Kelana Jaya Immigration Renewing Passorts

Today I renewed my passport at Kelana Jaya Immigration Office. It was at Plaza Glomac, Jalan SS7/19 Block B. The internet misled me to Block A. I got it done in 50 minutes, kudos!

But photo cost RM10 for 4 pieces without a CD (I was afraid to take it at the studio somewhere as there has been people getting problem with fuzzy officers). Photostat of IC cost 40 cents. A glass of tea tarik at the next door Mamak cost me RM2. They did not even have a wifi service, so my money was not worth spent. Parking at Block A cost RM4.20 for an hour plus (20 cents must be government tax as the rate stated RM2 per hour. I was exploited by all these. Who would fight for people such injustice?

今天在可拉那再也移民局更新我的护照，它位于 Plaza Glomac B 座，互联网却误导我在 A 座。50分钟就搞定了，赞！

然而，在那里拍4张照片10令吉，没有提供光碟（我怕在外面照相馆拍，因为有资讯说有人曾经受到爱找渣的官员为难）。复印身分证卡40仙。隔壁的麻麻餐室收我一杯拉茶2令吉，可笑就是它们没有无线网络设备，那我的钱算是花得不值。在 A 座停泊汽车1小时多收费4.20令吉（20仙或许是政府税吧？因为通告牌注明每小时2令吉）。我被这些东西剥削了！谁能帮助人们伸张这般的不公呢？

“与末沙布辩论而非提控他”，党团联署质疑纳吉改革诚意

2011年9月21日 下午 2点24分

47个党团组织今日联署，集体表达对政府提控回教党署理主席莫哈末沙布的厌恶。

45个公民团体及2个政治组织发表联合文告表示，政府提控莫哈末沙布，显然与首相纳吉在马来西亚日宣布的民主开放措施背道而驰。

“这令人质疑首相纳吉宣布的系列改革的诚意，包括修改印刷与出版法令。首相是否还能全面控制警察部队的行动？”

“我们促请政府即刻撤销此含有政治动机的提控，停止恐吓挑战官方历史与意识形态的异议者。”

“我们吁请首相与副首相，与其滥用政府机关将莫哈末沙布入罪，不如接受莫哈末沙布的挑战，在不设禁的电视台上公开与他辩论武吉格蓬事件。”

使反对者噤声懦弱行为

文告是，政治人物、前军警人员和土著权威组织也应在媒体或论坛上与莫哈末沙布公开辩论，并应该尊重莫哈末沙布有表达不同意见的权利。

文告谴责，滥用政府机关使反对者噤声是懦弱的行为，显示掌权者没有安全感、没有信心以事实与道理赢得辩论。

“如此压制言论自由，实际上对马来西亚的独立是个侮辱。不同于殖民地或一党专政的国家，一个独立国家的人民应享有基本人权和自由。”

联署公民团体：

1. 维护媒体独立撰稿人联盟
2. 人民之声
3. 妇女力量组织
4. 雪隆社区协会
5. 社会传播中心(KOMAS)
6. 隆雪华堂民权委员会
7. 林连玉基金公民社会委员会
8. 连环扣全国行动小组(NIAT)
9. 528媒体行动小组
10. 政策倡议中心(CPI)
11. 马来西亚青年与学生民主运动
12. 社区行动网络(CAN)
13. 我是马来西亚之子(SABM)
14. 全球化可续性监督组织(MSN)
15. 被压迫人民联盟
16. 隆雪华堂青年团
17. 理大前进阵线
18. 博大前进阵线
19. 北大前进阵线
20. 新纪元学院前进阵线
21. 雪兰莪社区关怀协会
22. 博大华文学会
23. 大专生团结阵线 (SMM)
24. 动力青年 (Y4C)
25. 新纪元学院校友会
26. 马来西亚印裔组织联合会（PRIMA）
27. 雪隆理华同学会
28. 北马理华同学会
29. 中国维权大马后援会
30. 还原大马历史运动委员会
31. 独立大专生活跃小组（KAMI）
32. 50B 空间
33. 709黄潮世代
34. 政改研究所 (KPRU)
35. 人民之声新山支会 (SUARAM JB)
36. 原住民关怀中心 (COAC)
37. 妇女行动协会 （AWAM）
38. 彩虹性别学会
39. 社会想像工作室
40. 全民挺明福运动
41. 杨伟光后援会
42. 回教复兴阵线（IRF）
43. 雪兰莪妇女之友协会
44. T'anda Tanya of DurianFM.com
45. 槟城中文报记者及摄影记者协会 (PEWAJU)

联署政治组织：

1. 社会主义党
2. 雪兰莪民联议员助理协会（SELPROA）

来源：http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/176434

Branding guru calls Najib’s PR efforts an ‘absolute scam’

By Yow Hong Chieh

September 21, 2011

Anholt, courtesy of www.simonanholt.com

KUALA LUMPUR, Sept 21 — The creator of the nation branding concept has called the prime minister’s use of British publicity firm FBC Media to burnish Malaysia’s image abroad an “absolute scam” and a waste of public funds.

Simon Anholt, who pioneered the use of nation branding as a way to measure, build and manage a country’s reputation, said that while public relations was needed in the private sector, it was “highly suspect” that a country could up its standing using the same means.

“There’s a great deal of evidence around us to show what a waste of taxpayers’ money this is,” he told BFM Radio in a phone interview this morning.

“First of all, the countries that tend to spend most money on these PR campaigns to fix their image tend to be the rogue nations.

“If you look at the countries that have spent the most money on ambitious PR campaigns, they’re the places that are most despised and it hasn’t done anything to fix their image at all.”

