Changes

Bodily functions

2009-12-10T23:19:00.005+08:00

If you could not bear any children, would you steal little kids to pass them off as your own? That is what one Indian woman actually did in New Delhi. Because she was barren, she kidnapped baby boys to please her husband and in-laws. There is only one thing that could have driven her to do such a thing: extreme fear of abuse for "failing" her womanly function.

This is just a microcosm of the effects of patriarchy. Why should a woman be judged solely on her ability to reproduce, or worse, be abused for the lack of such an ability? It would be a bit like beating up a right-hander for not being able to write with her left hand. Are men judged at their ability to produce a harvest of healthy sperm? While erectile dysfunction can cause emotional distress and shame, rarely has it caused a fear of physical and mental abuse from others. In society's eyes, he is still a man, albeit with sexual problems.

But, a woman's core identity as a female, a woman, is ripped out from her just because she cannot bear children. This is more than shame; this strikes so deep into her spirit that she is willing to kidnap other children to hide this "shameful" part of her. Who has ripped out this woman's identity that she has to go to such lengths?

It is all of us, really. The condescending remarks that we make about a couple who doesn't have children, the pressure that parents or in-laws put on women with unending questions like "When are you going to have children?", the constant portrayal of mothers feeding happy children in cereal advertisements, the assumption that we place on people who get married that they're going to have kids or else they're just plain weird etc. If you get married, you must have kids. If not, stay single.

It's about time that women are judged for their characters and what they can do, not on their bodily functions.

Homosexuality and the church

2009-11-30T22:28:00.006+08:00

My youth pastor shared a somewhat controversial topic in service last Sunday - she talked about homosexuality. Of course, being the flamboyant pastor that she is, she got a bunch of youngsters on the spot to act out a scene from Genesis 19, where all the men of Sodom and Gomorrah demanded Lot to send out his two male visitors (who were actually angels) to have sex with them. Instead, Lot offered his virgin daughters to satisfy them. Fortunately, the men rejected the daughters and insisted on the male visitors.

Personally, I think offering your own daughters to be gang-raped is far more evil than consensual homosexual relationships. Although the pastor said that homosexuality is clearly a sin according to the Bible, she reminded us to be open-hearted but not open-minded. A gay man had told her that she needed to be open-minded as we live in a modern world. Well, homosexuality has been around and was acceptable even during ancient Greek times. But, there is a distinction between loving people unconditionally as Christ did and standing firm by your convictions. She said that we need to be open-hearted in accepting all gay people into the church, but we should not be open-minded in the sense of agreeing with everything people do without question.

After that, she called me to come up and offer an alternative view (she likes calling me up without warning). So, I just said that there are genetic factors involved in homosexuality. Although I believe that homosexuality is a sin, churches should not condemn or persecute them. All of us are sinners; cheating on your partner or even looking at someone else lustfully is sin. We aren't any better than gay people, so there's no need to give a holier-than-thou attitude. Instead of forcing people to change, we should demonstrate Christ's love to them first. Once they have accepted Christ, the Holy Spirit will convict them.

The church is meant to reflect Christ's love and acceptance to all people; Jesus Christ was a revolutionary in His time. He broke all social conventions and went against the sexist and racist Pharisees by reaching out to the poor, prostitutes, tax collectors, Samaritans, thieves etc. He never condemned anyone, although He was firm in identifying their sin and leading them to repentance.

By condemning sex workers, beggars or gay people in the church, we are no better than the hypocritical Pharisees. All of us are sinners saved by grace. My pastor shared a story where she brought a beggar to church after cleaning her up. The beggar woman did not smell although it was plain to see that she was a beggar. Everyone avoided her; no one welcomed her. In fact, one neighboring person even drew her chair away from her. The sex workers that my pastor ministered to said that they would not go to church as they did not feel welcome.

If Jesus Christ, the Son of God, could love the outcasts of society unconditionally, how much more should we show such love being sinners ourselves! It is through our Christ-like love that will draw people to God. God does not desire our sacrifices, but our obedience. And the second commandment that Christ gave us was to love others as ourselves.

Apathetic world leaders on climate change

2009-11-23T20:43:00.005+08:00

It is a grave concern that though more than 60 world leaders are planning to attend the Copenhagen climate summit in December, the two top greenhouse gas producers, China and the United States, have not committed to attending it. China emits 20.7 % of global emissions while US produces 15.5 %. Heck, it may even turn out that no legally binding climate treaty may materialize at Copenhagen, according to the UK government at the Barcelona Climate Change Talks.

Apec leaders also could not, or did not, want to commit to any target to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

If you read what the major world leaders from China, US, India, Japan, Africa have got to say about their obligations towards responding to the impending climate threat, it's obvious that they're pushing the ball to the other. The developing nations insist that the rich nations should take primary responsibility in reducing their greenhouse gas emissions, while the rich nations say that the poorer nations should slow down emissions growth.

So, at the end of the day, it appears likely that the world leaders will just enjoy a cuppa, make brainless chatter, and emptier promises, then go back to their countries chopping more trees down for the sake of profit and power. And each will be solely justified in their thoughts because it is always the other (whether the richer or the poorer nations) who should be doing something, not them. Come the day when destruction really comes from a dying, abused earth, all the world leaders will still be pushing the buck over who should save the world. Or perhaps, they would just fight dirty to save themselves first.

The thing with climate change is that its effects are slow, though destructive. An average person eating breakfast at a mamak, staring at a computer screen all day, and battling the evening traffic back home, will not feel the effects of climate change. It's not the same as someone slapping you across the face. You feel the overwhelming pain immediately.

So, most people know in the backs of their minds that the earth is dying, but because they can't see it, they don't feel the urge to do anything about it. Countless creative design posters about environmental change will hardly change anyone's minds or lead to long-lasting actions, because humans forget important things so easily but remember trivial things like their spa visit this weekend. Instead of volunteering at a soup kitchen, I'd like to say "go recycle your waste or keep a compost bin in the garden".

