Dispensing Justice or Dispensing WITH Justice?

The StarOnline reports that "The Malaysian Bar passed a no-confidence motion on Saturday against the Key Performance Index (KPI) measures introduced by the Chief Justice and is demanding its immediate withdrawal before a protest is called".

The KPI system was introduced with the idea of quick disposal of cases. In other words, the faster the greater number of cases are disposed of, the more efficient the court is. If court A can dispose of 20 cases compared to court B which can only dispose of 5 cases within the same time period, then, court A is considered efficient.

Sure, many cases have been heard (and some struck off) and disposed of quickly. The main criteria being speed.

While I think the administration within the corridors of justice (eg the filing, the extraction of cause papers and orders) should really be speeded up, I am not sure I can agree to the criteria of speed in hearing cases. Justice surely cannot be hurried but should be duly administered. The key word is "duly administered". All parties should be given reasonable time within the facts of each case and circumstance the chance to be be duly heard.

The Courts, the "government lawyers" and the private lawyers are all officers of the Court and each have a role to play. The rope of justice experiences tension when one party thinks or behaves in a dominating manner to the exclusion of the other.

For instance, in the matter of postponements, the perception is that it is alright for judges or the government lawyers to postpone but not the private lawyers. Why is this so I can never understand when the grounds are reasonable. Isnt the ordinary citizen who is represented by his lawyer entitled to prepare his case fully?

The other problem is even the Judges are feeling the strain of speed. There are good judges in our country who are able to use their judicial discretion but there are also human beings with human failings among them. It is this interference of human failings that may leave the public with a sense that justice was not done because speed often makes it seem that justice was not seen to be done.

Imagine a judge being very quick to deliver a judgement without hearing the other side because the other side was not present in Court. Those days, the Judge will stand down the matter and ask the lawyer present to call the other lawyer's office to find out what happened. After all, the other side lawyer could be struck by lightning or a huge trailer! I had also insisted to call the other side lawyer whenever they are not present or late so as to ascertain the reason. Reputable lawyers do not absent themselves without just cause.

However IF a judge simply strikes off a matter or passes judgement without the other side being present merely to achieve statistics of cases being disposed, then justice itself is disposed away. Imagine the sufferings of the litigant (the ordinary citizen)especially if he had a strong cases.

I intend to write more on this at a later date when time permits.

Peace !

Human Beings Born Free and Equal - Quranic Perspective

Peace !

Never Say or Think These Things !!!

Image thanks to here.

There are many things that people do not want to hear even though it needs to be said.

What do you do?

You can take the “safe” approach and be “polite”, “diplomatic”, “remain popular” and not say it. Or most often, saying it may mean you think your “rice bowl” will be affected.

Or you may fear that your friends or relatives may not like you. But why would you want to live a life with friends or relatives that do not accept you for what you are? So you maintain elegant silence.

And then to console yourself, you can do all sorts of rationalizations. In the end when something does go wrong and what you should have said would have prevented it from happening -  you can give all sorts of excuses including a statement like “Actually I wanted to warn you about this but…” or “Wish I had done something..” or “What can I do?”

On the other hand, you can “risk” everything by being true to the Truth.

Let us look at some examples below: (you may add more)

For example, a statement like: There are credible and potential politicians in most political parties but most of them in all political parties are useless schizophrenics and narcissists will be unpopular.

A more unpopular statement will be: Why not take the “best” from all political parties and let them govern? As for the rest, we will call them when we need the crowd. This won’t work because our mind is trained to think along partisan lines.

An even more unpopular statement will be like this: How audacious can the ulama be that he expects us to accept everything that comes forth from his mouth as the gospel truth without any verification? He wasn’t exactly around when I was conceived in my mother’s womb was he? And he certainly will not be around in the same grave with me. This cannot and should not be said.

Some may not like to hear this；There are many ‘poor” Malays, Chinese, Indians, Orang Asli, Kadazans, Ibans, Bidayuhs, etc in Malaysia. Let us help them all without ethnic labeling. Can we also stop the Malay bashing and manipulation of “Malay race” card for political and economic ends?

This statement may cause discomfort and hence unpopular: “How can anyone claim to be a believer of the Creator if he does not care for the well being of other children, especially that from another ethnic or religious grouping?”