Anholt pointed out that media studies has known for decades that the media cannot change people’s perception of a country from worse to better or vice versa but could only raise the profile of its existing image.

For this reason, he said “the last thing” a country with a bad image should do is engage in public relations as increased media coverage would only remind the rest of the world what a “problematic” country or government it was.

“So I’m afraid I think the whole thing is an absolute scam and a shocking and indefensible waste of taxpayers’ money,” he said.

Anholt stressed that governments needed to understand that when they engaged in foreign policy, economic development or international relations, they risked damaging the reputation of their country, which was worth “much, much, much more” than all other tangible assets combined.

It was the “sacred responsibility” of governments today to ensure their country’s good name was preserved and handed down in the same condition, if not better, he said.

Anholt added that countries could only make themselves more relevant to the rest of the world by becoming more useful, and suggested Malaysia tackle shared global issues like climate change, women’s rights, terrorism and financial instability to improve its reputation.

“And then I absolutely guarantee that if you do that and you do it well and you do it consistently over a number of years... you will find that you will become a much more widely recognised and more widely appreciated country,” he said.

“That’s how reputation is earned. I’m afraid there aren’t any shortcuts to it.”

Last month, Putrajaya was forced to end its contract with FBC Media after an embarrassing exposé revealed that Malaysian leaders routinely appeared in paid-for interviews on global television programmes.

Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak has since engaged the services of a new group of political strategists — including members of the team behind Tony Blair’s “New Labour” — to reinvent the first-term premier as a moderate reformist in preparation for possible snap polls next year.

Najib’s new team of advisers is just the latest in his administration’s penchant for foreign public relations firms.

APCO’s time in Malaysia was marked by controversy after the opposition alleged the public relations firm was linked to Israel.

Source: http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/malaysia/article/branding-guru-calls-najibs-pr-efforts-an-absolute-scam/

Forget ISA abolition, zero-in on electoral reform

Monday, 19 September 2011 Super Admin

Article 149, which is meant for national security, is the mother of repressive laws, as it enables parliament to brush aside fundamental human rights guaranteed under Part 2 of the Constitution to enact laws that grant the Executive sweeping power that includes detention without trial. The human rights so affected include those enshrined under Article 5 (life and liberty), Article 9 (freedom of movement), Article 10 (freedom of speech and assembly), etc.

By Kim Quek

Prime Minister Najib Razak’s stunning announcement of his intention to repeal the abominable Internal Security Act (ISA) as well as the three archaic Proclamations of Emergency has brought much excitement to a country long struggling to rid itself of repressive rule.

Najib said in a much anticipated speech delivered on the “historic night” of Sept 15 (as he himself described) that the lifting of these repressive legislations was meant to meet the “aspiration of the people for a more open and dynamic democracy, …..so as to be at par with other democratic systems in the world”.

The immediate emotional impact of such a momentous announcement must be one of exhilaration and euphoria for many – we are now finally on the path to regain our long lost democracy!

But are we?

OLD WINE IN NEW BOTTLE?

In the same breath as Najib announced the good news, he said new legislations will be enacted – an anti-terrorism act and a public order law - under the umbrella of Article 149 of the Federal Constitution to combat subversives and organized violence, so as to preserve public order and security.

But isn’t this the same umbrella Article 149 that gave birth to the detestable ISA?

Article 149, which is meant for national security, is the mother of repressive laws, as it enables parliament to brush aside fundamental human rights guaranteed under Part 2 of the Constitution to enact laws that grant the Executive sweeping power that includes detention without trial. The human rights so affected include those enshrined under Article 5 (life and liberty), Article 9 (freedom of movement), Article 10 (freedom of speech and assembly), etc.

Article 149 was written in such a way that it virtually gives the dominant party in parliament a blank cheque to write whatever autocratic law whenever it desires, as the grounds upon which such law can be enacted encompass a wide range of vague justifications – grounds such as any actual or threatened action that may cause citizens to fear organized violence, or to excite disaffection against government, or to promote ill-will among races, or prejudice the functioning of public service or supply, etc.

With such licence to create autocratic legislations, can Umno resist the temptation to fashion the new anti-terrorist laws after its repressive impulse for self-preservation? Considering Umno’s notorious record of contempt for the sanctity of law, as reflected in its cavalier attitude in amending the Constitution for political expediency – having made more than 600 amendments to the Constitution in the short period of the country’s independence – the answer must be an emphatic no.

NO CHANCE OF FAIR IMPLEMENTATION

Even in the unlikely event of Umno managing exceptionally to enact the replacement security laws in accord with the democratic spirit of our Constitution on this occasion, there is still the huge question of whether Umno is capable of implementing these laws with fairness and equity.

In this respect, we recall that when the ISA was enacted in 1960, our first prime minister Tunku Abdul Rahman gave the solemn pledge in parliament that the vast power of ISA would only be used to curb the communist insurgency, and would never be used to suppress political opposition.

But we all know that the ISA detention center at Kamunting has played host to such distinguished “guests” (detainees) as Anwar Ibrahim, Lim Kit Siang, Mat Sabu, Karpal Singh, Lim Guan Eng (among thousands of others). Does anyone in his right mind believe that any of them could have been a communist or a subversive?

It is an undeniable fact that the history of ISA is a mirror of the relentless abuse of draconian power by the Umno led regime to oppress opponents and silence critics. Instead of using the ISA as a weapon to combat the communists as pledged, ISA has been turned into Umno’s potent instrument to keep its hegemony intact all these decades.

Umno is now facing unprecedented challenge to its political survival. Are we to believe that it will give up this potent weapon at this most vulnerable moment of its existence?

