Have we been systematically reduced to an imbecile? Part 1 - Victims of Categorization

If I was to say that there has been a systematic effort to ensure that the people do not have the capacity to think, I may be dismissed as a conspiracy theorist. However, having observed, researched and studied the effect of various institutions that have been set up in our society and their effects on the people, I am convinced that the process to ensure that people lack thinking capacity is ongoing. In short, what I am proposing is this; - we have been systematically reduced to “imbeciles” in many aspects of our life when in actual fact, we were mostly born with the natural ability to multi-task, multi-think and have multiple personalities. We were, if you like generally born wholesome but, have been reduced to small, almost insignificant parts by the system for the system.

One meaning of “imbecile” is “a person of moderate to severe mental retardation having a mental age of from three to seven years and generally being capable of some degree of communication and performance of simple tasks under supervision. The term belongs to a classification system no longer in use and is now considered offensive”. The other meaning is “silly”.

Let me state my case briefly for your consideration and criticism.

1. Victim of categorization - Once upon a time, we read in history for example, that a person is a poet, a scientist, and a thinker. In short, society then allowed your multiple personality to flourish. Whether you read European, Chinese, Indian, Asian or “Islamic” history you will find people of multiple personalities exhibiting multiple talents. For example, Omar Khayyam is famous as a poet, but he was an outstanding mathematician, astronomer and philosopher, he was also skilled in medicine and music. He had a wide range of interests and wrote many books on different subjects. His work consisted of two books on physics, four on mathematics, five on philosophy and one each on astronomy, history, music and climatology.  We can find many other examples. Today, by our sub – standards, we find them extraordinary. We hold them in awe, which is an admission that we hold ourselves incapable of such multi-dimensional and varied thinking.

In short, our (value) system has been designed to limit our potential, curtail our expression of our multiple personalities and to behave in “expected manners” like in a controlled laboratory. As an extreme example, our society will possibly flip if a person who has a passion for Islam and is reasonably knowledgeable about it equally loves to visit clubs to dance and enjoy the music. It might even become scandalous because we have been taught to forget that such a person is also a human being who likes variety in his life. Our value system says that if a person speaks on Islam, it is preferable that he is in a songkok/skull cap/turban, spots a beard of sorts and a long flowing gown. At the very least he is supposed to look extremely serious and shuns or at least publicly shows that he shuns “good clean fun” that lesser mortals enjoy. It often seems to escape common sense that if he is not “mortal-like”, how can he relate to other mortals?

You can extend the example to many other characters/roles/situations – politicians, civil servants, women, men, professionals, etc. For example, until March 2008, incumbent politicians are expected to behave like feudal lords and most of them still do. Psychologists call these as “role-playing” but how the roles are played out is influenced by various factors such as culture, value-systems and the thinking capacity of the society as a whole.

Once you are categorized into a certain role, you are expected to behave according to “how you are expected to behave in that role”. In this sense, for the more intelligent and creative person, he may become a victim of categorization (“VOC trap”) where their talents are being suppressed. Only those who refuse to live the life as set by others for them are able to break free from this VOC trap. The unthinking majority however become trapped in the VOC trap and become “imbeciles” thinking that is the natural state of things. (There are actually many consequences of the VOC trap but all of it cannot be discussed in this blog.)

Another plain example of how the VOC trap works against the unsuspecting and unthinking masses is if you are a Muslim or Malay in this country. Once you are legally categorized as such, you are expected to give away much of your thinking ability, your privacy and even your right to live as a thinking adult to complete strangers whom you were not even given the opportunity to appoint or vote. One meaning of imbecile is a silly or stupid person. Is it not silly to live your entire life based on how a complete stranger deems fit? Though it is normal for a child to live under constant supervision in all aspects of his life the VOC trap compels the adult to live likewise. Many fail to see the impact of this in a democracy.

In our country, which I am afraid is very much third world in its general mentality and values, this VOC trap is manipulated by the more cunning ones among us to perpetuate their lordship over us and hence safeguard their wealth and power. We appear to have a culture that does not really respect nor want excellence. In fact, I believe very strongly that we fear competitive excellence.

We do not have a culture that encourages healthy competition and the strife for excellence. On the other hand, we seem to have a culture where to move forward, we try to kill off anyone that exudes excellence or any semblance of efficiency or cleverness. The culture of excellence is replaced by the culture of patronage, “sucking up”, pretense of stupidity, and special privileges. Hence, our society has a value system that favours the cunning, the one that lacks self-respect or thick-skinned and the greedy. Hence, through this process of suppressing the dedicated and thinking ones by the cunning ones, we throw up main players in society whose intellect is almost imbecilic. We do not throw up the best by healthy competition but throw up the worse by suppression and discrimination.

People seem to achieve prominence in our society not because they are excellent but because the rest have been systematically made to be below par. When you make everyone blind, just with your one eye, you become their king.

If you understand what I have said thus far, you will be able to understand why, by any standards, we do not seem to exude even average standards in any of the sectors in our society. We have people with “Dr” and “Prof” titles before their names appearing on television saying things that will make a child of 10 ask you if it is a comedy show. You have some judges whose intellectual capacity or even inclination you totally doubt. The quality of politicians and their selection process in our country, you know already. The list is endless.