Likewise, the world leaders don't feel the urge to do anything about climate change because they just don't feel it. They see that there is a global food crisis, partially caused by climate change, and sea water levels increasing, but they don't feel it. Perhaps when flood waters submerge the White House or reduce the Great Wall of China to rubble, perhaps then they will do something.

Futile exercise to help maids

2009-11-22T13:55:00.006+08:00

Apparently, the Maid Police will be coming round in less than 10 days to conduct "friendly" visits at random homes and see if the Indonesian maids look fine and dandy, or whether they wear an "abused" look and sport bruises and burns all over their bodies. The way I imagine how such a visit will actually operate is like this:

Officer: Selamat pagi, puan. Saya pegawai Boh-Doh dari Jabatan Sumber Manusia. Boleh masuk sebentar tak? Hanya nak tengok kalau orang gaji puan okey ke tak okey.

Abusive employer (smiling): Boleh boleh! Sila masuk! Boleh minum teh, borak sikit. Saya memang tak buat apa-apa kat orang gaji saya. Boleh tanya dia sendiri! (shouts to maid) OI MARMI!!! Cepat buat teh untuk pegawai ini! Jangan jadi malas, nanti saya hentam kau betul-betul! (turns back to Officer) Maaf ya. Kadang-kadang, kena buat marah. Kalau tak, dia memang tak dengar. Tapi, jangan risau. Saya marah sikit saja! Tak pernah saya pukul dia sekali pun!

Maid comes in trembling with a tray of drinks. No obvious marks on her body. Tries to catches the eye of the Officer, but backs down when her employer glances at her menacingly.

Officer: Wah, teh ni bagus, memang kau! Marmi, semua okey tak? Puan engkau ada pukul you tak? Saya pun tak nampak apa-apa kat badan you. Tapi, nampak kecil saja. Puan tak bagi you makan ke? (laughs)

Maid: Dia tak pukul saya. Dia ada bagi saya makan lah.

Officer: Gaji, dia beri tak?

Maid: Puan memang bagi gaji.

Officer: Okey bagus! Rumah ni nampak rumah bagus, rumah kaya. Kau pun macam okey saja. Jangan jadi malas ya? Kalau malas, nanti puan marah kau. Kerja rajin-rajin! Kalau ada apa-apa masalah, ambil paspot, pergi lapor polis. Jangan panggil kita - kita tak ada nombor hotline. Jangan tak ambil paspot, nanti polis tangkap kau kata kau pendatang haram! So, lebih baik, tinggal sini, jadi rajin, dan semua akan jadi okey. Bye!

Of course, if the maid really does sport bruises, it's very probable for the employers to slip some money to the officer to make his teh tarik sweeter. With Malaysia slipping down 9 ranks to the 56th spot in the Transparency International’s 2009 Corruption Perception Index (CPI), this would not be surprising at all. How on earth could rational adults think of such preposterous ideas to eradicate maid abuse in this country?

If indeed abuse was going on, would employers even open their doors to the visiting officer? Can employers be prosecuted for refusing to allow the officers entry? Most likely not. After all, it's not as if they have a warrant to search the house. And even if the officers were allowed to enter the home, did they really think that they could spot maids who look abused? During the visitation period, abusive employers would just dress their maids in long-sleeved clothing, warn them that more torture would await them should they open their mouths, and just wait for the Human Resources Ministry to lose steam and stop the exercise.

What assurance does a maid have that she will be safe should she complain to the visiting officer? Can the officer guarantee her future employment in a safe atmosphere? That her passport will be returned to her? That she will not be deported back to her country of origin? I doubt if the Human Resources Ministry can guarantee these things. Instead of just looking at physical abuse, the Human Resources Ministry should also consider other types of abuse and human rights violations, like sexual abuse, being forced to work without even one off day a week, withholding of passports etc. Such abuses are rampant; though they may not appear as shocking as severe physical abuse and torture, it is those very practices that render maids powerless and keep them mired in hopeless positions.

While the average Malaysian employer may not physically or sexually abuse their maids, not giving them any day off or withholding their passports are common. What is the Human Resources Ministry doing about such human rights violations? And can they ensure that all abused maids have another avenue to seek help, should the officers miss visiting their employers?

Babies and sexuality

2009-11-19T21:10:00.010+08:00

It's time to revive this blog from hibernation! My boyfriend and I have been together for more than two years now. We're pretty serious about getting married, and of course, the issue of children popped up. I'm not a big fan of children, and neither is he. So, for now, we're both content on not having children when we enter marriage, at least for the first five years.

However, I know a friend whose husband wanted a child, but she was rather reluctant in having it. In the end though, I found her tired and harried, holding a noisy little baby with a cute nose and a wide open mouth. Now, why is it that women somehow seem to have less say and authority over matters that concern their bodies? Children are tied, literally and metaphorically, to a woman's body and sexuality.

For nine months, an expectant woman has to change her lifestyle, working, eating, and sexual habits to accommodate the growing child. Her body and emotions also undergo major transformations. After the most intense unimaginable pain of giving birth, the mother needs to restructure and devote almost her entire life to nursing the baby for the next few years. It is bad enough that a miraculous thing like pregnancy can be used to rob a woman of her job and livelihood, like the Beatrice Fernandez case.

Life doesn't get easier after pregnancy. Women are either expected to give up their career to care for the child, or they are forced to be Superwoman - juggling between nursing a baby, cleaning the house, feeding the hubby, meeting deadlines, clear a mountain of paperwork etc etc. It doesn't help that there is a severe lack of childcare facilities in companies, which could enable women to work and take care of a child at the same time. Giving fathers only a few days of paternity leave, while giving 60 days of maternity leave to mothers only reinforces men's roles as mere onlookers in the act of parenting. This is rather unfortunate as both father and mother ought to have equal participation in parenting; it is criminal to rob a father of his joy in nurturing a child from young, especially when the infant years are crucial for building bonds and fostering trust.

