Tuesday, September 27, 2011

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?

Wednesday, September 21, 2011


下午 2点24分











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)


1. 社会主义党
2. 雪兰莪民联议员助理协会(SELPROA)


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

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/

Tuesday, September 20, 2011

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?


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.


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?


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.


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

Friday, September 9, 2011























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!


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!




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。


































'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

Tuesday, September 6, 2011



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


“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)


Friday, September 2, 2011

The Ominous Handwriting on America’s Wall

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

Thursday, September 1, 2011

Rule of law or rule by law?

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.


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