We extol imbecility and mediocrity and find cleverness or independence of thoughts or competitive ability threatening to the point of it being a sin!

We will forever be trapped in a vicious circle unless we want to radically do something about it. Again, the task must fall on the Raperas.

PEACE !

Next: Part 2 - Today, the “best” of us have become “educated imbeciles”.

ne

What is a criminal trial?

Many people have asked me many things about criminal trials. Why was the accused acquitted (found not guilty) ? Is it not clear that he is guilty? Why did not the Judge accept that particular evidence and so on? Judge MUHAMAD KAMIL AWANG J has done a helpful and interesting observation on what is a criminal trial and the principles at play in the case of Masri Tan Sri Dato' Mohamad & Anor v. Public Prosecutor

[1998] 1 CLJ SUPP 270] as follows:

"What is a criminal trial? And how does it differ from a historical or scientific inquiry? At a research, at Harvard University it discloses that the goal of the historian and scientist, at least in theory is the uncovering or discovery of truth. The historian seeks to determine what actually happened in the recent or distant past by interviewing witnesses, examining documents, and piecing together fragmentary record. The paleontologist searches for even more distant truths by analyzing fossils, geological shifts, dust and DNA. Since what's past is prologue, for both the historian and the scientist, efforts are often made to extrapolate from what did occur to what will occur, and generalization - historical or scientific rules - are proposed and tested.

Although there are ethical limits on historical or scientific inquiry, the ultimate test of a given result in these disciplines is its truth or falsity. Put another way, there are no "exclusionary rules" in history or science, as there are in law. Historical and scientific inquiry is supposed to be neutral as to truth that is uncovered. Finally, all "truths" discovered by science or history are always subject to reconsideration based on new evidence. There are no prohibitions against "double jeopardy". Nor is there any deference to consideration of "finality"; nor are statutes of limitations. In summary, the historical and scientific inquiry is basically a search for objective truth. Perhaps it is not always an untrammeled search for truth. Perhaps the end of truth do not justify all ignoble means. But the goal is clear: objective truths as validated by accepted, verifiable, and, if possible, replicable historical and scientific tests.

A criminal trial is quite different in several important respects. Truth, one important goal of the criminal trial, is not its only goal. If it were, judges would not instruct jurors to acquit a defendant whom they believe "probably" did it, as they are supposed to do in criminal cases. The requirement is that guilt must be "proved beyond a reasonable doubt." But that is inconsistent with the quest for objective truth, because it explicitly refers one kind of truth to another. The preferred truth is that the defendant did not do it; we demand that the jurors err on the side of that truth, even in cases where it is probable that he did do it. Justice John Harlan said in the 1970 Supreme Court decision:

In Re Winshop 397 US 358 , 372 [1970] it was said that "I view the requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt in a criminal case as bottomed on a fundamental value that it is far worse to convict an innocent man than to let a guilty man go free." The sentiments are traceable to the nineteenth century, to William Blackstone's well-known maxim that under the common law "it is better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent person suffer". (4 Blackstone, Commentaries 358).

In a criminal trial, we are generally dealing with a decision that must be made under conditions of certainty. The law is a relatively subtle instrument capable of making refined distinction between the standard of proof required to deprive a person of his liberty, on the one hand, and to deprive him of money, on the other hand. As Justice Harlan, further commented in his Winshop opinion:

If, for example, the standard of proof for a criminal trial were a preponderance of the evidence rather than proof beyond reasonable doubt there would be a smaller risk of factual errors that result in freeing guilty persons, but a far greater risk of factual errors that result in convicting the innocent.

The burden of proof in a criminal case is "beyond a reasonable doubt", while the burden of proof in a civil case is "by a mere preponderance of the evidence". Simply put, this means that it takes more and better proof to convict a criminal defendant of a crime than to hold a civil defendant liable for monetary damages. How much more or how much better are not subject to precise qualification. We know what proof by a preponderance is supposed to mean. Even in a close case, the side that is more persuasive wins. In civil cases, truth is supposed to prevail, without the law's thumb on either side of the scales of justice.

In addition to the requirement of proof beyond a reasonable doubt in criminal cases, there are numerous other barriers to absolute truth that have been deliberately built in to the process to serve other functions. Some of these barriers to absolute truth that have been deliberately built in to the criminal process to serve other functions. Some of these barriers can be justified as perhaps contributing to the search for truth in the long run, which probably sacrificing truth in a particular case. The exclusion from evidence of a coerced confession may produce falsity in a case where confession, though coerced, is nonetheless true and can be independently corroborated.

We have opted for an exclusionary rule which the coerced confession and all its fruits are excluded, even if the fruits prove the truthfulness of the confession. Such a broad exclusionary rule is not designed to serve the goal of truth, either long or short term. It is also intended to serve an important set of values entirely unrelated to truth. Those include privacy (or, in the eighteenth-century language of the Fourth Amendment, "security"), freedom from unreasonable governmental intrusion, and the integrity of the mind and body. These values were regarded by those who introduced the "exclusionary rule" as being more important, at least on occasion, than truth. The exclusionary rule explicitly recognises that the guilty will sometimes have to be freed in order to send a message to the police and prosecutors that the noble end of seeking the truth does not justify ignoble means such as unreasonable searches or coerced confessions.

Our system of justice thus reflects a balance among often inconsistent goals, which include truth, privacy, fairness, finality and equality".