What's a woman to do if she longs to continue her career while having a young child? Most likely, she will end up trying to be a superhero juggling a multitude of things, while her husband is reduced to saying good night to his child after a long day's work, or good morning before he dashes off to beat the morning traffic. It is time for women to stop attempting to be superheros, and for men to have greater opportunities and participation in parenthood, without censure, social or economic punishment.

Women's choices over their bodies, including the decision to bear children or not, should be respected. Physical birth is not necessary to determine the identity of a child; men and women can be parents without bearing children. Likewise, people can bear children but not be parents. It is a couple's mental and emotional commitment that identifies a child as theirs, not the child's physical birth. A woman should not be condemned for choosing to adopt rather than give birth for whatever reasons, or for even not having any children; neither should a couple be censured for choosing to live a married life without children.

Right to speak out

2009-03-15T02:29:00.003+08:00

Slowly but surely, Malaysia is being taken over by subversive, corrupt people who will do anything for a bit of power. First, six people were charged for allegedly insulting the Sultan of Perak. Now, we don't even know the exact contents of their so-called "insults". Perhaps, they were merely questioning certain decisions that the Sultan had made in the Perak debacle.

Is the Sultan infallible? No human being is perfect. To punish people for exercising their democratic right to question their leaders and rulers, is simply oppression. Nobody is above the constitution. To silence the people from speaking out is a gross violation of their basic rights enshrined in the Federal Constitution.

In these times of turmoil, what the people need are wise, just leaders who can bring the country forward, not backward. This country does not need selfish people who will do whatever it takes to protect what little power they have. The last thing that we want are leaders who don't give two hoots about what the people think, and care more about the cars they drive and the places they go to for holidays. We want selfless leaders who only care about the interests of the people - leaders who are willing to sacrifice their ambitions in order to meet the peoples' needs, leaders who are willing to listen to the masses even if they have differing opinions, leaders who have no qualms in humbling themselves to serve first, lead later. It is in service that one learns to lead.

Instead, what do we have? Politicians who prefer to wrestle in mud-slinging, power-grabbing contests, rather than figuring out how to help the people in these times of recession. Politicians who would lock people up for speaking out their minds, rather than encouraging people to exercise their democratic rights.

If it's so easy to fine and jail people for insulting the Sultan, such rules should also be applied to MPs who make sexist remarks. If that happened, most MPs probably would be driving Kancils instead of fancy Toyota Camrys.

Home Minister revoked gazette on Herald

2009-03-01T22:49:00.003+08:00

Honestly, how much further can the government fall into absurd buffoonery? First, the Home Minister says OK to printing the word Allah in Christian publications, as long as there are the words "FOR CHRISTIANITY" on the front covers of such publications.

Now, the Home Minister just rescinded that order, saying that he made a mistake. The Malaysian Islamic Da'wah Foundation urged the government to withdraw permission for the conditional use of the word "Allah" in Christian publications, saying that it would anger Muslims here and around the world. Yeah, that's only if they are as myopic as some Malaysian Muslims.

For Christianity

2009-02-27T23:56:00.002+08:00

The long battle between the Catholic Herald publication and the Home Ministry on the use of the word "Allah" in Christian publications is over, somewhat... Early this year, the Home Minister gazetted a new order stating:

"The printing, publishing, sale, issue, circulation and possession of any document and publication relating to Christianity containing the words 'Allah', 'Kaabah', 'Baitullah' and 'Solat' are prohibited unless on the front cover of the document and publication are written with the words 'FOR CHRISTIANITY'."

And mind you, the words 'FOR CHRISTIANITY' has to be written in Arial type font size 16 in bold. So, if you possess such documents without the words "FOR CHRISTIANITY" on the front cover, you're liable to get arrested under the ISA. The order was issued under Section 22 (1)(c) of the ISA, which allows the minister to restrict publications "calculated or likely to lead to a breach of the peace, or to promote feelings of hostility between different races or classes".

The Home Minister may have allowed Christians to use the word "Allah"; but his order simply reeks of idiocy and paranoia. By splashing a huge label "FOR CHRISTIANITY", does he hope that he will prevent Muslims from touching and perusing such publications? If he did, then he got his grammar all wrong - he should have changed the label to "FOR CHRISTIANS". "FOR CHRISTIANITY" is a phrase that doesn't quite make sense, grammatically. Christianity is a noun referring to a religion. How can a book be for a religion? It can either be for the proponents of that religion, or on that religion. The latter seems more suitable in most cases.

How is having a Malay-language Christian publication a breach of national peace? How can it possibly promote feelings of hostility between different races or classes? Religion is not and should not be equated with race, or ethnicity. There are Chinese Muslims, and there are Malay Christians. How on earth can Muslims be threatened by Christian publications in the Malay language? There is no Bahasa Melayu - there is only Bahasa Malaysia now. It is the national language, which means that it is the language for ALL Malaysians, whether you're an Indian, Chinese or Malay.

The Malays do not hold any special claim to that language. The Muslims do not hold special rights over the word "Allah". Deciding that Christian publications cannot be published in Bahasa Malaysia shows just how scared some quarters that Muslims will fall so easily if they read Malay-language Christian publications. If their faith were the rock-solid truth, why so fearful? Wouldn't it be far more convincing to allow Muslims to read publications of other religions and have their faith strengthened that theirs is indeed the "true" religion?

But, no, the Home Minister apparently doesn't have that much faith. What he has is insecurity, fear and discrimination to other religious groups by violating their freedom to practice religion as they see fit, which is enshrined in Article 11 of the Federal Constitution.

Moral strait jackets

2009-02-17T21:34:00.002+08:00

When you think that people can't get any more despicable, they do. Already, we have to by-elections coming up, and now it looks like we may have a third. Pakatan Rakyat assemblyperson, Elizabeth Wong, just sent in her resignation after nude pictures of her were circulated. According to her, the nude pictures had been taken without her permission, while she was asleep.

