“PM: Religious festivals unite all Malaysians” is the New Straits Times headline today for Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi’s statement yesterday at an Aidiladha ceremony, where he said:
“Malaysia can pride itself in knowing that regardless of what religious celebration it may be, its ethnic groups will come together as one to honour the event.”
This was very true in the early decades of our nationhood, but it has become less and less true as increasing religious polarization in the country is undermining and even threatening national unity.
In fact, it is no exaggeration to say that religious polarization is most serious in the past four years under Abdullah as Prime Minister as compared to the four former Prime Ministers – Tunku Abdul Rahman, Tun Razak, Tun Hussein Onn and Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad.
It is most unfortunate that in recent years, there have been mounting instances of disrespect and insensitivity of those in power and authority for the rights and sensitivities of non-Muslim Malaysians.
The most serious example were the recent triple insensitivities during this year’s Deepavali – the Festival of Light celebrated by Hindus.
Firstly, there was the insensitive and sacrilegious demolition of the 40-year-old Sri Maha Mariaman Temple in Kampung Rimba Jaya in Shah Alam when Deepavali was just a week away.
This was followed by the disrespect and insensitivity when the Umno General Assembly was held on Deepavali – imagine the protest and outrage if the MCA or MIC had held their general assemblies during the Hari Raya holidays.
But there was a third strike – when Umno Deputy Youth Leader and the Prime Minister’s son-in-law, Khairy Jamaluddin went on a rampage against the Indian community at the Umno General Assembly, telecast on RTM, blaming the Indian news vendors for taking a national press holiday during Deepavali and blacking Abdullah’s speech as Umno President the next day.
The outrage by the Indian community at these triple disrespect and insensitivities were a major cause for 30,000 Indians from all over the country gathering in Kuala Lumpur on Nov. 25 in support of the Hindraf demonstration – not to create unrest but to send their cry of despair at their marginalization to the government of the day!
Such insensitivity and disrespect could also be seen In Parliament, as in the shocking incident where two Umno MPs demanded the removal of the cross and demolition of Christian statues in mission schools.
Universiti Putra Malaysia (UPM) is starting its new semester on Dec. 24, which is Christmas Eve – another example of decreasing respect and sensitivity from those in authority for different religious rights and practices, or the UPM would have fixed its semester opening a few days later.
The Prime Minister must take urgent measures to arrest the worsening of inter-religious relations in the country and halt the growing number of incidents of disrespect and insensitivity felt by non-Muslim Malaysians about their rights and religious practices by those in power and authority.
I have just received this SMS on another incident, viz:
“HERALD the weekly paper of the Catholic Church facing problem in renewing permit. Told not to have Bahasa section as condition for approval. All these years they had four sections – languages. BM to reach East Malaysians and youths educated in BM.”
The Prime Minister should immediately address these obstacles to greater national unity, so that Malaysia can revert to the previous position where religious polarization was a serious problem in nation-building so that religious festivals can continue to be an occasion to unite all Malaysians rather than divide them.
#1 by DarkHorse on Saturday, 22 December 2007 - 2:30 am
“The fact that you and I dare not, please don’t assume …” limkamputt
Sir, I never assumed anything. You did, sir!
#2 by DarkHorse on Saturday, 22 December 2007 - 2:36 am
When I said the HINDRAF 5 misled their supporters, I was expressing my opinion protected by Article 10 of our Constitution. When I said there is a need for a ‘cooling off’ period to allow tempers to cool down and the ISA may just serve this purpose if nothing else, I was expressing my opinion protected again under Article 10, sir.
If you would like to deny me of my freedom to express my opinion you’d need to amend the Constitution, sir – and make it law.
#3 by limkamput on Saturday, 22 December 2007 - 2:38 am
never assumed anything. You did – darkhorse
Really? Didn’t you assume that I will respond to your instigation with regard to I being an impostor?
#4 by limkamput on Saturday, 22 December 2007 - 2:42 am
Sure, the constitution provides you with lots of free speech, your article 10 and all. Go ahead exercise your right like the Hindraf leaders because you got free speech ma. Why insult them instead.
#5 by limkamput on Saturday, 22 December 2007 - 2:45 am
cooling off’ period to allow tempers to cool down and the ISA may just serve this purpose if nothing else, I was expressing my opinion protected again under Article 10 – darkhorse
Sure the same cooling period was also applicable after the UMNO general assembly last year mah. Where were you, hiding under the bed was it?
