Any Fatwa on this - GM Mosquitos ???

We find that our religious authorities and/or the religious "scholars" are very quick to pass fatwas on many things - yoga, women dressing up in "men's clothes", even bollywood movies are not spared.

We have something even more fundamental and radical - tampering with "God's creation" here.

The EDGEMALAYSIA reported that genetically modified mosquitoes (GM Mosquitoes) are going to be released in Bentong and Melaka on a trail basis. The idea, if I understand it is to allow male mosquitos who have an enzyme altered in them to mix with the female and this will eventually, somehow cause the female mosquitos unable to fly. The purpose it is stated is to tackle dengue. This is a joint venture project between the Health Ministry and an UK private company. (Has anyone read this in the mainstream media? I have not!)

The EDGEMALAYSIA reports that this has caused major concern among scientists and environmentalists. They are concerned that tampering with man's greatest enemy - the mosquito - could cause unintended consequences. Even the well known Malaysia's number one consumer issues advocate S.M. Idris has expressed concern.

Of course the private company says it is safe. And the research arm of the Health Ministry is convinced of the high tech nature of the operation. But those who are concerned are asking: if it is so safe, why do the testing in Malaysia and not in other countries where many more are actually dying from mosquitos?

Even I am worried !

What do the religious authorities say? A fatwa please.

Peace !

Perkembangan dalaman PKR membuat orang menilai PAS.

Saya agak terkejut juga apabila diberitahu bahawa beberapa orang menilai PAS ekoran perkembangan dalaman PKR yang signifikan ini. Perkara ini anih kerana mereka tidak lah begitu menilai PKR seperti mana mereka menilai PAS. Bukan kah perkembangan dalam PKR mengharuskan mereka menilai PKR?

Pendirian orang seperti ini ialah: mereka dahulu nya menyokong Pakatan Rakyat, termasuk PKR kerana mereka tidak gemar dengan pemerintahan kerajaan BN di bawah Tun Abdullah Badawi.  Mereka ini adalah diantara pengundi yang telah memberi sokongan besar kepada BN dalam tahun 2004 kerana terpanggil dengan imej “Mr Clean” Pak lah ketika itu. Namun, selepas itu, mereka mula khuathir dengan kelemahan pentadbiran Pak Lah dan sentiment benci kepada BN semakin meningkat sehingga mereka mengundi sesiapa sahaja yang bukan BN. Ini tidak bermakna mereka menyokong PKR kerana ia nya PKR. Mereka menyokong mana-mana parti Pakatan kerana ia nya bukan BN.

Ketika itu juga, beberapa individu daripada NGO turut serta sebagai calon pilihan raya PKR dimana mereka ini di lihat sebagai berupaya membawa angin reformasi dan akan kurang berpolitik. Pada masa yang sama, kebanyakkan pergerakkan sibil bersama Pakatan Rakyat. Begitu juga, ramai blogger-blogger menampakkan sentiment anti-BN. Kesemua factor-faktor ini lah yang membawa kepada mereka menyokong Pakatan Rakyat sehingga PR Berjaya menguasai 5 negeri. 

Dari sudut pandangan ini, maka jelas sekali bahawa bukan lah karisma “Pemimpin Agung” yang tidak pernah diuji dengan pertandingan yang menarik mereka untuk menggundi PKR.  Mereka sedar bahawa pemimpin Agung ini tidak pernah memberanikan diri untuk bertanding dan dilantik secara sah oleh penggundi. Walaupun tidak pernah bertanding, namun tiba-tiba, tanpa pengetahuan sesiapa, ianya dilantik sebagai ketua umum – satu jawatan yang anih dalam sisitem demokrasi. Mereka sedar bahawa parti yang tidak mengamalkan demokrasi dalam proses membuat keputusan dalaman parti berada ditahap kesangsian sebagai parti yang boleh memelihara demokrasi diperingkat nasional. Pendek-kata, mereka ini memberi peluang “probation” kepada PKR untuk membuktikan bahawa mereka boleh melepasi budaya “UMNO yang lama” memandangkan kebanyakkan pegawai atasan PKR adalah daripada acuan “UMNO lama”.

Mereka mengatakan bahawa UMNO Najib pun sudah amat berbeza dangan UMNO Pak Lah, namun PKR menampakkan cirri-ciri negatif yang selama ini disaspek sebagi wujud dan semakin terbukti ianya memang wujud.