What Najib is effectively tellings us is that the anti-communist law (ISA) will now be replaced by anti-terrorist law.

Since both laws derive from the same root (Article 149), have the same power of preventive detention, exercised by the same political masters, and implemented by the same institutions (police, attorney general and judiciary), which now enjoy even less public confidence than in the past, why should one believe that history will not repeat itself?

If an anti-communist law has been persistently and unhesitatingly abused to blunt opposition challenges in the past, why should we believe that the new anti-terrorist law will not be similarly abused now that Umno is struggling desperately for its political survival?

GENUINE REFORM UNLIKELY

Even if Najib is serious about these changes this time, as he may have been persuaded to adopt this course as the best way to recoup the middle ground support he lost in the recent Bersih rally debacle, obstacles ahead abound.

For a start, Najib appears to have acted in isolation, as two key players seem to have been left out of the loop. Neither his deputy Muhyiddin Yassin nor Home Minister Hishamuddin Hussein – and by extension, the cabinet – seem to have participated in the decision-making process.

The hardliner Home Minister, who is responsible for implementing the security laws, expressed ignorance, when reporters asked him about rumours of a pending repeal of ISA only two days before Najib’s speech.

While Muhyiddin, speaking at a Merdeka-Raya event in Nibong Tebal, Penang on Sept 17, said that Najib’s announcement was “unexpected and radical”, but he quickly added that Najib’s speech was “bold and courageous”. He went on to praise Najib for moving with the time and assured the people that the changes were meant for the good of the people.

Such expressions of “surprise” and “praise”, coming after keeping mum for two days, give a lot of food for thought.

A reasonable interpretation is that the staunchly conservative and increasingly more powerful deputy leader of Umno cum deputy prime minister was not happy with such a “radical” move, but pragmatism dictates that he must not show it. Instead, he must have decided over the two days of contemplation to turn an apparently unhappy event into advantage by riding on this new wave of “democratic reform” to reap maximum support at home and abroad, without the slightest intention to let go of Umno’s repressive grip. After all, there is still ample opportunity to keep Umno’s draconian power intact during the legislative as well as the implementation stage.

Indeed that seems to be the case, as unmistakably signaled by Muhyiddin when he pointed out that the new security laws will prioritize security over human rights, when answering query whether there would be true reforms with the introduction of two new security laws.

Without the prior consultation and support of Umno’s top guns for genuine reforms, and with Najib’s miserable record of flip-flops whenever opposed by conservatives, it is almost a foregone conclusion that there will not be true reforms whether there is or isn’t repeal of current repressive legislation.

ELECTORAL REFORM TOP PRIORITY

The real danger to true reformists lies in the false propaganda that can be generated from this new development, considering the immense power of BN’s propaganda machinery, which encompasses all newspapers and all TV channels.

Among the casualties of such false propaganda would be the Bersih 2.0 movement for electoral reform, as euphoria so created may deflate the immense momentum generated by the recent Bersih rally. It may even cripple Bersih’s capacity to rally another mass demonstration, if substantial section of the middle ground is doped into cherishing such false hope of democratization.

And Bersih rally 3 looks inevitable, in the light of alarming increase of discovery of frauds in the electoral roll, against the back drop of a reluctant BN to institute real reform.

This new menace of apparently systemic infestation of phantom voters in the electoral roll, unless effectively checked now, can snowball into something like ‘Project M’ (M stands for Mahathir) which had singularly propelled Umno to political dominance in Sabah in the Nineties.

We are therefore landed in the dire state of having to face new trouble spots while resolution of old issues is not in sight yet.

It is therefore imperative that we redouble our effort to press for swift and effective measures to rectify the current electoral flaws, and not allow ourselves to be unnecessarily distracted by Najib’s new initiative over democratization.

Top priority must always be electoral reform, as it holds the key to a fair chance of winning the right to administer the country. Without the mandate to rule, all talks of reforms will be in vain.

Source: http://malaysia-today.net/mtcolumns/guest-columnists/43544-forget-isa-abolition-zero-in-on-electoral-reform

同性婚姻应该是私事

• 张木钦部落格
• 言论

2011-09-08 18:10

男人跟男人结婚，女人跟女人结婚，在我们这个小社会吹皱一池春水。

除了一些宗教团体根据固有价值观公开反对之外，比较收敛的平面媒体有一些文章，虽然不表同意，却也是欲言又止，点到为止。

不过，知名写作人黄子的一篇《威过北港的大马香炉》，对于好此道者的不知其丑、以丑为美、大事张扬的行为，无法掩饰他的厌恶之感。

我有同感。

人权自由扭曲道理

在人权自由的大幌子下，道理会被扭曲。对于此种“打破世俗观念”的同性婚姻现象，除了强势的宗教敢出声之外，以常理看问题的人即使不能苟同也不敢出声反对，因为一反对就是
守旧落伍反人权，害怕得罪不起一班前卫分子。

一样米养百样人，百样人之中就有逐臭之夫，以臭为香。如果有人喜欢嗅臭袜子，那是他的人权，但拜托自己嗅好，不要拿来当风扬。

对于性倾向异常的人，他们与同性成双成对，或者他要去挨刀变性，都是他们的私事，别人也没有什么好说的；可是把这种事拿来大事宣扬甚至鼓吹就不同了，因为这样一来就不再是
私事，而变成了一个公共卫生的问题，也就是道德的公共卫生。