Peace !

BookReview12: Islamization and Activism in Malaysia - Julian CH Lee

This book is written by a young, brilliant academic - Dr Julian C.H. Lee.

This thoughtful and timely book deals in depth with some of the most important debates surrounding inter- ethnic life in contemporary Malaysia. He examines for example, the Islamic State debate in the light of the democratic and multi-religious setting of Malaysia.

Julian guides us though the minefields of politics, religion and ethnicity with adeptness and clarity. He courageously and interestingly tackles the legal issues of conflict of jurisdiction between the civil and syariah courts by discussing related cases that have been considered before the Malaysian Courts.

His findings and descriptions are clearly and accessibly presented and his dispassionate explorations of both complicated legal matters and sensitive religious issues are handled with rigour and thoughtfulness.

The book is readily available in all major bookshops and is now going for 2nd reprint.

Publisher: Institute of South East Asian Studies Publications, Singapore.
Year of first Publication : 2010
Price      :  RM38.00

Peace !

Politicization of Religions and the “theocratization” of politics

Let us consider an alternative perspective.

Politics appears to the only route that humankind seems to know to govern the nation. Political history has shown us that many wars have been waged by politicians. The excuses may be different and the people pushing for the wars may be different but it is ultimately the politicians that make the decision to wage wars. Many political observers world wide also acknowledge that politicians are prone to excesses, abuses and deceit. Given half a chance they will sell even their own mother to stay in power, as some say it rather crudely.

Politics is about power. Power is a divine trait, godly. Since it is a divine trait, in the hands of lesser mortals, it can be intoxicating and addictive. Hence, while political power is a major responsibility it can equally be a dangerous tool in the hands of the lesser mortal. It is never easy to give up neither power nor the uninformed supporters.

The more extreme the supporters, the more secure the politician. The more loyal the supporters, the more the politician has to pander to their inclinations to maintain their loyalty. This is particularly so when the loyalty is based on patronage.

This is the vicious cycle that the politician has trapped himself in for the sake of power. This is sometimes called “riding the tiger syndrome”. It is almost impossible to dismount the tiger because it might bite you.

The politician rides on a cause, a platform and the promise of a better life on earth. People who support the cause, support the politician. They get together into a club called the “political party”. They create rituals, mantras, levels of authority and ranks. At the bottom is the ordinary member whose usefulness is not only to make up the numbers but to support their leaders unquestioningly in the name of the party. The politician cannot make drastic changes for ordinary members constantly need something that they have already identified themselves with without understanding. Change implies need to think and to alter behavior which will upset the members. Only variations of what is already believed and upheld by the party members is allowed even if it gradually strays from the original ideal.

Religion appears to be the only route humankind seems to know to relate to the supernatural, and to make sense of the “spiritual” world. History of religions has shown us that many wars have been waged by the religious leaders. The excuses may be different and the people pushing for the wars may be different but it is ultimately the religious leaders that make the decision to wage wars. Many observers world wide also acknowledge that religionists are prone to excesses, abuses and deceit. We have heard of the inquisition, burning at the stake, killing in the name of “god” ethnic cleansing, “Catholic, Buddhist, Hindu and Muslim terrorists” etc.

Religion is about influence and about instilling belief in a person’s heart. Influencing a person’s heart and “instilling faith” is a divine trait, godly. Since it is a divine trait, in the hands of lesser mortals, it can be intoxicating and addictive. Hence, while religion has tremendous potential for guiding good human conduct and a major responsibility it can equally be a dangerous tool in the hands of the vested interest religionists. It is never easy to give up neither the power to influence nor the uninformed supporters. The more extreme the supporters, the more secure the religious leaders. The more loyal the supporter, the more the religious leaders has to pander to their inclinations to maintain their loyalty.

This is the vicious cycle that the religious leaders have trapped themselves in for the sake of power. This is sometimes called “riding the tiger syndrome”. It is almost impossible to dismount the tiger because it might bite you.

The religious leader rides on a cause, a platform and the promise of a better life in the hereafter. Adherents, who support the cause, support the leader. They get together into a club called the “X religion”. They create rituals, mantras, levels of authority and ranks. At the bottom is the ordinary adherent whose usefulness is not only to make up the numbers but to support their leaders unquestioningly in the name of the religion. The leader cannot make drastic changes for ordinary adherents constantly need something that they have already identified themselves with without understanding. Change implies need to think and to alter behavior which will upset the adherents. Only variations of what is already believed and upheld by the adherents are allowed even if it gradually strays from the original ideal of the “founder”.

If you agree with the above alternative analysis and if it is correct, then imagine the potency of mixing the two – politicization of religion or the “theocratization” of politics!

When religion is politicized, it moves away from the individual and resides in a select few who bestow upon themselves the power to determine what should be believed and what should not. Political power may have control over your body but religious power attempts to control your very emotions, beliefs and soul. With this mix, the control over you is complete.

Now, just sit back and imagine the colossal catastrophe that can be unleashed by the lesser mortal with vested interest who now has the sniff of what is divinely!

Let's discuss. Let us be wary today.

Peace !

Being Muslim in Malaysia is so wonderful!

Someone told me I was wrong in thinking that it is difficult being a Muslim in Malaysia.  So, I thought about it. He is right. It is wonderful being Muslim in Malaysia.

