This entry was posted on Tuesday, 23 October 2012, 2:50 pm and is filed under Islamic state, Martin Jalleh. You can follow any responses to this entry through RSS 2.0.
#1 by Godfather on Tuesday, 23 October 2012 - 3:00 pm
In 2001, Mamakthir reaffirmed Malaysia as an Islamic state. There was uproar in the House, with Kit Siang the most vociferous in objecting to the unilateral affirmation by Mamakthir. Mamakthir’s argument then was similar to what Nazri is saying now – the Constitution does not provide for a secular state, and since the majority of Malaysians are Muslim, then by his logic Malaysia has to be an Islamic state. MCA, Gerakan and MIC stayed deathly quiet.
Obviously they trusted Mamakthir’s reasoning, but the truth is that Mamakthir took them aside and said “Look, you can do what you want as guaranteed by the Constitution. You can drink alchohol freely, dress freely, ply your trade freely. I just need to fend off PAS.” MCA, Gerakan and MIC never asked for Mamakthir to put his reasoning in writing, but to be fair, there has been little need to do so. We still have alchohol being served openly, we still have pork being sold openly, we have more massage parlours than ever before, and we even have kids who post their sex exploits on the net.
As far as the definition goes, the foregoing open exhibitions of non-Islamic practices preclude Malaysia as an Islamic state. And if we are not an Islamic state, then we have to be a secular state. I don’t think there is anything in between.
#2 by Bigjoe on Tuesday, 23 October 2012 - 3:04 pm
Let me repeat. Nazri’s statement isn’t that important when you view the entire issue as a whole. Fixing the damaged Constitution, while wise, isn’t that important compared to dealing with the Mythology of the issue and fixing the Judiciary itself.
Fixing the Judiciary itself should take care of significant problems relating the many cases and issues. You also avoid and fix more problem by getting rid of the mythology over the issue in the first place. It may be even wise not to make a move on the necessary constitutional changes without long sustained campaign to fix the mythology..
#3 by monsterball on Tuesday, 23 October 2012 - 3:20 pm
Nazri utters the most nonsensical stuffs in the history of all Law Ministers…just as Hishammuddin is doing the same thing as Home Minister.
Under Najib leadership….every Minister can talk anything..as long as they are words supposedly to win votes for BN.
Umno B politicians are a bunch of liars and clowns…to the eyes of vast majority Malaysians.
They are so corrupted …from top to bottom….cannot answer all the charges…accusations by PR politicians..and trying hard to divert attentions with their nonsensical stuffs.
#4 by Cinapek on Tuesday, 23 October 2012 - 4:30 pm
Nazri is smarter than you guys think. Of course he knows his comments are nonsense. He deliberately made those comments knowing full well it will flag a lot of attention and this is what he needs most as a red herring to divert attention away from his son’s case. Now that everyone is engrossed with his non secular declaration, everyone seems to have forgotten about his son’s case and no one is pressing him to answer about his son being cleared of all wrong doings.
#1 by Godfather on Tuesday, 23 October 2012 - 3:00 pm
In 2001, Mamakthir reaffirmed Malaysia as an Islamic state. There was uproar in the House, with Kit Siang the most vociferous in objecting to the unilateral affirmation by Mamakthir. Mamakthir’s argument then was similar to what Nazri is saying now – the Constitution does not provide for a secular state, and since the majority of Malaysians are Muslim, then by his logic Malaysia has to be an Islamic state. MCA, Gerakan and MIC stayed deathly quiet.
Obviously they trusted Mamakthir’s reasoning, but the truth is that Mamakthir took them aside and said “Look, you can do what you want as guaranteed by the Constitution. You can drink alchohol freely, dress freely, ply your trade freely. I just need to fend off PAS.” MCA, Gerakan and MIC never asked for Mamakthir to put his reasoning in writing, but to be fair, there has been little need to do so. We still have alchohol being served openly, we still have pork being sold openly, we have more massage parlours than ever before, and we even have kids who post their sex exploits on the net.
As far as the definition goes, the foregoing open exhibitions of non-Islamic practices preclude Malaysia as an Islamic state. And if we are not an Islamic state, then we have to be a secular state. I don’t think there is anything in between.
#2 by Bigjoe on Tuesday, 23 October 2012 - 3:04 pm
Let me repeat. Nazri’s statement isn’t that important when you view the entire issue as a whole. Fixing the damaged Constitution, while wise, isn’t that important compared to dealing with the Mythology of the issue and fixing the Judiciary itself.
Fixing the Judiciary itself should take care of significant problems relating the many cases and issues. You also avoid and fix more problem by getting rid of the mythology over the issue in the first place. It may be even wise not to make a move on the necessary constitutional changes without long sustained campaign to fix the mythology..
#3 by monsterball on Tuesday, 23 October 2012 - 3:20 pm
Nazri utters the most nonsensical stuffs in the history of all Law Ministers…just as Hishammuddin is doing the same thing as Home Minister.
Under Najib leadership….every Minister can talk anything..as long as they are words supposedly to win votes for BN.
Umno B politicians are a bunch of liars and clowns…to the eyes of vast majority Malaysians.
They are so corrupted …from top to bottom….cannot answer all the charges…accusations by PR politicians..and trying hard to divert attentions with their nonsensical stuffs.
#4 by Cinapek on Tuesday, 23 October 2012 - 4:30 pm
Nazri is smarter than you guys think. Of course he knows his comments are nonsense. He deliberately made those comments knowing full well it will flag a lot of attention and this is what he needs most as a red herring to divert attention away from his son’s case. Now that everyone is engrossed with his non secular declaration, everyone seems to have forgotten about his son’s case and no one is pressing him to answer about his son being cleared of all wrong doings.
#5 by sheriff singh on Tuesday, 23 October 2012 - 5:46 pm
He named his son Nerdim, a combination of Nerd and Dim. I wonder why a father would do that unless he too is not too smart.
#6 by undertaker888 on Tuesday, 23 October 2012 - 7:40 pm
He is more of a lawless minister than a law minister.