我们的两性道德观念尽管千差万别，总离不开大自然法则，那就是阴阳化物，两性结合为了传宗接代，延续种群。

传宗接代不让人类绝种

各民族的人祖神话，也都是从男女两个祖先开始。传宗接代是天职，其他不论玩什么花样都不是正道。所以，道德公共卫生的基调就是维护异姓婚姻，不让人类绝种。

华人对于同性恋其实很宽容，所以历史上的断袖、分桃这些“男色”玩意都没有受到批判，有娈童癖者也没有受到歧视。用现在的话说，就是尊重他们的人权。

都说了，臭袜子可以自己嗅不可当风扬，嗅臭袜是他的个人卫生，但不可影响到公共卫生。

打个比喻，我们喜欢吃榴梿，洋人厌恶榴梿。吃榴梿是我们的权利，洋人也尊重我们的权利。但是，我们却被禁止在飞机上吃，也被禁止在五星级酒店吃。

为什么？就是行使权利的时候，不能让别人觉得不舒服，要照顾公共卫生。

老实说，把同性结婚铺排成为“世纪婚姻”似的大事宣扬，很令人不舒服。显然，他们这么张扬，是为了造势，声势一成，以后更没有人敢说事。

为了不让人类绝种，要敢敢反对同性婚姻合法化。

张木钦

来源：http://nanyang.com/node/381490?tid=490

威过北港的大马香炉

• 言论
• 其他

2011-09-05 17:04

《北港香炉人人插》，出版时非常经轰动。但因为早前读过作者的中篇《暗夜》，说其文字朴素可以，粗糙也不妨；既然以文字为媒介，文字的审美情趣，总不能缺吧？故此，对其作品，也就兴趣缺缺了。

轰动是因为那个丰胸肥臀被冠上“建国妖姬”女政客，对号入座，一把眼泪一把鼻涕地要索回清白， 而作者则被指是公报私仇用小说影射情敌，台湾媒体遂将之定性为“两个女人的战争”。在作者已死，文学正在死亡中，文学作品萧瑟的年代，普通书籍初版两千， 从此没有再版，小说竟因此印了20万本，实销也有16万本，真利害！
“北港香炉”，因此名扬华人地区；后来法国人搬上舞台，更是锦上添花。

北港香炉太地方性

当初哭诉被毁谤为“表哥四五桌”的“公共厕所”；后来提升到更高境界，是革命志士都想上一回的 “豪华公共汽车”；表哥的人数，不能用增法，而是要用减法──哪个同志没上过──才能计算出，多少人上过。再后来，改行当名嘴的女政客，大彻大悟，得道作 仙，不再以这为耻，反倒以豪放为荣，公然宣称昔日敌营中的马英九是她最理想的one night stand的对象了！

如此看来，她的道根不高，远远比不上Buatan Malaysia，国际共用的大马第一香炉了！

嫁黑嫁白公告天下

北港香炉，同志们个个想上一回；但上香的男人，个个都是“台湾表哥”，不只是同一种族，而且还是讲台语的同一籍贯，太地方性，太单一性了。

大马的第一香炉，打从十岁在家乡的泳池被人上香之后，来到雪隆升学：深夜搭末班巴士，就让巴士佬上；中国话“搭的”，就让德士佬上；萍水相蓬，街头巷尾，只要一个眼神，就是一炷香；除了娶妻那几年，从大马到美国，真是承香无数。

北港香炉从四五十个表哥，升级到用减法才能算出多少香客，小说一出版，那女政客就哭哭啼啼，大 喊冤屈。可人家大马第一香炉，则是高调出柜，自己著书，津津乐道其失身史──虽然是简史，没有一一细数，正如饮食，除非是皇帝的起居，否则毋须餐餐细载， 读者可以类推。若以量计，大马第一香炉，至少可与北港香炉打个平手；若论悟道，年纪更轻，就已认定被人上香是光宗耀祖、绝对真理了──论得道之早，更胜一 筹。

自从到美国留学之后，在被人嘲为吃足软饭，才休妻，更是走上国际路线，虽未曾一一细表，但至少 先公告与白人天使共筑爱巢，现在高调嫁给黑人──看清楚，是嫁黑人咧──还有比这更荣耀的伟业？其一举一动，不但要昭告大马国民，现在有法新社这全世界最 浪漫的法国人的通讯社为他电传全球。

资助婚礼吸引游客

北港香炉名气大，但始终不过是地方性、单族性的法器；大马香炉，则是从大马走向国际，肤色五彩缤纷。北港香炉人人要上一回，但没人敢娶回家；大马第一香炉，万族共用，退可娶，进可嫁，婚礼何止世纪性，还要两国隆重演出呢。

北港香炉，顶多名扬华人区的四海；大马第一香炉，何止光宗耀祖，还为国争光，扬威国际呢。

大马政府不应禁之，有道的宗教人士说，不能祝福，就别出声，否则，活该被斥为原教旨主义；反应拨款赞助其婚礼，以吸引游客复得文明开放的美名──如此一来，更多父母将生了儿子，可得个女婿；生个女儿，还会多个媳妇，包赚。

黄子

来源：http://www.nanyang.com/node/380646?tid=490

为何提倡同性恋？

• 言论
• 焦点论横

2011-09-07 17:06

最近，本地有两个女子高调“结婚”，我们的报章不约而同形容为“打破世俗观念”，“同志新人”，报道她们“不惧他人异样的眼光”…。

什么叫“打破世俗观念”？什么又叫“同志”？

说打破“异性结婚”的世俗观念，显然是表明同性结婚是对的，是好事，不然为什么要去“打破”它？我们有“破旧立新”的成语，中国近代也有“破四旧”运动。所以，只有坏的事物，才会去“打破”。