I realized that we are the only country in the world where we have 13 Muftis! Other countries have only ONE Mufti per country but we have 13 which mean we Muslims are lucky. We are lucky because more heads are better than one right? We can get more Islamic knowledge and input. Is that not wonderful?

Furthermore, with more heads, we do not have to use our head to think about all the ‘difficult and complex’ shariah laws, rules, exegesis, etc. We can just leave it to the experts and we are left with more time for our lives. Is that not wonderful?

Is it not wonderful that we also have 13 Religious Departments in every state to constantly remind us of what is Islamic and what is not? This shows how seriously we take our religion compared to other countries that do not have this many religious departments. Can you imagine the number of labour force we come up with when we total up all the officers and staff in the various religious departments? All this is a worthwhile investment on earth to save our souls in the hereafter.

Thanks to all these religious officers who spend their life to make sure we do not go astray. Is that not wonderful that we have officers that make sure we behave the Muslim way? This will even free our parents! My faith is forever protected by these officers.

Let us not forget – we also have many other Islamic religious institutions at the federal Government. This is important. We must give meaning to the Constitution that guarantees Islam as the official religion. It is OFFICIAL ok? Is that not wonderful to be officially recognized? This will go a long way in strengthening our faith and reminding us that we are Muslims.

Being a Malay is almost like being saved from the hellfire in the hereafter. The drafters of our constitution have the foresight to make sure Malays are Muslims. Article 160 defines that a Malay, among other things, is a person who practices and professes the religion of Islam ie a Muslim. I am so proud to say that no other country in the world has the vision to define a race in terms of its religion. They did not have the “religious vision” but we did! Isnt this wonderful, my Muslim friend?

In Malaysia we have a political party whose objective is to set up an Islamic State. We also have another major political party that does all it can to “protect Islam”. Recently we have a group of religious scholars entering politics. Isnt that wonderful? I think we should encourage more and more our young Muslims to forget all other secular courses and take up Islamic studies. That is so important. Hopefully, we can become a nation of ulamas! Would that not be wonderful? We will all be sound and knowledgeable Muslims then.  If we achieve this, we can be the main exporter of religious teachings in the world. Wow, we can save many souls!

I love that fact that being a Muslim allows any other stranger in a skull cap or a goatee to advise me unasked. That’s the generosity you enjoy being a Muslim. No where else can you find such generosity and abundance of advise except in the Muslim world in this country. Is that not so selflessly wonderful?

Malaysian Muslims are sensitive people. That is because they care about their religion and respect the religious scholars. Whenever we have a doubt or need an answer, we check with the scholars. When we want to say or write something on Islam, we check with the scholars. We have so many of them in our country. Is it not wonderful to be able to check with experts before you say something?

Lastly, it is wonderful being a Muslim in Malaysia because my identification card says that I am one. So, no one, let me repeat, no one can dispute that!

Peace !

40 Ulamas into UMNO

1. With the entry of 40 religious scholars into UMNO, how does this impact on the pattern of politics which is evolving in this country?

2. More to home would be the question: how it will affect the evolvement of UMNO itself – will it gradually metamorphose into a theologically inclined party like PAS?

3. How will it impact on practice and understanding of Islam in this country?

4. Will these kind of moves lead to the “theocratization” of politics in the future?

5. How will the perception of the general public towards religious scholars be affected when they enter into politics?

6. Are we going to witness religion, in particular Islam being further institutionalized?

God willing, will write on these soon if time permits!

Peace !

Najib Tun Razak’s brave decision: No sports betting licence !!!

The Prime Minister Mohd Najib Tun Razak pleasantly surprised the majority of the Rakyat with his decision on the sports betting licence. There was rife speculation that he would ‘crumble’ to the many “powerful pressures” exerted upon him to approve the sports betting licence. This proves that the Prime Minster listens to the Rakyat. Contrary to some speculations too, this is also proves this PM can make up his own mind. Congratulations PM Sir!

 

If you know the “powerful” links and the “political temptations” of the gaming industry in this country, you will also realize that this is a courageous decision made by the Prime Minister. In a sense he has made a “Rakyat decision” and probably has upset some powerful elitists. I don’t think such a decision has ever been made by any PM since Merdeka in the gaming industry.

You will also note that there have never been any discussions on the effects of the gaming industry on the regular patrons. It is almost as if even the mainstream media is under “hush –hush” understanding with relevant parties on the issue. I am just speculating here!

You will also note that this country totally lacks “clinics” or avenues for addictive gamblers to seek counseling or cure. Ashamedly, even the legal gaming operators do not even sponsor any such clinics. Compulsive gamblers are sick people and they need help. They are not bad people who deserve only punishment.

I do hope however that this courageous decision by the PM will be followed by another courageous act – to re-evaluate the massive gaming industry in the country.

Kudos to you Honourable PM Sir! You have saved many families.

Peace !

Khairy Jamaludin: Umno Youth Against Sports Betting Licence !

The sports gambling betting licence issue has indeed brought forth much debate and diverse views.

