Register for the 13th General Elections

Dear All,

Every vote counts. Vote for your future and that of your children's and your children's children.

Check your voter registration status by clicking on the link provided here. Have you registered as a voter yet? Is your name still in the electoral list?

Voting, unlike rallies/riots, should be a better way to influence changes in this country.

CLICK HERE >>> http://daftarj.spr.gov.my/daftarj/daftarbi.aspx

The Election Commission reported that 15.47 million of Malaysians are above 21 years of age and therefore eligible to vote in federal and state elections.

However, only 11.08 million (72%) have taken the trouble to register as voters. This means that 4.39 million (28%) eligible electors have opted to forfeit their right to vote in the event a general election is held.

NOT CERTAIN WHETHER YOU ARE A REGISTERED VOTER?
Go to the Election Commission of Malaysia Electoral Roll Checking website and punch in your IC No: for a quick check ...

CLICK HERE >>> http://daftarj.spr.gov.my/daftarj/daftarbi.aspx

HOW TO REGISTER AS A VOTER

WHAT IS MEANT BY THE REGISTRATION OF ELECTORS ?
The Registration of Electors, as provided for under the law, enables qualified Malaysian citizens to register as electors. The registration is carried out throughout the year. In addition it allows the Registered Electors who have changed their address to register at the new place of residence. Electors are also encouraged to check their names in the verified Electoral Rolls.

WHY DO YOU NEED TO REGISTER ?
To secure your right to vote in an election and exercise your right as a citizen.

WHO IS A QUALIFIED ELECTOR?
- A Malaysian citizen
- Has attained 21 years of age
- Is residing in any Election Constituency in Malaysia; and
- Has not been disqualified.

HOW TO REGISTER ?
- Go personally to the Registration Centre;
- Take along your Identity Card;
- Ensure Form A is correctly filled by the staff before signing the form; and
- Keep one copy of the form as proof of your registration.

WHERE CAN YOU REGISTER ?
Election Commission of Malaysia Headquarters OR State Election Offices
OR
All Post Offices with computer facilities in the country;

Register today and let's vote WISELY in the 13th General Election for a better Malaysia ... a better tomorrow for our children and our future generations. Please help to pass this critical message on ... far and wide

1. Forward this email to your family and friends
2. Talk to them at every opportunity and urge them to register and vote
3. Urge them to do likewise ... pass it on and keep the fire burning

As ordinary citizen perhaps this is the least you and I can do for our beloved country ... for a better Malaysia, a better tomorrow Let's do it!

清明时节不再雨纷纷？

“清明时节雨纷纷，路上行人欲断魂，借问酒家何处有，牧童遥指杏花村。”每逢清明节在大马，这首杜牧的《清明》名诗不少人能够朗朗上口。

无论杜牧是在中国北方家乡时写这首诗，抑或在江南当官时写的，不过他当时所处的地方，在三、四月间，陆地春寒跟海面热风交叉，导致多雨，尤其在中国南部。其实在这个时期，东南亚一带也是多雨时期的，所以大马人都经历“清明时节雨纷纷”的真实情景。

杜牧已经是1200-1150年前的人物了，隔开这么多年，今天和以前的气候是否还相同，看来无从考证。不过近十年来人们都见证气候发生显著的异常变化。今年的清明节，中国不再雨纷纷了。它正处于干旱状况，尤其在南部最为严重。

这些日子读了关于中国旱灾的新闻，感到唏嘘。一讲到中国有13亿人口，不少人随即会联想到“中国已来到人口爆炸”情况。但如果你曾经在中国乘搭长途巴士或长途火车的话，你会看到那国家其实还有很多未开发的山林，那么中国其实还能够容纳很多人口的呢！

近30年中国迅速发展，到今天中国已经成为世界排放废气最高的国家了。中国，美国和欧洲的工业大国，发展和环保难以兼顾。不久前北半球的雪暴，中国北京和13个省份的沙尘暴，及柏斯的冰雹，说明了地球的剧烈变化。

工业大国追求舒服生活的享受，不惜破坏地球的环境生态，连累大多数无辜的国家也跟它们付上代价。譬如大马这个国家，在破坏环境生态上还不算是什么大罪人，却一并须在天灾中遭殃。今年大马人吟“清明时节雨纷纷”会感到有点不对劲呢！如果你住在中马你算是有福的，因为这里有不少雨。但北马，南马，东海岸和东马却闹干旱。

地球人几时才同心解决地球问题呢？数月前哥本哈根地球气候峰会只落得一个“讲”字，因为没有一个富强国愿意承诺削减废气，真的是个败笔！

既此，每当天灾发生时，灾黎诉苦连天，其他人除了同情外还能作什么呢？看到别人受灾，才发觉人类是何等脆弱的。原来我们人类没有了三样东西是不能活的---空气，水和阳光，缺一都不行！缺少它们所带来的灾难有连贯性的，譬如中国这次旱灾导致农作物歉收，下来的日子，亚洲肯定面对食品涨价问题。若旱灾在许多地方频繁发生，最坏的情况是饥荒。所以，人类为了生存，是否必须检讨自私的生活习惯吗？

风与太阳爭辩

大家应该坦诚对话，是辩论而不是争辩。如果对方一直弹你，难道你不辩解吗？安静不是基督徒该有的行为。

----------------------------------------------------

以下文章来源：http://opinions.sinchew-i.com/node/14005

作者：谢阳声

2010-03-23 09:18

我不是同性恋者，我也是基督徒，但我尊重同性恋群体，因为这是最基本的尊重。

我们虽不赞同同性恋，却也不该批评同性恋，因为同性恋朋友並没有对社会带来灾害，也没有对异性恋者的生活构成威胁。

再说，同性恋根本就不是像到菜市场买东西，可任由选择。我们並不能要求或强迫一个异性恋者去发展同性恋。同样的，我们也不能对同性恋者发出不合理的批评。

很多人，很喜欢將一己宗教教义，强加於別人身上。当然，今日我是个基督徒，我当然认为成为基督徒很好，因为上帝赐给我永生盼望，我当然也希望，我的朋友我的亲人可以像我一样，成为基督徒。可是我们却不能因为这样，就去批评別人的宗教不好，除非你已经对別人的宗教瞭解透彻，那充其量也只能做个比较而已。如果在一知半解，半桶水的情况下，就扮演专家，用自己主观看法以及宗教经典去教训別人，只会显示我们的愚昧、霸道与偏激。

社会之和谐与否，在於能不能彼此包容与尊重。同性恋课题，本就不该爭辩，只要多一些尊重。诚如有些读者说，何必爭辩呢？风与太阳爭辩，谁比较有能力，何必呢？

（编者按：自《沟通平台》刊出李俊逸〈反驳欧阳文风〉一文后，引起读者热烈討论。回应文章纷至沓来。鑑於各方的观点已大致表达，因此后来的文章近期將在副刊集中选刊。敬请读者垂注。）

星洲日报／沟通平台‧读者：谢阳声‧2010.03.23

尊重、爱

尊重不等于不讲一些劝勉的话。有些人并不是我们的弟兄姐妹。

------------------------------------------------------

以下文章来源：http://opinions.sinchew-i.com/node/14004

作者：刘淑娟

2010-03-23 09:17

亲爱的主內弟兄姐妹，请你们不要再互相指责、论断，自相残杀了，好吗？

上帝吩咐我们爱人。无论他的行为我们是否可以接受，我们应当尊重个人的选择。尊重一个成熟个体的选择既是一种爱的表现。既然是一个成熟人，他也知道一切的言语行为，他都必须向上帝负责。或许是爱之深，责之切，我们可以用爱心说诚实话，但却不可鄙视人。

无论我们是理性的，或不合逻辑，或合理化行为的，唯有上帝在我们心理的灵会亲自向我们启示。我们的生活还有许多的层面，没有必要绕著同样的话题再喋喋不休了。

星洲日报／沟通平台‧读者：刘淑娟‧2010.03.23

因为无理，所以不必爭辩？

如果不认识真神，非信徒只会用自己的宗教争辩。当一个人对真理无知，肯定不会接受使用圣经这本唯一世界真理的论据。唉，等待他们属灵的眼睛开了就能够向他们解释。

------------------------------------------------

以下文章来源：http://opinions.sinchew-i.com/node/13976

作者：刘正平

2010-03-20 09:48

我是东马的教师、佛教徒。

读了李俊逸君及潘作意君的文章，让我感到可悲。假使这两篇文章是在基督刊物中发表倒没甚么不妥，但在《沟通平台》如此公然地侮辱同性恋群体，无疑將遭到各阶层人士的围剿。虽然李君及潘君皆是针对欧阳文风“假借教牧之名，进行违反《圣经》教义的教导和断章取义的歪曲之事”。

潘君说，对於这类自以为是的异端邪说份子，何必跟他一般见识而去热情回应辩论真理的对与错。这让我想起多年前在某个教堂內，一位牧师在宣教时，直指佛教是异端邪说，並指信仰佛教的教徒皆是恶魔！莫非李君及潘君也正是如此认为？如果真的如此认为，大可坦荡荡的面对面辩论，一起来探討，而不是把辩论的大门关上，掛著 “何须作无谓爭辩”的匾额，就此將同性恋及邪恶齐名。

数天前，我的一位回教徒学生跟我学音乐，在国外出版的课本中出现了基督圣歌…我当时错愕，犹豫著该不该跳过这首圣歌呢？我即问学生会介意否，学生摇头说不会，因为这只是一首普通的歌。於是一位佛教徒老师及一位回教徒学生就这样唱起了基督圣歌。

原来，同性恋及异性恋之爭也不就如此吗？同性恋群体也不过是一群普通的人。那一刻，我体会到了和平与爱。遗憾的是，经过了阿拉事件及焚烧教堂事件，国內仍然有许多人不瞭解国內的確是多元文化的，甚至不愿接受国內是多元文化的。

希望各界也能抱著开放的心態，多听多看，而不只是紧紧搂住自己的经典。你可以担心朋友的行为而出言相劝，你可以为朋友的幸福而好言相劝，但请不要攻击你的朋友，也不要破坏朋友的名誉，因为他真的是你的朋友。

星洲日报／沟通平台‧《星洲日报》读者：刘正平‧2010.03.20

公然羞辱

一个不信真神的人，根本不会理会什么是道德。

--------------------------------------------------

以下文章来源：http://opinions.sinchew-i.com/node/13962

作者：张子敬

2010-03-19 10:23

潘作意君在〈何须作无谓爭辩〉一文（3月16日《沟通平台》）中给同性恋套上“世纪罪恶”的称號，在我看来是公然羞辱同志群体。

潘君之〈何〉文完全没有解释同性恋何以如此“罪恶”，只是理所当然地给同性恋扣上一顶“罪恶” 的帽子，实在叫人愤怒！〈何〉文是反人类共同理性的。它诉诸一己宗教，否定人类理性思考的价值。即使是理性思考的结论，只要在作者看来是有违《圣经》的，他统统都不认同。

潘君还诉诸大眾排斥异己的情绪反应，旁敲侧击地指责“有人寧捨天伦之乐的家庭生活……心甘情愿地离弃真理，享受‘与眾不同’的生活环境……”，暗示同性恋与眾不同所以罪恶。全文除了人身攻击便是一味诉诸一己情绪与成见鼓吹反同性恋情绪，借眾人之势打击少数群体。

潘君还反问读者：“如果这些不法之事可以经得起时间和空间考验的话，何须靠立法將之合法化？” 这样的言论实在是令人毛骨悚然。经得起时间与空间考验等同价值上可取吗？人类各文明中压抑个人的封建制度佔了几千年时间，可谓经久不衰，这能够证明封建制度的合理性吗？按潘君的见识，或许言论自由，男女平权还有劳工权益等皆是不法之事或经不起时间和空间考验了，要不然何须在宪法中阐明上述权利，还有立法保障劳工的权益？

將肛交去刑事化以及合法化同性婚姻，前者是为了让个人享有更大的自由，拒绝国家机关干涉个人不侵害任何他者的私事，拒绝国家挟多数人之道德观以“违反自然”之名选择性提控任何个人；后者的意义则在於提昇非异性恋者的公民与社会地位，让异性恋者与非异性恋者享有平权。这些，潘君懂吗？

星洲日报／沟通平台‧读者：张子敬‧2010.03.19

谁的权利？

作者的痛苦我很了解，但他不需要永远在这种痛苦里，他需要治疗。

--------------------------------------------

以下文章来源：http://opinions.sinchew-i.com/node/13931

作者：陈致远

2010-03-17 08:54

经过了30多年循规蹈矩的人生，我才领悟到幸福是自己才可以掌握，体会的。

自从青春期起我就知道我有一个不可告人的秘密。青春狂飆的荷尔蒙是我压抑人生的开始。当其他的男伴们春情荡漾地谈著隔壁班的女生时，我却仰慕著邻家的男孩。

一个惶恐无助的小孩只能把一切锁在心里，因为他知道週遭的人会把他当怪物看。

小学、中学、大学到研究所，一路走来，挤进了所谓的专业，中產阶级，但心里还是感到有一些缺憾，因为我彻底地放弃了爱与被爱的权利。曾经我告诉自己这一生我就一个人这样的生活下去，虽然看到周围好多的人用婚姻来掩饰自己的性向。