#6 by DarkHorse on Saturday, 22 December 2007 - 2:46 am
“Sure, the constitution provides you with lots of free speech..” limkamput
The Constitution provides me with free speech rights which allow me to call you names like “stupid and ‘moron”, sir. But I’d rather not do that.
#7 by limkamput on Saturday, 22 December 2007 - 2:51 am
DArkhorse, this was what you said, so don’t twist and turn.
More so post-HINDRAF. Their (Malays’) sense of security has been violated by HINDRAF if you know what I mean. Therefore, the HINDRAF 5 need to remain under detention till tempers cool down.
If under the Sale of Goods Act, the buyer is legally protected from the aggresive selling methods of the door-to-door salesman by allowing the buyer a statutory period of 10 days to change his mind (after signing the contract of sale) referred to as the “cooling off†period, the same reasoning could be employed perhaps to justify their detention.
A “cooling off†period is necessary.
What do they say about someone entering the kitchen and not being able to stand the heat?? Do not enter the kitchen!
#8 by DarkHorse on Saturday, 22 December 2007 - 2:52 am
I’m sorry, sir. It is almost 2.00 a.m. I really need to sleep and shall continue defending my free speech rights first thing tomorrow morning. The right to go to bed when you want to go, is an issue affecting free speech – in case you don’t know sir.
So good night and sweet dreams!
#9 by limkamput on Saturday, 22 December 2007 - 2:55 am
What do they say about someone entering the kitchen and not being able to stand the heat?? Do not enter the kitchen!-darkhorse
You are not only insensitive but insulting to the core to those who are willing to sacrifice their freedom for fairness and equality. Talking about thinking process.
#10 by limkamput on Saturday, 22 December 2007 - 2:57 am
So good night and sweet dreams!
dont try to con me again, didn’t you say good nite earlier and still came back. you want to have the last word right?
#11 by limkamput on Saturday, 22 December 2007 - 2:59 am
if you need to sleep, just go, it is ok, i will not stab you from the back. We debate upfront is more fun. the reason i responded is because you are still here. i will stop when i get no response from you. so good nite and sweet dream to you too
#12 by Count Dracula on Saturday, 22 December 2007 - 2:59 am
You can take me on! I don’t sleep.
#13 by limkamput on Saturday, 22 December 2007 - 3:05 am
i don’t talk dracula at 3 a.m. in the morning, sorry, bye bye.
#14 by Count Dracula on Saturday, 22 December 2007 - 3:10 am
Hello? Are you still there? I can smell blood in the water.
#15 by DiaperHead on Saturday, 22 December 2007 - 5:06 am
Habis modal mah!
#16 by undergrad2 on Saturday, 22 December 2007 - 10:27 am
“Please tell me, because I want to know why because of Article 11(4) and 160 (2) Bible can not be printed in BM.†Limkamput
Article 11 Clause 1) states “ every person has the right to profess and practice his religion…†Then it goes on to qualify that right when it continues “and subject to Clause (4) to propagate it.†In other words you are allowed to propagate your faith but you are only allowed to do so subject to Clause 4).
Clause 4) states clearly and I quote “State law ….may control or restrict….†What does it restrict? It restricts the “propagation of any religious doctrine or belief†which means any doctrine not limited only to Christianity. Then it goes on to state “among persons professing the religion of Islamâ€.
Who are the persons professing the religion of Islam is a question easily answered. However, when it comes to Malays they are deemed Muslims by law. Which provision of the Constitution says that? Article 160(2) when it defines “Malay†as being “persons who profess the Muslim religion, habitually speaks the Malay language and conforms to Malay customâ€. There are expressed provisions to the same effect in the state constitutions which you might want to refer to.
a) Would slipping a copy of the Bible in your friend’s school bag whether asked or not constitute an act of ‘proselytization’?
b) Would asking your Muslim friend to attend church for your wedding constitute an act of proselytization? Would the act of inviting your Muslim friend for a Christmas party at your house suffice to constitute an act of proselytization? Would giving a turkey during Christmas celebration to your Muslim friend be an act of proselytization?
c) Would the act of printing Bibles in Bahasa suffice to constitute an act of proselytization?
d) Would the practice of placing Bibles in hotel rooms suffice to constitute an act of proselytization?
e) Would allowing a weekly paper by a church be in bahasa constitute an act of proselytization? Would allowing a section of any paper dealing with religions issues other than Islam be an act of proselytization?
