Allah?

In Malaysia, the Sultan of Selangor had recently decreed that all non-Muslims in the state of Selangor is banned using the word "Allah" as it is a holy word exclusive to Muslims.

It would appear that His Highness echoes, reiterates and refines a particular piece of the law - 'Section 9 of the Selangor Non-Islamic Religions (Control of Propagation amongst Muslims) Enactment 1988 prohibits the use of "Allah" by non-Mulsims in any matter related to their religions.'

While the section imposes silence of the word on those who practice another religion (by that logic, atheists, humanists and Freemasons to a certain extent could use the word, as these labels are clearly not 'religions'), His Highness, upon the edict, appears to have made a blanket ban on all who do not profess to the religion.

PAS on the other hand, opines that Islam does not restrict the use of "Allah" by non-Muslims, it must not be "misused' by them to the extent that it confuses Muslims.

What is the aim of the decree? Various quarters have replied by upholding the sanctity of Islam. The fact that tickles the logical faculty of the brain is that there are many more prominent ways to uphold the sanctity. For instance, encouragement of doing more charitable acts of kindness.

Arguably, there ought to be a separation of state and religion (while still able to maintain Islam as the official religion of Malaysia). By law in Malaysia, the Sultan is the religious leader of Islam, and has powerful jurisdictions in religious affairs. The bone of contention which arises is why can it be allowed for a decree in one religion affect the religion of another (and to a certain extent non-believers)? This looks like a breach of confidence of non-Muslim citizens, especially Christians who intend to use "Allah" in the Bahasa Malaysia version of the Bible, but cannot due to a putative infringement.

Separation also reduces or prevents imposition of beliefs and values from a particular religion to another lay person who is not a believer in the said religion. Firstly, imposition of belief can be a nuisance, as to change one's beliefs to the standard of another. Secondly, impositions can be beyond persuasive in and forceful in nature which makes 'freedom to believe' as apparent as the void.

The blanket ban also seems to ooze injustice as a strict liability offence. That means those would be those lacking the intention to say the word, out of habit, at the spur of the moment or accidentally and actually utter it would be liable for the offence which is uncool. To make someone liable for an act he or she did not intend hampers and mocks further the already heavily criticized dual justice legal system.

Furthermore, to not be able to casually talk about religion in relation to the particular word  only debilitates the freedom of speech of citizens. It's bad enough as it already is that many topics are considered taboo locally and are arbitrarily banned from table conversations, ranging from sex to politics to religion. Why is it that these subjects come as too sensitive as a substance to converse about? I believe, the only way we will be able to progress further mentally and socially is to able to talk about anything under the sun. Restriction of speech only agitates the more intellectual and yet one can be so surprised with the brain drain at the speed of Mach 5 from Malaysia to elsewhere.

Another issue is the the attempt to define "Allah", an arabic word which means "He is the only one lord" cannot be accurately translated to another language. Some may take a subjective approach, and finds the meaning to which he sees fit, while others sees the word on a more wholesome scale where they accept the general most accepted definition. The question of the chicken of the egg comes to mind - the objective or subjective definition?

Perhaps if we were able to have a telepathic conversation with His Highness, we can try to pick out the rationale behind this decree; till then, many of us scratch our heads in befuddlement.

Sexuality (A reply to a post)

'I do not support Gay marriage, because homosexuality is dragging our current society into a hell of a mess of total gender confusion. Most people might think 'Oh well, it's their life, why do you even care? As long they are happy is enough.' But, most people also do not know it's causing so many family breakdown, relationship issues, fame etc. Let's put this into a simple scenario, imagining your son, OWN son kissing another man and getting married with him. It's really disturbing isn't it? I believe there's a reason why Man are made to be with Woman. Not Man to be with...Man. Yuck.

Sorry you are offended. (I don't care if you are)'

Random post I plucked out from FB.

The post today is geared to curing ignorance of the one who posted the status and hopefully stupidity that lies within certain readers.