Her resignation has not yet been accepted by PKR leaders, and there are lots of people who are willing to support her through this crisis. However, there are also some who had demanded her resignation, such as Datuk Seri Dr Mohd Khir Toyo. He said:

“This is a moral issue and Malaysians cannot accept leaders with moral issues and so she must vacate her State Assembly seat."

Another "gem" was spoken by Kuala Kubu Baru MCA assemblyman Wong Koon Mun, who said:

"And if it’s her boyfriend as rumoured, it is morally wrong for a single woman to allow a man access to her room."

What utter hypocrisy! Rather than focus on the wickedness of the crimes committed by the perpetrators, they choose to villify the victim by attacking her moral character. This is no different than blaming a rape victim when she is raped. Even if a rape victim does sex work for a living, that does not lessen the fault of the perpetrator in any way.

In the same manner, although Elizabeth Wong may have had sexual relations as a single woman, that should have no bearing whatsoever on the crime that has been done against her - a gross violation of her privacy. It is an abuse of a woman's body and her sexuality; it speaks of the double standards practiced in society where it is OK for men to have pre-marital sex and gain a rank up the social ladder. But for women who engage in the same practices, they are labeled sluts.

Would the same virulent moral accusations be thrown at Elizabeth Wong if she had been a man? Most probably not. In fact, such pictures would probably not have been taken at all as they would not have caused half the furore they're causing now. So, why is it that women's bodies are so easily exploited? Enough with placing women in moral straitjackets of so-called purity and chastity while men are not held accountable for the same standards.

Two by-elections coming up

2009-02-09T21:28:00.003+08:00

A by-election is coming up in turbulent Perak. The Bukit Gantang Member of Parliament from PAS, Roslan Shaharum, just died of a heart attack. As if Perak isn't stormy enough what with two Mentris Besar and threats to sue the Sultan. There will also be another by-election in Kedah as the Bukit Selambau assemblyman V. Arumugam of PKR quit his seat. Pakatan Rakyat has won the past two by-elections - Permatang Pauh and the recent Kuala Terengganu.

Citizens of Perak who are dissatisfied and disgusted at the way their government was switched without their mandate will have the chance to voice their dissatisfactions through the by-election. That will be the test of BN. Even if the by-election cannot change the now BN-led state government, at least the guilty parties will know that the people are wholly against them. BN may be able to snatch power by maneuvering the law, but they should know that they cannot gain the rakyat's support through such dirty strategems.

Frankly, I'm just too disgusted by the corruption that is tainting this country. Instead of harping on about the decadent morals of today's youth, the government should take a good deep look at their politicians. How many politicians can actually stand up with integrity? Only a handful. If we do not even have good leaders to emulate, how can we hope to build ethical leaders full of integrity from today's youth?

Will the average teenager say yes to RM 15 million in a hypothetical situation to defect? That question was once asked to my teenage sibling, who paused for a moment, then said "Yes." Of course, he said it was a joke. But then, if push comes to shove, maybe it wouldn't be a joke. So, we'll either get a generation of corrupt youth, or youth who are so disgusted with the way this nation is run that they migrate.

To all politicians: Clean up your act.

Say "No" to abolishing democracy

2009-02-05T22:33:00.004+08:00

A new level of rottenness has just arose in Malaysia. Three MPs defected from PKR to being Independents who support BN. The Sultan of Perak has just announced that there will be no dissolution of the state assembly, and told the PR exco to step down. This is the height of corruption and a flagrant violation of democracy.

The people did not vote BN to rule Perak. They voted for Pakatan. Instead, the powers-that-be aided by a few people willing to sell their souls for money robbed the choice of government from the rakyat. This is not a light matter. Each and every single citizen of Malaysia should be furious that their voices have been blatantly ignored!

If a government can be formed solely on defections, what does that say of democracy? These governments are founded on corruption, most likely by taxpayers' money going into the dirty hands of soulless people without a shred of integrity. So much for Pak Lah's efforts in eradicating corruption before he is to leave office. He is a hypocrite by saying "They should accept it just as we had accepted results of the general election" to Pakatan Rakyat. In the general elections, the people voted for Pakatan to rule them because BN was corrupt to the core! In Perak, the people did not vote for BN; they voted for Pakatan and yet their votes were put aside for the sake of a few defections. How dare Pak Lah compare the two when the former is an exercise of democracy while the latter is a play of corruption?

This is just the first domino to fall. Instead of improving themselves, eating humble pie, and serving the people, BN chooses to use corruption to gain the power they lost. We as the rakyat cannot accept this at all. If there was ever a time to speak up, now is the time. If we accept this, we are saying "Yes" to future defections, "Yes" to corruption, and "Yes" to abolishing democracy.

Choose to say "NO".

Political frogs - shot or kissed?

2009-02-03T22:31:00.006+08:00

Political frogs - to be shot darts at or to be kissed? Just last week, Bota assemblyman Datuk Nasarudin Hashim left Umno to join PKR. He did not resign as MP or call for a by-election. Now, the latest brouhaha is on Behrang assemblyman Jamaluddin Mohd Radzi, who just quit PKR and became an Independent. He is also insistent on staying as MP and not calling for a by-election. The Election Commission has also made the same ruling.

There are some who say that such political frogs should be punished as they are betraying the mandate of the rakyat who voted them under their party flag. Hence, by-elections should be called to see if those people will still vote them in given that they are now representing another party.

The other side of the coin is that our Federal Constitution guarantees freedom of association (Article 10, 1c). In the Dewan Undangan Negeri Kelantan v. Nordin Salleh [1992] 1 MLJ 697 case, the Supreme Court had held that Article XXX1A of Part I of the Constitution of the State of Kelantan was unconstitutional as it contradicted Article (10)(1)(c) of the Federal Constitution. In other words, political representatives cannot be punished by taking away their seat if they were to switch political parties as they are entitled to the freedom of association.

