think sometimes we just do not realize that we might be wrong. Even worse, we know it but are to egoistic, to ashamed of admitting it. It’s human to make a mistake. But it makes you a better one for admitting that you have.