Berdasarkan pemikiran sedemikian, krisis dalaman PKR tidak membawa mereka untuk menilai PKR. Krisis PKR hanya mengiyakan kecurigaan mereka terhadap parti PKR. Sebaliknya, PAS adalah parti yang telah wujud sekian lama dan perjuangannya agak jelas, walaupun pendekatan nya semakin berbeza sejak PR. Memang ramai yang menilai dan menganalisa PAS sejak ia bergabung dengan Pakatan Rakyat yang masih belum di daftar sebagai satu entiti sah di sisi undang-undang seperti BN. 

Kedah dan Kelantan dianggap sebagai Negeri dibawah pemerintahan PAS manakala Pulau Pinang dianggap sebagai Negeri dibawah pentadbiran DAP. Selangor dianggap dibawah PKR. Negeri-negeri lain dianggap sebagai dibawah pemerintahan Barisan Nasional. Ini lah kelainannya – negeri-negeri tidak dilihat sebagai dibawah pentadbiran Pakatan Rakyat tetapi dibawah parti politik tertentu. JIka ini merupakan persepsi umum, maka penggundi masih tidak yakin dengan apakah halatuju dan polisi sepakat Pakatan Rakyat – kalau ada.

Mengapa PAS dinilai? PAS dinilai oleh penganalisa penggundi kerana ia dakwa perjuangan nya berlandaskan Islam.  Penggundi bukan Melayu sudah tentu khuatir berkaitan dengan peranan mereka dan kebajikan mereka dibawah pentadbiran “Islam PAS” kerana konsep “Negara Islam” PAS sehingga hari ini masih kabur. Perkara yang jelas ialah “Negara Islam” PAS mengutamakan memperundangkan fahaman PAS terhadap apa yang dinamakan sebagai “hokum-hukum hudud”. Anih nya, penganalis Melayu dan Muslim yang mengambil Islam sebagai Addeen secara serius juga khuatir mengenai “Islam PAS” dan pendekatan nya dalam merealisasikan fahaman mereka.  Diantara sebab-sebab yang boleh diutarakan ialah:

1.      1.  Memandangkan PAS adalah parti politik adakah ia akan bersikap menindas terhadap khilafiah dalam ilmu serta kefahaman Islam? Adakah mereka yang mempunyai fahaman yang berbeza akan dihukum dengan undang-undang yang akan digubal?

2.  2. Haruskah penggundi memberi kuasa politik nasional kepada sebauh parti yang akan menggubal undang-undang yang akan memaksa setiap Muslim menuruti fahaman Islam mereka?

3.       3. Melihat kepada Negara-negera lain dimana parti politik yang beteraskan agama berkuasa, wujud pelbagai masalah antara penganut agama yang sama serta penindasan kerana fahaman berbeza di politikkan. Keganasan juga berleluasa kerana emosi agama.

4.       4. Selepas bergabung dengan PR, parti PAS telah mengambil tindakan-tindakan yang amat bercanggah dengan pendirian nya sebelum ini. Sebagai contoh, satu ketika dahulu pemimpin Agung dicerca dengan tidak adil tetapi hari ini mereka seperti anak kembar yang tidak boleh dipisah. Perkara sedemikian membuat penggundi bertanya samada PAS juga mampu mengorbankan prinsip nya demi kuasa politik.

5.       5. Walaupun PAS berpolitik atas landasan agama, namun, kemelayuan nya lebih tertera daripada “KeIslaman” nya. Ada beberapa pengundi Muslim yang saya temui bertanya: tidak adakah mana-mana Muslim bukan Melayu yang layak sebagai pemimpin atasan PAS? Pakaian-pakaian yang meniru budaya “Arab”, yang satu ketika dahulu mudah diterima sebagai melambangkan Islam, tidak lagi hari ini dikalangan mereka yang berpengetahuan.

6.      6. Kelantan sehingga hari ini tidak menampakkan sesuatu yang boleh dibanggakan di Malaysia atau di Asean walaupun didakwa sebagai serambi mekah di bawah pentadbiran “Islam”. Perkara seperti ini juga membuat mereka yang berpengetahuan kritis terhadap penterjemahan Islam PAS yang dilihat sebagai condong hanya kepada hukuman, hudud dan segala yang berbau Arab.