So, is it ethical to continue your tenure as MP despite switching your political allegiance? It is not so easy to give a quick answer "Yes" or "No". There are a few flaws in each argument. In the former argument, the flaw lies in the main premise "The people voted them in based on the political party they represent". If indeed people vote MPs in solely because of the political party they represent, then yes, it is unethical and just plain cheating if you get in on your party ticket, but switch parties as soon as it is convenient.

But, that premise could very well be false. Not all MPs are voted in just because of the party they represent; it is highly likely that some MPs were voted because of who they are, irrespective of which party they belong to. If that premise is false, then the argument that it is unethical to switch parties without calling for a by-election, is severely weakened.

It is not so easy to say "Oh, let's just call a by-election anyway to find out whether you were really voted because of who you are, or because of the party you represent. If it is the former, then you have nothing to worry about."

The fact is that one really does have something to worry about if a by-election takes place. Given the corrupt nature of Malaysian elections with phantom voters and all, it is just too easy to manipulate the system to your advantage. So, you could very well "lose" the election even though majority of the people vote for you.

In the second argument, freedom of association seems to be defined as being able to make your own associations without being punished (ie: losing your seat) for it. Personally, I think that these definitions are too narrow. Freedom of association, like freedom of speech, should come with certain boundaries.

While one should be able to voice her thoughts on how the ISA is unconstitutional, or that "sexy" concerts are the bane of Malaysian morality, one should not be allowed to articulate hatred or advocate the genocide of a racial group. In the same way, while one may have the freedom to join a certain religious group or political party, one should not be allowed to use that freedom in contexts which jeopardizes democratic processes.

In Perak, where currently Pakatan Rakyat holds 31 seats as compared to BN's 27, crossing over while still keeping your seat could easily change the ruling government. Democracy is then violated because the people did not vote BN to be the government of Perak. Whether they happened to vote for their favorite politicians (irrespective of party) or for the parties the politicans represented is irrelevant. The point is, because of the votes of the majority, Pakatan became the ruling government of Perak. To change that without gaining the approval of the rakyat is a violation of democracy.

So, in conclusion, I would say that crossing over without resigning and holding by-elections is unethical regardless of the "goodness" of the end in mind.

Whose responsibility is it for sex?

2009-01-31T22:33:00.004+08:00

Why is it that the focus is primarily on girls every time pre-marital sex or rape cases are discussed in newspapers? This article about the rise of underage sex and rape cases in Singapore mentions a survey of girls below the age of 16 having sex. There is apparently a jump in such cases that police want to make it a priority to reduce the number of girls having underaged sex.

Nothing is said about boys - be it statistics or measures related to them. Why the focus on girls? Is it acceptable for boys to have sex but not girls?

Girls need to "protect" their virginity and be the gatekeepers while boys can try to batter down the gate either through sweet words. That seems to be the subtle message that the authorities (school, police, parents) are sending to girls and boys. The responsibility of sex is placed on girls' shoulders. Hence, if teen pregnancies or abortions occur, the blame automatically falls on girls.

Don't think that only Singaporean teenagers are raunchy; Malaysians have their own fair share of wild sexual adventures, like a teenage girl having threesomes and other girls admitting that they love sex. Again, here, the subjects are females. What's worse is that the headlines scream Tudung-clad teens who are hooked on sex. As if the sole focus on girls isn't enough, the newspaper has to mention that they're tudung-clad too. What is the article trying to imply? That women or girls who wear the tudung are frigids and are not supposed to love sex? Expand the implications and you can see the subtle equation of wearing the tudung to holiness. Wearing a tudung doesn't make a person any more holy than wearing a labcoat makes you a doctor.

If people think that youth shouldn't have under-aged or pre-marital sex, then focus on boys as much as girls. Enough with perceiving girls as symbols of morality. It is a very unjust perception and only leads to gender discrimination.

Don't tell your daughter to say "No" to sex. Tell your son to not even ask for sex.

If you read of girl aborting or abandoning her baby, don't condemn her. Ask "Where was the father?"

When a girl gets pregnant, don't kick her out of school. Make her sex partner take equal responsibility for the child - either through caring for the child or giving her maintenance.

When a boy sleeps around, don't call him a stud. When a girl sleeps around, don't call her a slut.

Rebuilding Malaysia

2009-01-28T19:22:00.006+08:00

While millions of Chinese in Malaysia are celebrating family ties amidst good food, mandarin oranges and red ang pows, an Indian family mourns the untimely death of a man in police custody. Kugan was buried today at Puchong, rather than the traditional Indian custom of cremation.

There were a few demonstrators at the UMMC mortuary shouting "Polis pembunuh! (police murderers)"

The deputy IGP tells us to wait for the second post-mortem report. In the mean time, there have been calls for an independent probe into Kugan's death. After all, it is utterly fallacious to have police investigate crimes allegedly done by the police. Even MIC seem very passionate in digging for the truth, with Samy Vellu commenting that Kugan's death had tarnished BN's name. Yet, would they have been equally passionate if it had been a Chinese, or a Malay who had died?

Justice needs to be seen to be done. If the Government brushes this under the carpet, they should all be stripped from their posts and sent to the streets to beg. A proper independent investigation should be conducted so that the ones responsible for Kugan's death will answer for their crimes. If Pak Lah is really serious about wiping out corruption before he leaves, then this is his chance to take the straight but narrow path. Piss off the top officials and expose the festering wound in the police force, so that justice is served.

Is Pak Lah up to the challenge? If he isn't, then it is up to the rakyat to ensure that justice is served. This is not an Indian issue. It is a basic human rights issue. Someone was murdered during police custody. We should not close a blind eye to this incident just because we are not of the same ethnicity and background, or just because we are not his family. This may never happen to us. The implications of Kugan's case are tremendous; if indeed the police were responsible for his death, it only reveals how much work we have to do to clean up this country.