You would need to refer to the legislation of each state which may or may not provide answers to all these. Personally, I know of no case law on these issues. In my opinion the complete absence of any case law on the matter is indicative or suggestive of how the courts would likely interpret it.
The intent of Parliament regarding Article 160(2) is the focus of some controversy.
That is the law in a nutshell.
…and that is my 2-cents.
#17 by borrring on Saturday, 22 December 2007 - 11:59 am
Found this interesting site http://www.investigateislam.com
#18 by limkamput on Saturday, 22 December 2007 - 2:44 pm
Undergrad2,
Thank you for explaining.
So it is not definitive that any of those you listed constitutes proselytization and as far as I know so far the court has made no decision on any of these. I am aware that State law “….may control or restrict….†but what constitutes control and restrict was never defined, am I right? I am not saying you said, but reading the postings above (in general and not restricting to just yours) would suggest that printing of Bible in BM falls under one of the “control or restrictionâ€. So are we putting the cart ahead of the horse?
#19 by Jeffrey on Saturday, 22 December 2007 - 3:42 pm
“State law ….may control or restrict….the propagation of any religious doctrine or belief among persons professing the religion of Islam†– Article 11(4) of the Constitution.
And what constitutes control and restrict?
Here we refer to the quotes from Lewis Caroll’s “Alice in Wonderland” :
Humpty Dumpty: When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less.
Alice: The question is, whether you can make words mean so many different things.
Humpty Dumpty: The question is: which is to be master – that’s all.
So which is to be master?
#20 by limkamput on Saturday, 22 December 2007 - 3:53 pm
Habis modal mah! Diaperhead
Modal saya banyak ada. Hanya saya mahu berbahas dengan mereka yang cerdik sahaja. Apa kamu tahu? Tulis lah satu atua dua peranggan untuk saya baca. Kalua ada standard macham Darkhorse barulah saya layan, ok. Sementara itu, kamu tunggu la. Tidak semua orang boleh berbahas dengan saya. Kamu ingat senang kah nak berbahas dengan orang yang bersekolah attap?
To All others,
Please don’t think I am being rude again. I want all of you to read the insult Diaperhead heaped on me in another thread, under “Gani owes public apology……â€. I reproduce below for your reading.
This is what Diaperhead said:
“…the prosecution, the defense and the court (i.e the judges) must follow the applicable laws as prevail. †limkamphut
Yes.
“And the subsequent decision/conviction is “justifiable†because those charged are given due process as provided.â€
Yes.
“If this was what you said or alluded to, I totally disagree. â€
Who are you? Who cares whether you agree or not.
“My contention is if the state is capable enough…â€
You can take your contention and shove it up your behind.
#21 by limkamput on Saturday, 22 December 2007 - 4:13 pm
Jeffrey,
If I understand you correctly, ultimately it is those in power that call the shot. They will define the constitution as they please, and if they can’t get what they want, they will amend, change, bulldoze and whatever. I think this is what I have been trying to get at all along – that we are discussing too much within the confine of the constitution, never mind the whole document has been amended beyond recognition. Coupled with this, we are here also trying to interpret whatever provisions that are left negatively (i.e. to our disadvantage) when the issues have not been brought to the court yet. I am also having a discussion with Undergrad2 in another thread under “Gani owes public apology….â€. Would appreciate if you can look at it and enlighten me further.
#22 by DarkHorse on Saturday, 22 December 2007 - 10:07 pm
You know Jeffrey, I’ve always wondered if limkamput is a botak-head.
You know – those who go around with hairs parted near their ears because there’s no hair for them to part anywhere else on their head!
Limkamput likes to split hairs when he writes!
#23 by DarkHorse on Saturday, 22 December 2007 - 10:14 pm
Either that or he is paranoid and schizophrenic always hearing voices, attributing those voices to readers who never uttered a word!
He puts words in the mouths of posters and ends up quarreling with himself. He is the person you’d like to kick in the ass so he could just go away.
But I’m not going to do any of those. I’m just going to exercise my free speech and ignore him.
I ask you, Jeffrey to do the same.
#24 by Count Dracula on Saturday, 22 December 2007 - 10:36 pm
“I am aware of “….may control or restrict….†but what constitutes control and restrict was never defined, am I right?†limkamput
What constitutes control and restriction?
MEANING OF CONTROL AND RESTRICTION as defined in my pocket dictionary.
If I tie you up to your cheap chair, put dirty duct tape across your mouth and restraints on your ankles and then bang your head with your kitchen pan, that’s control and restriction. Oh, that is still not clear enough for you? Then try this.