This is even worse: “How can you say you are a Hindu, Muslim, Christian, Tao, Buddhist, etc when you do not even attempt to read and understand the Vedas, the Quran, the Bible, the Sudras and the relevant scriptures?”

This statement may be a taboo: “Who is your God – the Creator or the mortal priests?”

Another unpopular statement will be: “Are you Malay or a Muslim and do you know the difference?”

So people avoid these kinds of questions and just go on living your lives safely. That way, you will have been born and then died like everyone else never living the life you could.

Peace !

Rethinking the myth of “consensus of the majority” - Part 2 : Politics and Democracy

Politics and Democracy

Democracy we say is the government of the people, by the people for the people. It is, we boast, a system that allows the people to form a government and run it by consensus. We say it is a majority rule government. Does that “majority” include you and me and the 15 year old child who does know where to get the money to go to school?

I have written extensively on the weakness and myth of the party system in a democracy on this blog and elsewhere, especially on the need for a radical reform of the political culture. Any system is workable only if the general culture is useful and positive. Where the general culture is primitive, the system becomes a tool of an elitist few. In a democracy, the party system too is controlled by the select few who determine who rise and fall as leaders. In other words, you are presented with the candidates to choose from. Most likely, these candidates rise in the party not through competency or ability but through money and patronage.

Many also vote along party lines without caring to analyse the long term consequences to their own future and the Nation. Due to various factors, including apathy, many do not really know why or whom they have voted.  Many more do not even vote thinking that it is a useless exercise without realising that by not voting, they too have made a decision which will impact the future of the nation. In such a scenario, the myth of the so-called majority government in a democracy formed by consensus of the People is clearly evident.

In a democracy, the effective competition for votes is largely confined to established parties even though there is a new trend around the world where independents are gaining greater acceptance by the voters. In the USA, for example, it is largely confined to Republican and Democratic, in UK it is Conservative and Labour while in Malaysia it is PAS and UMNO. Other parties that exist may align to any of these established parties. They get together by consensus among the top leaders of the respective parties and the general body of members generally accept the “consensus” which is then presented to the public as a “coalition consensus”. (Please note that in reality, the decisions are actually made by a few party officials)

Party consensus prevents party members from voicing and struggling for what is right if it is against party interests. In many instances, if you analyse, you will find that such party consensus has caused tremendous injustice and cruelty to mankind. You will find for example, political parties unashamedly diving citizens along racial and religious lines while at the same time they may utter that we are all “children of God”. Minorities are treated as if they do not exit on earth. Consensus allows seemingly “good” people to do evil things. When they hold power, evil values may be enacted as laws.

Elected representatives, either in Parliament or in State Assembly have the power to pass laws that affect the  ordinary citizen's life. Again, in the Parliament and the State Assembly, the laws are passed by the consensus of the majority. The issue is: have the representatives passed the laws in the interest of the Nation or for party  or vested interests? Even a bad or evil law is still law if passed. Did the voter also consent to bad laws to be passed when they voted? Is it not then the implicit responsibility of the representatives to seek the consent of their constituents? After all, they can make time to knock on every door to canvass for votes during election time. The truth of the matter is that many ordinary citizens do not know what laws are passed. The respective elected representatives also do not make it a point to explain the draft bills to their respective constituencies. Hence, the so called democratic consensus under our system is illusory and a myth. It is in fact power wielding by an elitist few under the guise of consensus.

Many ordinary citizens also fail to observe how the wealth of the Nation is distributed or they may have resigned themselves to accept it as a matter of fact beyond their control (where then is the consensus if this is so?). Is it a mere coincidence of talent that most of the wealth is in the hands of those who are either related to or aligned to those who hold political power? If indeed democracy is the government of the people, by the people for the people by consensus, did the People consent to the wealth being distributed to the leaders’ relatives and friends?

Where is the justice when we have the bulk of the wealth of the nation in the hands of the few whence we have the majority of the People struggling to have their families’ ends met? In this manner, the myth of consensus has visited cruelties on many ordinary families because the Nation’s resources have been cunningly and deceitfully taken away from them. While I bask in my RM6 million bungalow, you are struggling to pay the loan of your middle cost or low cost house! Obviously, they think their children deserve it more than yours or mine. I have merely given an example which is merely the tip of the iceberg!!!