今天看到李俊逸的大作，让我觉得有必要继续这未完的文章。看著他的文章让我想起了大学时回教文明讲堂里那长老的荒谬与强词夺理。想问李君凭甚么判断同性恋是“违背常理的情慾，不是一种纯粹的感情”？你以为我们是行尸走肉的性机器？如果可以选择，我们会愚昧到让自己挣扎在否定自我的痛苦里？十一二岁惶恐的小孩是自作孽吗？“选择”当一个同性恋者又不是一件“光荣”的事，也没有奖金可拿，难道我们只是为了那所谓的“违背常理的情慾”吗？如果能享受异性恋的鱼水之欢（让每个异性恋男人用下半身思考的情慾），我们为甚么要笨到去“选择”一条痛苦的情慾之路？甚至有些人否定了自己的情慾而选择了过著不符人性（动物性？）的无性生活？

李君，我尊重你的选择，但也希望你不要否定別人思考的权利与能力。如果你在你的经典里找到快乐和通往天堂的路，那你就自得其乐吧，不要对不懂的人与事说三道四，然后很神圣地说“笔者並不想伤害同性恋者”。这就好比素食者指著食荤者的鼻子骂他罪孽深重，然后很无辜地说我並不想骂你，但我的经书是这样写的！

现在我知道我是个再正常不过的人，我不以己为辱，也不以己为傲。当然我希望当爱情出现时，我能真正坦然的接受，那我这一生將更无所憾。说来可悲，这最基本，最微不足道的人性，我要在活了半生后，才能说服自己我也有权利去接受。

其实一直想对欧阳文风说一声谢谢，你辛苦了。在这里也想向李君解释一下，欧阳文风不是在为同性恋辩护，因为我们是诚实的市民，不欺不骗，不偷也不抢，哪需要辩护？
星洲日报／沟通平台‧读者：陈致远‧2010.03.17

何须作无谓爭辩

另一篇独立大快人心的作品，作者灵巧像蛇，言东击西，言左击右。

---------------------------------------

作者：潘作意

2010-03-16 08:41

李俊逸君在〈反驳欧阳文风〉一文中说，他对於有人假借教牧之名，进行违反《圣经》教义的教导和断章取义的歪曲之事，感到伤心和难过。对於这类异端份子，扭曲信仰真理的，以所谓的逻辑学和社会学推理来凌驾於真理之上，把所有不认同他的论说、推理和逻辑的真理，都冠以“原教旨”主义来看待，也难怪李君感到气愤和无奈。

其实，往深一点看，对於这类自以为是的异端邪说份子，何必跟他一般见识，热情回应辩论真理的对与错。这些人硬把世纪罪恶如同性恋，简单化如左右手的问题，也是“自然”的对的；硬把古圣贤人解释《圣经》真理的学说，批判为“原教旨”主义的；硬把“套套逻辑学”捧为至高无上的金科玉律，把它当著是现代解读《圣经》最理想，最有效的哲理的，像这样的人何必跟他浪费时间和口舌，爭辩甚么是真理，甚么是谬论。

当有人寧捨天伦之乐的家庭生活，违背他以前做人处世的原则，心甘情愿地离弃真理，享受“与眾不同”的生活环境时，他的信誉已经破產，岂会再以真理自居，以上帝为中心，让祂居首位，掌王权。反之，现在看到的是，他常藉著许多人性的逻辑思想將自己“独特”的行为和思维合情合理化。他会引经据典，敘古论今的告诉大家，以前的种种解释是不对的，大家需要以开明、理性、合情、合理的思维去解读，不能一味地持守“原教旨”主义心態来看待问题。

身在21世纪，许多不法之事与日俱增，有人还是会理直气壮、“据理力爭”的告诉大家，以前被看为不法的行为，目前有许多国家、州属通过立法將这些不法之事，如同性恋和墮胎合法化。同时，还有许多名人也好断袖之癖呢！

这些人没有想到，如果这些不法之事真的可以经得起时间和空间考验的话，何须靠立法將之合法化？
星洲日报／沟通平台‧读者：潘作意‧2010.03.16

来源：http://opinions.sinchew-i.com/node/13915

欧阳文风是自由神学派

李俊逸和欧阳文风关于同性恋课题一驳一应，回应同一天言路版也刊登了欧阳的“迷信宗教，理智破产”。

欧阳是针对李俊逸胡批他的〈走向理性，告別偏见〉作回应，但他却没有正视李氏真正要向他表达的重点。李氏是说“阅读欧阳文风的文章感到非常的伤感。他以教会牧师的形象出现，却不断地对外界宣传违反圣经的教导。这样不但会造成外界对基督教的核心教义有所误解；同时也会妨碍那些对圣经一知半解的人理解圣经信仰。”他指的文章不是“一篇半篇”的文章，〈走〉文只是其一，因为欧阳经常都用同性恋类似课题批判基督教原教旨主义信徒。

既然要信宗教，包括基督教或天主教，信了就应该接受该宗教经典为生活准则，经典对于一个非信徒是没意义的。欧阳和我同是基督教牧师，但分别却在于我俩对圣经的诠释有异。从欧阳接受同性恋行为，并宣扬正统教会所没有的“同志神学”，至到他经常抨击所谓的“基督教原教旨主义信徒”的言论，即可看出他是一个秉持自由基督徒神学者。

在自由基督徒神学派，人的理性被强调，并且被视为最终的权威。自由神学家寻求把基督教与世俗科学和“现代的”思想妥协。这和欧阳过去曾经发表多篇科学论证文章高举人的知识和理性即可证实。

正统教会一路来维护圣经反对同性恋的立场，并不等于是歧视同性恋者。对我们而言，任何人既然要入教，就必须顺服圣经的教诲。我承认教会里有些信徒做事情有点激进，但每个教会及所有宗教都会有一些害群之马的。欧阳经常引用一些做事情激进的信徒来作例子（如他引用的一群基督教牧师表示残障儿童是来自上帝的惩罚为例），就趁机一竹竿打死整船人，笼统地把这笔账归给基督教原教旨主义信徒。毕竟诸如这类激进人士乃少数目，不代表整个正统教会。不过在欧阳的笔下，让读者读到我们好像是什么欺压同性恋者和弱者的恶霸。这对于不明白圣经的基督教初信徒和非信徒而言，往往会信以为真，那么正统教会有必要澄清其实我们乃和欧阳的神学信仰有别。

我以一句圣经作结束：“你们要察验什么是主所喜悦的。不要参与暗昧无知的事，倒要把它揭露出来。”（以弗所书5：10-11）。

-------------------------------------------------

以下文章来源：http://opinions.sinchew-i.com/taxonomy/term/13

我的回应
2010-03-15 09:06

李俊逸在《沟通平台》尝试反驳我的文章〈走向理性，告別偏见〉，但他恐怕不知道他所谓的反驳其实佐证我〈走〉文的论点，反映他的偏见与非理性。

一个人一旦对某人或事或观点存有偏见，往往不能理性思考。我遗憾李君还未仔细阅读我的文章，就迫不及待地反驳，把我未说的话塞进我口里。他在〈反驳〉一文中指我在我的文章中说“传统教会把一己当作审判眾生的绝对標准，这是不对的”。

李君说得对，我如果的確说过这句话，这是不对的。但事实是，我並没有如此说，我是指“无论是宗教原教旨主义、种族主义、性別主义，或异性恋霸权∕主义，均是把一己当作审判眾生的標准”，因为传统教会不是一无是处，因为传统不等於错误。这点是他对我文章的误读，我並未指传统教会把一己当作审判眾生的標准。

接下来，是他对理性的误解。当我谈及理性时，我不是指某人的思考结果，我是指普遍的理性。因此，按李君的例子，金正日使用原子弹威胁周边国家的安全时，这是金正日思考的结果，不代表他理性。一个人可以从报復或自私的角度思考问题，但这不等於他理性思考。

我在〈走〉文中所强调的理性，是指对事实的尊重，而非在漠视事实的情况之下，不分青红皂白的迷信圣经或字面解经。李文指同性恋是错误的，因为这是圣经的教导，然后他再没有举客观事实论证。这恰恰是宗教原教旨主义迷信宗教经典的思考模式。李君对圣经的观点和思考模式，並指同性恋是错误的推论，和当年传统教会烧死反对“地球中心论”的科学家、支持奴隶制、反对女性讲道，一模一样。这是何等不幸。

甚么时候基督教原教旨主义者才会学会以史为鑑？

甚么时候基督教原教旨主义者才不会把一己的宗教或对圣经的理解，当作审判眾生的標准，而愿学习摆事实讲道理？

星洲日报／沟通平台‧读者：欧阳文风‧2010.03.15

--------------------------------------------

以下文章来源：http://opinions.sinchew-i.com/node/13895

迷信宗教，理智破產
2010-03-14 18:20

美国基督教原教旨主义从来不甘寂寞，最近一次竟然拿残障儿童来大发厥词，引起哗然。

美国维吉尼亚州一名共和党的政治人物马沙尔（Bob Marshall）早前和一群基督教牧师在一记者招待会上表示，残障儿童是来自上帝惩罚，以教训那些墮胎的妇女！

他说，按圣经的真理，首生的胎儿，无论是人或动物，都应献给上帝，但很多妇女却选择墮胎，因此上帝惩罚这些墮胎妇女，使她们接下来生產的孩子残障；残障儿童是来自上帝的惩罚！

残障儿童的母亲都曾经墮胎？

明显的，这是一个与事实不符的言论。但宗教原教旨主义信徒的其中一个特色，不是完全漠视事实，就是扭曲事实，以偏概全以支持他们充满偏见的言论。

墮胎课题不是一个简单或非黑即白的议题，不少女性选择墮胎的原因不一而足，有人被姦成孕，有人在怀孕时发现怀中儿出现问题，或影响母体生命安全，结果在这情况之下选择墮胎。但基督教原教旨信徒往往漠视现实，铁板一块，没有同情心，完全教条主义，认定墮胎一定罪恶，如今竟然还大言不惭指残障儿童是来自上帝的惩罚，以教训墮胎女性。这种话都说得出来，不只无理，连做人基本的爱心与同情心都没有。但这些所谓替天行道的宗教原教旨主义与卫道士，迷信宗教，结果心中只有宗教教条，没有人性。

这些人为了支持传统教条，完全不讲理。美国另一位反同性恋最得力的基督教原教旨教派信徒史蒂芬本勒（Stephen Bennett）就曾经说过：同性恋都是有问题的人物，这些人之所以成为同性恋，原因包括家里有人死了、父母离婚、或长得太高、太矮、太胖等，总之任何使一个人与同性朋友中“特出”的原因，都可以导致一个人变同性恋！

另一位叫保罗卡美伦（Paul Cameron）的美国基督徒具说，同性恋恋的其中一个成因，是与动物性交的结果！

马来西亚也有一位基督徒大力反对同性恋，而且还是律师，他的其中一个反对理由是：在同性恋的性交活动中，只有一个人爽，另一个不爽，因此这是有问题的性关係！我第一次听到这言论，差点喷饭吐血，不晓得他曾经做过，还是想像力一流。

为甚么这些人可能发表以上理性严重贫血的言论？理由恐怕非常简单，因为他们所以为的真理，根本经不起事实的拷问，只能诉诸宗教经典，即只能在一个封闭的系统里生存。结果为了强调他们的真理具有普世性价值，他们必须尝试不诉诸一己宗教经典，但由於这些教条根本不是真理，勉为其难要以理服人，就只能发展出这些理智破產的歪论。

这些言论，明理的人一看就知道似是而非，只是歪论，只能把它当笑话来看。可是这些“笑话”表面好笑，事实伤人无数。你是否可以想像残障人士听了感受如何？还有那些有残障儿童的父母听了，有何感想？迷信宗教的恶果，这些只是其一。

星洲日报／言路‧作者：欧阳文风‧自由撰稿人‧2010.03.14

检讨发放奖学金和分配学额制度

报道说，SPM华文难获A+恐怕打击报考。我认为除了检讨是否因考卷太深奥或太严批卷外，也必须检讨我国发放奖学金及大学学额的制度。

我国华校出生的学生必须应付三语有压力外，加上有些中学没有华文班，不少学生即因此放弃报考华文是其中原因。而发放奖学金和分配大学学额也以多少个“A”为考量，导致学生尽量报考能够加强出位的科目。

其实，这样的教育制度乃是停留在三十年前的框框里，我们必须迎合时代而改变了！为什么新加坡一个小国比我国更早成为先进国？其一原因乃它迎合时代来改进教育。许多国家包括美国对新加坡拥有世界一流的教育水准有口皆碑。我的大马朋友在加拿大做工，他有机会调派回来新加坡，但不敢接受，乃因怕孩子应付不来新加坡的高超教育！