UMNO Youth seems clearly against the issuance of the licence as is evident from the UMNO Youth Chief’s website. YB Khairy Jamaludin essentially cites three concerns of UMNO Youth and in brief, they are as follows (as I understand):

1. That the issuance of the betting licence is not well received by the majority of Malaysians, irrespective of race. The Muslims too are not convinced that there exists guarantees that some Muslims will not be involved in this form of gambling. Further, many Non-Muslims too are against it especially since there are some quarters who claim that gambling is part of the Non-Muslim culture.

2. The argument that since there is already illegal gambling, therefore, it is better to legalise it does not hold water. The more reasonable and practical approach will be to strengthen the enforcement against illegal gaming in the country. That such enforcement against illegal gaming should be consistent through the year and not seasonal.

3. Questions arise as to why Ascot should prematurely announce that they have been given the license when the Government has yet to make a decision.

You may read the entire statement here.

UMNO Supreme Council member and Deputy Minister of Education, YB Dr Mohd Puad Zarkashi is also against sports betting. He feels that the culture of gambling in the country should be reversed. You may read further here. His post in his facebook inviting comments and feedback on the sports betting issue had attracted many feedbacks – almost all against the sports betting and other forms of gambling.

The StarOnline reports that “Former Wanita Umno chief Tan Sri Rafidah Aziz has backed legal sports betting saying that it will help regulate gambling among non-Muslims”.


Sun2Surf reports as follows: “Legalised sports betting is "not a problem" in Malaysian society, Information, Communication and Culture Minister Datuk Seri Utama Rais Yatim said today”. It further reports: “Rais urged everyone, including politicians and public to view the issue in the perspective of respecting the rights of non-Muslims”.

What is your view?

Peace !

SIMPLE AND GENERATIVE LEARNING

By Osman Hj. Kamaluddin

  

Simple Learning

There are two main types of learning. The first type is simple learning and in this type of learning, there is a gap between what you know and what you want to know. The learning process would be the actions you take to close the gap and the results are feedback leading to increased knowledge or skills. The feedback lets you know whether you are approaching your goal. If the actions you take bring you nearer to your goal, that is, closing the gap, then you do more of them i.e. the actions you take. But if it is the other way round i.e. the actions you take, increases the gap, then you do less of them. Solving the problem is closing the gap.

Simple learning and problem solving take place within a boundary of assumptions and beliefs about what is possible and necessary. For example, a person may get frequent headaches and because of this, goes to see a doctor. The doctor then prescribes some painkillers to be taken. The person goes home, feeling happy and the next time, he/she has a headache, he/she takes the painkillers. Simple problem, simple solution! An example from business would be a company that wants to invest in a more modern and faster manufacturing machine/plant. They try a number of possibilities and settle on the most cost-effective one. Later, the plant is built and running to full capacity. Another simple problem, simple solution!

Generative Learning

The other type of learning is generative learning. Generative learning brings our beliefs and assumptions about the issues into the feedbacks we received. Feedbacks from our actions lead us to question our beliefs and assumptions! As in the previous examples, the person might question why he/she is getting frequent headaches. That person might find out later that he/she needs to change his/her lifestyle or diet. That person may also be curious about taking charge of his/her own health, rather than looking to the medical doctor to fix all his/her health problems.

In the business example, the company might want to question whether it is worth investing in the new equipment for a product that might be out of date at a later stage. They might question further, whether they are in the right market and think about other/new products rather than assume, they can continue to do what they have been always doing!

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

 Osman Hj. Kamaluddin is a marine surveyor who has for the past many years researched and observed on accelerated learning techniques. He is also a Certified Practitioner of Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP) & NLP Coaching.

THE SAGA TO LEGITIMISE SPORTS GAMBLING

By Ramlan Kamal

Malaysia is a Muslim country, where already most forms of betting/ gambling are allowed. In non-Muslim countries like Thailand, Vietnam, India and even China, a much stricter and restrictive approach is taken in legitimising gambling, in any form.

A quick and pertinent snapshot to what gambling are already given licence in Malaysia:-

Type	Predominant Players/ Patrons (Income Group)
1.     Casino	Upper Middle & Middle
2.     Jackpots	Middle
3.     Horse Racing	All
4.     Numbers & Lotto betting	Middle-Low & Low

5.     Sports betting (if allowed)

All, including Youths

For the numbers and lotto betting (i.e. magnum 4-D, 1+3D, Toto), it is estimated that, at least 50% - 60% are patronized by the non-Chinese. So, the argument by an ex-PM, that it is OK to legitimise sports betting (for the Chinese, as claimed), does not hold water. And it is precarious, if one extends the argument that, since sports gambling is happening anyway (i.e. illegally) we might as well legitimise it, to other misdeeds in society (like snatch thefts, robbery, rape, etc.).

It does appear (over the last two weeks) that concerted and ‘orchestrated’ efforts were made (by Police, political leaders and parties) to bring to the fore on activities of illegal sports (especially football) bookies. But we all know these activities have been going on for years. Suddenly now (in the midst of a company attempting to get a licence to operate sports betting), there is a frenzy to show the dark side of illegal gambling. Off course, suspicions are abound that monetary considerations must have taken place to spur and shift public opinion to support the move to legitimise sports gambling.

It is perhaps alright for Singapore to legitimise sports betting, as it is, by and large, a middle class nation. One can argue that their populace can afford it. Already our country’s financial and competitive position does not appear strong and in need of dire turnaround. Now, the Government is making an initiative that will further impoverish our populace (mostly the middle-low and low income group), and enriching only a set of already highly-privileged tycoons. Not that the Government is contemplating to increase its taxes on gambling, so that a more sizeable chunk can be channelled back to the citizenry (assuming there is genuineness to do this).