To me, if indeed consensus is real and not a myth, based on the wealth that our country possessed, we should today have completely free education for all who want to study up to tertiary level. However, today almost every young adult is saddled with a study loan even before they begin to work! Is this not cruel? I can go on listing the things that could have been put in place if indeed consensus was real and not a myth, but I leave it to you to add the list on this blog.

The myth of consensus in politics is not understood by many because of the sophistication with which it is managed and engineered. It is also very intertwined with economic control of the Nation’s wealth. I dare say that it is an art beyond the comprehension of the average citizen. Politics is a sophisticated game of information and perception management swinging the citizens’ emotions between fear and hope. In politics, People in general are made to perceive that they are part of the consensus.

Why did you vote?

Many fail to realize that democracy today has been relegated to casting your votes at the ballot box. Once you vote, you have practiced democracy! By consensus, we seem to have agreed that once a person is elected as an MP or State Assemblyman, he has the mandate to do what he or his party pleases.

When you voted, did you give a blank cheque to the candidate to do what he or his party pleases or did you have something else on your mind? If so, what recourse do you have as a voter to oust or punish him if he breaches your mandate? These are matters which even the political scientists have not sorted out because most people seem to have accepted the system as it is. Since merdeka, I have not heard of any seminars or forums to address this issue! Hence, political thought in this country remains puerile and status quo.  With the greatest of respect, I note that even those political scientists in this country who analyse such things do so within the framework of the existing model which we inherited from our colonial masters or from those who graduate from syllabuses crafted by our colonial masters. This being the case, there will not be any radical improvements, maybe just cosmetic or short term.

When you analyse the workings of the so-called democratic system in this country you will conclude this: that every citizen has delegated the absolute right to the elected “representatives” to do as they or their party pleases during the duration of their term. You give them the absolute political power to shape your life. I say “absolute right” because our society has not put in place any user friendly counter measure for the ordinary voter to have recourse to in the event there is a breach of mandate. You just have to wait for the next election by which time; you will be successfully manipulated to repeat the error. (Yes, I do not have confidence in the majority of the voters to think or to care as yet.)

I have often said that the voters are like rats in a maze that has only three exits. The rats think they are struggling to find the exit and that they are making a choice of which exit. They do not know that the choices have already been made for them. Like the rats, voters never pause to think that maybe they want to redesign the maze or even do away with it. Unfortunately, many who think they are thinking outside the box are actually still within the box but in a different corner.

The truth of the matter is this: democracy gives you the illusion of the consensus of the People. Hence, it is a myth and not a fact.

Peace !

Rethinking the myth of “consensus of the majority” - Part 3: Religion

Rethinking the myth of “consensus of the majority” - 1

Image thanks to here.

At the very outset, I would like to state this – consensus has its relevance and role. Now my thoughts on the subject:

Is the so called consensus real and founded on sound knowledge?

We like to think that one of the marks of a civilized society is the ability to reach consensus on important issues affecting society. In fact, consensus has today become as normal and unconscious as breathing in many important aspects of our life. Consensus indicates agreement in the judgment or opinion reached by a group as a whole.  The masses then adjust and manage their lives within the framework of consensus that has been presented to them – unthinkingly.

In almost every aspect of our lives – corporate, family, politics, religion, etc – consensus determines and controls our perspective of things.

It is generally accepted that consensus is vital for life to progress and the opposite of it will be chaos. If you belong to any social unit, you are expected to adhere to consensus; otherwise you will be ostracized as a trouble maker. The mindset of consensus is so ingrained in most of us that we are unable to see its clear and present dangers.

Consensus is also equated with “decision of the majority”. We have been brought up to think that decisions made by the majority are always good for all of us. We therefore must “respect” or adhere to the norms of the majority. Minority views are suppressed, not given any thought or even ridiculed.

I can understand the usefulness of consensus to achieve certain objectives in society. However, I will not extol it to be the “high virtue” that many seem to have unthinkingly accepted. Consensus is only useful when you understand its consequences and limitations. It appears to me that preference for consensus alone (to the exclusion of differing views) is indicative of the human being’s failure to rise from mental primitiveness.