先进国和教育制度是息息相关的，我国真的能够在十年内加入行列吗？单看我们的教育制度朝令夕改，还在摸索阶段，那我已经不带很大盼望了！我们取经勿舍近就远，新加坡就是个好效法对象。

我国一个怪现象就是优秀生往往一窝蜂申请读医科，最后因僧多粥少被割爱而埋怨。众知我国的弊病是行政偏差，但除了这点，我想问拿到全“A”者真的就适合当医生吗？在新加坡，答案就是“未必”！在新加坡，政府的面试委员会成员都是专业人士，他们会从面试当中分配学生所适合的学科。在筛选当中，若申请医科者是色盲的或怕血的等情况，难道因你是全“A”生而成全你读医科吗？配合上那份录取学生的完备准则，所以办事透明。

我国美中不足的是中学没有一个职业辅导师，在教育成功的国家都必强调这个岗位的。导师从学生各个角度分析，引导学生选科以达到升大学时可发挥所长，为国家栽培各类人才，因此这些国家常有各种新的研发成果。

大马如果能够早日各按其才来栽培人才的话，我们就会因此协助国家开辟许多新的工商业，科技，工艺等领域。日后学生选科时范围也扩大了，不必每年都大家挤着狭窄相同的学科争出位。

这样，我们也不会因着语文科难获A+而放弃它们。在许多国家，多懂一种语文就多一项优势。不过我国在发放奖学金和分配大学学额时却不把它列入评分，真难理会。譬如你要当一个医生，或律师（其实各种行业），在一个多元种族的大马是不是有百利而无一弊？你若能够往国外发展更是优势呢！即使目前我国还没有如此重视“多语文多评分”的制度，我还是鼓励华裔学生为了发扬我们的中华文化而辛苦点，不要为了难获“A+”耿耿于怀而放弃报考华文。中国崛起了，这个世纪就是中国的世纪，因此，能读能讲中文的人有福了！

From a Doctor: 'Laminin'

Submitted by Keith Williams

A couple of days ago I was running on my treadmill watching a DVD sermon by Louie Giglio, and I was blown away. I want to share what I learned, but I fear not being able to convey it as well as I want. I will share anyway.

He (Louie) was talking about how inconceivably big our God is...how He spoke the universe into being... how He breathes stars out of His mouth that are huge raging balls of fire... etc. etc. Then He went on to speak of how this star-breathing, universe creating God also knitted our human bodies together with amazing detail and wonder. At this point I am loving it (fascinating from a medical standpoint, you know.) ....and I was remembering how I was constantly amazed during medical school as I learned more and more about God's handiwork.

I remember so many times thinking: "How can anyone deny that a Creator did all of this?"

Louie went on to talk about how we can trust that the God who created all this, also has the power to hold it all together when things seem to be falling apart...how our loving Creator is also our sustainer.

And then I lost my breath. And it wasn't because I was running my treadmill either. It was because he started talking about laminin. I knew about laminin. Here is how Wikipedia describes them: "Laminins are a family of proteins that are an integral part of the structural scaffolding of basement membranes in almost every animal tissue." You see....laminins are what hold us together.... literally. They are cell adhesion molecules. They are what holds one cell of our bodies to the next cell. Without them, we would literally fall apart. And I knew all this already.

But what I didn't know is what laminin looked like.

But now I do. And I have thought about it a thousand times since (already).... Here is what the structure of laminin looks like...And this is not a "Christian portrayal" of it. If you look up laminin in any scientific/ medical piece of literature, this is what you will see:

Amazing!

The glue that holds us together, all of us, is in the shape of the cross.

Immediately Colossians 1:15-17 comes to mind: "He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For by him all things were created; things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. He is before all things, And in him all things hold together."

Thousands of years before the world knew anything about laminin, Paul penned those words. The Creator knew exactly what laminin "glue" would look like long before Adam even breathed his first breath!!

And now we see that from a very literal standpoint, we are held together one cell to another....by the cross.

Source: http://www.millercountyliberal.com/news/2009-03-25/health/053.html

反驳欧阳文风

读了大快人心，基督徒应该效法作者有勇气发言。
--------------------------------
读者：李俊逸

阅读欧阳文风的文章感到非常的伤感。他以教会牧师的形象出现，却不断地对外界宣传违反圣经的教导。这样不但会造成外界对基督教的核心教义有所误解；同时也会妨碍那些对圣经一知半解的人理解圣经信仰。

其实欧阳文风对“尊重圣经之传统基督教会”的指控是不正確的。我想我有必要向星洲日报的读者澄清，毕竟基督徒的心声也是马来西亚社会人权/民意的一部份！

他在他的〈走向理性，告別偏见〉一文中说，传统教会把一己当作审判眾生的绝对標准，这是不对的！基督教是相信上帝的信仰，我们对一切事物的判断都是以“圣经的原则”为標准，因为我们相信圣经是上帝的教导，是神的启示。我们相信上帝这位全智的审判者！所以不是基督教会把一己的標准强加给同性恋者，而是圣经教导我们：同性恋的行为是一种违背常理的“情慾”，不是一种纯粹的“感情”。因为男和男的感情可以是真挚友情，男人和男人的交情为甚么要让慾念插上一脚呢？笔者並不不想伤害同性恋者，只是在澄清我们的基督教信仰，希望社会对教会有更深入的瞭解。

欧阳文风说保守的基督徒不理性，又说传统的基督徒以为他以理性否定基督信仰，其实不然，我们是压根儿认为，欧阳文风没有基督信仰。

基督徒不是反对用理性分辨是非，而是反对基督徒高举理性超过圣经。如果圣经確实是上帝的教导，那么圣经的作者就是创造世界的上帝，那么我们有甚么理由相信欧阳文风的教导超过圣经？人的思考和逻辑是有限的。因为人不是全知的，所以基督徒谦卑的顺服在圣经的教导之下。

其实许多的事实不断的向我们表明，世界不乏那些使用他们的理性思考和逻辑来犯罪的人。我想你不可否认原子弹是人类理性、逻辑思考的科学成果。当它炸在长崎和广岛，它就结束了第二次世界大战，但是当它被朝鲜使用的时候，就变成威胁周边国家安全的工具。你说金正日不理性吗？他深知道他的国家需要別国的接济，他正是使用他的理性和逻辑捍卫他的独裁统治。就好像欧阳文风的理性和逻辑都在为他的同性恋辩护。这就是他所说的：把一己当作审判眾生的绝对標准。

来源：http://opinions.sinchew-i.com/node/13838 星洲日报／沟通平台‧2010.03.10

-----------------------------------------

以下文章来源：http://translate.google.com.my/translate?hl=zh-CN&sl=zh-TW&u=http://opinions.sinchew-i.com/node/13137%3Fpage%3D18&ei=GPyeS4iJNIezrAfrg8iODg&sa=X&oi=translate&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CAcQ7gEwAA&prev=/search%3Fq%3D%25E8%25B5%25B0%25E5%2590%2591%25E7%2590%2586%25E6%2580%25A7%25EF%25BC%258C%25E5%2591%258A%25E5%2588%25A5%25E5%2581%258F%25E8%25A7%2581%26hl%3Den

走向理性，告别偏见
2010-01-15 18:56 2010-01-15 18:56

一直以來，我都在強調理性、思考、邏輯的重要性，離開了對理性的把握或輕蔑理性或無視邏輯原則，我們的生活必然陷入混亂，偏見叢生，把歪論當真理，個人幸福與社會和平必然受損。一直以来，我都在强调理性、思考、逻辑的重要性，离开了对理性的把握或轻蔑理性或无视逻辑原则，我们的生活必然陷入混乱，偏见丛生，把歪论当真理，个人幸福与社会和平必然受损。 國內不少保守的基督徒非議我對理性的推崇，甚至還以我的專業學術研究，即社會學攻擊我，以為我以理性否定基督信仰。国内不少保守的基督徒非议我对理性的推崇，甚至还以我的专业学术研究，即社会学攻击我，以为我以理性否定基督信仰。 有趣的是，自教堂攻擊事件發生以來，許多基督徒都在強調理性了，呼吁大家有問題可以慢慢談，有趣的是，自教堂攻击事件发生以来，许多基督徒都在强调理性了，呼吁大家有问题可以慢慢谈，不應使用暴力，要講道理等雲雲。不应使用暴力，要讲道理等云云。

有此可見，一旦受害的是自己，一旦自己成為宗教偏執與愚昧的受害人，許多人馬上驚覺理性與講道理的重要性，瞭解我們不應獨斷與排他，必須對自己的行為與信仰提出合理的理由，而不能純粹訴諸於一己宗教經典或理念。有此可见，一旦受害的是自己，一旦自己成为宗教偏执与愚昧的受害人，许多人马上惊觉理性与讲道理的重要性，了解我们不应独断与排他，必须对自己的行为与信仰提出合理的理由，而不能纯粹诉诸于一己宗教经典或理念。

基督教堂被攻擊雖然屬不幸事件，但這起悲劇的意義讓我們的社會醒覺，瞭解理性思考與對話的重要性，明白我們必須遵循邏輯規則思考問題，而不應讓情緒或一己的偏好主宰一切。基督教堂被攻击虽然属不幸事件，但这起悲剧的意义让我们的社会醒觉，了解理性思考与对话的重要性，明白我们必须遵循逻辑规则思考问题，而不应让情绪或一己的偏好主宰一切。

無論是宗教原教旨主義、種族主義、性別主義、或異性戀霸權／主義（heterosexism），均是把一己當作審判眾生的絕對標準，其內在邏輯無不強調“我比你好”，“我是唯一正確的，凡是與我不同的，均為劣等”，而無視事實，不願講理，也拒絕以科學和理性的態度去自我批判。无论是宗教原教旨主义、种族主义、性别主义、或异性恋霸权／主义（heterosexism），均是把一己当作审判众生的绝对标准，其内在逻辑无不强调“我比你好”，“我是唯一正确的，凡是与我不同的，均为劣等”，而无视事实，不愿讲理，也拒绝以科学和理性的态度去自我批判。 這種思想一旦有其宗教背書，就更加明目張膽與恐怖，偏見與歧視馬上合理化起來。这种思想一旦有其宗教背书，就更加明目张胆与恐怖，偏见与歧视马上合理化起来。 人類歷史從來不缺乏這些例子，只是我們到底汲取了甚麼教訓？人类历史从来不缺乏这些例子，只是我们到底汲取了什么教训？

歷史的教訓往往是除非我們換了位置，成為受害人，也是少數，否則許多人難免自以為是。历史的教训往往是除非我们换了位置，成为受害人，也是少数，否则许多人难免自以为是。 這是人性的弱點與悲劇之一。这是人性的弱点与悲剧之一。 無怪乎當我在抨擊宗教信徒中反智文化時，不少基督徒非議我，甚至還形容我為“不信派”无怪乎当我在抨击宗教信徒中反智文化时，不少基督徒非议我，甚至还形容我为“不信派”

或異端，可一旦他們成為反智文化的受害人時，馬上強調理性與冷靜。或异端，可一旦他们成为反智文化的受害人时，马上强调理性与冷静。

我們今日的社會無疑比過去更加複雜，在全球化的時代，我們再也不能故步自封，或繼續做井底之蛙，以為世界就是井口般大，以為自己所瞭解的就是唯一與絕對的真理，而拒絕理性思考與自我批判，或吸納不同的文化，並包容異己。我们今日的社会无疑比过去更加复杂，在全球化的时代，我们再也不能故步自封，或继续做井底之蛙，以为世界就是井口般大，以为自己所了解的就是唯一与绝对的真理，而拒绝理性思考与自我批判，或吸纳不同的文化，并包容异己。 行文至此，我必須強調，這絕對不等同於相對主義，而是強調我們必須瞭解人做為人的局限，而向真理和真相開放，把全人類的解放，放置在對生命理想的追求進程之中，設身處地為他人著想，學習聆聽和對話，而非純粹訴諸個人的信仰、意識形態、傳統或一己的偏好。行文至此，我必须强调，这绝对不等同于相对主义，而是强调我们必须了解人做为人的局限，而向真理和真相开放，把全人类的解放，放置在对生命理想的追求进程之中，设身处地为他人着想，学习聆听和对话，而非纯粹诉诸个人的信仰、意识形态、传统或一己的偏好。 曾經有一位基督教牧師對我說除非他瞭解為甚麼一個男人可能愛男人，否則同性戀是錯誤的，這是非常典型的自我中心之例子；至於純粹訴諸宗教經典，無視科學，而反對這反對那的例子，絕不止於同性戀，大家心裡有數，我也不必再多說了。曾经有一位基督教牧师对我说除非他了解为什么一个男人可能爱男人，否则同性恋是错误的，这是非常典型的自我中心之例子；至于纯粹诉诸宗教经典，无视科学，而反对这反对那的例子，绝不止于同性恋，大家心里有数，我也不必再多说了。
星洲日報／言路‧作者：歐陽文風‧自由撰稿人‧2010.01.15 星洲日报／言路‧作者：欧阳文风‧自由撰稿人‧2010.01.15

The Column that Wasn't

Tuesday, March 2, 2010
by Marina Mahathir

Folks, I'm posting here what should have been my Musings column tomorrow. The Star has refused to publish it because, after what happened to P. Gunasegaram's article which was pulled out after the Home Ministry gave them a show-cause letter, they don't want any 'sensitive' articles that may jeopardise their KDN permit.