Seriously, Government should make efforts to check and verify, on who patronizes all the various gambling outfits and joints in Malaysia, and see whether it is actually predominantly the Chinese who are gambling or the entire spectrum of Malaysians.

One also wonders, how come the Malaysian ‘ulamaks’ are very tight-lipped over this whole issue of legitimising sports gambling.

It is high-time that the ruling parties running this beloved country of ours, start pondering about new models/ paradigms of getting political funding. If we want to achieve a First Nation status (as envisioned in the NEM), lets start legitimising political funding first. The Westerners and other developed countries have done this. This would be a crucial step in turning-around Malaysia, in particular to avoid and stop repeating our wastages of the past.

As a Muslim country, Malaysia should not be overzealously legitimising gambling. Those existing are already superfluous and bad enough. We all know gambling is one of the root causes of social ills. Government cannot be seen to be supporting this kind of eventual outcome. There are other ways for countries to earn more. For us, address the leakages out of unnecessary expenditures, mismanagement of income sources from GLCs, Inland Revenue and Customs.   These ought to be the focus and priority.

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

Encik Ramlan Bin Kamal is essentially involved in the logistics industry in the country, among other things.

Bankrupt by 2019???? And hence, we all suffer?

This is absolutely frightening news. Is it for real?

TheStarOnline reported:

“Malaysia will be bankrupt by 2019 if it does not cut subsidies and rein in borrowings, said Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Datuk Seri Idris Jala on Thursday”.

It appears that at target to prevent the “bankruptcy of the Nation” would be to rationalize the subsidies. It is basic that subsidies are costs to the Nation and like every cost, it has to be evaluated and brought down where possible to reduce the deficit and debts faced by our country.

However, there are a few points that the Government experts should look into and bear in mind:

a)      Subsidies cannot be looked upon as costs in the same manner as we do in the private sector.

Sure, it is equally basic that subsidies distort market mechanisms. In fact, it is precisely due to the fact that market mechanisms do not allow the goods and services to be allocated to target groups that subsidies are introduced in the first place. Hence, free market arguments or so-called efficient allocations of resources cannot be the sole argument for or against subsidies.

Subsidies are costs but unlike the private sector it is not a cost incurred in the process of profit maximization. Private sectors primary motive is to maximize profits and hence they will be geared towards keeping costs at its minimum – even to the extent of retrenching workers (destroying homes) or ‘maximising productivity” of its existing workers (capitalistic oppression).

The purpose of Government is not the maximization of profits but the maximization of the citizen’s general welfare. This is something I pray that the clever advisers of the Government with their corporate background keep uppermost in their minds. It is not a mere question of statistics and economic theories. Corporate thinking and Government thinking should in many instances be different. Let us not get carried away with this new slogan of “corporate values” in the Government while we acknowledge it has its relevance!

While in the private sector, we try to minimize “unproductive costs”, the same costs may actually be social costs that are necessary for the maximization of the citizens’ general welfare.  For example, if Government schools are left to market mechanism, the majority of the people will be priced out of education.  We will become a Nation of illiterates. Hence, we recognize that subsidization of education is something we have to bear and we have to find the funds needed. This is one sector I think any responsible government should not compromise.

While subsidies increase Government expenditure, it also increases the standard of living of the people. Therefore, any reduction is subsidy will have an impact on the living standard. This is a tradeoff which we must carefully consider before getting carried away with numbers and statistics.

b)      Which subsidies to reduce or do away?

I am actually ashamed that despite the blessings that God has given this Nation, we are still unable to provide completely free education to all Malaysians, irrespective of race or religion. Obviously this is so because of the leakages (corrupt monies hoarded by…) and misallocation of resources towards projects that do not directly affect the people’s general standard of living.

It is critically important that the Government does not cut on subsidies that will further burden the general populace in order to free the resources towards other grand but wasteful projects. This is my real fear having seen the way we have developed Malaysia since Merdeka. I am not denying we have not developed. Yes, we have. But we could have developed in better ways and at less inflated costs. I have never been for the module of giving the people RM10 and the project owner making RM100. Such things are, in my Muslim mind, riba or usury. Government projects, due to its guaranteed payments should be costing much less, actually.

Briefly, it is important to carefully determine which subsidies that will be the target of ratinalisation.

c)      Existence of subsidies may actually encourage economic activity

The existence of subsidies actually keeps the general costs of doing business low in the sense that it keeps the costs of living low. On the contrary, the removal of subsidies will raise costs of production and will make Malaysia unattractive towards investments. This is primarily because, the removal of subsidies will eventually cause a rise in the general price levels, even causing inflationary tendencies in the economy. Imagine if petrol prices are raised, it will certain cause almost all other prices to increase. This in turn will increase the cost of living leading to people seeking higher wages.

Hence, the existence of subsidies actually keep the costs of production low, making investments attractive and thereby providing the opportunity for higher increase in the national income.

Therefore it is misplaced to view subsidies in isolation as if there is no increase in GDP and then conclude that it will bankrupt the Nation.

d)      Have we explored other ways to reduce costs and/or raise funds?