Firstly, what in bollocks name is 'mess of gender confusion'? If you are aware (in which of course you're not) gender is NOT the same as sexuality. Gender is the physical trait you are born with, sexuality is the gender which you are (or may not be) attracted to IN CONJUNCTION with your gender. If you meant 'gender confusion' though, that is sex-change then you're discussing at the wrong point of the circle; those who undergo sex change MAY NOT be homosexuals and as sure as hell, not all homosexuals want to undergo sex change! It would make you look smarter if you had typed 'sexual confusion', but that does not strengthen your case any better. Even if you want to discuss sexual confusion, ancient Roman, Greek, and Chinese civilizations (to name a few) recognize the diversity of sexuality at that time but what not so public about it for fear of heresy and death. Such practices have been recorded in ancient scriptures, pottery, books and scrolls. Do read up to open up your mind. Furthermore, I would rather have everyone especially young ones to know and understand there are more possibilities than a man and woman union, and that it is totally okay to follow their heart to love someone they really want to love.

Secondly, gay marriage does NOT cause family breakdowns i.e. 'taint sanctity of marriage' as you think. It's more likely people like YOU who contributed it. Let's look at the United States, for example. Half of the 'straight' couples marrying end up divorcing, half of the straight couples living together aren't even married, it is more likely for straight couples to use their kids as 'pawns' in bitter divorces. On a more humorous note against marriage, no one likes their in-laws and kids are a pain in the ass! Ergo, the only reason anyone would marry nowadays is to legally copulate and procreate (as many heterosexuals don't care much for marriage). Now ask yourself, what kind of couples (straight or otherwise) adopt children who were (mostly) deliberately abandoned by straight couples? Sanctity of Marriage MY ASS.

Thirdly, it's because of people like YOU that many LGBT are forced into straight marriages where society compels them into conformity. The norm is that you go to school, grow up, go to a good university, find a partner of the opposite gender, marry, have kids, and your kids will follow the same cycle again. 'Tis unfortunate the society generally is tailored only in this direction, where hermits, outcasts, individuals who want polygamous relationships, individuals who want friends with benefits only, and especially LGBT have no place in the said tailoring. Therefore, many LGBT forgo their 'sinful' sexuality and try to be 'normal', only later in life get caught in the act by indulging their 'true' desire; who looks like the monster now, forcing individuals who are just like you and I who merely have a different sexual preference into a hellhole, suppressing that desire and pretending everything is like butterflies and rainbows, only to realize that the limits of a human being is only that far?

Fourthly, its the fucking 21st century. LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender) have fought time and time again for a basic right to be able to be unified with their significant other under the eyes of the law. A marriage certificate may not cure this stigma but it's a good start.

Fifthly, no one in their right mind would think like you. Thanks to people like YOU who would reject your LGBT child, they are prone to suicide cases. It's people like YOU who would disown them simply because their sexuality is not common. It is because of people like YOU who leave it to the government and/or church to 'cure' them from this 'sin' through intense programs to somewhat reconfigure their mindset to be 'straight', where in fact it is a traumatizing experience, and many only 'pretend' to be straight to please their parents. I say this with conviction that you are equivalent to trash if you were to not accept your LGBT child simply because he/she is not heterosexual, because they are born that way, and forcing them to change will only ruin them and you can say bye bye to your parent-child relationship.

Sixthly, there is no absolute rule that a man should be with a woman. Use the bible (i.e. Sodom and Gomorrah) and I will smack your face with a red tilapia. If you take the literal reading of the bible, and say being gay is wrong, then you ought to stop eating shellfish and pork, don't EVER get a tattoo, accept the fact woman are second-classed FOREVER as they have to pay for the sins of Eve, allow your daughter to be married to the guy who raped her and strap a cilice to show your 'so-called' devotion to God. But of course, people now only interpret the Bible as to how they see fit, a subjective view but still honour the literal meaning of burning gays at a stake. By all means be a hypocrite and a walking contradict. I won't stop you, but the Reason will snicker whenever you advocate against LGBT rights under the guise of religion.