Now I've been writing for the Star for about 20 years now, believe it or not, and although it would be much easier and freer to just blog, I maintain my column because of the discipline and because of my many loyal readers who don't necessarily read anything online. There have been other times when my column has been in danger of being censored (and very occasionally edited to sound gentler and nicer..) but still they came out when they were supposed to.

But this time they were adamant. As it happened, this evening I attended a dinner held by the MCA for NGOs. The MCA, as you may know, owns The Star. It was high irony for me to have so many people, including top MCA officials, tell me that they faithfully read my column when their own paper won't publish it tomorrow. I was seated next to Dato Sri Ong Tee Keat himself and complained about it but he wasn't keen to rock the boat, even though every time someone like me is censored, it's one point gained by the conservatives who, rather than argue things out with proper facts, would simply prefer to shut everyone up.

Of course the problem is the Publishing and Printing Presses Act itself which requires every single publication to apply for a permit every year. And no media which wants to survive can afford to get shut down.

But still there is room for courage, to stand up for freedom of speech. If we capitulate every time, then why bother publishing at all?

Indeed the space for any form of public discussion is narrowing every day, with not only the PPA being used but also police reports against anyone who puts forward the slightest alternative or opposing view. This is what keeps the cops busy these days, instead of catching snatch thieves, robbers, rapists and other real social ills.

Yet online there is room for all points of view and is it really so bad? In this blog, I allow all points of view and what I've found is that when you allow it, apart from a few stubborn ones, eventually the humanity of everybody comes through. There is a yearning to understand one another but that can't be done if there is no space for learning. Nor would you gain that insight into people if you didn't allow everyone to express themselves.

And as many have pointed out, what is the point of censoring the mainstream media when there is the freewheeling internet? The other point we should make to people like The Star is, what is the point of constantly sucking up to the Government when they can still turn around and bite you? Not everyone has to be Utusan. Self-respect is important too, no?

So anyway, here's the Column That Wasn't:



When we want to compete with anyone in any field we seek those who are better than us. And we keep going until finally we are recognized as the best. For example, a tennis player starts at the unranked bottom and tries to play and win against better players until finally there is nobody to beat.

We do not however insist that everybody comes down to our level or to play badly in order for us to win.

This is what puzzles me about the syariah courts in our country. In 1988 a clause was inserted into our Constitution that has been interpreted as having erected a Berlin Wall between the syariah and the civil courts. Basically Article 121(1A) said “the courts referred to in Clause (1) shall have no jurisdiction in respect of any matter within the jurisdiction of the syariah courts." This has caused untold problems because real life sometimes dictates that some issues cross over both jurisdictions. But leave that aside for a moment.

Although the new clause did not say that the two separate courts were equal to one another, there are some people who are of the view that the syariah court is superior to the civil courts simply because syariah law is deemed of a higher order than civil laws. This is because apparently God made syariah laws while mere human beings made the civil laws. Never mind the fact that human beings have been changing syariah laws over the years, for instance, by loosening laws that protected women from losing all their property to their divorced husbands. Like other laws in this country, syariah laws have to be drafted, tabled and passed through our various lawmaking bodies whether at the State or Federal levels. This process leaves a lot of human fingerprints all over them.

Civil laws are drafted, tabled and passed through Parliament. The difference is that at the tabling stage , they have to be debated before they are passed. The quality of the debate may be sometimes wanting but debated they are. This process provides some sort of ‘quality control’ over the laws so that they are hopefully current, reflect realities and are just.

The same does not hold true of syariah laws. When they get tabled at State Excos, non-Muslims do not participate because there is the notion that they cannot partake in any such debate. That leaves only the Muslim Excos, few of whom are women. This means that if a bill affects women, the opinions of the female minority in the Exco can be ignored. Furthermore, most people are ignorant about their religion and tend to leave these matters to those they believe know best. Thus if the State Mufti or religious adviser says it’s a good law, they are unlikely to challenge him. Thus are religious laws passed unscrutinised.

Until, that is, something happens such as when someone gets convicted of a syariah crime and punishment is meted out. Who knew until recently that people could get caned for drinking, or for having a baby out of wedlock until the recent cases of Kartika and the three women?

Not only are these laws not debated when they are being made but they can’t be debated afterwards either, unlike civil laws. To do so, according to some people, is akin to arguing with God it seems. (There are however some who think that God welcomes such arguments just so that He can prove He is right).

If one believes that syariah laws are superior to civil laws, should they not be held to higher standards? Should they not be subjected to more rigorous debate than civil laws out of fear that they may be unjust? If syariah courts are deemed superior to civil courts, should not their processes be more transparent and efficient? How is it that there are innumerable women having to undergo tremendous suffering because syariah court orders to their divorced husbands to pay child maintenance cannot be enforced?

How is it also that we suddenly hear about women being caned without any information about the processes they went through? Did they have the benefit of legal representation and heard in an open court? If they did, who were their lawyers and what defense did they mount?

Surely the best court of law is one that strives for justice, which shows it is fair to all parties. In this case, on whose behalf was justice served?

I have no problems with syariah laws if their foundation is justice, equality and non-discrimination for all, even non-Muslims. But when their intent, processes and enforcement are unfair, they only give the impression that Islam is unjust and discriminatory. Surely to give such an image of Islam is a sin.

-------------------------------------------------------------
p/s my columns also get translated into Chinese and published in the Nanyang Siang Pau. Could someone read Nanyang and tell me whether they published it or not?
Bookmark and Share
Posted by MarinaM at 11:09 PM

Source: http://rantingsbymm.blogspot.com/2010/03/column-that-wasnt.html

浮罗交怡可以做得更好

春节期间带家人去浮罗交怡度假4天，这是我们第一次踏足那片慕名已久的旅游天堂。玩了几天，发觉它并不如我们先前想像般的那么有旅游吸引力。

我们从机场租车，警察就在抵达厅前面不远路段机场范围设的路障拦截我们，给予诸多为难。因正逢新年，大马人都心知肚明所为何事。我们挑战警察若我们有错就发罚票，结果他们无奈地让我们走。在机场范围设路障？这是旅游业的致命伤，旅游部须正视。我们头一次去浮罗交怡，那不愉快经历就是我们头一个得到的印象？我们随即为那些在我们后面抵达的游客担忧！

浮罗交怡并不很清洁，到处堆积垃圾，那该算当地市议会一笔账。而且许多处海边只看到污浊的海水，即使我们的房子向海，也不想坐在海边享受海浪的声音。政府应该美化海水和海滩，因为游客去海岛旅游主要目的就是要看海。

在这岛要找西马大陆好吃的食物的话，大家可要失望呢！这里没有华人茶室，所以没有小贩食物；也没有大陆普遍的嘛嬷餐室（其实浮罗交怡的主要人口是马来人）。中餐饮食罕见，多数是适合外国游客的西方饮食业及日本餐和酒吧之类的，并且收费非常高昂。

浮罗交怡的旅游景点也不特出，相同的景点，若你去过其他国家游玩的话，你就会察觉我们的是小巫见大巫。这里没有公巴，乘搭德士短短距离须收费16令吉，有时游客感到气馁，因为德士费甚至比要出去买的东西更贵。其实不少游客希望政府能够在这里推行环岛穿行的公巴服务。

酒店的收费真的不菲，廉价旅店并不多。美丽的沙滩，都给名贵的酒店包围着，这令人质疑业者真的有权利抹杀公众使用沙滩的权利吗？我们在这岛结识了一个中国人家庭，一起乘船出游。他们惊讶酒店并没有免费的上网服务，他们一天上网付了酒店数十块钱。说真的，在中国，一间简陋的宾馆在大厅也有两三部电脑让住客免费上网，方便人联系及从谷歌找地图。

我发觉不但在浮罗交怡的酒店鲜少有免费上网服务，一般上在大马很多酒店都如此。我国乃在亚洲率先推行超级多媒体走廊的，但不明与旅游业有关的酒店业却不开放，怎样跟别人来竞争？反而我们的嘛嬷餐馆和快餐餐馆更开放，提供免费宽频wifi服务。

其实浮罗交怡拥有的旅游景点及服务，跟我们邻国的普吉岛和巴提雅的是大同小异的。但邻国的却吸引比我国更多的游客。原因是它们不但作贵宾的生意，也顾及小消费的游客，提供廉价公共交通和旅店。所以不要怪大马人揶揄说到国外旅游比在国内旅游更廉宜之类的言论！其实浮罗交怡可以做得更好的，既然我们有两家廉价航空配合，旅游部何不向泰国旅游业取经呢？

虎落平阳被犬欺

照片取自： http://images.google.com.my/imglanding?q=tiger%20poaching&imgurl=http://sunbears.wildlifedirect.org/files/2009/01/article002f4bb2b000005dc292_468x343.jpg&imgrefurl=http://sunbears.wildlifedirect.org/2009/01/13/pictured-the-horrifying-fate-of-tigers-decapitated-by-poachers/&usg=__yGprNAATxt6qtE9LgpSxEdXxD_s=&h=343&w=468&sz=85&hl=en&itbs=1&tbnid=DFg0JGjdIwpyqM:&tbnh=94&tbnw=128&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dtiger%2Bpoaching%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DG%26gbv%3D2%26tbs%3Disch:1&sa=G&gbv=2&tbs=isch:1&start=3#tbnid=DFg0JGjdIwpyqM&start=7

2月初读到霹雳州双溪一个原住民入山林收臭豆被老虎攻击，我对他的遭遇感到同情。隔天霹州野生动物及国家公园部门在调查后揭露真相，说该山林并没有臭豆，而是该原住民和另一族人设陷阱捕捉老虎，并向受伤的老虎开枪及刺戮而遭受老虎反击。老虎的尸体也在离陷阱100公尺外被发现。我这次读后即从对原住民同情转为气氛，我呼吁法庭给予涉及者最高的刑罚。

今天2月23日在英文星报读到另一则捕猎老虎的新闻，是英国第4波道电视台播出并上载在其网站的手机录影片段。片段大约在去年杪摄录于北马，显示几个人围站在老虎尸体旁，谈论他们怎样杀害它。大马自然社会主席丹斯里沙列说，基于老虎的低数目，杀虎者应该问吊。

此新闻的前一天，星报也报道新山动物园正在商议获取一对白虎，以吸引更多的观众来增加收入。除此，两年前也读到一个人从一家餐馆以高价买下一只小虎，把它送到马六甲动物园照顾。虎年谈虎色变，我的意思并不是怕老虎的凶猛，而是怕它们从我国消失，今天我国只剩下500只了。

好像这样的新闻，读了总令我不是味道的。我想起《增广贤文》的两句话：“龙游浅滩遭虾戏，虎落平阳被犬欺。” 老虎的生存环境是山林，这样便于隐蔽自己。野生动物一般上都畏避人的，老虎不会走入平原地区的（“平阳”就是“平原”的意思），然而，人类大事发展开辟山林，使到它们活动的空间减少，结果无意游荡到村落的情况即常发生。

一旦老虎到了平原地区，没有了丛林的掩护，它自身的爆发力和突击优势就不复存在，它甚至对犬的围攻都显得无助。至于把老虎关在有限空间的动物园里，老虎就不再虎虎生威了，而是犹如病猫的，比不上那些能自由自在走动的犬呢！

这就是人类丑陋的一面，以今天人类的尖端科技和武器，捕捉野生动物轻而易举。中国人喜欢吃野味，所以东南亚常常有人走私野生动物到中国和香港。日本人喜欢吃鲸鱼肉，因此每年在南极捕猎成千上万的鲸鱼。人类晓得海豚，海狮和杀人鲸等的机智，因此把它们关起来表演娱众。

人类寻求生存之道，也不可剥削其他活物的生存环境。上帝给地球的许多活物并不是给人类当食物的，也不是让它们被关起来的。一旦人类持续糟蹋自然生态的运作，可怕的后果将要向人类追讨。我希望报纸能够扮演一个教育角色，推动保护野生动物醒觉运动，拯救许多将陆续从地球灭绝的活物。

World's Largest Crucifix

Also read: http://www.dubai-architecture.info/DUB-003.htm

安华和民联何去何从？

朱基菲里

公正党及民联的至高领袖安华，2月2日将面对鸡奸案二（1998年鸡奸案一）审讯。安华算是幸运的，鸡奸案是刑事案，却被允许保释。但当案件正式开审后，他是否会被拒保释而身陷囹圄？安华的内忧不仅官司缠身，还有党内的分歧。而外患则是来自国阵的一系列利民转型计划，对他要成为首相之路已构成阻挠。