Consensus, as practiced in our lives universally, has created more problems than benefits. My informal study of human history seems to suggest that consensus has been a major tool of oppression of the masses, reformers and intellectuals causing untold confusion, misery and cruelties.  Shocked at this proposition? Let me explain.

I view the unthinking obsession with consensus as people’s readiness to surrender their lives to a very small elitist group in their society. Most people actually live their life allowing it to be shaped by unseen human hands under the convenient tool called “consensus”.

I must confess that I began analysing the usefulness of consensus when I was compelled to think of the following verse from the Quran, some 15 years back:

“And if you obey most of those in the earth, they will lead you astray from Allah's way; they follow but conjecture and they only lie”. (Quran 6:116)

The above verse seems to suggest that majority views are often a result of conjectures (assumptions/guesswork) and untruths/lies/unfounded premises. I suppose this makes sense as any fact or truth is independent of the numbers who believe in it. As we often hear, a lie repeated a million times is still a lie and a truth of one is still the truth.

Since the Quran seems to suggest that majority views are a result of conjectures, it is therefore incumbent upon the thinking person to verify, ascertain and evaluate the views, norms or anything that he hears or experiences (see Quran 17:36).

In this paper, I shall attempt to analyse various aspects of our lives that have been wrecked by the myth of consensus and the untold misery and injustices that has unfolded.

Politics and Democracy

Democracy we say is the government of the people, by the people for the people. It is, we boast, a system that allows the people to form a government and run it by consensus. We say it is a majority rule government. Does that “majority” include you and me and the 15 year old child who does not know where to get the money to go to school? 

To be continued in Part 2.

Peace !

Reforms or ad-hoc solutions? Leaders or Opportunists?

Some people want to be controversial even though the subject matter of their controversy is puerile, insulting to the mind or simply idiotic. They do it because they have a ready made audience which is equally puerile, weak minded or simply ignorant. Through the controversy that they create they become heroes of some sort to the weak minded crowd, especially if such a crowd is actually big.

The sane, intelligent ones will either have to count their blessings that they are not weak minded or pray and hope that hero will soon be exposed for the charlatan that he or she is.

True reformers are difficult (not impossible) to have a significant impact on a society that is blind to many things, especially the rotten aspects of their society. It is a major challenge to invite a society  that has a blinkered view of life to see beyond the horizon. It is challenging to make a slave realise his slavery until he himself is prepared to think out the circumstances he is in and understand the alternatives available.

However, the sad fact is: people often get the leaders in society that they deserve. Generally, if the society is made up of members who do not have high self esteem, they will end up having rogue leaders who will manipulate their weaknesses. If the members have deliberately kept their minds in cold storage, then charlatans will be held up being clever. As the saying goes, in the land of the blind, the one-eyed person is king! 

Nature works in such a way that a good tree will not come forth from a bad seed. It is pointless trimming the tree, putting manure, watering it if the seed is rotten. Trimming, watering, putting manure, etc makes us all very busy and gives us the illusion of doing something to improve the tree. It will not work. The tree will forever be a source of problem. Obviously, many heroes often rise from this mindless, futile effort of endless ad hoc problem solving activity. Through time, many become blind to the real, fundamental problem - the bad seed.

It is mind-boggling when you think of the problems that can branch out from a bad tree and the ad hoc solutions it will entail.

The tree from the bad seed has to be uprooted for a good tree to grow. This is problem solving at the fundamental level. 

However, many will prefer the bad tree to stay. They are more concerned with the trimming, putting water, manure, etc opportunities that a bad tree provides. If the tree is uprooted, their role and hence their importance (and economic opportunities) becomes equally extinct.

Much boasted reforms unfortunately are confined to maintaining the bad tree rather than reforming the tree itself.  Planting a new seed appears to have escaped many people's minds.

However, to reform the tree itself, the people must be prepared to recognize the bad tree for what it is and have the knowledge of what a good or a bad seed can produce. For this, they need to - think !  

Having thought, they would then need the courage, the persistence and the sincerity to have the bad tree uprooted and to plant the good seed.

Peace !

Are You A Child, An Adult, or a Mentally Retarded Adult by Choice (MRAC)?