如果用“反世俗观念”，那又不同，是在说明一个事实，没有赞同的意味。

同性恋并非一种志向

“同志”又是什么？为什么只有应用中文的同性恋群体自称、被称为“同志”，从没见过西方的此道中人以“comrade”来称呼？

以中文来说，“同志”一词早期是左派专用来指党员战友，“志同道合”之意，至今不变。其他政党后来也用这个词来称呼同一政党的党员。

香港的同性恋名人迈克也用这个词来称呼同道中人，港台媒体呼应，也就形成了“气候”。德高望重如星云大师，对同性恋课题也只能说“不可说”，显示这股“气候”的威力大到什么程度。

为什么同性恋要以“同志”来称呼，而不是直截了当的同性恋？或者“同恋”、“同娈”？

名正了，言才顺。他们应该是认为，称为“同志”才“正当”。我认为，理由至少有两个：一、“同性恋”这个名称虽然没有恶意，却不够“正面”。二、“同志”最适当，虽然西方人没有这么做。

颠覆家庭道德观念

我认为，这个群体根本没有条件可以用这个称呼。直截了当的理由是，同性恋绝对不是一种志向，只能是一种性取向，一种选择。那么，为什么提升为志向？什么时候听到人说：让我们立志搞同性恋？这不是自我美化是什么？

我想不通为什么中文媒体也跟着他们这样说？即使不愿意在这个问题上“开罪”这个群体，至少也应保持最基本的中立，理由是：

一、同性恋权利是西方文化东扩的另一个标记。可是，西方的一切并不是都是好的，他们的经济一团糟，就是一个明证。

二、同性恋颠覆家庭观念。西方的家庭观念本来就不深，与东方背道而驰。世纪绝症爱滋病首先是在男同性恋群体中发现的。

三、同性恋群体并不能成为永续的社会，因这它是“绝后”的，必须依附以传统家庭为主流的社会。

四、这个群体既然选择这条路，就不应该“窃取”“结婚”这个名堂，虽然其中一个女人扮成男人。奇怪的是，男“娶”男时，其中一个却不扮成女人？这个群体应该自己找出另一个名堂，因为“结婚”是属于传统异性恋的。

五、既然选择“绝后”，就没有权利造出一个试管孩子来“续后”。这种做法对这个孩子公平吗？这种行为有什么值得歌颂之处？

选择权与认同权

同性恋在华人社会受到歧视吗？让事实来回答：

一、已故张国荣的影艺事业，并没有因为公开性取向而受到影响，传媒还是捧他为巨星。

二、白先勇备受尊敬，在中国也是如此。他有没有以“同性恋”自居？

三、要得到社会尊重，首先就得先尊重社会，不危害社会。最近在台湾发生的同性恋死者带爱滋病毒器官移植给五名病人的医疗事故，更凸显这个群体的风险。死者家属知道他是同性恋者，家人无奈地接受，他却隐瞒患爱滋病的事实，虽然他的第一个“男友”还是医生。

同性恋者固然有选择的权利，别人更有不认同的权利。生命必须生生不息，否则一切都变得没有意义。

纵横

来源：http://www.nanyang.com/node/381126?tid=490

'Godless' China to be world's biggest supplier of Bibles?

A Deutsche Presse Agentur story released on the eve of the New Year's reveals that Nanjing is about to be home to the world's largest Bible factory to be housed in what's been described as an "aircraft hangar-sized plant" capable of producing 1 million copies a month, or one Bible per second.

Amity Printing's current factory is already 800,000 Bibles a month in 90 languages, from Braille to Slovakian to Swahili. Megan Hunt, a volunteer English teacher with Amity in Yizhou, Guangxi Autonomous Region has graciously shared with Shanghaiist her pictures of what the current plant looks like. Click for more after the jump:

This looks like just any other factory in China.

Another view of the plant.

Reams and reams of paper that reach to the ceiling. A lot of this paper has been donated by the UK-based United Bible Society and other overseas Christians.

The word of God being printed by these old rickety macines that have served Amity for years.

Women ripping out faulty pages.

And this is where they all end up!

Pages for the Bibles being collated before the binding. Does it not strike you how most of the work seems to be done manually? A state-of-the-art US$4 million Timson publishing press has just been shipped in from Europe for the new plant that will replace the old system.

The finished products. More than 50 million Bibles have been produced this way, with over 80% of them in the Mandarin-language edition.

Bibles that have passed quality inspections are tagged "合格" (approved) before they are sent to be sold at state-sanctioned churches throughout China for as little as 9.50 yuan (US$1.30) each. Other language versions are exported to other parts of the world.

For another equally interesting look at Amity Press, refer to BENSLCHAN's photo set. The Amity Foundation has its official website here.

Maybe you, too, have an interesting photostory to share with Shanghaiist readers? Get in touch with us at info AT shanghaiist DOT com!

Source: http://shanghaiist.com/2008/01/03/godless_china_t.php

中秋节英文翻译

（我回应的文章在此文后面）

读了陈德庆的“中秋节不是月饼节”文章，我的看法如下。我管理的教会每年都有庆祝中秋节，我起初把中秋节在英文的名称上使用“Lantern Festival”，即“灯笼节”。但发觉英文部的会友们经常都称此节为“Moon Cake Festival”，后来就索性在英文上如此称呼它，然而中文还是用“中秋节”。

若用“灯笼节”，在中国反而会想到“元宵节”，因为传统上，元宵节就是在街市挂满灯笼，百姓当晚会出来赏花灯猜灯谜的。而在中秋节，习俗上乃提灯笼。所以对读英文的人士，中国有两个“Lantern Festival”，那其实也如此。而马来西亚的英文名称却是用（本地英文报纸也这样用）福建话的音译“Chap Goh Meh”（十五晚），而不用“Lantern Festival”。