Ergo, it is submitted there is NOTHING wrong with being LGBT, you are subject to 'birth lottery' and you are born like that, along side with the colour of your skin, race and nationality. Why be the subject of hate when this is who you really are? The next time you post something, have better substance to substantiate your arguments, yeah?

"Heterosexuality is not 'normal', it is merely 'common'." - Dorothy Parker

Sorry you are stupid. (I don't care if you are)

Patriotism

Reading the local newspaper got my blood boiling like hot soup. A certain undergraduate from the University of Sheffield wrote about patriotism (in Malaysia), and what it means to him, as well as how others should interpret it.

Disgusting.

It's totally cool if you want to express how you feel about your country and if you wanna hang the country's flag at your house throughout the year it's totally up to you. HOWEVER, if you even come within a ten foot pole boundary into the realm of imposing your ideas and self righteousness to me, then, prepare to eat your words served with humble quiche (a more fabulous cousin of humble pie).

'Patriotism', if anything, looks like a subordinate branch under the larger heading of 'loyalty'. It would also equate to flowing emotions of love and respect for a country. Introductions aside, I forward a simple question - Should I love my country even after making me a 'second class citizen'? Yes, I understand the government orchestrates most of the drama happening in the country, and does not seem to rightfully represent a country (the rakyat should be the ones to, this is also another load of political correct horse crap), one must also appreciate the fact that the government is capable of using patriotism as a tool to fetch votes and spreading the 'love for your country' as 'good', otherwise you are someone who doesn't 'appreciate' your country. Wow, what a shallow argument. Here is mine: 

You have to realize the relationship between a country (and the forsaken government residing) with her is not a familial relationship, nor is it a contractual one. If anything, we, the rakyat act somewhat as check and balances (who dont get paid for doing so) who provide feedback to (mostly nonsensical) government policies. Therefore, while a government regulates the country, the absence or the unwillingness of the rakyat to cooperate can lead to a collapse in the government as they would have nothing to rule upon. In this set of facts, a government needs its people and vice versa, which means it is theoretically possible for citizens who express their discontent and topple a government via extortion or other means; the government and rakyat have a somewhat mutual symbiotic relationship akin to a lichen and fungi, one can't possibly live without the other.

Some common reasons to 'love' your country which I will refute:
1) Because I was born here - Understand there is a coined term called 'birth lottery' (google.com is just a click away if you don't undeerstand this term) where you're birth date, race and nationality inter alia are by chance, determined at birth and cannot be changed for all intent and purpose, later in life. Your country gives you your nationality as a legal obligation, not one where they are willing to do.

2) Because we have ethnic diversity here (Malays, Chinese and Indians living in harmony :D) - I'll smack ya face with a red tilapia before I move on if you 're an adult, because I make a very DARING assumption you know what is going around the world. Ethnic diversity is the hallmark of MANY nations, viz. USA, Canada, United Kingdom, Mauritius, United Arab Emirates, Indonesia, India, Philippines, Netherlands, to name a few. Malaysia is not the ONLY country on this planet which practices ethnic diversity  Furthermore, there have been many arguments OPPOSING such diversity as many homogeneous societies exude higher levels of social altruism and many such societies have had high gross domestic products and higher average wealth of citizens.

3) Because we don't have natural disasters - We have had a spike in the number of flash floods resulting of a combination of poor drainage and currents from the South Indian Ocean as well as South China Sea. The country is as prone to floods as other countries are.

4) Because we get benefits! - Say... what..? Oh you mean from corruption, swindling monies from poorly contracted jobs, which funds for these useless coupons for short term gain? If you really care for your country, coupons are an idiotic approach to manage one's finances, if you really care for your rakyat, invest in education and medicine where the less fortunate cannot afford it.