If Obama can speak of rebuilding America, let us begin to rebuild Malaysia as well - starting with her police force. After all, the police are the law enforcers, the guardians of the nation. If we cannot trust them to safeguard our nation, we're screwed.

Do we really want transparency?

2009-01-24T23:19:00.004+08:00

On his first day, President Obama cut salaries of the executives in the White House, and took measures to increase government transparency. Will Malaysia's Government take such measures? So far, it looks like our BN-led federal government is not willing to do so. Only Pakatan Rakyat state governments of Selangor and Penang have announced that they want to introduce Freedom of Information laws.

But then again, not everyone in Pakatan Rakyat are committed to transparency. Just take a look at the Selangor state assembly Speaker Teng Chang Khim, who refused to fulfill Klang MP Charles Santiago's demand to make public the concession agreement between the Klang Municipal Council (MPK) and the developer of the new Klang Sentral Terminal. Instead, he accused Santiago of being "bought" by BN.

So, it's not only BN who has a problem with transparency. As the rakyat, we deserve to know matters which concern and impact us. Now, the latest case is on the death of car theft suspect A Kugan while in police custody, which has just been classified as murder. Torture by police happens; a Malaysian political activist during Anwar's time actually managed to win RM 2.5 million from the government in damages, who allegedly had tortured him during detention under ISA.

When we give people the mandate to govern us, we expect them to serve us. If they do not fulfill their due responsibility, but instead abuse the power that we have bestowed upon them, it is high time that we withdraw the power that we have given them. We deserve to be ruled with transparency, justice and equality - nothing less. We Malaysians have not been diligent enough to demand our rights for such values. Hence, is it surprising that corruption has been allowed to flourish like a plague?

If we had been stricter with our demands, and less concerned about money than values, the government would not dare to make such flagrant abuse of power as they do now. The government reflects the people.

We are the people, and we hold the power to make or break governments. Problem is - do we really want to exercise that power for a fairer, utopian society?

City of Flesh: Urban Odysseys book launch

2009-01-22T11:46:00.005+08:00

Besides writing on social issues and political matters, I absolutely LOVE writing fictional pieces as well. My story City of Flesh will be published in an anthology of stories called Urban Odysseys! The book is published by MPH and will be officially launched on February 10, 2009, retailing at RM 35.90.

So, buy a copy and check out my story! :-) It's published under the pseudonym RK Boo.

If you buy a copy, I will give you an autograph. ;-) I thank God for His uncountable blessings! Hopefully, this will help kick off my novel project, which I have been procrastinating. My ultimate dream is to publish a novel (that millions of people will buy, of course!). Before I can sell a million copies, I need to write it first though.

City of Flesh is actually my third piece in print. I have written two pieces (a short story and a poem) under the pseudonym RK Boo in a book called Young Women Speak Out, published by the All Women's Action Society (AWAM). You can check out the book at all MPH bookstores.

I'm especially proud of my story City of Flesh as it was selected from a pool of stories that MPH had to choose for the anthology. So, I suppose there's something worthwhile about my writing after all, and that I'm not just a vain, mediocre writer. :-) So yes, buy the book Urban Odysseys!

The first black president of America

2009-01-21T09:04:00.004+08:00

A new day for America, and the rest of the world, has dawned. Barack Obama is now the first black president of America. He is not just a breath of hope (next to Bush, anyone would look good); but he is a symbol of America's victory against institutionalized racism that has long dominated American history. America has come a long way since the days when people were systematically segregated, discriminated and lynched because of the color of their skin. America has risen from the depths of oppression to the heights of hope and equality.

Having a black President of course doesn't mean that racism is entirely eradicated from American society. However, the first step to winning that battle began when Americans voted for a black person to lead their nation.

Obama's inaugural speech was full of hope in the midst of a world sinking into depression. He spoke of remaking America and ushering in a new era of peace. He even addressed the Muslim world, pledging to new forward, as well as promising to feed poor nations. These are promises that resonate of hope in a dark world. The question is - will Obama deliver? Will he make difficult choices that may create enemies? Will he resist the temptation to make quick fix-its and yield to wealth and corruption? Will he be single-minded and strong enough in achieving the ideals that he has promised Americans (which will impact the rest of the world) in the midst of relentless criticism?

Bush left him an America that is riddled with debt, entangled with the wars of other nations, and the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. Millions of America are hoping that he will be Superman and make all these problems disappear. If he doesn't deliver (although it may not be due to a question of will or ability, but to uncontrollable circumstances), people may attribute his failure to his skin color. All his missteps will be scrutinized and consciously or unconsciously, people will factor in his skin color. Thus, Obama bears the burden of representing his race in his mission to save America, whether he likes it or not.

Human shields

2009-01-19T22:31:00.003+08:00

Finally, there is a ceasefire in Gaza. Fragile, it may be, but at least the violence has stopped. Almost every newspaper I read, whether it is newspapers in Malaysia like The Star, NST, The Sun, thenutgraph; or international newspapers like BBC, International Herald Tribune, Al-Jazeera or Washington Post condemn Israel. There is barely a whisper of accusation against Hamas. I am not excusing Israel's actions against the Palestinian civilians. However, in some cases, the Israelis were truly caught in a Catch-22 situation.

Hamas used women and children as human shields and placed their military operations in civilian centers like hospitals, while continuing to fire rockets at Israel. Since 2005, Hamas has been firing rockets at Israel, and has clearly stated that it does not recognize Israel as a state. That statement itself is a threat to annihilate the state of Israel!

It is so easy for the media to dehumanize Israel. Show only one side of the story, display pictures of maimed children and crying mothers, blast the overwhelmingly disproportionate Palestinian death statistics in red. Becauase of such emotional propaganda, it takes double the effort to critically question such images, numbers and words - not that they are a lie, but that they hide the truth.