7.       7. Sejak merdeka sehingga kehari ini, tidak pernah pun ada satu kaji atau muktamar PAS yang membincangkan keharmonian undang-undang di Negara ini diantara sibil dan “syariah”. Sebaliknya PAS di lihat sebagai kurang idea selain daripada meniru apa-apa undang-undang yang di label sebagai “syariah” dinegara-negara lain. Apkah system lampu tarfik itu kurang Islamik kerana tidak dilabelkan Al-Nur Al-Trafik atau Akta Kontrak bukan Islamik?  Semua ini menakutkan bagi sebuah parti yang telah wujud lebih daripada 50 tahun!

PAS begitu pantas dalam mengeritik UMNO (memang sepatutnya bila berasas!), namun berdiam diri apabila perkara yang lebih teruk di amalkan oleh PKR.

Begitu banyak perkara yang telah berlaku dalam PKR. PKR kini seolah-olah berevolusi menampakkan dirinya yang sebenar dan apa yang tampak tidak lah begitu baik bagi Negara. Dalam suasana sedemikian juga nampaknya PAS lebih rela bermain politik daripada berkhidmat kepada Negara serta meneruskan pendidikan rakyat.

Pada saya, diantara parti-parti politik yang ada dinegara ini, selain UMNO, PAS merupakan parti yang mantap dari segi strukturnya. Maka, amat sedih sekali sekiranya PAS mahu mengorbankan segala usahanya sekian lama dengan permainan politik yang penggundi sendiri dapat lihat.

Ramai sahabat-sahabat saya dalam PAS. Diantara mereka ada yang benar-benar berjuang untuk rakyat dan berjuang berdasarkan prinsip-prinsip yang diajar oleh AL-Quran. Namun, seperti mana juga UMNO, dalam PAS pun ada juga terlalu banyak dinasour-dinasour dengan fahaman taqlid mereka yang tidak membenarkan penterjemahan lain dalam perjuangan. Ini akan memudaratkan PAS dalam usaha nya menjadi sebuah parti nasional. Selagi PAS tidak berani membenarkan penterjemahan selain fahaman dinasour mereka, selagi itu lah PAS akan tinggal sebagai parti peringkat negeri sahaja.

Salam !

What kind of politician is Zaid Ibrahim exactly?

The whole of last week, some of the people I met have been asking this question - who is Zaid exactly? He was given a position in Tun Abdullah Badawi's cabinet and then he resigned over his views regarding ISA. They argued that he could have just stayed in the cabinet had he wanted a cabinet post to warm. He didnt really have to resign and then join PKR, of all the party, which everyone knows belongs to whom.

But he did join PKR with promises of reform from the party that has been crying "reformasi" from the day the unelected leader was in trouble politically and legally. PKR leaders welcomed him as hero into thier party and in fact even nominated him to stand for election in Hulu Langat. Even then, there were murmurs of tension between him and Azmin Ali. Of course he lost and one wonders if he had won, would the current PKR party elections be any different?

His party election campagain from day one, some say, was politically not savyy. He was not doing what politicians should - do not touch on real reform issues. As everyone has seen, PKR elections was alleged to be anything but democratic, transparent and fair. Even officials within PKR itself asked for the elections to be nullified. In the midst of these events, Zaid Ibrahim pulled out from the race leaving Azmin Ali to win hands down.

Now Zaid Ibrahim has gievn notice to resign from PKR alleging that the party is not reform orientated but lives to serve the interests of one person - the great leader, as he said in a press conference.

Once again, people ask - if Zaid was into politics for the sake of politics, wouldnt he have just stayed in the PKR party. Maybe he will be given some party post and some party function to perform. Some allege that he is ambitious. At 60 plus, you may be in a hurry to accomplish things that you deem important. Couldnt Zaid Ibrahim be serious about wanting a political party that is serious about reforms and less concerned with politics? It is possible that people who are tired of political parties that are more concerned with partisan politics rather than the Nation may just support him.

It will be interesting to watch what Zaid Ibrahim will be up to the coming months. It will be more interesting to see how the general public will react to him. Such a scenario has never happened before in our country. This could just be another significant event in our country towards general political maturing. Or it could be another mere political event.

What do you think?

Peace!

AUNG SAN SUU KYI IS FREE !

The International Movement for a Just World (JUST) warmly welcomes the release of Aung San SuuKyi, the world’s most famous political prisoner, from house arrest on 13 November 2010.