回想安华在308大选率领在野阵线锐挫国阵后那几个月的威风凛凛表情，还策划916改朝换代的目标，依然历历在目。现在却看到脸上表露几分倦容，这是否表示他对改变政治的斗争已经信心下滑呢？此时安华只顾要求获得公正兼公平的审讯，让他早日摆脱官司的重担，以落力为估计两年多即举行的全国大选备战。

民联三党，经过几轮的协议和好后，往往平静的时日只维持一阵子。现在互相对峙仍然不断，令支持者无不感到担心。三党当中，胜出最多的是公正党，但最多问题的也是它。支持者以为带来麻烦的会是回教党，但看起来公正党更难搞。无他，须知道大多数的公正党党员是前巫统党员，他们是背着不良包袱过来的，没筛选是否投机分子，这样的人思想很难改变。

现在公正党党员闹辞职及退党，包括领袖级人物，对党员肯定某程度打击军心的。居林国会议员朱基菲里为宗教大发热心，借助“阿拉”课题发挥与安华唱反调。他的言论也挑起种族课题，其实蛮煽动性的，但政府却出乎意外的平静。而安华却没有严厉地对付他。而亲信再益却认为应该把他砍掉，以大局为重。但安华还不出手，到底他怕什么？

从朱基菲里的嚣张态度，可见他已经有一盘分裂民联的大计划在心。他不可能加入回教党的，因为后者已经知道他必成事不足，败事有余的。拉惹柏特拉直言朱氏是卧底，是为别人效劳来分裂民联的。

安华必须看到朱氏带来严重性的破坏，为此人的事情，再益已经与前者意见分歧了。若安华不以快刀斩乱麻的手法与朱氏一刀两断的话，可能会引发更多党员辞职或退党。稳住军心，安华必须够狠，短痛好过长痛，失去朱氏和一些其支持者，好过失去执政的机会。

安华欲当首相之路一波三折，他不够果断还是他看不清楚前面的方向？抑或他没有当首相的福分呢？他是否已经失去他的魅力呢？倘若他真的被定罪，谁是接班人呢？

倘若民联真的成功改朝换代的话，谁会当首相？安华？再益？哈迪阿旺？聂阿兹？或旺阿兹莎？或东姑拉沙里（最近公开在追讨政府5％石油税给丹州，很不寻常；连林吉祥都不愿否定姑里的可能性）？世事如棋局局新，且让我们拭目以待，不过必须恳切为国家祷告。

入教脱教

读了莫哈末依沙叶的“改变宗教信仰须审慎”，欲作个回应。我认为不仅改信回教必须审慎，改信其他宗教都都是一样须要审慎。

在基督教圈子，也有人入教并非因懂得基督教信仰才这样作。因着某些原因，包括为了结婚而跟从配偶信仰，父母需要倚靠孩子而跟从孩子的信仰，及年轻人配上时潮身分等，大有人在。

与回教不同的是，改信基督教是一种选择，基督徒的孩子并不自动出生为一个信徒，不过父母会从旁指引，到了孩子懂事的年龄，他们必须自己作个抉择。而当信徒脱教也没有手续，一旦那人以后不跟基督教信仰有关系，就算是非信徒了。

我认为宗教信仰本应该是人人自由选择的，上帝赋予人的特质之一就是自由意志。既此，宗教方便人进来，也应该方便人离开。耶稣和穆哈默德以及两者的经书并没有训示入教后不可以脱教。

这方便莫哈末依沙叶也承认回教在大马是属于一种建制化了的宗教。而所谓“建制化”就是人为的，而不是经训的。人意不应该超越经训，若以“国情”为理由乃违反教主的原意。换句话说，一旦入教不能脱教并非古兰经经训。看看印尼这全世界最大的回教国家，回教徒脱教并不是一件困难的事情。

莫哈末依沙叶说回教在出教上比入教更简单，只要那人已经“完全”不再相信有上苍的存在，并“完全”不再相信穆圣为先知，在宗教上，他也就不再是回教徒。我国近来不少争尸事情，丧偶后欲脱教事情，母亲为孩子申请脱教事情，琳娜卓伊（Lina Joy）申请在大马卡删除“回教徒”字眼事情等，闹得极其不欢。

我认为大马应该仿效印尼，对于判案更加放宽，尊重人民自己的选择。既然人的心已经不再是回教徒，勉强留住那人又有什么意义？每个宗教应该通过加强教导，使信徒信心稳固。
-------------------------------------------------------

以下资料来源：http://opinions.sinchew-i.com/node/13306

改变宗教信仰须审慎
2010-01-28 11:54

林晓微事件，让我想起有许多人因为婚姻等关係“勉强”改信回教；心里面没有信仰，却背负著一个教徒的身份，確实是件痛苦的事。

本人是一名华裔回教徒，在教会的聚会上，就曾遇见这么一个没有信仰的华裔“回教徒”，直觉上感到他本人缺乏自信心，而回教並未为他带来任何正面的力量。

对此，我觉得很可惜，觉得他“入宝山却空手回”，因为回教作为一种宗教，若认真履行其教义，確实会改善生活。若是对这个宗教没有信心，却因为信仰以外的原因而进行“口头上的改教”，这是一种非常不负责任的做法。不但对不起自己和家人，事实上也是对“回教社群”的冒犯！因为这属於一种欺骗。

回教在大马的地位与其他宗教不一样，在宪法上它是属於国教，而回教徒也受到回教法的管辖。

它是属於一种建制化了的宗教（sebuah agama yangdirasmikan），入教或出教，已不是单纯的宗教事务，而是一种复杂的法律事务。

从纯宗教上来讲，一个人只要发自內心的，並在两名回教徒的见证下，念了两次清真言（dua kalikalimah syahadah）就是一名回教徒。至於出教，其实更简单，只要那人已经“完全”不再相信有上苍的存在，並“完全”不再相信穆圣为先知，在宗教上，他也就不再是回教徒。但回到大马法庭，那却可能是个冗长的官司。

我本人在改信回教之前，並没有上过任何甚么“3个月的宗教课”。当时我走进宗教局，表明来意后，官员只是问了一句：“来真的？”（sungguh？）我说是，他就安排多一名官员，见证我念清真言。过程不到15分钟。我想，所谓的“上了3个月宗教课才能进回教”只是个美丽的误会。

我希望各界对回教能够有比较正面的看法，毕竟它也是个宗教，只是因为建制化后，才產生了这许多法律问题。
星洲日报／沟通平台‧读者：莫哈末依沙叶（Muhammad Esa Yap Abdullah）‧2010.01.28

Reality bites for Avatar: China renames 'floating' mountain

Cashing in ... Heaven and Earth Pillar in Zhangjiajie in China's southern Hunan province has had its name changed to Avatar Hallelujah Mountain.

A craggy peak in a scenic part of southern China has been renamed after the floating mountains featured in Hollywood blockbuster Avatar, with the province hoping to cash in on the movie's massive success.

The majestic peak in Hunan province previously known as Heaven and Earth Pillar or South Sky Pillar has been officially renamed Avatar Hallelujah Mountain, the Zhangjiajie city government said in a statement.

The Government said the floating "Hallelujah Mountains" in the movie were inspired by the pillar, as a Hollywood photographer spent time shooting there in 2008.

"Many pictures he took then become prototypes for various elements in the Avatar movie, including the 'Hallelujah Mountains'," the Government's website said.

Avatar, directed by James Cameron, has so far sold $1.841 billion worth of tickets worldwide, making it the biggest international release of all time.

Chinese cinemas last week began taking the 2D version of Avatar off their screens to make way for domestic movies over the upcoming Chinese new year holiday, though the wildly popular 3D version is still available.

Avatar has so far made about $80 million in China, and has become the country's most popular film ever.

Zhangjiajie hopes to capitalise on that fame.

Tourists can now join a "Magical tour to Avatar-Pandora" or a "Miracle tour to Avatar's floating mountain", the Zhangjiajie branch of China International Travel Service Corp said on its website.

"Pandora is far but Zhangjiajie is near," the municipal government added on its website.

"Welcome to Zhangjiajie to see 'Avatar Hallelujah Mountains' and discover the real world of Pandora."

Places of Worship attacked

As at January 27, 2010

As a Christian, I strongly condemned the acts of cowards who attacked places of worship in this country. I prayed against these spirits of lawlessness.

SEPTEMBER 11, 2001

Dr. Mahathir, I assured you that you have my support on this Conspiracy Theory.
-------------------------------------------------------
by Dr. Mahathir Mohamad
January 22, 2010 12:05 PM

1. In my speech (http://www.perdana4peace.org/)at the conference on the support for Palestine (Al Quds) on Jan 20, 2010, I said that if they can make the film Avatar, they can stage the attack and collapse of the World Trade Centre in New York.

2. The press report seems to suggest that there was no real destruction of the two towers but it was just some kind of theatrical trick. It is of course a fact that the two towers were destroyed after two aircrafts crashed into them.

3. A lot of people in America (the apologists will dismiss them as conspiracy theorists) questioned whether the towers collapsed because the planes crashed into them or that something else caused them to come down. These people have reproduced videos taken by media people showing the attack and the collapse of the towers, pointing out certain peculiar features. I have seen the three-hour long video (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5474006551011489413#docid=-7577672657056760447) which is widely distributed.

4. Those people who watched the live telecast of the attack and the collapse of the towers will remember as I remember, that both towers collapsed straight down, floor upon floor. They did not lean to their sides as they collapse. The manner of their collapse was like the pictures we see of multi-storied buildings being demolished by demolition experts. When demolishing a skyscraper in a built-up area the experts ensure that as the towers collapse they would not lean to the side and strike neighbouring buildings.

5. The collapse of the two towers was typical of demolition of skyscrapers by experts in America. It was too clean, each tower collapsing upon itself, not touching each other or the buildings surrounding them.

6. One thing that is never mentioned almost is the collapse of a third building which was neither hit by aircraft or by the two towers. This building, described as building number 7, is slightly more than half the height of the WTC towers.

7. This building also collapsed down upon itself. Again it looked like a demolition job. Why did it collapse? Nothing struck it. It did not catch fire. Yet it collapsed straight down without touching any other building or the towers.

8. The American investigators also showed pictures of the Pentagon where the third aircraft was supposed to have crashed into. There was no aircraft or debris. I have never seen the picture of the crashed aircraft.

9. Nor have I seen pictures of the fourth aircraft which crashed somewhere. Maybe others have seen pictures of these two crashed aircrafts. I would like to see them.

10. The American media work very fast. They are usually on the crash scenes minutes after the accident. Yet I do not remember seeing pictures of the crashed aircrafts which were supposed to hit the Pentagon and the one which crashed somewhere.

11. In the video structural engineers and other experts were asked to comment. They doubted that the twin towers collapsed because the aircrafts crashed into the upper stories.

12. I met a janitor who worked on the staff of the two towers. He helped to rescue a lot of people before the building came down. He was proclaimed a national hero. However, the official report did not carry his statement that there were explosions in the building which appeared to be quite unrelated to the plane crash.

13. As I said in my speech I am not so certain now that the Arab "terrorists" hijacked four commercial aircrafts simultaneously and flew them into the twin towers, the Pentagon and somewhere unknown (farm).

14. Some people have condemned me for doubting that the attack was mounted by Arab Muslim terrorists.

15. Perhaps one of the television stations would care to air the videos mentioned without censorship.

16. I really feel sorry for the consultant who profusely apologised for the Americans and the Jews. He should learn to be honest to himself. I pray that his services would be recognised and appreciated by his principals.

