Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for November 10th, 2012

Nurul the Princess, above. Below, Siti Zabedah Kasim as attorney with the deep-rooted Melayu empathy for a heart-broken client.

This is suggested:

My name is Nurul Izzah Anwar; Nurul is my short name, Anwar Ibrahim my father.

On Nov 3, at a church, place paid for by it, I made the remarks pertaining to a question asked from the floor. It is a constitutional question: Is freedom of religion applicable to non-Malays only, meaning Chinese and Indians and the native peoples of Sarawak, Sabah and the peninsula. In another phrasing that question, which was posed by Siti Zabedah Kasim to who goes my thanks and gratitude, also means this: Is this freedom not applicable to the Malays.

My answer to Siti was that she was wrong, freedom has to be applicable to the Malays as well. This position is the same as its constitutional clause from which it came. Freedom must apply to all. It has to. If not then the constitution is invalid: some parts are good only for Malays, other parts are for the Chinese and Indians. Even this differentiation, a sort of legalised division, is unconstitutional: all are equal before the law, the constitution says.

Here is the problem: the three-part constitutional Malay definition says a Malay, such as I, must be Muslim. In other words, professing Islam (other than speaking the Malay language and observing Malay custom) is a constitutional requisite – an absolute requirement – to be Malay.

Inverse the logic. Am I – Nurul Izzah Anwar who speaks Malay, observe Malay traditions – Malay if I am not a Muslim? The obvious, personal, individual answer says, ‘yes, I’m Malay‘. Constitutionally, however, this answer is wrong because it is silent.

Suppose I give the constitution the leeway to claim my identity, rather than for me to claim mine, then the ‘no’ answer from the constitution leads to a deeply personal dilemma: If my name is Nurul Izzah, daughter of the Malay Anwar Ibrahim, is not a Malay, then what am I? Who am I?

This way of phrasing questions stops at the door of the constitution although the bureaucratic and legal apparatus of the state, of Malaysia such as its Islamic institutions and agencies insist that they and they alone will decide the answer. For them to decide is to ask their permission; for example, I should get affirmation or otherwise from the Syaria court.

If however the question – who am I? – is a personal, individual, existential question then I alone and only I can answer it. Not even my father. Here’s my answer: I’m Malay. I’m Melayu anyway you want to toss the elements of its definition.

This answer suggests I’m in conflict with the constitution, my birth records, my personal, legal identity, my IC, not to mention the Islamic apparatus of the state. My existence however is not unlawful, I’m just illegal. There are two probable ways out: either the state removes me as Malaysian citizen or tolerate my existence and so let me fall into the other legal category such as DLL, dan lain lain, that is, Others.

Siti’s question and my answer has the effect I just described above. That is, if I choose to accept the constitutional guarantee on religion, I choose either to remain a Muslim or to be an apostate even though being apostate is not for me to affirm, legally; I have not had Syaria court clearance.

Now, to the crux of the issue, which is this: did I say Malays are entitled to freedom of religion? Answer, yes, I did.

By the answer was I encouraging apostasy or murtad. Answer, no. If I did then the constitution is equally guilty of the charge because, recall, I’m regurgitating the constitution. It is the constitution that planted the idea – even empowers me – to say I’m free to decide as I wish, whether I’m a Malay or not.

If another Malay, such as my father Anwar Ibrahim, chooses to go down the path of leaving Islam, then should I be held responsible for his decision? If I’m held responsible, then I shall be accused of instigating apostasy. Once accused, my prosecutors will have to ask my father: did he leave Islam on account of his daughter or because his daughter had said so?

Thus, my fate falls into my father’s hands, his tongue actually so that if I despair today it is for the concern that my father might speak with a forked tongue and a muddled mind. He must be clear headed and honest.

My regret is that I was dishonest to have lied in the backward inference that Malays, in order not to be apostate, are not entitled to choose.

My remarks on Nov 3 (Malays are entitled to religious freedom) has to mean, by logical progression, that if a Malay has religious freedom then leaving Islam is possible, and on leaving Islam apostasy is committed.

Again, however, my remarks is not the equal of encouraging apostasy because the choice or the freedom thereof is not mine to decide. But in denying the inference that apostasy would invariably result – and logically flow – from religious freedom, I was wrong. Siti Kassim is right to be disappointed and I thank her for saying so.

My error, simply stated, is to say and mean one thing today, another thing tomorrow.

Here’s what I say to Umno, PAS members, Utusan, PKR and other Malays: the Malays are already a free people and the constitution validates that. And here’s what I appeal to Umno and other Malays: Trust the Malays, trust yourself, because the alternative to Islam is … what? Christianity? Allah forbid.

To Siti: indeed you are right, and I lied about what I mean in my words on Nov 3. It is I who must reform, undergo reformasi. The Chinese Confucian call this self-cultivation. To show my commitment, I shall cut off my forked tongue; you’ve only to say the word and lend me a pair of scissors. You are welcome to perform the task.

To those who had contributed statements in my defence (Nathaniel Tan, Hannah Yeoh, Steve Oh, Raja Petra, Mariam Mokhtar et al), this is my response: shut up and get out of my face. None of you make sense. I also withdraw my threat to sue Utusan. To Steve Oh in particular, I trust the police will put you away – for good; you are everything that is not a Malaysian.

To Steven Gan and Malaysiakini, here’s a scoop-tip: I’m thinking of quitting PKR and joining Umno. You are welcome to call me a frog.

Now, leave me…. There’s a lake I want to visit – alone.