Imprisoned for 15 out of the last 21 years by a military junta which has suppressed the people’s struggle for human rights and democracy in Myanmar, SuuKyi has emerged as an enduring, universal symbol of the eternal quest for freedom. Her indomitable courage and her unwavering perseverance have won accolades from individuals and groups all over the world. What is remarkable about her commitment to her cause is her ability to retain her dignity and her integrity in the face of formidable odds.

There is much speculation on why the junta set her free. Since a political party spawned by the junta, the Union Solidarity and Development Party (USDP)             won a farcical election by a huge margin a few days ago, the regime may have felt that its position is secure enough to release SuuKyi. On the other hand, given widespread allegations of electoral fraud, her release may also be a way of refurbishing the regime’s tattered public image. It is also true that for some years now, Myanmar’s ASEAN partners and even its close ally, China, have been quietly cajoling the regime to end SuuKyi’s incarceration. 

Whatever the reasons, JUST hopes that her freedom will not be short-lived. She was released in 1995, after six years in detention. Then in 2000 she was arrested and imprisoned again for two years. After a brief spell of freedom, she was imprisoned for a third time in 2003. She remained in prison or under house arrest for the next seven years.  ASEAN governments and China should go all out to dissuade the military junta from detaining SuuKyi again. 

To prove that it is sincere about SuuKyi’s release, the junta should set free the 2,200 political prisoners languishing in jails in different parts of the country. It should also begin to relax its iron grip upon the media and allow social groups to exercise a degree of autonomy in their evaluation of the regime’s governance. Myanmar’s monks should also be given some latitude to act as the nation’s conscience.

SuuKyi would certainly want to encourage the regime to move in this direction.  In this regard, she should be more strategic than she has been in the past. While holding on to her principles, she should act in such a manner that the regime will have no excuse to abrogate her freedom or to tighten even further its hold upon society.

Let SuuKyi’s freedom this time pave the way for the eventual liberation of the people of Myanmar.

Dr. Chandra Muzaffar,

President,

International Movement for a Just World (JUST)

Malaysia

14 November 2010

The People never wanted any fundamental reforms !!!

I told this to my friends many times over the years: real and fundamental reforms cannot happen in this country because Malaysians in general do not have the will to make it happen. There has never been a real people’s movement in this country since independence. If the citizens of this country do not have the will to WANT to make fundamental reforms, how can it ever happen?

We like to make the mistake of thinking that a mere mass assembly of people is a people’s movement. One example is the “Semarak Rakyat” during the Mahathir era which swept the country during the so called constitutional crisis. True, that was the first of such ‘movement’ since independence where we have the Prime Minister addressing crowds of people at open assemblies.  This was however completely politically orchestrated by strong political parties. Much of the attendance at these assemblies was orchestrated too. It was also meant to address only one issue – political power versus royal power.  So in this sense, it cannot be considered as a “people’s movement” though it was politically very clever of the political masters of that time.

The second often quoted so-called movement was the “reformasi movement” since the sacking of Anwar Ibrahim from UMNO. True again, it was also the first time since independence that many Malays took to the streets to protest against the Government.  I will say that it did have an impact on Malay political activity in the sense that for the first time, Malays were willing to go against their Malay political leaders. I consider those “street demonstrations” a new phenomenon in Malay political activity post independence. It has also left an indelible shock wave through the UMNO party which I believe UMNO has yet to fully recover to date.   The impact of the “Anwar sacking” and his subsequent charge on the first sodomy case appeared to have affected UMNO’s balance in a way that Semangat 46 could not.   Even PAS and UMNO as two independent Malay political parties did not bring about such a drastic impact on the Malay’s perspective of political activity and perception. 

Maybe, these events lead to Malay political maturity about race-based politics and its effectiveness because these events, rightly or wrongly, brought about the perception that there is no guarantee that your own race will not suppress you if politically necessary. Obviously, those on the side of Anwar Ibrahim, being former UMNO members felt betrayed by their own UMNO members.  PKR, which was born directly out of Anwar’s episode had to be pragmatically multi-racial because it did not receive or was not able to garner the overt support many of the UMNO and PAS members. I think politics would have been totally different today for PKR had PKR been largely Malay or had succeeded in wooing members from PAS and UMNO in large droves.  However, the main objective of PKR, as perceived, in the early days was to secure the release of Anwar Ibrahim. A new political party, like the bus, will have many passengers with their own directions and destination points. But I have digressed and this point may be discussed at another date.