Source: http://chedet.co.cc/chedetblog/2010/01/september-11-2001.html#more

新山加略山城市教会教神学和讲道

1月10日傍晚从梳邦机场乘搭飞机抵达新山士乃机场。科目是“基督生平”，本来有20个学生报名，临时两个有事取消。

11日至15日晚上上课，16日从上午到下午。星期日下午两小时30分。星期六晚在金成功加略山讲道，牧师是唐爱芬。星期日上午在加略山母会讲道，牧师是黄佩姗。星期日傍晚乘搭飞机回梳邦机场。

我要向黄牧师和唐牧师致谢，她们的邀请和让我有机会教导和讲道。向苏永良传道和传道娘致谢，为着他们接待我的住宿和饮食。向吴伟强传道致谢，为着他在交通和饮食上的接待。致谢的还有： Grace姐妹（早餐和送去主日崇拜）；陈秀凤和丈夫阿黎（载送）；Alice和儿子（送去课室）；彭牧师夫妇（午餐）。

阿凡达和911

郑丁贤先生：

您好。想跟你分享关于你的文章“阿凡达和911”，及我对马哈迪的言论看法。因为我知道若我这样的言论将不会获得星洲日报刊登的。

根据老马的言论，他并没有指金马仑是911的策划师，他的意思是若美国有这样一个头脑的金马仑，美国哪里会没有策划大动作计划如911事件的人才？

关于阴谋论，其实马哈迪并不是第一个指责的，911不久已经有了。美国也有不少人曾经发表过。美国有一个组织曾经揭发阴谋论而要政府负责，要求全世界支持它们向政府的伸冤。我电邮它们，就收到一张VCD，是专家研究的各种证据，以画面详细描述。

其中有几个疑点：

一、小布什收到电话时，并没有显示很紧张，还悠悠闲闲的，他或许先前早已经知道那事件。

二、世贸大厦向来是犹太人聚集的地方，但整3千死亡的人当中，竟然没有一个犹太人！是否已经先通知他们？

三、飞机撞击后，马上在另一层楼巨大爆炸，那爆炸程度必须要有好多吨的炸药才能够有如此威力。是否一早已经预先置了炸药？飞机爆炸的热量就引爆该楼炸药。

并非卡伊达不是策划者，而是也有报道美国情报局已经知道它们的计划，却不及时拦阻，反而就顺水推舟“配合”。

问题不是美国的领袖有阴谋，而是“世界单一政府”组织的领袖。美国总统某时期开始都是必须认同该组织的斗争宗旨才能获得支持的。怎样能够引进单一政府？就是通过制造紧急事故，那么就能出师有名地“执行正义”，以达到控制世界的一天。

而使用的策略包括推行作买卖的方式，就是通过密码植入人体作为操纵世界的贸易。日后谁人没有密码就不可以作买卖。或许你在想我也如金马仑那样的幻想，想出如此高深莫测的怪东西来！

其实马哈迪真的看到那些西方野心家的阴谋，他看到他们的可恶，我很认同他对西方那般的抨击。虽然穆士林有史以来长期至今皆对峙犹太人，但真正杀害犹太人最多的是谁？是西方人，希特勒屠杀了600万犹太人。马哈迪已经看到，西方人在利用犹太人。看看欧盟，现在对以色列的态度怎样了，已经软化其支持了。到后来伤害犹太人的，少数从穆士林来，多数将从那些单一政府的西方人来。

陈亚伦
-----------------------------------------------------
作者：郑丁贤
2010-01-21 19:04

每个人看了电影《阿凡达》，都会有不同的感受；观后感各有不同，写出来或讲出来，就是本身的影评，各自精彩。

然而，我从来没有看过如此精彩，不……，神奇的影评。

伟大的马哈迪说，他看了《阿凡达》，发觉既然美国人有能力拍出这么高科技的电影，那么，他们也有能力自己策划911恐怖袭击。

了不起，史上最有创意的影评。

奥斯卡金像奖应该增加一个奖项，


不用投票，就直接颁给马哈迪了。

按照马哈迪的逻辑，911的幕后策划人，当然不是奥沙马宾拉登先生，而极有可能是《阿凡达》的导演占士金马仑（James Cameron）。

我查了金马仑先生的资料，他在1997年拍了《铁达尼（Titanic）》，创下票房纪录，还夺得奥斯卡几项大奖，名利双收。

Hmm……，很有可能，从那时起，他就被美国中央情报局收编，替政府工作。

正如中国导演张艺谋声名大噪之后，就被政府徵召，成为中共的宣传大师。

不是吗？金马仑先生拍了《铁达尼》之后，几年来深居简出，神秘兮兮，不知他在干些甚么。

你们说，在这期间，他是否有可能忙著导演911恐怖袭击这部世纪大戏，而不能分身？直到事件告一段落，他才有空开拍《阿凡达》。

如此说来，911事件有两种可能。

其一，一切都是假的，世贸中心被毁的一幕，只是电影特技；2000多名罹难者，都是临时演员；他们现在都还好好活著，只是隱姓埋名，或者改头换面。

其二，一不做，二不休，假戏真做。金马仑先生用飞机炸了世贸中心，也把这些临时演员都干掉了。

当然，奥沙马宾拉登先生，他也是美国的临时演员，在戏中演大反派而已。否则，怎么没见过他为自己申冤呢！

或者，奥沙马宾拉登根本就是金马仑自己客串的。

这么解释之后，马哈迪先生，您满意了吧？美国人自导自演，目的就是要进攻回教世界。

911之后，美国攻打阿富汗和伊拉克，死了上万美军，这些也是临时演员吧。

而美国花了5500亿美元的军费，丟进战场，也是拍戏的预算？

果真如此，金马仑至少可以拍2000部《阿凡达》了。

接下来，马老太爷可以说，二战的珍珠港事件，是美国自己炸的；阿波罗登月，是大导演库布列克在棚內拍摄的；南北战爭，是林肯的家家酒。

总结，美国人就是外星人，他们的任务就是毁灭地球；就好像电影中的地球人，要摧毁潘朵拉星球的纳美族人一样。

马哈迪担任22年的首相，就是以这种逻辑思维来治国的吗？

怪不得，马来西亚在他手上，变得怪怪的。

来源：http://opinions.sinchew-i.com/node/13211

Dr. M says 9/11 attacks staged to hit Muslim World

AVATAR? Is the movie that high-tech? Since Malaysia former PM Mahathir mentioned it, I will get the DVD soon and watch it. This round I agreed with his insight. He seems to know much about the One World Government conspiracies, and the dirty ambitions of the European Union Antichrist. These people were Anti-Semitic and forever the same till End-time. They would persecute the Jews in the Last Days. Kudos, Mahathir.
-----------------------------------------------------



by Asrul Hadi Abdullah Sani

KUALA LUMPUR, Jan 20 — Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad today claimed the 9/11 attacks in the United States, that killed nearly 3,000, was staged as an excuse to “mount attacks on the Muslim world”, saying killing as an excuse for war is not new to the US.

The former prime minister also argued that Israel was created to solve the “Jewish problem” in Europe, saying the Holocaust had failed as a final solution against the community.

“In September 2001, the World Trade Centre was attacked allegedly by terrorists. I am not sure now that Muslim terrorists carried out these attacks. There is strong evidence that the attacks were staged. If they can make Avatar, they can make anything,” said Dr Mahathir during his speech at the General Conference for the Support of Al-Quds here. Al-Quds is the Arabic name for Jerusalem.

“Killing innocent people to provide an excuse for war is not new to the US. But whether the real or staged 9/11 attacks have served the United States and Western countries well. They have an excuse to mount attacks on the Muslim world,” he added.

Dr Mahathir also argued the creation of the Jewish state was decided after Europeans failed to massacre the community.

“The Jews had always been a problem in European countries. They had to be confined to ghettoes and periodically massacred. But still they remained, they thrived and they held whole governments to ransom.

“Even after their massacre by the Nazis of Germany, they survived to continue to be a source of even greater problems for the world. The Holocaust failed as a final solution,” said the outspoken Malaysian leader who was noted for his anti-Western and anti-Zionist stand while in power for 22 years, until October 2003.

Dr Mahathir added that it was easier for the European powers to set up a Jewish state in Palestine.

“Creating a state for them was thought to be a better solution. It could be if some European territory had been allocated to make a permanent ghetto for the Jews. But of course if this was done then the affected European state would rise in arms and kill all the Jews the way they had been doing before. So the debate was about creating an Israeli state in Uganda, Africa, or somewhere in Latin America or Palestine of course.

“It was so easy to decide on Palestine, a British mandated territory. Restrictions on the disposal of mandated land could be ignored. This is nothing new — reneging on solemnly given undertaking is endemic with Europeans,” he said.

Dr Mahathir also accused democratic countries for being “hypocritical” and pointed out that the world is “partially civilised.”

“We live in a world that is only partially civilised. I say this because we still believe that the way to resolve conflicts between nations is to kill people in what is called war. The winner is the side which succeeds in killing the most number of people. Yet we vehemently declare that killing people is murder, a terrible crime worthy of the most severe punishment.

“We are being openly hypocritical. Mass killing is glorious but killing one man is a heinous crime,” he said in his speech.

Dr Mahathir also expressed his disappointment in Barack Obama and said that the US president has failed. Obama celebrated his first year in office today.

“Well, I am a bit disappointed because so far none of his promises have been kept. He promised to get out from Afghanistan but he ended up sending more troops there instead. He promised to close down Guantanamo but he has not closed down Guantanamo. Even other things he has not been able to do.

“It is quite easy to promise during election time but you know there are forces in the United States which prevents the president from doing some things. One of the forces is the Jewish lobby, IPAC,” he said.

Dr Mahathir had previously blamed the Jews for causing the Asian financial crisis.

Source: http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/index.php/malaysia/50190-dr-m-says-911-attacks-staged-to-hit-muslim-world

虎年苦年

要责怪就只怪我是讲广东话一辈，当有人对我讲到虎年时即下意识连贯为“苦年”。华人的十二生肖充满神秘性，多年来不少人受到它主宰。

本来西方情人节是不少情人举行结婚的大热日子，加上今年它碰巧与将来临的春节落在同一天，应该更加是结婚热门首选日子吧。但根据庙宇的婚姻注册官，今年情人节申请结婚冷淡，因为顾忌虎年不利。

虎，给人的印象是凶狠，杀气很大。华人惯常形容凶的女人为“雌老虎”，所以虎年不结婚。当然也有不信运程者明知山有虎，偏向虎山行！且倘若以广东话来念“虎年”则是“苦年”，唉，华人什么东西都有得联想和挂钩的。

对于风水命理，读读就好，不必太在意。难道我们的生命就由十二只动物和时辰八字所主宰吗？遗憾向来不少相爱的鸳鸯遭父母和命理师拆散，到底是两个情人为自己的终身大事作主还是父母和命理师作主？事实上，我们也看到不少以命理“相配”的婚姻破裂，离婚告终，那怎样解释？现实上，婚姻靠夫妻互相尊重，而不是靠命理。

至于那些一窝蜂按照时辰方向接财神的人士，不少人还不是没有发达？如果每个华人接财神都发达的话，那么华人中岂没有穷人了？但事实穷人还是满街都是。

不过真实的，虎年的确是苦年，不是根据运程，乃是根据国家政策。一、大马经济仍然疲弱，同时近来外资减少。二、燃油政策举棋不定，一方面说用大马卡添油啦，一方面又说只津贴100公升啦，总之目的就是想减少津贴。三、废除白糖津贴后，以白糖为原料的物品价格飙涨将在今年陆续出现。这些物品和燃油涨价会导致通货膨胀骨牌效应。

四、金马仑菜农公会声称，春节蔬菜将涨价30％。其实这不仅是在春节的短暂涨价现象。过去一年，蔬菜已经因气候变化歉收而令消费人吃贵菜了，虎年不大可能会恢复年前价格。五、春节猪肉涨价，即使在春节前后几天把它列统制品也只是短期效益。在此举出数据，生猪从去年10月至今已涨价了4％，即从每公斤730令吉涨至760令吉。而猪肉则从每公斤14令吉涨至22令吉。随着猪饲料持续上涨，消费人年内或许还会吃更贵的猪肉。六、全球天灾人祸恐怖事件接二连三，打击全球经济复苏。

综观上述分析，我认为与其把命运交给命理学来定我们一生，倒不如用头脑自力更生找出路。钱不会从天掉下来的，人类能够在这世界生存几千年至今，乃是懂得在逆境中求存。

培养先进国国民意识

槟城钟灵中学赛龙舟训练，翻船导致1老师5学生淹死，令人感到遗憾。增广贤文说得有理：“欺山莫欺水”。人是陆地族，不是水族。在水中没顶，短短一分钟即可能就窒息。

我在此分享一次跟朋友出海的经验，或许对我国各阶层作启发提升出海安全意识。两年前我拜访在澳洲柏斯的朋友，他有自己的游艇，带我出印度洋钓鱼。

他作足安全措施：一、从互联网查当天的气候和浪潮（澳洲当局频密更新资讯）。二、预先知会海事局我们出海（方便官员不时联络，不然失踪了也没人知道）。三、携带无线电电话（遭遇不测可轻易发出求救讯号）。四、船上救生器具齐全。

可见如澳洲一个这样的先进国，政府和人民的安全意识是有口皆碑的。试问在我国，上述的措施，多少人会去办？我国多少出海人士不嫌麻烦去查气候和海潮？而我国的气象局的气候和海潮，有最新的资讯让人通过互联网查到吗？我国的海事局会鼓励人民出海前预先知会它们吗？我看大马人也不晓得它们的联络管道。我国出海人士，多少人会携带无线电电话？众知手机一在海面不远距离就没讯号的了。我国的出海人士，救生器具都备上了吗？龙舟悲剧，报道说“18人仅2人穿救生衣，那么不严谨，实在令人惊讶！”

我国只剩下10年就要成为先进国的目标，我恐怕很难实现。政府如果不积极提升公务员的服务态度，教育的范围，及改变人民的各种意识的话，恐怕先进国只停留在喊口号上。我们必须积极参考先进国的各种办事的方式，积极推行，并装备人民培养先进国的国民意识。