Quoted from 'Adaptive Automaton' from Magic: The Gathering - 'Such loyalty can only be made'. To force someone to be loyal is to be artificial, as loyalty can only spawn from a willing heart, especially towards an exemplary figure/concept where one wishes to be loyal to.

Also, as a Malaysian Chinese, I feel second-classes, when those born out of 'birth lottery', by virtue of the NPE are able to enjoy many privileges I am unable because of my skin colour. Seriously, I can think of no other country which practices favouritism if you are born a particular skin colour which is a rather draconian and archaic policy to maintain. By allowing such preference, you are telling other races to take a hike, that even if other races worked harder, contributed more to the gross income of the nation, they cannot be entitled to such a benefit, as compared to the preferred races who theoretically can laze around, do nothing, and yet get a slice of the cake. All these unnecessary monies poured into this subsidy hampers the economy form better and fairer investment opportunities.

The recent National Day celebration have urged many to be 'patriotic', while some may be able to fabricate that feeling, I'm afraid I cannot do the same. While I was a kid I used to think that loving your country and spirit of patriotism is something each citizen SHOULD have. As an adult of 21 years, I find that you ought to love your country only if you feel you want to; you can't force love. If anything, you can still contribute to the economy directly or indirectly without such feeling called 'patriotism' to bind you.

To the author of the said article, I don't know if you honestly feel 'patriotism' for such a messed up nation or you were brainwashed by our excessive government programs. Given the facts for you to ponder, when a citizen can be second-classed even though he/she was born in the country (akin to the status of a foreigener), do you really love this country as you think you would?

Natalia Kills - Wonderland

(My take on the song)

Keywords: Conformity, Heresy, Fake, Artificiality, Mask, Fairy tale, Reality, Poison.

The protagonist feels that the realm of conformity, is a realm of lies. Though for the inhabitants of the realm, that lie is their truth. Absorbed in poison and artificiality, it has become their way of living. That side of the realm seems to be a fairy tale for her for the inhabitants believe in the notion of a happy ending, a false reality.

Wearing a robe as red as crimson, the protagonist is dragged against her will to a mansion, supposedly a fairy tale gala where many will meet; social meetings among the socialites also trend well in this realm.

Here, many wear masks to hide their true facade; for norm dictates that one should wear a mask should ever one intend to fit in. The protagonist refuses and watch them indulge in their Earthly desires. Stares bolt at her hymning only, 'Conform, or die'.

The cupcakes with pills embedded only reminds us even more on how those who try so hard to blend in (wearing masks to hide their true face but the mask is what they want to show the world) would rather 'drug' themselves, not in private or in hiding, but rather at a dining table nevertheless in front of many other masked figures. Not afraid to indulge in that poison or artificiality, they constantly feed themselves more and more, understanding the poisoning effects of the pills but continuing to do so to conform with the rest at the table.

Seeing also a few of them who look a lot like her, she imagines that it is very easy for her to cross the borderline into the realm of norm and almost impossible to return ever to non-conformity. It almost manifested as such and that the very thought of conformity disgusts her.

To rebel would only lead one to his or her grave. Rebelling was easy, she need only step on the table and kicked the cupcakes around and collateral damage convinced the enforcers of conformity that the masked ones were involved in the conspiracy. How ironic it may seem at face value, reflects how this doctrine truly operates in that realm, where the enforcers of justice are easily incited to do injustice.

After sniping a few sinews, the protagonist is sent outside to her death sentence, her crucifix.

Inhabitants of the realm step outside and remove their masks, albeit temporarily as a short temporal reflection of one who may have been their kind be subject to the executioner's axe.

Where one has committed an innocent sin, eternal punishment ensues, akin to Eve who plucked the apple from Eden , and the whole of womankind pays for what certain people call the 'Original Sin'. Even when there is a choice between conformity and non-conformity one would actually be shunned and damned for not conforming to the norm, hence, as though as leaving no choice at all in the first place. Then should there be only a path of conformity in fake acceptance? Or die attempting to stay unscathed  by the influence of the other realm?