I was going to talk about the people’s movement and why we may never have fundamental reforms in our society. I have to conclude on the above discussion by saying that neither events like the “semarak” or “Anwar’s reformasi via the PKR” can be considered as a people’s movement. 

There were however semblances of “people’s movements” in this country like the “Bersih campaign” and the “Lawyer’s walk”. These were two unprecedented events where the ordinary citizen took part without any cajoling, force or payment. Once again, the objective of these two events was very limited to specific objectives and it did not really succeed in firing up the imagination of the general citizen to pursue the issues canvassed. 

For a people’s movement to arise, the people themselves must have the will to want to have fundamental reforms. For them to want reforms, they must know the following:

1.      1. The fundamental flaws of our existing system – for this to happen, there must be an environment of knowledge and discussion;

2.      2.  There must know that alternative ways of doing things are available and possible;

3.       3. They must feel the injustice or the inefficiency of the system and be less tolerant of the same;

4.      4.  They must understand or be made to understand that often they are being made use of as pawns on the political chessboard by the existing crop of politicians;

5.       5. They must see beyond their own selfish, narrow interests and learn that their indifference to larger things in society will hurt them or their future generations one day. 

6.       6. That no fundamental reforms in human history has ever been achieved without sacrifices of energy, time and wealth.

7.      7.  That what they do or do not do today will affect the well being of tomorrow.

Generally, I believe that we, as a society, are far away from possessing the above 7 characteristics. We are a Third world country that has developed but has still retained the third world mentality of non interference in National affairs. However, we fail to see that national affairs have a direct bearing on our daily lives, especially so in the long run. It is such “national indifference”, apathy’ ignorance and “fear” that will prevent us, the People, from bring about fundamental reforms in our country.

Lacking the will to bring about fundamental reforms, we develop a culture of “fire-fighting” and ad hoc measures. I find it extremely sad that we waste huge resources in developing fire-fighting measures only to spend more resources to put out more fires resulting from the expiry of the shelf life of the earlier fire-fighting measure! We are content to be a Nation of ad-hoc solutions without any concern for long term National goals and vision. Hence, we also end up having “cosmetic” reforms and reforms that cannot work because the system as a whole is not ready or capable of absorbing or sustaining such a reform. For example, the best of reforms in bringing about a “corruption free system” will fail if the factor of the corrupt human being who is tasked with implementing the system is not addressed. It will be like asking the cat to guard the fish. The cat must either be asked to go and replaced or be rehabilitated, if possible.  

In the absence of the general will of the People to seek fundamental reforms, there are pockets of individuals or groups of Raperas who relentlessly try to seek fundamental reforms through their modest means. Sadly, however, even the efforts of these groups and individuals do not receive the kind of support from the people that they deserve. There many public interest non-governmental organizations, and individuals who are selflessly trying to make life better for all of us. We need to seek them out and provide our energy to strengthen their struggles.

For fundamental reforms to happen, I believe we must first of all get out of our current political understanding and perspectives (for those who find understanding very difficult). This, in itself is a major challenge because most people do not like to revisit their understanding of anything in their lives. It is this trait of Malaysians that is fully understood and capitalized upon by our current crop of politicians so that each of them can simply keep rewinding their own slogans and vision statements. We do not seem to realize that they are actually determining our values for us without even us having to evaluate them. The self-oppressive values become as normal as breathing.

It should be clear that if we are unwilling to re-evaluate our current political understanding, then we can never bring about any reforms. This is because our current political understanding is confined to the activities and thoughts of the currently existing political parties and we all know what they stand for and what they have achieved.  

Are we happy with any of them? If not, do we expect them to radically reform or change? This answer cannot be accurately answered without first realizing that there is a big difference between the political government and the administrative government (civil service). The political government is the political party that forms the “government of the day”. For example, politically, Malacca is BN government while Penang is PR government. Administratively, is there any change in the state civil service of the two? The civil service is largely on auto pilot where it matters most to the people’s daily lives.

A creative, reform minded and energetic political government will give people benefitting direction and vision to the administrative government. That’s the critical difference.  The manner in which the administrative government functions will also be influenced by the culture and values of the political government. Hence, though the civil service is almost on auto pilot, its integrity and level of efficiency will, to a large extent, be influenced by their political masters.

Therefore, it is extremely crucial that you evaluate the political masters that you want to put in the seat of political power.  You can only do this wisely if you are prepared to think outside or alternative to your current understanding of politics.