高庭基於4理由准《先锋报》用“阿拉”字眼

* “阿拉”字眼判决风波
* 大马
2010-01-17 18:24

（吉隆坡）高庭法官拿督刘美兰是基於4项理由，裁决天主教会週刊《先锋报》可以使用“阿拉”字眼，理由包括內政部长和政府禁止《先锋报》使用“阿拉”字眼的行动是非法、违反宪法、不合理，以及不能证明对国家安全造成威胁。

陈先生是经常在外跑动的高级执行人员，除了用电话来沟通之外，他也大量使用短讯。现在他使用BlackBerry®方案，不用一直去找地方上网来回答电邮，更不用塞车赶回公司处理一大堆邮件。

她在共有57页的书面判词中，点出了联邦宪法和不同州属的法律之间的衝突，以及部份回教组织声称此案不能交由民事法庭审理的立场。

根据《马来西亚局內人》获得的书面判词，她列举了她於去年12月31日作出的口头判决的理由和法律引据。

刘美兰指第一和第二答辩人，即內政部长和政府在印刷与出版法令第12条文下，有权批准或撤销准证给申请人，即大马天主教吉隆坡总教区主教丹斯里莫菲帕金，以出版《先锋报》，但她强调，答辩人禁止《先锋报》使用“阿拉”字眼的决定是不合法和不符合宪法。

以下是主要爭议的摘录要点：

●內政部长发出的禁令是非法的理由：

法官认为，內政部长行使权利，决定对《先锋报》出版准证实施加附带条件，並没有考虑到涉及的问题，包括包括“阿拉”是马来文的“上帝”，而《圣经》马来文译本的“上帝”被译为“阿拉”。

她说，15世纪时，在使用阿拉伯语的国家，基督教徒与回教徒也使用“阿拉”称呼上苍；大马和印尼的天主教堂，甚至在以基督徒为主的地区，认为“阿拉”是马来文的“上帝”。

因此，她认为內政部长犯了法律上的错误，所以法庭有权作出干预，並认为答辩人於2009年1月7日作出的决定应该撤销。

●內政部长发出的禁令不符合宪法的理由：

法官认为，毫无疑问，基督教是一种宗教，问题是，使用“阿拉”字眼是否是基督教的惯例。

她说，歷史证据说法了，基督教使用“阿拉”字眼是无可爭辩的，证据明显显示，使用“阿拉”字眼成为了大马天主教会中的马来语使用者，在崇拜和教学时的惯例，也成为他们实践和传播信仰时不可或缺的做法。

她指出，下一个考虑的问题是，要在何种情况下“禁止”使用“阿拉”字眼，而內政部长指使用“阿拉”字眼將会危害公共秩序和国家安全是受到质疑的论据。

她表示考虑到所有因素后，她认为对《先锋报》出版准证施加附带条件，已令內政部长抵触联邦宪法第3（1）、11（1）和11（3）条文，因此是违宪的。

●內政部长发出的禁令不合理的理由：

法官认为，如果有人违反法律，有关当局將会採取適当的行动，而內政部在发出准证时，已限制了《先锋报》的流通；同时，《先锋报》已在封面註明仅供教堂与基督教徒阅读。

●无法证明对国家安全构成威胁：

內政部长声称《先锋报》使用“阿拉”字眼，將引起混淆，並威胁与危害公共秩序，但是他却无法提供支持性的法律证据证明这一点。

来源：http://www.sinchew-i.com/node/135592?tid=3

Allah Case: Govt wrong on all counts

* Asia Pacific disasters
2010-01-17 21:14

KUALA LUMPUR, Jan 17 — High Court judge Datuk Lau Bee Lan’s controversial ‘Allah’ ruling that rocked the nation over who had rights to the term cited that the Home Minister and government’s actions had been illegal, unconstitutional, irrational and had failed to satisfy that it was a threat to national security.

She also wrote about the apparent conflict in the matter between the Federal Constitution and the various state enactments apart from claims by Muslim groups that the matter cannot be taken to a civil court.

The judge released the written grounds of her Dec 31 judgment late on Friday while the increasingly acrimonious public debate over who has the right to use the word “Allah” continues to rage on.

The Malaysian Insider obtained a copy of her 57-page judgment where the judge lays out the reasons and the laws behind her oral pronouncement.

In laying out her judgment, Justice Lau ruled that the Home Minister and the Government of Malaysia, who were named as 1st and 2nd Respondents respectively, has the discretion under Section 12 of the Printing Presses and Publications Act to issue or revoke a permit to the Archbishop of Kuala Lumpur Reverend Tan Sri Murphy Pakiam (the Applicant) to publish the Church’s newspaper, Herald — The Catholic Weekly.

But, she stressed, the respondents had made decisions that were illegal, unconstitutional and irrational when they barred the Catholic newspaper from publishing the word “Allah” in its Bahasa Malaysia section.

The case was brought by the Roman Catholic Church, represented by the Archbishop of Kuala Lumpur Reverend Tan Sri Murphy Pakiam on February 16 last year when he filed for a judicial review against the Home Minister for barring it from using the word “Allah” as part of conditions for getting a publishing permit.

Pakiam is officially the Herald’s publisher.

The Home Ministry has successfully applied for a stay of execution in the ruling pending an appeal.

Below are excerpts highlighting the main disputes.

On why the Home Minister’s ban is illegal

“The Applicant submits the 1st Respondent has failed to take into account one or more of the relevant considerations...

1. The word “Allah” is the correct Bahasa Malaysia word for “God” and in the Bahasa Malaysia translation of the Bible, “God” is translated as “Allah” and “Lord” is translated as “Tuhan”;

2. For 15 centuries, Christians and Muslims in Arabic-speaking countries have been using the word “Allah” in reference to the One God. The Catholic Church in Malaysia and Indonesia and the greater majority of other Christian denominations hold that “Allah” is the legitimate word for “God” in Bahasa Malaysia;

3. The Malay language has been the lingua franca of many Catholic believers for several centuries especially those living in Melaka and Penang and their descendants in Peninsular Malaysia have practised a culture of speaking and praying in the Malay language;

4. The word “God” has been translated as “Allah” in the “Istilah Agama Kristian Bahasa Inggeris ke Bahasa Malaysia” first published by the Catholic Bishops Conference of Malaysia in 1989;

5. The Malay-Latin dictionary published in 1631 had translated “Deus” (the Latin word for God) as “Alla” as the Malay translation;

6. The Christian usage of the word “Allah” predates Islam being the name of God in the old Arabic Bible as well as in the modern Arabic Bible used by Christians in Egypt, Lebanon, Iraq, Indonesia, Malaysia, Brunei and other places in Asia, Africa, etc;

7. In Bahasa Malaysia and Bahasa Indonesia, the word “Allah” has been used continuously in the printed edition of the Matthew’s Gospel in Malaysia in 1629, in the first complete Malay Bible in 1733 and in the second complete Malay Bible in 1879 until today in the Perjanjian Baru and the Alkitab;

8. Munshi Abdullah who is considered the father of modern Malay literature had translated the Gospels into Malay in 1852 and he translated the word “God” as “Allah”;

9. There was already a Bible translated into Bahasa Melayu in existence before 1957 which translation was carried out by the British and Foreign Bible Society where the word “Allah” was used;

10. There was also already in existence a Prayer Book published in Singapore on 3.1.1905 where the word “Allah” was used;

11. There was also a publication entitled “An Abridgment of the Christian Doctrine” published in 1895 where the word “Allah” was used.

12. Anther publication entitled “Hikajat Elkaniset” published in 1874 also contains the word “Allah”

13. The Bahasa Indonesia and the Bahasa Malaysia translations of the Holy Bible, which is the Holy Scriptures of Christians, have been used by the Christian natives of Peninsular Malaysia; Sabah and Sarawak for generations;

14. The Bahasa Malaysia speaking Christian natives of Peninsular Malaysia, Sarawak and Sabah had always and have continuously the word “Allah” for generations and the word “Allah” is used in the Bahasa Malaysia and Bahasa Indonesian translations of the Bible used throught Malaysia;

15. At least for the last three decades the Bahasa Malaysia congregation of the Catholic Church have been freely using the Alkitab, the Bahasa Indonesia translation of the Holy Bible wherein the word “Allah appears;

16. The said publication is a Catholic weekly as stated on the cover of the weekly and is intended for the dissemination of news and information on the Catholic Church in Malaysia and elsewhere and is not for sale or distribution outside the Church;

17. The said publication is not made available to members of the public and in particular to persons professing the religion of Islam;

18. The said publication contains nothing which is likely to cause public alarm and/or which touches on the sensitivities of the religion of Islam and in the fourteen years of the said publication there has never been any untoward incident arising from the Applicant’s use of the word “Allah” in the said publication;

19. In any event the word “Allah” has been used by Christians in all countries where the Arabic language is used as well as in Indonesian/Malay language without any problems and/or breach of public order/ and/or sensitivity to persons professing the religion of Islam in these countries;

20. Islam and the control and restriction of religious doctrine or belief among Muslims professing the religion of Islam is a state matter and the Federal Government has no jurisdiction over such matters of Islam save in the federal territories

21. The subsequent exemption vide P.U.(A) 134/82 which permits the Alkitab to be used by Christians in churches ipso facto permits the use of the word “Allah” in the said publication;

22. The Bahasa Malaysia speaking congregation of the Catholic Church uses the word “Allah” for worship and instruction and that the same is permitted in the Al-Kitab.

“The Applicant further submits that none of the above-mentioned factual considerations were ever disputed or challenged by the 1st Respondent as factually incorrect. I am incline to agree with the Applicant as the response of the 1st Respondent to the factual averments is a feeble denial in paragraph 41 of the Affidavit of the 1st Respondent which reads “Keseluruhan pernyataan-pernyataan di perenggan-perenggan 50, 51 and 52(i)-(xxii) Affidavit Sokongan Pemohon adalah dinafikan...” (Emphasis added)

“Therefore I find the 1st Respondent in the exercise of his discretion to impose further conditions in the publication permit has not taken into account the relevant matters alluded to above, hence committing an error of law warranting this Court to interfere and I am of the view that the decision of the Respondents dated 7.1.2009 ought to be quashed,” she ruled.

On why the Home Minister’s ban is unconstitutional

Justice Lau also said the applicant’s grounds for the reliefs of certiorari and declaratio is premised on the unconstitutional acts and conduct being inconsistent with Articles 3(1), 10, 11 and 12 of the Federal Constitution...”

“Applying the principles enunciated in Meor Atiqulrahman Ishak (supra) to the instant case, there is no doubt that Christianity is a religion. The next question is whether the use of the word “Allah” is a practice of the religion of Christianity. In my view there is uncontroverted historical evidence allueded to in paragraph 52 (i) to (xxii) alluded to above which is indicative that use of the word “Allah” is a practice of the religion of Christianity. From the evidence, it is apparent the use of the word “Allah” is an essential part of the worship and instruction in the faith of the Malay (Bahasa Malaysia) speaking community of the Catholic Church in Malaysia and is integral to the practice and propagation of their faith.

“The next consideration is the circumstances under which the “prohibition” was made. The circumstances to my mind would be the factors which the Respondents rely on to justify the impugned decision which have been alluded to in paragraph 9(i) to (ix) above.

“As to the ground in paragraph 9(i) in my judgment, this is unmeritorious for the reason which has been dealt under the issue of whether the use of the word “Allah” endangers public order and national security. As to the ground in paragraph 9(ii), (iii), (v) and (ix), I have shown unchallenged evidence that there is a well established practice for the use of the “Allah” amongst the Malay speaking community of the Catholic faith in Peninsular Malaysia, Sabah and Sarawak and the origin of the word and its translation...

“Considering all the factors, in my judgment, the imposition of the condition in the publication permit prohibiting the use of the word “Allah” in the said publication, “Herald – the Catholic Weekly” pursuant to the 1st Respondent’s exercise of powers under the Act contravenes the provisions of Articles 3(1), 11(1) and 11(3) of the Federal Constitution and therefore is unconstitutional,” she added.

On why the Home Minister’s ban is irrational

“The Applicant challenges the impugned decision under this head of irrationality/ Wednesbury unreasonableness which applies to “a decision which is so outrageous in its defiance of logic or of accepted moral standards that no sensible person who had applied his mind to the question to be decided could have arrived at it...”

(a) It is utterly irrational and unreasonable on the part of the Respondents on the one hand not to prohibit the congregation of the Catholic Church to use the word “Allah” for worship and instruction in their faith and in the AL-Kitab and on the other hand to state that the same word cannot be used in the said publication which serves to assist these persons in their worship and provide a medium of instruction in their faith and to disseminate news and information (see paragraph 52(xxii) of Applicant’s Affidavit).

(b) It is also utterly irrational and unreasonable on the part of the Respondents to require the Bahasa Malaysia speaking congregation of the Catholic Church to use another word to denote the Bahasa Malaysia word for “God” instead of the word “Allah” when such is and has always been the word used for the word “God” in the Catholic Church and throughout the Bahasa Malaysia speaking community of the Church in Malaysia...