Advertisements

Read Full Post »

Godly Stevie Oh and his Christian politics picked up in Australia: “How can I vote for her (Gillard) ..she doesn’t believe in God. But God can confound against the trend of godlessness. Please pray for God’s will to be done in the Australian Federal elections“.

Steve Oh’s web page: http://www.churchinperth.com/articles/steve_oh/index.htm.

His email address: oxxo@iinet.net.au

He wouldn’t touch the white man, but below is Steve Oh looking tough, a macho boy. Let’s see, let all Malaysia see, what material he’s made of. Shoot yourself, matey.

Hidden Agenda Lay Bare: The Man Who Wants Malays for Christianity

Nurul Izzah Anwar’s statement on religious freedom was a “watershed”, says Steve Oh, but it wouldn’t be for Malaysia only. It would be for Steve himself: here are 15 million Malay souls for his conversion to Christianity and he is not a man to mince words about his intent.

Every Christian should be a “personal evangelist”, he says here, and to do that go after brown, yellow people, anybody but white. Why? Steve’s answer:

“The secularization of Western societies have made religion not so passe and Westerners do not lend themselves to religious talk easily.”

That is, of course, a way to absolve himself for not having brought one single white man into the Church while he is in Perth. But imagine Steve, 5ft 4in, beside a 6ft 2in Caucasian standing on a Perth sidewalk and that man would be literally breathing down on him.

What do you want Chinko? You want to preach to me? We gave you Christianity, you piece of yellow shit.

So, if not the white people, then who? Steve’s answer: Asians. They are easy picks and he’d impress the Thais, the Chinese, the Indonesians, Malaysians with his Aussie passport and accent. Says Steve:

“Of the Asian cities I have visited, I find it is easier to talk to Asians about God.”

Having gotten a white man’s god and culture, Steve inherits their psychology, their habits, thoughts and, in particular, their attitudes and all these show in his Malaysiakini letter: the condescending superiority, the arrogance, the talking down to, the presumptuousness, quarrelsome, judgmental…

Steve typifies and represents the entire Malaysian class of Anglophiles, in Malaysiakini and outside including people like KTemoc badmouthing and vilifying and pouring scorn on their countrymen while safely ensconce in Australia so nobody can touch them.

Move from the personal to the public, it is easy to see how Steve also epitomizes, as well as act the product of, the conversion of the DAP and PKR political culture into western, supremacist ideology prejudices. And this thinking oozes out of every line when he wrote to Malaysiakini about Nurul’s statement.

It reeks of his and of Pakatan politics, DAP/PKR Anglophiles in particular: anti-Malay, anti-Chinese, anti-Indian, anti-Islam, anti-Daoism, anti-Hindu. In short, anti-Malaysian.

The unfailingly preachy, judgmental, proselytizing and missionary tone is everywhere. All rolled into one is a deep insensitivity, naivety, presumptuousness, and dogmatism. It is astonishing for, below, Steve manages to insult both Chinese and Malay in one single breath. The racist bigotry:

Muslims who go to mosque every Friday and pray five times a day and fast at Ramadan still think it is okay to accept bribes in their jobs because it has been the practice for so long. They are no different from the prostitute who has a shrine of Kuan Yin in her room while engaged in a sinful business.

The anti-Malaysian, in brief; Steve again:

  • Singapore acts righteous, Malaysia unrighteous
  • What is wrong with Malaysia begins in the Malay mindset
  • The fact a Malay is defined as a follower of Islam defies logic, natural justice,
  • Many Muslims in high office guilty of corruption and sexual misconduct…

His moral, proselytizing conceit:

  • God tells us the fool believes there is no God.

But Steve’s incitements don’t stop with the 2,500-word diatribe he has poured into the country, thanks to Steven ‘Wonder’ Gan’s Malaysiakini. It was deceitful.

His bigotry would show at one corner of his mouth while, at the other corner, the same bigotry is disguised in sycophancy, in adulatory language – I love the Malays, I love the Chinese. He would of course say that invariably – it is his narcissism – because then he could proceed to continue with his insults.

Like Hannah, like their Christian God, he goes around looking for a white man’s definition of purity and then when nothing fits their prejudices, this results: here’s a short of list of how he’d libel the Malays exclusively (the words are Steve’s).

  • culpable of all sorts of crimes,
  • their religion a farce
  • deficient mentally,
  • defies logic,
  • religious slaves,
  • producer of horror books,
  • hypocrites in who atheists are better,
  • pray on Fridays, take bribes the next day,
  • bedevilled by devils,
  • repugnant,
  • a cocoon mind,
  • archaic,
  • lying,
  • conniving,
  • an infectious disease…

Here’s the sycophancy but the list is necessary short otherwise the adulation would beat the calumny:

  • Malays are not inferior,
  • nicest people anywhere,
  • emancipated,
  • liberate,
  • enlightened.

Perhaps the police can’t touch him – nor other Malaysians, Malay or Chinese, safe as he is among the kangaroos. But you can tell he is not as tough as he makes of himself and when he begins to be uncertain if he has indeed the white government or God to cover his ass,  he starts grovelling:

I am just a nobody expounding somebody’s ideas of freedom…. My prayers still are for the government and all those in authority that they will do good and not harm the innocent because doing what is right exalts a nation and everyone benefits. There are good politicians in government as in the opposition….

Such a person must be put away, for good, never mind what Australia or the US might say. Steve Oh must pay for his sins – it is a biblical command and the Malaysian police is just doing what good Christians do, like him. Right Stevie?

Read Full Post »