Peace !

Screw them young???

Get them young. 

Plug them into the system but make sure they do not know how the system works. 

Give them choices that you have already decided for them. They will readily believe that they are making the choices. 

Get them into automotive mode so that their behavior is predictable to you.  However, make them believe that their peer behavior is erratic and unpredictable. They like that sense of being unique. 

Getting them into automotive mode is good for you. They will get used to all that is wrong and negative. They will loathe knowledge and love being lazy (call it “chilling out”). They will surrender their lives to you by only making them believe they have complete control.

Distract them from your main game. Give them music, girls, boys, gossip, or if you run out of ideas, rehash what has worked with the young 50 years ago and repackage it. They will not know the difference. They just want to think they are different from their adults. 

Make sure they do not understand your game or better that they are fed-up with your game. That way they will leave you alone to do what you want. Do all you can to make sure they are not interested in what you do.

Give them hope. Give them fear. Confuse them and mange the hope and the fear to make them subservient to you. Oscillate the fear and hope often. This way, you will make them surrender their self esteem to you.

Get them young and they will be the slaves of the system for life.  And they will then teach their children what the system has imbibed in them.

And you will be the master forever - to do as you please.

Peace !

Disruptive Leadership- Lead, follow or get out of my way!

by Amir Faisal Manan

As I sit here at my hotel room desk in Jakarta, glimpsing out of the window occasionally, I could not help but compare and contrast the capital of Indonesia with our very own pride and joy, KL. And I must admit that we have gone a long way to come to where we are now today, not just in terms of the physical socio-economic transformation, but also the in the quality level of the physical infrastructures. This is not insinuating that Indonesia is much more inferior than Malaysia, but if you feel offended, then sorry- get over it and get on with life.

Some may argue that I have not lived long enough to appreciate the evolutionary transformation that has taken place from way before my generation. But I will of course beg to differ for my very own reasons. I recalled a book I read several years back written by Kim Quek titled “Where to Malaysia? Back to Mahathirism or Anwar’s Reformasi”, where the author has very strong negative views against Dr Mahathir and in particular his mega projects. It made me realize that no matter what you do, you will always have people going against what you believe, telling you that you have done wrong and criticizing your every decision. The art of effective leadership is to not ignore criticism, but also to not take it personally.

I sometimes think that people confuse between leaders and politicians. To my mind, not all politicians are leaders inasmuch as not all leaders are popular. Most politicians would only change their ways when they receive cues from the citizens reminding them that it is time to change and the fear of losing the popularity battle is the impetus for change. A true leader, on the other hand, has sufficient foresight to think what is strategically best for the nation or the people of the country. To put it simply, a leader leads and not waits to be led by the citizens. But of course, that would mean that his actions would not necessarily be a popular one thus making him a failed politician. There are many instances where leaders were/are also popular, but there is no point in naming names since obviously my perception of a successful leader will differ from others. It is subjective in nature.

In thinking about leadership styles, there are also cases of disruptive leadership that is often against the majority thinking flows that are entrenched with complacency. These are the kinds of leaders who believe in a cause that differs from the majority, but seeks to revolutionize the present system for a potentially better future. Worst still, often they are dismissed as a “mad-man” and their ideals go unnoticed. This is a deterrent for many to go down the route of being different from the majority as they fear that they would inevitably invite trouble. The mere fact that there is a saying of “never trouble trouble till trouble troubles you” signifies that this is the mindset that is prevalent in the current society globally –i.e. just go with the flow.

We need more disruptive leaders to bring about the change that is required. Relying on the naturally slow Darwinian momentum may prove to be too late for us as a nation. A disruptive leader, by definition, would disrupt the natural cycle by turbocharging change and overcoming whatever inertia thats holding us back against progress and betterment. Martin Luther King was a disruptive leader. He saw injustice and inequality in his society and decided to change it. He disrupted the existing system which initially drew resistance from his very own people, the oppressed. But as with all charismatic leaders in history, although he had a difficult start, he managed to gain sufficient supporters to fight for the dream that he had. And yes, it all starts with a dream of a future that we want… 

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

Amir Faisal Manan is a fuel scientist in an international Oil &Gas Company. This article originally appeared here.

Of Breasts, Buttocks and Thighs.

What has this topic got to with Raperas?  Well, it has a lot to do with Raperas because it has to do with living issues.