If you ask anyone if they are proud of themselves, the almost defensive answer will be: “of course. I am proud of who I am”. But who are you?  How would you define yourself? Even if you have not consciously defined yourself, the fact is you have been defining yourself by the life you live.  I will bet my last dollar that many of us have been defining ourselves completely contrary to what we think we are most parts of our lives.

When you were in kindergarten, you just behaved as you would behave. You can get along with some friends and with some others you cannot get along. Most probably, you never even knew why you could not get along other than being just uncomfortable. Sometimes, it is probably because you figured the other boy or girl is just not sharing her toys or things with you. Or maybe, being a child, you have not yet developed social and discerning skills. It is acceptable and sometimes it can be cute to hear a child say: “ I am going to complain to my papa about you”. Or, “I don’t know, let me ask my mama about it”.

When a child or even teenager says something like; “ I have get my parent’s permission first before I can do it”, we consider them well brought up and disciplined. What if an adult says something like that all the time?

For instance, in deciding what clothes to wear or what speech to make, the adult tells you: “I have to ask the permission of Mr X”. And Mr X is a stranger to him! Or say, you ask him, “What do you think of freedom of thought?”. And he replies, “Can you give me two days to get Mr X’s views of that please? I do not want to get it wrong”.

What am I talking about? I am talking about adults who live a child’s life. An adult who lives like a child is not cute but mentally retarded. I am sure this is an acceptable proposition? Let me illustrate:

Somewhere in the growth path of your life, someone comes along and tells you that since you are a Muslim, you cannot do this and that. Or cannot say this or that or wear this and that. In fact this person even tries to control what you think and feel. Now, this person who is telling you how to live your life is not even your father or mother. He is not even your remote neighbour. He is some paid civil servant whom you are meeting for the first time. He does not only tell you, he has been given the legal power to punish you if you do not abide by his dictations. He can have you caned like a child for disobeying him.

Remember, while with your own parents, you may disagree with their view of things since you feel that you have now become an adult, it is not necessarily the case with the paid civil servants. Your parents may finally accept that you have grown up, capable of making responsible decisions and after all you are now supporting them. It is not so with the paid civil servants. Their word, their world view and their interpretation of life is law. You have no choice but to abide by their views unless you want to commit a crime.

Yes, a crime for not agreeing to someone’s world view of how you should live your life. It does not matter that your world view does not cause any physical or moral harm to someone. It also does not matter that you have a higher level of intelligence and better discerning powers than the paid civil servants. The point is: they have been given authority to treat you like a child and somewhere along the line, you had, either ignorantly or recklessly, given them that authority.

And just like everything else in life, a nightmare or fantasy actually acted out in daily life ultimately becomes a norm. You even tend to forget that you are being treated like a child. You become what you are and you accept that as a fact of life. Once you do this, unconsciously you have limited your thinking capacity to that of a child. However, since bodily you are not a child, your behaviour is actually idiotic or at best childish.

Your mind tells itself not to develop and you find normal adult things complex. Just like a child you get used to being dependent on the very thing that limits and controls your life – the paid civil servants.

Try to multiply this childlike people into a group or a community and see what you get.

You would probably get a community of people who have child-like fears that adults should not have. They would forever need to be protected by someone else to whom they consider superior or capable of protecting them. They would want someone else to get them the toys that they want without having to work for it like adults.

They will ask for permission before they want to speak on something in case they are rebuked. Maybe too like a child, they do have the capacity to distinguish between foolishness and maturity. Unlike a child who is growing, they, the child-like adult have surrendered their thinking responsibility to the paid civil servants – and are happy with it!

I have often said that everyone grows old and few grow up. However, when the growth ability of human beings are systematically retarded by the system, we have imbecilic adults and a culture of mediocrity. Such a community actually legalizes institutions that treats them like a child (or imbeciles, since they are now adults) without realizing that they are lowering their dignity and surrendering their lives to paid civil servants.

What seems to escape everyone’s attention is that the paid civil servants are also a product of the very system that created the mediocrity culture. Hence you have mediocre people in authority creating an even more mediocre environment for the rest. You, the adult become subjected to this because of the label that you are legally given.

In other words, you have allowed the law to turn you into a child-like state where people in authority can dictate to you how you live. Adults are supposed to have the ability to think for themselves and decide on personal matters without external interference. However, once the law says that something is no longer personal but it concerns the interest of the State, then your personal liberty is now taken away. Like a child, you become a custodian of the disciplinarian, the State officials. They now have power over your lives. You are trained to stop thinking for yourselves.