If I ask you to bend over and you bend over, and I ask Jeffrey to kick you in the rear and there is not a damn thing you can do, that’s control and restriction.
#25 by undergrad2 on Sunday, 23 December 2007 - 12:00 am
LIMKAMPUT: “So it is not definitive that any of those you listed constitutes proselytization and as far as I know so far the court has made no decision on any of these.â€
You cannot proselytize the Malays because that is against the Federal Constitution of 1957. That should be clear to you now: Art. 11(1) read together with Clause (4) and Clause (4) read in conjunction with Art. 160(2) on the definition of “Malayâ€.
State legislation has more to say on the issue.
1. Perhaps Jeffrey QC could help since limkamput cannot understand the meaning of “restrict and controlâ€. The Count has given his learned opinion on “restrict and controlâ€. I would not suggest that he demonstrates to us using limkamput, but the meaning is, in my humble opinion, clear as it could be – ‘crystal clear’ as they say.
2. You have the law and then you have the facts. A judge arrives at his decision by applying the facts to the law. The sequence is not important. Some judges perhaps after long years at the Bench know in their hearts what the right decision ought to be. They work backwards rather than forwards. They decide and then they look at the law and apply the facts to find the reasoning behind the decision. If the reasoning turns out convoluted then there is ground for appeal – though the decision a correct one. On appeal the decision stands though the reasoning does not. In other cases it is about the misapplication of the facts to the law. Yet in others it is law misinterpreted – or law given an interpretation different from the one intended by Parliament.
It may be a source of some comfort for people like limkamput to know that a ‘bad’ decision does not survive an appeal. Sometimes it does – because the Parliamentary draftsman cannot be expected to foresee every situation that may arise, every eventuality when drafting the legislation. In which case the logical thing to do would be to amend it.
3. If by “definitive†you mean there is hitherto no actual case and no decision by our courts on those, again Jeffrey QC the blog’s underpaid and undervalued and under appreciated legal analyst, chief legal correspondent could help us out – pro bono of course.
However, if by “definitive†you mean there is nothing definite about the law against proselytizing Malays, I am prepared to fight tooth and nail and have the Count help me out.
#26 by DiaperHead on Sunday, 23 December 2007 - 12:41 am
I agree with Dark Horse, Count Dracula and undergrad . I think we should spank the guy.
#27 by limkamput on Sunday, 23 December 2007 - 1:53 am
I weep for this country and the DAP that we are having a bunch of idiots here. Undergrad2, you are a big disappointment. You people like to talk like constitutional experts when in actual fact can’t even get the basic right. The issue was never whether we can or can not proselytize the Malays. So please don’t waste your effort filling the blog with your irrelevant writing. The issue was what constitutes proselytize the Malays. Again, I need no counsel that the state can control and restrict proselytize the Malays. My issue to you people was: does the printing of Bible in BM constitute proselytizing the Malays. You people talk so eloquently as if you are so certain. Just answer me yes or no. If yes why yes, and if no why no.
Undergrad2, I think you are a big disappointment. For others (except Jeffrey), I am not disappointed because they are to be expected, useless.
#28 by limkamput on Sunday, 23 December 2007 - 3:18 am
the “others” i refer to above are: Darkhorse, Diaperhead, Colonel, Dracula. But on second thought, may be I just need to use only one of the handles. Afterall, all equally good for nothing.
#29 by DarkHorse on Sunday, 23 December 2007 - 3:19 am
“The issue was what constitutes proselytize the Malays. ” Limkamphut
That’s not for you and I to say, Sir! It is for the courts.
“My issue to you people was: does the printing of Bible in BM constitute proselytizing the Malays.” limkamphut
That too is for the courts to say, Sir! Not for you to say and the rest of us to listen.
“You people talk so eloquently as if you are so certain. ” limkamphut
No, sir. We are only reciting the law and giving our points of view since you say you need help to understand.
“Just answer me yes or no. If yes why yes, and if no why no.” limkamphut
No.
#30 by limkamput on Sunday, 23 December 2007 - 3:21 am
Dracula, you don’t know what you don’t know. I know what i don’t know. A person who does not know what he/she does not know is called a moron!
#31 by limkamput on Sunday, 23 December 2007 - 3:25 am
so what has the court said. i am still waiting…
#32 by limkamput on Sunday, 23 December 2007 - 3:26 am
so if the court has not said, why you people start to talk like constitution law experts.