There are always two sides to a story; and being objective does not mean contributing a single line in a 500-word story to mention Israeli casualties. It really means to put yourself in the shoes of an Israeli, look at the video camera through her eyes, see the sufferings and deaths of Israelis, hear the frightened whimpers of children as rockets fly towards them, smell the fear of the people, never knowing whether this woman or that man carries bombs beneath their dress, and feel both angry and helpless at the fact that an enemy wants to destroy your existence literally, philosophically and historically.

Not so easy to categorize the way into black and white, is it?

PAS wins KT!

2009-01-18T00:07:00.002+08:00

Another blow is dealt to the once-mighty Barisan Nasional! At the Kuala Terengganu by-election, PAS candidate Mohd Abdul Wahid Endut defeated Barisan Datuk Wan Ahmad Farid Wan Salleh by an unexpected 2,631 votes! About 77.7 % had come out to vote. At the March 8 general elections last year, BN narrowly defeated PAS only by a margin of 628 votes.

The Opposition victory occurred despite the brouhaha over the hudud law issue that was played up into a storm by the mainstream media, in an effort to sway the non-Muslim voters over to BN. Too bad it didn't work. The people are far more intelligent than to fall for cheap stratagems by BN. Slowly, the chinks are spreading across BN's armor. If BN is not careful, they may find themselves out of power in the next election.

This recent defeat only shows how much credibility BN has lost among Malaysians, irrespective of race. As if, their humiliating loss in the March 8 elections was not enough to humble them into serving the people, rather than lording over us; they continued to be arrogant and did nothing to pacify the rakyat. So, the rakyat punished them for their arrogance and robbed them of another seat in the parliament. The power of the masses should never be under-estimated.

You reap what you sow. BN sowed discord, apathy, nepotism, corruption, injustice. They reaped defeat, and lost their mandate to rule the people.

Sexist MPs

2009-01-17T00:14:00.004+08:00

Why is it that it is only now that Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz is issuing a stern warning to sexist MPs? Must it take a memorandum by Wanita MCA before the government is spurred into any action? Now, they are saying that they want to take "stern" action against such offenders.

In fact, Nazri even promised to prioritise Wanita MCA's recommendation to amend the Parliament Standing Orders to combat sexist remarks and behavior. A few women NGOs (The Joint Action Group for Gender Equality) had made that very same call less than a year ago in their Kotakan Kata campaign to eradicate sexism in Parliament. Yet, were they heeded? A friend of mine in one of the NGOs had said that upon meeting Nazri, he just told them to have tea with Datuk Seri Abdullah Badawi's wife! And late last year, even Pasir Salak MP Datuk Tajuddin Abdul Rahman, who had made sexist and racist remarks, was let off after making an apology.

If the Government fulfills its promises and imposes severe punishment on sexist MPs, well and good. If not, well, it's just another day in the House of Deceit. Funny how Nazri can suddenly become so serious about the sexism issue, just around the corner of the Kuala Terengganu by-election. Coincidence? You decide.

In any case, if the proposed actions on sexism in Parliament don't take place, women and men of Malaysia should stand up, hold some placards and express their discontent in vociferous calls. All it takes is a pinch of passion and a dab of courage to stand up against injustice. Men, you should care about sexism too - just imagine those sexist remarks being made to your mother, sister, best friend, lover etc. At the current state, BN is walking on eggshells. Even 10,000 people voicing out in unison against sexism should be enough to scare them into action.

"Common" sense is very rare in politicians

2009-01-14T23:30:00.002+08:00

Out of millions of Malaysian citizens, don't tell me that we can't find just a few hundred intelligent politicians? Perhaps intelligence is too high a standard; simple common sense would do. But even "common" sense among politicians appears to be as rare as recycle bins in Malaysia. At the March 8 elections, the people got so sick of BN that they voted for the opposition, creating a major historic defeat for BN and denying them two-thirds majority in Parliament.

It's been about 9 months since Pakatan Rakyat took control of 5 states. Are they any different than BN? Well, at least some politicians have shown some integrity by calling for greater transparency in state affairs, like Klang MP Charles Santiago demanding that the concession agreement between the Klang Municipal Council (MPK) and the developer of the new Klang Sentral Terminal be made public. They've also enlarged democractic space by holding village elections, an experiment which turned out to be successful.

But the latest PR buffoonery that BN is making a field day of is the hudud issue, where DAP is threatening to leave PR should PAS insist on implementing hudud laws if PR comes into power. Obviously, BN is milking the issue for all its worth so that it can win the Kuala Terengganu by-election. And perhaps, DAP's blatant threat was made to reassure their Chinese voters. Dig deeper beneath the surface, and you will see how fragile the foundation of Pakatan Rakyat is. Threatening to leave PR may work now - before the Kuala Terengganu election.

But, what comes after? Realistically, can DAP and PAS actually work together in a practical and philosophical sense? No, they can't. DAP champions a Malaysian Malaysia concept - a heartening concept that I personally hope will replace the oppressive racially-demarcated system that has dominated people's minds, political and social institutions for decades. PAS has always been openly pushing an Islamic agenda, noting that it is a political party based on religion.

This uncomfortable relationship is poised at a precipice and is ready to break any moment. It would not be surprising if suddenly Umno and PAS were to join forces to fight for the Muslims, while the rest are left to fend for the non-Muslims. After all, both parties did hold talks in July last year. I hope that that day will not arrive, as it will only intensify the racial and religious divide among Malaysians. Worse, the Chinese or Indians might just get kicked out as they are "pendatang" or immigrants!

We will see what happens. I doubt that the PR coalition will last till end of this year.

Rakyat first

2009-01-13T08:16:00.004+08:00

What does it take for the politicians of Malaysia to unite? Apparently only when a nation located far far away suffers. For one moment, all political parties reached a consensus and supported the Government's call for Israel to be referred to the international court. Heck, there was even a suggestion for everyone, including the Prime Minister, to take a one-day salary cut to support the Palestinians! Wow! Such amazing solidarity! And this is all for a country that is located on another continent, with whom we have barely any business dealings or do trade with. People are willing to take a pay cut to support them!