In a mediocre, child-like environment, the adult who chooses to behave like an adult is frowned upon by the MRACs. When you go to a kindergarten, you will find the children playing with the children, away from the adults.

Do you understand what I am saying and if you do, does this in anyway affect your dignity as an adult?

Are you comfortable being an MRAC?

Or maybe like a child, you lack the ability to think and lack maturity?

Peace!

The Technologically Advanced Primitive Man - Part 2

Form over Substance - Society of superficialities???

It is the malady of humankind that we get stuck in the pool of form rather than live with the flow of substance.

While form has its role, without substance it is as useful as a corpse - after a while you could almost smell the stench of its uselessness. However, the law of nature appears to be that over time, people may become accustomed with even the worse of stench.

Form however seems not only to pervade a large part of our lives in diverse ways but it has become sanctified. Take any part of our life and you will note that form is given predominance over substance.

Say we take religion. Hardly will we hear a whimper if a religious follower is a cheat, corrupt or oppressor. No one will jump on him alleging that he is irreligious. However, the moment a religious ritual is called into question, the entire band of the followers may even call for his blood. Similarly, it will not matter that the person is an honest, hard working and generally a decent person if she is not garbed in the form her religion requires. The mantra in a foreign language is more important than what it means. or the rationality of its meaning. Sanctification of form itself leads to an illogical state of mind that says:  "There is something sacred in not understanding!" .

Grand titles of 'divinity" for the religious leaders overrides the substance of their speeches. It is no accident that most leaders of  religions place the greatest emphasis on the form of the religion rather than its substance. This is evidenced by their dress code, personal appearances, hierarchy, the  pomp and pageantry that accompanies their presence and so forth. Symbolism, which is totally form is a sacred tool in religions.

It may not be too far from the truth to say that religion is where form is given its greatest prominence over substance. Probably because symbolism and ritualistic behaviours are more effective in the identification /classification of groups than unique thinking persons of substance. Collectivism also helps to gloss over the existence of the many more that are endowed with lesser thinking capabilities. Maybe this explains the general insistence on "faith" as opposed to reason in many religions. Hence like the buffaloes' stampedes, the religious followers are prepared to cause untold damage to uphold form rather than substance. In fact, you may find that  the call to think about substance is construed as sacrilegious and even blasphemous.  (As in politics, the call for thinking about substance may be construed as seditious or security threat).

Politics is another horrific entertaining aspect of our lives where there is greater emphasis on form rather than substance. It is in the political arena that we find the greatest adjectives created to disguise the lack of substance - the number (and length) of honorary titles, fancy sounding official titles, pomp and grandiosity of ceremonies, etc. It all seems calculated to give the theatrical impression of being more than superhuman.  It no wonder that despite centuries of so called leadership, human beings everywhere are still grappling to evolve into "enlightened" beings ! On the contrary, historical events globally actually seems to suggest that we have regressed into primitiveness.

Every single political leader promisingly speaks of bringing society to a better level since time immemorial. They wave the flag of hope and stoke the inherent fears in human nature to gain control and power. The people in turn unfailingly fall prey their game and get duped by the form that they are presented with without even evaluating the substance of what is promised. It seems to escape everyone’s attention that globally, political leadership as we know it has generally failed humankind.   We soothe our irrational senses by looking at the overfed, the rich, and the accumulative society while blinding ourselves to the larger reality of the hungry, homeless, war-stricken, humiliating human conditions in other societies. Selective perception fueled by superficial thinking allows us to live proudly while substantive thinking will expose us for the miserable and ignoble parasites that we collectively really are by choice or through apathy.

Our consumptive culture too is largely dictated by form that is turning us into superficial beings. We look at 'things' rather than the "person".  We measure the success of a person by the things he possesses regardless of how he came to possess them.  To assist us in further evolving into beings who lack substance, we have created the ultimate "form-maker' called 'branding". Hence with branding, instead of developing our inner selves, we are taught to develop our image rather than build character.  The frightening aspect of this "form over substance  virus"  is that we even tend to lose sight of even our own selves  when our "form" that we are busy creating does not match our "substance" that we have neglected. This, I believe is responsible for many depressive tendencies in this so called modern age. 