“In relation to the 2 additional grounds mentioned in paragraph 17.1 above, the Respondents responded —

1. Merujuk kepada perenggan 20 Afidavit Sokongan Pemohon, Responden-Responden menegaskan bahawa Pernyataan YAB Perdana Menteri tersebut yang telah dikeluarkan melalui media cetak “The Star” pada 20/4/2005 adalah amat jelas mengarahkan agar di kulit “Bible” dalam versi Bahasa Melayu dinyatakan secara jelas bahawa ianya bukan untuk orang Islam and ianya hanya dijual doi kedai-kedai orang Kristian. Walau bagaimanapun saya sesungguhnya mempercayai dan meyatakan bahawa kenyataan media yang dirujuk itu adalah berhubung dengan Al-Kitab (Bible) sahaja dan tidak relevan kepada isu permit Herald – the Catholic Weekly yang mana syarat yang dikenakan adalah amat jelas dan perlu dipatuhi oleh Pemohon (paragraph 22 of the 1st Respondent’s Affidavit); and

2. the circulation of the Al-Kitab vide P.U.(A) 134 dated 13.5.1982 was made subject to the condition that its possession or use is only in churches by persons professing the Christian religion, throughout Malaysia.

“I find the 2 additional grounds submitted by the Applicant in paragraph 17.1 above to be of substance. It is to be noted that a common thread runs through like a tapestry in the Respondents’ treatment of restricting the use of the word “Allah” which appears in the Al-Kitab are (i) that it is not meant for Muslims; (ii) to be in the possession or use of Christians and in churches only. In fact, these restrictions are similar to that imposed as a second condition in the impugned decision save for the endorsement of the word “Terhad” on the front cover of the said publication. Relying on the chapter on maxims of interpretation at paragraph 44 p.156 of N.S Bindra’s Interpretation of the Statute, there is a maxim “Omne majus continet in se minus” which means “The greater contains the less”. One would have thought having permitted albeit with the usual restrictions the Catholic Church to use the word “Allah” for worship and in the Al-kitab, it would be logical and reasonable for the Respondents to allow the use of the word “Allah” in the said publication drawing an analogy by invoking the maxim “The greater contains the less”. Indeed I am incline to agree with the Applicant that the Respondents are acting illogically, irrationally and inconsistently and no person similarly circumstanced would have acted in a like manner...

“I find there is merit in the Applicant’s contention that when viewed on its merits, the reasons given by the Home Ministry in the various directives defies all logic and is so unreasonable,” Justice Lau wrote in her judgment.

On the seeming conflict between the Federal Constitution and the state enactments to control and restrict the propagation of religious doctrine among Muslims

She also wrote that, “Pursuant to Article 11(4) of the Federal Constitution, ten States have enacted laws to control and restrict the propagation of religious doctrine or belief among Muslims. The laws are –

(i) Control and Restriction of the Propagation of Non Islamic Religions Enactment 1980 (State of Terengganu Enactment No.1/1980)

2. Control and Restriction of the Propagation of Non Islamic Religions Enactment 1981 (Kelantan Enactment No.11/1981)

3. Control and Restriction of the Propagation of Non Islamic Religions Enactment 1988 (Malacca Enactment No.1/1988)

4. Control and Restriction of the Propagation of Non Islamic Religions Enactment 1988 (Kedah Darulaman Enactment No.11/1988)

5. The Non Islamic Religions (Control of Propagation Amongst Muslims) Enactment 1988 (Selangor Enactment No.1/1988)

6. Control and Restriction of the Propagation of Non Islamic Religions Enactment 1988 (Perak Enactment No.10/1988)

7. Control and Restriction of the Propagation of Non Islamic Religions Enactment 1989 (Pahang Enactment No.5/1989)

8. Control and Restriction of the Propagation of Non Islamic Religions Enactment 1991 (Johor Enactment No.12/1991)

9. The Control and Restriction (The Propagation of Non Islamic Religions Amoing Muslims) (Negeri Sembilan) Enactment 1991 (Negeri Sembilan Enactment NO.9/1991); and

10. Control and Restriction of the Propagation of Religious Belief and Doctrine which is Contrary to the Religion of Islam Enactment 2002 (Perlis Enactment No.6 of 2002)

“It is not disputed that s. 9 of the various State Enactments provide for an offence relating to the use of certain words and expression listed in Part 1 or 11 of the Schedule or in the Schedule itself as the case maybe of the State Constitutions and which includes the word “Allah”. Further, all these State Enactments are made pursuant to Article 11(4) of the Federal Constitution which reads “State law and in respect of the Federal Territories of Kuala Lumpur, Labuan and Putrajaya, federal law may control or restrict the propagation of any religious doctrine or belief among persons professing the religion of Islam.” (Emphasis added)...

“Mr Royan drew to the Court’s attention (i) that Article 11(4) which is the restriction does not state that State law can forbid or prohibit but “may control and restrict”; does not provide for State law or for any other law to control or restrict the propagation of any religious doctrine or belief among persons professing a religion other than Islam...

“I find there is merit in Mr Royan’s submission that unless we want to say that s.9 is invalid or unconstitutional to that extent (which I will revert to later), the correct way of approaching s.9 is it ought to be read with Article 11(4). If s.9 is so read in conjunction with Article 11(4), the result would be that a non-Muslim could be committing an offence if he uses the word “Allah” to a Muslim but there would be no offence if it was used to a non-Muslim. Indeed Article 11(1) reinforces this position as it states “Every person has the right to profess and practise his religion and, subject to Clause (4), to propagate it”. Clause 4 restricts a person’s right only to propagate his religious doctrine or belief to persons professing the religion of Islam. It is significant to note that Article 11(1) gives freedom for a person to profess and practise his religion and the restriction is on the right to propagate.

“I find Mr Royan’s argument is further augmented by the submission of Mr Benjamin Dawson, learned Counsel for the Applicant which I find to be forceful stating that this rule of construction is permissible in the light of the mischief the State Enactments seek to cure and the provision has to be interpreted to conform to the Constitution. … For completeness I shall now spell out the preamble in full “WHEREAS Article 11(4) of the Federal Constitution provides that State law may control or restrict the propagation of any religious doctrine or belief among persons professing the religion of Islam. AND WHEREAS it is not desired to make a law to control and restrict the propagation of non-Islamic religious doctrines and beliefs among persons professing the religion of Islam.” (Emphasis added) …

“Applying the said test to the factual matrix of the present case the Court has to bear in mind the constitutional and fundamental rights of persons professing the Christian faith to practise their religion and to impart their faith/religion to persons within their religious group and in this case, the Catholic Church comprises a large section of people from Sabah and Sarawak whose medium of instruction is Bahasa Malaysia and they have for years used religious material in which their God is called “Allah”; for that matter there is a large community who are Bahasa Malaysia speaking from Penang and Malacca. On the other hand the object of Article 11(4) and the State Enactments is to protect or restrict propagation to persons of the Islamic faith. Seen in this context by no stretch of the imagination can one say that s.9 of the State Enactments may well be proportionate to the object it seeks to achieve and the measure is therefore arbitrary and unconstitutional.

“As to the concern of the Respondents there is no guarantee that the magazine would be circulated only among Christians and it will not fall into the hands of Muslims, I agree with Mr Royan there is no requirement of any guarantee be given by anyone in order to profess and practise an even to propagate it.

“In my view if there are breaches of any law the relevant authorities may take the rleevant enforcement measures. We are living in a world of information technology; information can be readily accessible. Are guaranteed rights to be sacrificed at the altar just because the Herald has gone online and is accessible to all? One must not forget there is the restriction in the publication permit wich serves as an additional safeguard which is the word “TERHAD” is to be endorsed on the front page and the said publication is restricted to churches and to followers of Christianity only,” she added.

On the claim that the Home Minister’s ban was to safeguard public security and order

“There is merit in the Applicant’s argument that the Respondents in paragraph 45 of his Affidavit (also in paragraphs 6, 25 and 46) sought to justify imposing the condition in purported exercise of his powers under the said Act on a mere statement that the use of the word “Allah” is a security issue which is causing much confusion and which threatens and endangers public order, without any supporting evidence. A mere statement by the 1st Respondent that the exercise of power was necessary on the ground of national security without adequate supporting evidence is not sufficient in law....

“I find there is merit in Mr Dawson’s argument that the Court ought to take judicial notice that in Muslim countries even in the Middle East where the Muslim and Christian communities together use the word “Allah”, yet one hardly hear of any confusion arising (see paragraph 52(xix) of the Applicant’s Affidavit which is not rebutted). Further, I am incline to agree that the Court has to consider the question of “avoidance of confusion” as a ground very cautiously so as to obviate a situation where a mere confusion of certain persons within a religious group can strip the constitutional right of another religious groiup to practise and propagate their religion under Article 11(1) and to render such guaranteed right as illusory,” Justice Lau said.

On claims from the Muslim groups that “Allah” cannot be challenged in court

On this, she wrote, “I had on 31.12.2009 dismissed the applications of the Majlis Agama Islam (MAI) of Wilayah Persekutuan, Johore, Selangor, Kedah, Malacca, the MAI and Adat Melayu Terenggganu and MACMA to be heard in opposition under O.53 r.8 of the RHC (It is to be noted that the MAI and Adat Melayu Perak and MAI Pulau Pinang did not file any applicatio under O.53 r.8). That being the case, their submission contending the issue of whether any publication in whatever form by a non-Muslim individual or body or entity that uses the scared word of “Allah” can be permitted in law is one that is within the absolute discretion of the Rulers and the Yang di-Pertuan Agong (YDPA) (in respect of Penang, Malacca, Sabah, Sarawak and the Federal Territories) as the respective Heads of Islam and is therefore non-justiciable is irrelevant at the substantive hearing of the judicial review application and need not be considered by this Court.

“I adopt the following responses of the Applicant contending the application is justiciable and I am of the view there is substance –

1. the Federal Constitution and the State Constitutions clearly provide that the Rulers and the YDPA as the Head of Islam in the States and the Federal Territories have exclusive authority only on Islamic affairs and Malay customs;

2. subject to Articles 10 and 11 of the Federal Constitution, the control and regulation of all publications and matters connected therewith are governed by federal law namely the Act and only the Minister for Home Affairs is involved in the implementation and enforcement of its provisions. Under this Act, only the Minister can decide what is permitted to be published and in this regard the Rulers and the YDPA have no role whatsoever under the scheme of this Act;

3. the present judicial reiew is not a judicial review of the decision of the Rulers or the YDPA as Head of Islam concerning the exercise of their duties and functions. It is only a judicial review of the 1st Respondent’s decision to impose a prohibition on the use of the word “Allah” by the Applicant in a publication. Since the Rulers or the YDPA cannot make any decision in respect of any publications and matters connected therewith, the issue of non justiciability does not arise.

On what the Court really ordered

She also listed out the orders from the court in the landmark case, “ In conclusion in the circumstances the Court grants the Applicant the following order:

1. an Order of Certiorari to quash the decisio of the Respondents dated 7.1.2009 that the Applicant’s Publication Permit for the period 1.1.2009 until 31.12.2009 is subject to the condition that the Applicant is prohibited from using the word “Allah” in “Herald – the Catholic Weekly” pending the Court’s determination of the matter;

2. Jointly the following declarations:

(i) that the decision of the Respondents dated 7.1.2009 that the Applicant’s Publication Permit for the period 1.1.2009 until 31.12.2009 is subject to the condition that the Applicant is prohibited from using the word “Allah” in “Herald – the Catholic Weekly” pending the Court’s determination of the matter is null and void;

(ii) that pursuant to Article 3(1) of the Federal Constitution the Applicant has the constitional right to use the word “Allah” in “Herald — the Catholic Weekly” in the exercise of the Applica’ right that religions other than Islam may be practised in peace and harmony in any part of the Federation;

(iii) that Article 3(1) of the Federal Constitution which states that Islam is the religion of the Federation does not empower and/or authorize the Respondents to prohibit the Applicant from using the word “Allah” in “Herald — the Catholic Weekly”;

(iv) that pursuant to Article 10 of the Federal Constitution the Applicant has the constitutional right to use the word “Allah” in “Herald – the Catholic Weekly” in the exercise of the applicant’s right to freedom of speech and expression;

(v) that pursuant to Article 11 of the Federal Constitution the Applicant has the constitutional right to use the word “Allah” in “Herald — the Catholic Weekly” in the exercise of the Applicant’s freedom of religion which includes the right manage its own religious affairs;

(vi) that pursuant to Article 11 and 12 of the Federal Constitution the Applicant has the constitutional right to use the word “Allah” in “Herald — the Catholic Weekly” in the exercise of the Applicant’s right in respect of instruction and education of the Catholic congregation in the Christian religion.

(By DEBRA CHONG,TheMalaysianInsider)

Source: http://www.mysinchew.com/node/34085?tid=14