Basically, the idea of removing subsidies is to free resources/funds to other sectors. I believe a lot of resources can be positively channeled and funds “saved” if the Government was to seriously focus on the following:

(a)                Reduce the size of the civil service by 50%. There is too much duplication and wastage of tax payer’s monies in this sector. After the reduction, it may even be worthwhile to increase the remuneration of some of the civil servants.

(b)               Wage an all out war against leakages (corruption, etc)

(c)                The Government should seriously consider passing a law that enables the Government to recoup ill-gotten money by the culprits over the past 30 years or so. This will not be difficult to ascertain. I believe by this exercise alone, we should be able to recoup billions. Maybe a Recovery of People’s Assets Act is in order. However, this will require political will as it will largely involve politicians and their cronies.

(d)               Focus on economic activities that will uplift the living standards of the middle class and raise incomes all around. For the lower middle income, loosen up on licensing requirements to encourage the growth of small businesses or cottage industries.

(e)                I am absolutely certain that the Rakyat is fully aware of certain “sectors” that unnecessarily and unproductively taxing on the Government funds, whether at the Federal or State level.  The Government must have the courage to address these sectors and pull away the funds.

 

Peace !

Datuk Paduka Ibrahim Ali - CAN YOU HELP DEVELOP TANJUNG PUPUT?

Perkasa claims to champion bumiputras. Help these people.

Peace !

BookReview11: "THE QURAN AND I" by Anas Zubedy

Title The Quran and I

Author: Anas Zubedy

Description 216 pages full color

Retail price RM36.40

Publisher: Zubedy Ideahouse

When I got hold of this book, I thought it will be a heavy reading book that will delve deeply into the Quran. I was wrong. It is an easy reading book into the journey of Anas Zubedy, the author. He recollects his childhood, the people and the things that have influenced him, including the Quran as he grew up.

He writes in such a way that you end up feeling that you are with him as he recounts those moments. It is like a live broadcast. It is a very personal book and a good insight into the life a Malaysian Muslim. Reading the book, you can feel Anas’s honesty in the relating his past events. Some of his experiences are touching and the more sensitive reader may shed a tear or two when reading one of his chapters. The book is also a reminder that youths can be sensitive though adults may take them for granted.

I was impressed with the quality of the paper and the effort made to make the book “light and easy” spiced with expressive photographs.

This book was launched last week and I believe it is available in all major bookshops.

Happy reading.

Peace !

 

You are at the Mercy of the System – do you not want to make sure it is does not oppress you?

The majority of us are ordinary citizens. Ordinary in the sense that we go about our own lives without much influence on the system that surrounds us. However, with every turn, our lives are affected by the system we live in. Let me make myself clear by giving an example.

It can be a very simple thing like: - you want to start a small business because you want to support your family and earn an income. Having registered your business, you now may want to apply for the relevant permits or licences. This application process should be a simple and routine process. The relevant authorizing officer should simply ascertain whether your application complies with the law. If all requirements under the law are complied, then, the application should be expeditiously approved. If there are any shortcomings, he should advise you to rectify the same. After all, civil servants are supposed to be civil and “servants” of the Rakyat.

However, do things always go according to what I have described above?

You may meet an officer who wants to be taken “care of” before he can “speed up” or even approve your application.  You are in a dilemma. You are starting a business because you need income to live but you have to pay toll first. You also know that the request is immoral and illegal because it is corruption. You get frustrated, maybe angry but you realize you need the licence. 

You have bills to pay. You have a family to support. You have to find money to live because God has given you a life. So, you need the licence or permit. All you want is to do a business and earn honestly. But the system seems to oppress you and prevent you from doing so.

So, you weigh your options. You can report the officer to his superiors. But will the superior protect his officer and put you into trouble instead, your mind worries. All you want is just the licence or permit. Maybe you should report the officer to the MACC, you wonder. But all you want is just the licence, your mind insists. Further, you are concerned about “how to prove”. It is just your word. You are also concerned that your application for the licence may be further jeopardized. In this country, we still do not have an Act to protect whistle blowers adequately.

You may also consider the last option of doing your business without the licence – illegally and run the risk of “greasing” enforcement officers instead. Or finally, you may decide to forget about the licence application and tell your family that they just have to starve.

Someone comes along and suggests that you get a letter of recommendation from some MP or Adun or better still from a political secretary to a Minister. They tell you that the “surat sokongan” will help. You do it and go back to the officer. Two things may happen: 1) he asks you how much you paid the political secretary for the letter (you didn’t pay but he does not believe you anyway!) and/or 2) he still insists on his toll payment which you refuse and/or 3) Your application is “considered” and rejected though you comply with all the requirements of the law.

You go back home and tell your kids that papa cannot afford to support them since the government does not give him the licence to start a business. They and your relatives begin to hate the government whom you now see as wanting your family to suffer. Your kids ask what wrong have they done. You have no answer. It is the system that YOU have allowed to evolve.

I am not exaggerating here. Over the years, I have heard these complaints so many times from low and lower middle income people who want to start a small business honestly. I have offered to pursue the matter but most of them are afraid. It also does not help that some of the complainants are Malays because the oppressive officer is also a Malay.