We seem to be in a hurry to accumulate perishable things to satisfy our perishable lives  such that we are useful to mother earth as manure only when we die. Somehow, we seem to have overlooked  the fact that the nature of form itself is perishable and when perishibility sets in,  disappointments and depressions are in order.

The manner in which we prefer to treat each other is probably dictated more by form rather than substance. We have become comfortable, for example, with the classification of human beings into “races” though in many instances it makes little sense substantively.  By race, we define or group human beings according to certain similarities such as common social settings, language, “culture”, dietary habits and so on. However, once so classified we lose our flexibility in labeling a person other than the “race box” into which we have put his fathers into.  For example, a person is still considered Malay even though he has lost most of the characteristics that initially classified him into that box. Likewise, an English is forever English even though he may have acquired most of the characteristics that would describe a Malay.   Again these are results of lack of substantive thinking.

Lack of substantive thinking, for instance prevents people from perceiving each other in terms of blood groups instead of “racial groups” though in many instances, blood groupings seem to make scientific and biological sense. What use for example, is a Chinese with blood group AB to a Chinese of blood group O in a life threatening situation where immediate blood transfusion is needed?  When you start thinking substantively, you will realize that there are several ways of classifying human beings for various purposes. However, politics seem to prefer only one sort of classification - that of “race” and society whose main concern is that of form, readily accepts this.

Even in our everyday communications, form seems to take precedence over substance. We have invented all sorts of pleasantries that represent merely form and totally lack substance. For example, we ask simple questions that we do not really mean like “How are you?” and expect nothing more than “I am fine” response.   It will be a shocking day for us if the person responds by sharing all the problems he is actually facing for the day! 

 Peace !

Credibility of politicians at all time low???

I have been meeting various people for the past 2 months – politicians, non-politicians, people in power, and those very ordinary ones who just want to go on with their iives. The “scary” comments are from students and those between the ages of 19 to 27.

The general impression I got is this – they do not trust the politicians all round.  What this means is that they do not seem to have the confidence in ANY of the political parties that is currently available.  The conversation sometimes turned to “who is less bad than the other”. IN other words, lesser evil of the evil ones present.  

This is clearly a national credibility crisis among political leadership in our country. 

Probably this ex[lains why new poltical parties are being formed. This may also explain the birth of MCLM. 

If truly this is the general perception of the voters (and the young voters are going to count), then it is highly possible that we may have a hung parliament for the first time in Malaysian history.

Are we prepared for this?

Peace !

Muslims cannot celebrate Chinese New Year with others ???

This 8 year old Muslim boy studies at a Chinese school. He came home one day and told his father “Papa, did you know that Muslims should not celebrate Chinese New Year?”

His father asked. “Who said that?”

He replied, “My Ustazah in school”.

The father explained to him that a Muslim can celebrate Chinese New Year with their Chinese friends. That Chinese New Year is not a religious festival but it signifies the start of the Chinese calendar.  The father told him that he will go and speak to the Ustazah not to say these things.

“But Papa, don’t scold her. She is a nice lady”. His father assured him that he won’t scold the Ustazah.

The father then went to school and the following transpired:

Father (F) : “ Salam Ustazah. Saya ayah A. Ada perkara nak bincang sikit”.

Ustazah (U) : “Mualaikum salam. Sila masuk”.

F: “ Anak saya balik dari sekolah tadi, dia kata orang Islam tidak boleh raikan Hari Raya Cina”. 

U: “Betul lah tu. Saya yang cakap. Kalau ikut kan tak boleh?”

F: “ Maafkan saya Ustazah. Hari Raya Cina tak ada kena mengena dengan agama. Ia merupakan permulaan calendar ciptaan orang Cina berdasarkan pengiraan perjalanan matahari dan bulan. Sepertimana juga kita ada calendar Hijrah, calander Gregorian yang 2011 ni, dan macam2 calaneder lagi. Semua ni menjelmakan rahmah dan kebesaran Allah yang bagi ilmu pada kita untuk mengira masa melalui macam-macam cara”.

U: “Tapi Hari Raya Cina kan untuk CIna. Makanan dia orang tu kan tak halal?”