把中秋节以字义直译为“Mid-Autumn Festival”，并不会令老外关注其什么特殊性。而“Moon Cake Festival”却能够抓住他们的好奇心，会询问为什么在这节日吃月饼？朱元璋在农历八月十五日的“月饼起义”推翻元朝事迹，比中秋节的神话故事更来得有说服力。太空人登陆月球，并没有发现什么“嫦娥，月兔捣药，吴刚伐桂”的迹象。

若读英文的人认同英文名称“Moon Cake Festival”我们不必斤斤计较，若你在互联网搜索此名称，可发现有百万计的结果。除此，在中秋节不是只是为了吃月饼而已，而是月饼有中秋节的一定意义的。老外对改革是相当有兴趣的，因此他们会对“月饼起义”的故事有兴趣的呢！陈德庆把月饼跟各族群的糕点来相比乃不恰当的相比。月饼只有在中秋节才有得吃，而“Ketupat, Muruku”长年累月都有得吃，甚至“年糕” 也不例外，我家附近的卖油炸鬼的档口，长年累月都卖炸番薯芋头夹年糕呢！

-----------------------------------------------
2011-09-06 08:23

再過不久，就是中秋節了。中秋節和其它華人傳統節日一樣，是個充滿故事的節日。中秋節傳說及活動多與月亮有關，若稱其為“月亮的慶典”也不為過。除了華人，日本、韓國、及越南等地也有過中秋節之習俗，但各民族間關於中秋之傳統則不盡相同。

一直以來馬新兩地常將中秋節翻譯成“mooncake festival”，而兩地華人也很習慣並接受此翻譯。之前我也不覺得這樣的翻譯

有何不妥，但漸漸地卻發現這翻譯實在不可接受。好的翻譯有3大原則――信、達、雅，即忠實、通順、高雅。

“Mooncake festival”這一翻譯雖然通順，但它即不忠實又不高雅，也貶低了中秋節做為華人大節日的傳統文化價值。若不瞭解中華文化的外國人或友族同胞看了此翻 譯，也許還會以為中秋節不過就像西班牙蕃茄節，德國啤酒節等以食物為主題之嘉年華呢？想想看若我們將農曆新年翻譯成“nian gao festival”，開齋節翻譯成“ketupat festival”，屠妖節翻譯成“muruku festival”，這樣的翻譯豈不令人笑掉大牙？

筆者認為，將中秋節翻譯為“mid autumn festival”或“moon festival”更為恰當。這兩個譯名都是中港台等地的主流翻譯。前者忠實、通順，確切地表達了“中秋節”一詞之字義，也較常被使用；而後者則帶有一絲 中秋節的浪漫色彩。有些翻譯稱中秋節為“mid autumn moon festival”，但筆者認為此譯法稍嫌累贅，且也非當今主流。

月餅是中秋節之一大重點，但它不過是個配角。華人注重吃，也常說民以食為天，但若我們的大節日只剩下食物，我們的文化也該準備收入冷凍庫裡了。因 此，為了傳統文化，也為了更漂亮及貼切的翻譯，早日將“mooncake festival”正名為“mid autumn festival”是極重要的。（星洲日報／言路‧作者：陳德慶）

来源：http://opinions.sinchew-i.com/node/20789

The Ominous Handwriting on America’s Wall

Wednesday, 31 August 2011 09:18 AM
EDT J. Lee Grady Newsletters - Fire In My Bones

An earthquake rattles Washington, D.C., and a fierce storm ravages the East Coast. Is God speaking to us?

I’m not a doomsday prophet, and I don’t believe every hurricane, earthquake or drought is God’s judgment. But I did pause to ponder the significance of the freakish 5.8-magnitude quake that jolted the East Coast last week. The White House was evacuated, the Washington Monument was closed indefinitely because of cracks, and the National Cathedral’s central tower was seriously damaged.

Does anybody else find that slightly spooky?

“I hope President Obama and the leaders of both political parties in Washington are heeding the ominous signs of the times. And I pray they don’t forget the words of another one of our founders, Patrick Henry, who said: 'It is when people forget God that tyrants forge their chains.'”

Atheists and secularists will say it was just a big seismic coincidence. They probably also ignored the fact that a few days after the quake, a massive storm weirdly drifted toward Washington, D.C., and New York City. Hurricane Irene has now been blamed for at least 42 deaths in 12 states, and more than 2.5 million people from North Carolina to Maine were still without electricity Tuesday.

Judgment from God? That’s not how I view disasters. But I do think last week’s double whammy was about as obvious a sign from heaven as when God scribbled a warning on the wall while King Belshazzar was partying in his palace.

Hello? Is anybody reading the handwriting on America’s wall?

In the case of Belshazzar (see Daniel 5:1-31), that clueless king couldn’t decipher God’s cryptic graffiti—so he called a true prophet to decode it. I’m not sure if many American leaders would ask a modern Daniel for counsel. Many of them have divorced themselves and our government from faith in God and His moral standards.

New York’s ultra-secularist mayor, Michael Bloomberg, was certainly in a Belshazzar mood when he announced last week that he was excluding any and all members of the clergy from the city’s commemoration of the 10th anniversary of 9/11. Pastors as well as politicians have blasted Bloomberg for his insensitivity, but he insists that the ceremony will be better without a spiritual tone.

I guess he thinks America doesn’t need God to help us through our worst national crisis in a generation. We can just read some humanistic poems and grieve by ourselves.