It is such stories that have convinced me that corrupt and evil people come in all skin colors and labels. They eat the flesh of the weaker ones from any tribe including their own to satisfy their evil and selfish desires. This is why I have always maintained that tribalistic mentality is not good for the majority weaker ones in the tribe. Racism is a cover to exploit one’s own race and spread hatred.

You can apply the above story to every aspect of your life – every single government department, agency, the so called Courts of justice, etc, etc. There are rotten people everywhere. However, not all become unjust due to money. There are other motivations or reasons – friendships, pure laziness, indifference, arrogance, etc, etc. The effect is: you are inflicted with injustice and you feel powerless to do anything about it. You feel alone in the fight.

The system should work. It should work for the People. We have to study the system and rectify its weakness so that ordinary people are not being pushed around, bullied and oppressed. People must insist that they too have a dignity that must be respected and recognized.

If you have a high sense of dignity and refuse to be cowed by people in seeming power lording over you unjustly, what do you do? You know there will be risks in opposing these people because even other citizens may not support you. Citizens tend to be selfish. “Not my problem”, may be their mindset.

I am sure many times, you may have wanted to take the law into your own hands and “get justice”. Inflict a pain on the oppressors. Make them suffer as they make you and your family suffer. However, such an approach will not solve the problem in the long run. It may also get you into problems with the law.

So, if you are a Rapera – what would you do??? What would you do????

What I know is that a single voice is never loud enough to be heard.

Peace !

Give me your comments on issues dear to you.

Rapera readers,

Please give me your comments on issues dear to you. I will be publishing a book soon and will like to include your ideas, comments and thoughts in them. In this case, it will be difficult to include comments posted under "anonymous" as I want to credit you.

Sorry for not blogging for some time...been extremely busy!

Thank you.

Peace !

Give me Life, Lord.

Santim recalls the evening whence he was not sure if he had been sleeping or awake and heard these voices :

Give me Life, Lord.


[and what will you do if you are given one?]


I want to breathe, experience humanity. I want to taste its joys, sorrows, pain, happiness and all that temporal experiences that is called “life on earth”.

Read more here.

Peace !

Prosecution or Persecution? – AG’s chamber must buck up !

I recall the good old days where you can sit down with the DPP (deputy public prosecutor) and discuss with him the case he is handling. As a lawyer, you can open up the evidence that you have with him and then write a letter of representation to him. A letter of representation is where you advance you client’s case and put forward proposals like – to withdraw the charge against your client on various cogent reasons, or to plead to a lesser offence, etc. Such a representation saves everybody’s time and tax payers’ money. Justice is also done. Those days, the DPP who handles the matter decides. Today, it appears the situation is different.

Today it appears that some DPPs are merely prosecuting officers in Court. They do not seem to have the powers to decide how to conduct the case with which they are entrusted. Or maybe they fear writing a report or recommendation to the Public Prosecutor that the charge should be withdrawn.

For example, in those days, if in the middle of a trial, the evidence clearly shows that the case is completely unsustainable, it not uncommon for the charge to be withdrawn. This is a power clearly given to the Public Prosecutor pursuant to section 254 of the CPC (see also section 354 CPC and Article 145(3) of the Federal Constitution.

It is very simple. If the evidence for the prosecution is weak or cannot support the charge, then withdraw the case. These provisions are in the law books for the purpose of ensuring justice and not there for mere decoration.

However, I have personally known some of my clients to experience injustice because the DPP does not seem to understand the purpose of these provisions. Today too, you have too many new, inexperienced and young DPPs who actually say: “My boss wants me to continue”!

It really troubles me when I have an innocent client being charged in court for offences that he did not commit. It makes me wonder whether the DPPs concerned have actually verified the evidence given to them by the police before they recommend for the person to be charged. I wonder if the same lackadaisical attitude will prevail if their own family member is the one being charged.

I have a particular case where my client went through 5 years of hell, broken home and devastated business because he had to undergo a trial in which he was clearly innocent. Of course, he was finally acquitted and discharged – meaning he was found innocent by the Court. Though found innocent, can the courts or the police or the prosecution give my client back parts of his life that they took away? To them, it is just another file closed. In fact in this case, the Court found that the prosecution had indeed suppressed evidence that was favorable to the defence! This case should never have gone to court at all.

This, to my mind is clearly persecution and not prosecution.

I cannot understand the mentality of some of these new DPPs who think of prosecution as a job that must be done under the direction of their seniors. It is more than a job – it is a duty and responsibility to ensure justice. You are dealing with real lives. You only prosecute on behalf of the People to ensure justice. If it is the seniors that are directing, then the senior should come to court. Be transparent. Make it official so that there is a face to the instructions being given. AT least the defence lawyer will know which senior to hold accountable for the decisions being made.

I can understand that inexperienced DPPs need to learn. However, this learning should not be at the expense of the innocent public or the tax payer’s money. I even tell my own staff that whatever “learning” they want to do, do it on their own time and expense!

To me it is important that the quality of the prosecution be raised. Prosecution often results in the deprivation of someone’s liberty and thus it must be done carefully and judiciously. It is also important that the prosecution maintains an open communication line with the relevant practicing lawyers.

Prosecution is an important part of the justice system and hence Raperas must be sensitive to their level of standards.

[Note: This article is intended to highlight specific problems addressed in the article and not a scathing criticism of ALL DPPs. I personally know some exemplary ones.]

Peace !