F: “ Puan, di Cina ada lebih daripada 30 juta orang Islam melebihi kita yang Melayu disini. Pokoknya ialah bukan Cina atau bukan Cina tapi Muslim atau tidak. Bukan semua Cina bukan Muslim”. 

U: “Maksud saya, kalau kita pergi rayakan di rumah orang CIna, kan makanan dia orang tak halal?”

F: “Kita jangan lah makan makanan yang tak halal kalau ada. Kalau kita dijemput, tentu mereka sediakan makanan halal. Kalau mereka tak sediakan, apa salahnya kalau kita pergi tapi tak makan? Kalau was was pun, tolak cara sopan. Tujuan kita kan nak rapatkan siratul rahim dan berkongsi rahmah yang Allah bagi pada kita? Kita orang Islam berupaya hidup dengan segala makhluk Allah secara aman.”

U: “ Ye tak ye juga. Mungkin saya tersilap cakap sebab saya risau pasal makanan. Mungkin tak kena saya cakap macam tu pada budak-budak”.

F: “Saya tak salahkan Puan. Pemikiran kita jadi sebegini kerana system pendidikan kita serta pergaulan kita yang memprejudiskan minda kita. Macam isteri saya juga orang Cina tapi semua keluarga dia adalah vegetarian.  Sampai ada coklat yang punyai gelatin pun dia orang tak makan.  Lagi risau dia orang tentang perkara tu daripada kita”.

The father and the Ustazah greeted each other and parted as friends as they discussed the possibility of her teaching his son Arabic in his home.

I do not blame the Ustazah. She is a kind and good lady but the product of an education system that has been segregationist. There are of course a host of other reasons why such things happen – mostly due to the kind of Islam that is permitted to grow in our country for the past 20 years by politicians, religious people and the institutions.

Peace !

The Water Wars - the next War for Mankind???

I have been thinking about this for a long time. Of course just 40 years ago, if you were to say you were going to sell water, everyone in Malaysia will think you are mad. Why would anyone want to buy a bottle of water when they can get clean water off the tap or just from a stream somewhere? That was how water was taken for granted before we became "civilized" and "developed".  In today's Malaysia, water is no longer safe to be drunk straight from the tap. (I suspect this is the same in most parts of the developed world).

Have you ever wondered why the water from the tap suddenly seemed to be dirty with the advent of water filters being sold by private companies? Or was it just a coincidence? The mineral water industry has grown and become big - all over the world.

We all know that life cannot exist without water. He who controls water, controls life. In this sense therefore water is a security and essential industry in any country.

Have you ever been concerned with the commercialization and privatization of this very vital component of life? Who controls it here or in the world? Did you know that billions of people in the world do not have access to water?



The issue with water is very complex, and has ironic issues. If human beings were to assimilate into their environment naturally, the it is possible that natural "clean" water may be more readily available. However, humans like to "develop", re-engineer the geography of the nature and hence, "artificial" water sources need to be developed. As I said, there are various complex issues concerning water today.

In 1995, Ismail Serageldin, the Vice-President of the World Bank predicted about the future of world wars saying: "If the wars of this century were fought over oil, the wars of the next century will be fought over water". Obviously, the war strategists and capitalists will sniff out this future much earlier than the citizens of the world living in their comfort zones (Never mind Malaysians!).

Water is a human right. Why is it that we do not hear clearly of International Treaties, laws and seminars on this issue? I am sure there are politics involved in this issue too - maybe someone wants to research this and enlighten us? The following is interesting (and frightening reading):


"We are on the verge of a water crisis.

By 2025, more than half of the nations in the world will face freshwater stress or shortages and, by 2050, as much as 75 percent of the world’s population could face freshwater scarcity. International Alert has identified 46 countries, home to 2.7 billion people, where climate change and water-related crises create a high risk of violent conflict. A further 56 countries, representing another 1.2 billion people, are at high risk of political instability. That’s more than half the world.

And we are becoming a much thirstier world. Growing populations spur demand for more industries and farmland, draining water resources more quickly than ever. Climate change is expected to exacerbate the problem as it alters rainfall patterns. And, unlike carbon reduction, there is no alternative, no substitute to promote".



I am getting nervous and that makes me thirsty...gonna grab and appreciate my mineral water.

Peace !