#33 by limkamput on Sunday, 23 December 2007 - 3:29 am
what law are you reciting that supports the view that printing bible in bm is proselytize malays. i have been waiting since yesterday.
#34 by DarkHorse on Sunday, 23 December 2007 - 3:41 am
That issue has not gone to court yet, Sir. You’ll have to wait.
#35 by DarkHorse on Sunday, 23 December 2007 - 4:02 am
“so if the court has not said, why you people start to talk like constitution law experts.” limkamphut
I never claimed to be an expert at anything, but if you insist that I have expert skills, then I’d like ‘giving you a good spanking’ (to use Diaper’s expression)’ to be one of those, Sir.
I hope you don’t mind.
#36 by DarkHorse on Sunday, 23 December 2007 - 4:15 am
“So are we putting the cart ahead of the horse?” limkamphut
No sir. I am not putting the cart in front of the horse. I’m just putting you in front of the horse, sir.
#37 by DarkHorse on Sunday, 23 December 2007 - 4:21 am
“I weep for this country and the DAP that we are having a bunch of idiots here including Undergrad2…” limkamphut
I have to remind you that you’re going back to being your old self here i.e. calling posters names.
#38 by DarkHorse on Sunday, 23 December 2007 - 4:22 am
I suggest we return to the issues.
#39 by DarkHorse on Sunday, 23 December 2007 - 5:55 am
“The outrage by the Indian community at these triple disrespect and insensitivities were a major cause for 30,000 Indians from all over the country gathering in Kuala Lumpur…..” Kit
I submit respectfully to you, Kit that to treat the Indians as if they were one homogeneous race is a mistake. It is a mistake because we would then not be able to understand the issues as well as we should.
There are Malayalis, Gujeratis, Punjabis, Bengalis etc and these are the Indians who play a much more significant and not a marginal role in the economic life of our country – and they were not represented on that November day!
The HINDRAF leaders rode roughshod over them.
#40 by Colonel on Sunday, 23 December 2007 - 6:15 am
Yes, if racial polarization in the country is a serious issue today, the HINDRAF demonstrators have made it worse.
#41 by limkamput on Sunday, 23 December 2007 - 10:48 am
I have to remind you that you’re going back to being your old self here i.e. calling posters names.
oh yes, most appropriately. Despite my repeated reminders, THAT stupid head of yours remain unchanged. What do you call this type of people, ASS MORON.
#42 by limkamput on Sunday, 23 December 2007 - 1:26 pm
DarkHorse Says: I suggest we return to the issues.
What issue, moron like you can talk about issue? define to me quickly what is issue?
#43 by limkamput on Sunday, 23 December 2007 - 3:28 pm
Colonel Says:
Yes, if racial polarization in the country is a serious issue today, the HINDRAF demonstrators have made it worse -colonel
hello, dont insult Hindraf and its leaders, you spineless colonel with a private brain.
#44 by limkamput on Sunday, 23 December 2007 - 4:03 pm
No sir. I am not putting the cart in front of the horse. I’m just putting you in front of the horse, sir.- darkhorse
no problem to be in front of an ass like you so that i can fart on you.
#45 by chgchksg128 on Sunday, 23 December 2007 - 5:31 pm
something to let u all think?is it right the the mosque make a loud noise at 5am to 6am…
read this post
http://2hard2lie.blogspot.com/2007_12_01_archive.html
#46 by ktteokt on Thursday, 27 December 2007 - 10:44 am
Next time you meet up with a fully uniformed policeman or policewoman, observe his or her uniform carefully and you will notice that all of them wears a badge with the words “Allah” and “Mohammed” written in Jawi on their uniforms. And don’t forget some of them are not Muslims, yet they are made to wear these. So if these words are “franchised” to Muslims, then why are non-Muslims made to wear them?
#47 by ktteokt on Saturday, 29 December 2007 - 9:22 am
“PM: Religious festivals unite all Malaysiansâ€â€¦
How can he make such a claim when he even failed to unite the Malays themselves despite the fact the BIG signboard with the words UMNO inscribed on it, denoting “UNITED MALAYS NATIONAL ORGANIZATION”. He is supposed to unite all Malays in the nation according to what is written on the signboard but has he? I only come to one conclusion with my observations, i.e. the signboard should be changed to read “UNITING MALAYS NATIONAL ORGANIZATION” or “PERSATUAN KEBANGSAAN MELAYU YANG SEDANG DISATUKAN”