In white, the executioner raises his axe and beheads the protagonist. Her head falls, blood oozing, but, till the end, that is till her death, chose non-conformity.

Just Because

Just because a guy wears V-Neck T-shirt, doesn't mean he's gay.
Just because a guy is gay, doesn't mean he likes pink.
Just because you like pink, doesn't mean you are a girl.
Just because you are a  girl, doesn't mean you like Barbie dolls.
Just because a guy likes Barbie dolls, doesn't make him any less of a man.

Just because he is a guy, doesn't mean he likes football.
Just because he likes football, doesn't mean he is a guy.
Just because something is unpopular, doesn't mean it is not good.
Just because something is mainstream, doesn't mean it is good.

Oh, Politics. Politics Everywhere!

Oh, Politics. Politics Everywhere!

The dictionary definition is wide for 'politics', but in general, it would refer to the state of affairs of a particular situation and/or involving lobbying and bribery for personal gain (And this context refers to affairs in a country)

We have had ministers affirming birth lottery (in this context, to get benefits just because of how you were born, as opposed to meritocracy), sleeping in parliament, supposedly murder and got away with it (for now), give away book vouchers, impose insane taxes on tobacco products, alcohol and cars, covert the teaching of Science and Mathematics to Malay while claiming the current command of English in the subject is 'poor', own 'lucrative' cattle farms, enacting Acts to ensure the judiciary is subservient to both the executive and parliament, involved in polymer bank note scandals and endorsing gay witch hunts with their ever so useful guidelines for identifying homosexual men.

All of this and expect me not to be worried of my country, U MAD BRO? All of the scenarios above happened due to two main things in my opinion, from motivation of power and money, and the other is being stupid enough to execute these actions.

Some will be of the opinion that I talk too much, that I should be 'grateful' for what there already is and that further questioning would tantamount to betrayal of the country when I talk openly about politics. Put some thought into that statement; then is it better to just lay around and do nothing when the spoils of political action  is so obviously seen right before our very eyes? And then there are miscellaneous acts which punishes people who speak their mind, condemning governments, even though i rings with truth.

I would like to think that I have concrete opinions. Unlike some homo sapiens, I'm not easily swayed by the wind. Unlike some primates, I would rather reach a goal without sucking up to a particular superior.

Nevertheless, no matter how righteous I 'think' my thoughts may be, it would be unfair to impose these ideals, notion and concept of mine to others. As much as I would hate to admit it, I dislike others to impose their values on me, not because I think frivolous upon certain ideas, but rather, simply because I must concede to the fact that many people would only mingle with those who are of the same wavelength; neither can I imprint my way of thinking on another person unless he or she opens up to me (Face it, there are just some people you naturally just click with and some whom you want to fling your faeces)

Oh, Politics. Politics Everywhere!

Right and Wong - Loyalty?

With regards to Beaufort's current MP, Datuk Seri Lajim Ukin being best served with a show-cause letter,

'Party's constitution clause 20.8 states that all members must be loyal to the political party and abide by its code of ethics and constitution', he said.

I mentioned in a debate before about how the law (the context then was being 'loyal' under a contract for athletes to stay in a particular club for the agreed duration before moving to another. In this context, the terms of the contract are akin to the constitution under the law) affects one's loyalty.

Quoting a line from a fictional work, that is the flavour text of 'Adaptive Automaton' from 'Magic: The Gathering', 'True loyalty can only be made', that is, to be truly loyal, is an artificial and plastic ideology. Having a constitution to force 'loyalty' down a member's throat is no different than a dictatorship. In my opinion, one can only be truly 'loyal' on his or her own accord, as loyalty is a notion best served based on personal drive, not forced upon.

It is surely sad for a constitution to force 'loyalty' in legislation, when such an important element is not constitutionally defined.

Others may argue that it keeps 'party-hopping' in check; I just think you're limiting freedom and encouraging cronyism.