According to the joke posted on thousands of Facebook pages last week, the Virginia earthquake was triggered when America’s founding fathers rolled over in their graves. A funny thought, yes, but I don’t think George Washington or Benjamin Franklin would find anything amusing about the state of our country today. And I don’t think they’d be laughing at Mayor Bloomberg’s blatantly tyrannical stance against religion.

The idea of a 9/11 commemoration without prayer is downright sad, especially when you recall that our nation’s founders—as imperfect as they were—built this country on Christian precepts. In today’s secularist climate, people who speak about our founders’ faith are labeled right-wing whackos. Pardon my political incorrectness, but questioning whether many of the founders were Bible-believing Christians is as insulting as denying the Holocaust.

The founders did not hide their faith or apologize for it—and they certainly never legislated against it. Consider these facts (which, thankfully, have not been removed from history books):

• The first prayer in the U.S. Congress was offered in Philadelphia in 1774. George Washington was among those kneeling as other leaders gathered to pray after hearing that British forces had attacked Boston. One observer wrote that the scene “was enough to melt a heart of stone” as he watched tears gush from the eyes of the old patriots.

• During the Continental Congress of 1787, Benjamin Franklin asked that clergy be called in every morning to lead prayers “imploring the assistance of Heaven, and its blessing on our deliberations.”

• George Washington asked citizens in 1789 to “unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations, and beseech him to pardon our national and other transgressions.”

• In 1799 President John Adams urged Americans to fast, pray and “call to mind our numerous offences against the most high God, confess them before Him with sincerest penitence” and “implore His pardoning mercy … for our past transgressions.”

Fast forward to the America of 2011, where faith is criticized, believers are mocked and leaders don’t see any need for prayer. It’s a pitiful way to end our legacy.

It will probably take more than a few cracked monuments or damaged cathedral towers to grab the attention of leaders like Mayor Bloomberg. Meanwhile, I hope President Obama and the leaders of both political parties in Washington are heeding the signs of the times. And I pray they don’t forget the words of another one of our founders, Patrick Henry, who said: “It is when people forget God that tyrants forge their chains.”

Source: http://www.charismamag.com/index.php/fire-in-my-bones/31890-the-ominous-handwriting-on-americas-wall#readmore

Rule of law or rule by law?

NO HOLDS BARRED

Wednesday, 31 August 2011 Super Admin

Whether these people can or cannot leave Islam is a matter for the Muslims to resolve. This has nothing to do with the church and the church cannot be subjected to Islamic laws. As far as the church is concerned, these people are no longer Muslims. But if there is no such thing as ‘ex-Muslims’, then a law needs to be passed stating so. Then the confusion will be cleared up. Then the church would be barred from preaching to anyone born a Muslim since the word ‘murtad’ would no longer be in the Muslim vocabulary.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Malaysia has tens of thousands of lawyers. But how many lawyers actually ‘practise law’ or are most in this only for the money? Seldom do we hear lawyers speak out on what is right and what is wrong. It should be the job of lawyers to educate Malaysians as to what the law is all about. Only then can it be said that they are true to their profession.

Laws are man-made. Sometimes we say that these are God’s laws or this is what God ordained. Invariably, all laws are made by man but blamed on God. Why are the lawyers not telling us this?

Just because it is law does not make it right. Are we talking about rule of law or rule by law? “What’s the difference?” you may ask. A lot of difference! And it is the duty of lawyers to educate us on the difference between the rule of law and rule by law.

Queen Elizabeth I ordered Parliament to appoint her as Governor of the Church. Since she was a woman, she could not be appointed as a proper head of the church like her father and brother before her -- which would tantamount to the position of the English Pope. So they made her the governor instead.

Then Elizabeth banned the practise and belief of the wafer as the body of Christ and wine as the blood of Christ. All the Catholic Bishops opposed this and they instigated the citizens to defy this new ‘heretic’ law.

The Bishops were all rounded up and imprisoned and replaced with Protestant Bishops. The Catholics were forced to go underground and to practise their faith in secret and behind closed doors. There were pockets of rebellion all over the Kingdom, even as far as Scotland where they deposed their Catholic Queen (later they chopped off her head as well).

Of course, this conflict between the Church and the Throne was not new. Even back in the days of Henry II, 400 years earlier, there was already a conflict and the Archbishop of Canterbury, Thomas Becket, was assassinated because of his conflict with the King over the rights and privileges of the Church.

So, was Elizabeth right? Of course, she had the power. But just because she had power and just because a law had been passed does this make it right? Who was Elizabeth to decide that this is what God ordained? Did God speak to her? Or was this merely a political move?

You see: England, then, was only South England. From York onwards, this was Catholic country. So, by getting rid of the Catholic faith, this meant England could unite and Scotland, if it turned Protestant, would become part of English territory.

Scotland was also aligned to France. And France was Catholic and the age-old enemy of England. So, by ‘occupying’ Protestant Scotland, this meant that the danger of a French invasion (through Scotland) would be eliminated.

So there you have it. It was not about what God wanted. It was about what Elizabeth wanted. And Elizabeth wanted Scotland under her control. And she wanted the French Catholic Queen kicked out of Scotland. And she wanted the French army kicked out of Scotland. If not, her throne would be in jeopardy of a ‘Catholic’ invasion with a new Catholic Queen from Scotland installed onto the throne.

In short, Elizabeth had to control and dictate what is and is not acceptable religious beliefs and practises to be able to control England and get rid of the Scottish-French threat to her throne.

Elizabeth used religion to hold on to power.

Today, we celebrate Merdeka. But how are we celebrating Merdeka? By raising the flag? By sleeping at home? Merdeka should be celebrated by respecting the ‘Merdeka Agreement’, which is basically the Federal Constitution.