I have often cautioned that “women are women’s greatest enemies” and “men are women’s greatest oppressors”. I always qualify this statement by saying that it is a general statement and therefore not true of ALL women or ALL men. There are many men and women who are content being the human being that they are, calmly accepting the biological and psychological differences between them. The fact is: irrespective of gender differences, not all human beings are the same. They differ in many aspect – psychologically, intellectually, culturally, financially, etc, etc, etc.  Hence, we cannot factually be correct when we say that “All men like…..” or “All women like to….” in all cases. 

Having said that, generalizations do assist as a discussion tool sometimes. For example, I can safely assume that ALL women like their dignity to be protected and upheld. However, we can get into sticky waters when we try to examine what “dignity” means to each person. Worse even when we want to inject concepts like “modesty”, “honour” and such. 

Now let me ask how will you reasonably respond if I say: “ I want girls to walk around flaunting their sexuality”.  Now that word “sexuality”. It is straightforward is it not? It has to do with sex and I can safely assume that most people will agree “sexual” is a private matter unless it a matter for education or intellectual discussion.  So, If I want and encourage girls to flaunt their sexuality to the maximum permissible in society, would that make me a “sick” person or a “normal” person? Would that make me a “respecter” of women or one who degrades women? 

I read in the Star today that “Some GT-grid girls are willing to don skimpy outfits for the opportunity to earn good money”. They start as early as 16 and 17 which in Malaysia is considered a minor for the purposes of having sexual relationship. Skimpy clothes means skimpy clothes ie let as little clothes as possible cover your body.  Go to the link of Staronline and view them to ascertain your reasonable response. 

It is interesting that the girls admit that their boyfriends do not like it but they do it nevertheless for money. However, some of the girls interviewed said that being a grid GT girl gave them confidence. I wonder if they have paused to think whether they are confusing confidence for familiarity. Once you get familiar enough with anything, you can do it “confidently” .

Some guy told me that it is nice to be a girl especially a pretty one with curves in the right place to become rich. He explained that being a women, you can “sell parts of your body” for money. You can show off your legs, or your breasts or your buttocks. It sells.  I was quite upset when I heard that because I thought it sounded demeaning of women.  After all, legs, buttocks and breasts are meat, skin and fat wrapped around bones same as mens’.  Biologically, it is factually what is. However, psychologically and culturally, it means something else – it reminds you of sex.  Or more correctly, it is meant to tease you or excite you. Is this wrong or right? 

Would you allow your daughter or wife to display parts of her sexuality for money? 

This kind of questions and the answers will determine what kind of society we are. 

Of course we are living in a society of cultural extremes. I know some who believe that women should be completely covered from head to toe to safeguard their honour. On the other, there are others who believe that each women has an absolute right to her body. Extreme positions like this do not excite me. 

I recall I had a debate with some girls when I was a student in UKM on the “proper and acceptable” swim wear for women. Of course, the girls held the position that bikinis and swimsuits are acceptable in the swimming pool or the beach. I asked if they would stand in front me clad only in their bra and panties. They shook their heads in disbelief and called me sick.

I asked: “What in the world is the difference between bra and panties and a bikini?”

They kept quiet.

I asked further: “You do no mind being in public clad in bikinis but you are hesitant to stand in front of me alone with bra and panties? Why?”

They replied; “We are shy la!”

I asked; “ Will you mind being in bra and panties if I leave the lecture room?”

They said “Of course la…we are all girls”.

I said: “ See? The fact is because I am a guy. But you fail to understand or refuse to understand that even at the swimming pool or beach, there are guys. You have conditioned your mind to expose yourself in public because you have been conditioned to believe it is ok!”

I can never understand that logic of being able to be almost nude in public but not in private!

I hope I am not being misunderstood in my post here. I am not moralizing and personally, I really have no strong views whether a person wants to be nude or wants to be completely wrapped up. However, I get irked when I see hypocritical stances in our society either due to acquired pretence or a result of a weak brain. 

Even issues like women’s attire has never been discussed rationally in our society. We only hear religious exhortations which bores me to death because I am more interested in evaluating reasons, effects and general consequences. Have you ever heard of a seminar or a forum held on “The purpose of clothing”. At this seminar it will be interesting to have a women panelist say “One purpose of clothing for a women is to show the whole world that she has thighs, breasts and buttocks”. 

What do you think?

Peace!