How can we say we are remembering or honouring Merdeka when we do not respect the Constitution? The Constitution was the foundation of Merdeka. Without the Constitution there is no foundation and therefore no Merdeka.

This, the lawyers should tell the people far and wide, the length and breadth of Malaysia. The basis of our laws is the Constitution. However, many of our laws violate the Constitution.

Many things ail Malaysia. But I want to talk about only one ailment today. And this ailment, the latest in a series of ailments, is the conflict between Church and State brought on by the DUMC raid and the allegations made against the Church.

The DUMC raid was not the only conflict between Church and State. Earlier, we had the Allah issue, the Bahasa Malaysia Bible issue, and so on. It appears that all along the way the Church is in conflict with the State.

But has this not been so for more than 1,000 years? The Church has always had its differences with the State (or more like the State resented the power the Church had over the people and thus started the ‘turf war’ between the State and the Church).

Anyway, Article 3 and Article 11 of the Constitution are very clear (by right, lawyers ought to be talking to you about this, not me). Let us consider what it says.

Islam is the religion of the Federation. No dispute.

Other religions may be practised in peace and harmony. No dispute.

The Ruler is the Head of the religion of Islam in his State. No dispute.

Every religious group has the right to manage its own religious affairs. No dispute.

Every person has the right to profess and practise his religion and, subject to Clause (4), to propagate it. No Dispute.

There should be no propagation of any religious doctrine or belief among persons professing the religion of Islam. No dispute.

So, where is the dispute then?

Let’s look at “Every religious group has the right to manage its own religious affairs”. What does this mean? If the Christians want to publish a Bahasa Malaysia Bible, would this be under the clause of “manage its own religious affairs”? Can the government then dictate what language the Bible can and cannot be published?

Let’s look at “Christianity cannot be propagated to persons professing the religion of Islam”. But what if that person has announced that he or she has left Islam?

Now, you may say that once a person is born to Muslim parents then he or she is automatically a Muslim and a Muslim is a Muslim for life and cannot leave Islam. But that is between the Muslim and his ‘Church’. Once a Muslim renounces Islam (murtad), he or she is an apostate. Technically, he or she is no longer a Muslim.

The State may say that he or she is still a Muslim. That’s according to the government. But in the ‘eyes’ of God, he or she is no longer a Muslim. He or she has become a murtad.

So, where is the crime here?

Actually, the issue is not that complicated. It is just that the lawyers would rather not get involved in this issue because it is very sensitive and Malays are a very emotional people who would run amok if they think that they cannot win by words and need to resort to violence to win an argument.

A true lawyer would educate us. Most lawyers, however, would remain silent and allow the ignorance to continue. And this ignorance has caused a lot of confusion.

In short: Christians cannot preach to Muslims. That is the law. But if that person has left Islam, technically, he or she is no longer a Muslim but an ex-Muslim. So, it is not against the law to preach Christianity to these people (who are technically not Muslims any more).

Whether these people can or cannot leave Islam is a matter for the Muslims to resolve. This has nothing to do with the church and the church cannot be subjected to Islamic laws. As far as the church is concerned, these people are no longer Muslims. But if there is no such thing as ‘ex-Muslims’, then a law needs to be passed stating so. Then the confusion will be cleared up. Then the church would be barred from preaching to anyone born a Muslim since the word ‘murtad’ would no longer exist in the Muslim vocabulary.

However, as it stands now, the word ‘murtad’ does exist. And this means Islam recognises the existence of 'ex-Muslims'.

So, where do we go from here? And why are the lawyers not speaking up?

***************************************

Article 3

1. Islam is the religion of the Federation; but other religions may be practised in peace and harmony in any part of the Federation.

2. In every State other than States not having a Ruler the position of the Ruler as the Head of the religion of Islam in his State in the manner and to the extent acknowledged and declared by the Constitution, all rights, privileges, prerogatives and powers enjoyed by him as Head of that religion, are unaffected and unimpaired; but in any acts, observance or ceremonies with respect to which the Conference of Rulers has agreed that they should extend to the Federation as a whole each of the other Rulers shall in his capacity of Head of the religion of Islam authorize the Yang di-pertuan Agong to represent him.

3. The Constitution of the States of Malacca, Penang, Sabah and Sarawak shall each make provision for conferring on the Yang di-Pertuan Agong shall be Head of the religion of Islam in that State.

4. Nothing in this Article derogates from any other provision of this Constitution.

5. Notwithstanding anything in this Constitution the Yang di-Pertuan Agong shall be the Head of the religion of Islam in the Federal Territories of Kuala Lumpur and Labuan; and for this purpose Parliament may by law make provisions for regulating Islamic religious affairs and for constituting a Council to advise the Yang di-Pertuan Agong in matters relating to the religion of Islam.

Article 11

1. Every person has the right to profess and practice his religion and, subject to Clause (4), to propagate it.

2. No person shall be compelled to pay any tax the proceeds of which are specially allocated in whole or in part for the purposes of a religion other than his own.

3. Every religious group has the right -

(a) to manage its own religious affairs;

(b) to establish and maintain institutions for religious or charitable purposes; and

(c) to acquire and own property and hold and administer it in accordance with law.

4. State law and in respect of the Federal Territories of Kuala Lumpur and Labuan, federal law may control or restrict the propagation of any religious doctrine or belief among persons professing the religion of Islam.

5. This Article does not authorize any act contrary to any general law relating to public order, public health or morality.

Source: http://malaysia-today.net/mtcolumns/no-holds-barred/43172-rule-of-law-or-rule-by-law