I find this extremely incredible. Why don't we see more of this unity and self-sacrifice for things that really matter? I am not devaluing the situation in Gaza. Gaza is a real crisis and people are being killed on both sides every day. But, of what relevance is that to us Malaysians? Of course, we should do all we can to stop the crisis, which realistically is very limited. The most that we can do is to state Malaysia's stand to the whole world condemning the violence. Not just Israeli violence, mind you. All we read about in Malaysian newspapers is how evil Israel is in bombing Palestinians; no one mentions about the crimes inflicted by Hamas on their own people. Using your own people as human shields, basing your military operations in civilian places like homes, mosques and hospitals, is just despicable.

Malaysians don't seem to be satisfied with just stating their stand to the UN. They also want to boycott US and Israeli goods. At first, there was such a vociferous cry to boycott those goods. But now, Najib is telling us to exercise caution, realizing later that the franchisees of American products are Malaysian and even bumiputra companies! Absolutely hilarious. If Najib is really serious, let him first throw away his copy of Microsoft Windows, all American branded clothing, shoes, cologne etc, and swear off Starbucks and McDonald's. And this is the wise counsel from our soon-to-be PM. God help us, Malaysia.

Have all the politicians lost their minds along with Najib? If all of them can come together for a cause that is not ours, what does that say of them? Why are they not equally passionate for the extreme poor, the abused women, the abandoned children, the ostracised drug addicts in our own country? Instead of making empty promises all the time to gain votes, all politicians should take a paycut to help the oppressed rakyat. Before you even think of doing that for people you have barely any connections with, think about the rakyat first.

Double standards make me sick

2009-01-11T17:48:00.000+08:00

It makes me sick when double standards are practiced. Why is it that some groups are allowed to go ahead with mass demonstrations while others are not? The Coalition of Malaysian NGOs Against Persecution of Palestinians (Complete), Jamaah Islam Malaysia, PAS and Palestinians were allowed to demonstrate against Israel and hand over a memorandum to the United States embassy. At Universiti Sains Malaysia, more than 200 students organized a protest against the Israeli attack on Gaza.

But when Parti Sosialis Malaysia and the Anti-War Coalition organize a candlelight vigil for the Palestinian victims at Gaza, they get arrested. When a group of concerned Malaysian cyclists want to raise public awareness about important local issues like privatization, minimum wage, and ISA, the police detain them and say that some of them are being exploited because of their age.

What is the criterion for approving demonstrations? If the matters raised are in line with the government's political agenda, then it will be approved? Apparently, the UUCA (University and University-Colleges Act) can be waived if you protest for matters that do not even concern us Malaysians as long as they are for an Islamist agenda. It is even permissible to burn a Jewish flag and burn effigies of the Israeli prime minister!

But when people want to organize peaceful candlelight vigils or cycling campaigns about issues that warrant serious concern, they are hindered, and even worse, thrown into jail for doing so! It is obvious then that the criterion of "acceptable" demonstrations is solely based on whether the subject matter matches the Government's agenda. It is not based on national security, nor on the importance of the matter, nor on the age of the demonstrators.

If the Government really cares about justice and fairness for the rakyat, then apply the same standard for all! Do not use the rakyat as a means of advancing your own political agenda. We are the reason that you are in power, and we can wrest that power from you in an instant.

The unmeasurable price of war

2009-01-10T23:43:00.000+08:00

By Paul Martin
BBC News

My close friend Ashraf and I have worked, eaten, discussed... even disagreed, through so many broadcasting assignments - some under intense pressure as Palestinian gunmen in Gaza fight Israel, or each other.

On the sixth day of this current war I could not get hold of Ashraf on the mobile phone.

Later, in tears, he told me why. His youngest brother Mahmoud, aged 12, and his 14-year-old cousin, were told it was too dangerous outside Ashraf's family home in the deserted side streets. So the children played innocently on the family home's flat roof.

Then an unmanned Israeli aircraft fired two small rockets.

Ashraf rushed upstairs and took the boys to hospital, but it was hopeless. They were buried the same day.

Just the latest in a series of disasters for Mahmoud and Ashraf's very dignified father, a medical doctor. He had been turned into a refugee by the 1948 war.

A year ago he lost one son, my marvellous and irrepressible cameraman Ahmed, in a car crash. And now his youngest boy, Mahmoud.

Macabre scene

Was there any reason for the rocket strike?

Possibly. The Israeli unmanned aerial vehicle may have relayed back live pictures not showing children but just some fuzzy figures moving on a rooftop. How clear the aircraft's picture of Ashraf's rooftop was, is going to be the subject of an inquiry, the Israelis have promised.

Also, Ashraf's home was close to one of the city's security headquarters.

In June 2007 I had watched - sheltering under large slabs of meat dangling in a butcher's shop - as the building was seized by Hamas forces.

I have seen civilians on the Israeli side die too, blown to bits in suicide bombings. Eleven dead - including a whole family of six in a Jerusalem side street - bits of body splattered on the walls.

There was a macabre scene in 2001 at a beachside hotel in Netanya. Knives and forks hanging embedded in the high ceiling of a dining room, where 30 elderly men and women had gathered for a festival meal, all now dead.

And in the Israeli town of Sderot over two years ago, I met an ambulance driver who had raced to the scene of a rocket attack that flattened a house near the Gaza border.

He found his own grandson, one-year-old Osher, lying with his left eye dangling out and his head split open. Doctors saved his life.

Then in a side street in Sderot there is a small bench, painted with red and blue flowers at the spot where 17-year-old Ella, a talented musician, was walking when a rocket hit and killed her.

Compulsion to kill

I have also met killers - people who have destroyed innocents like Israeli Ella or Palestinian Mahmoud. They have their explanations. Some months ago, I went with a Palestinian rocket-firing brigade keen to dispatch their weaponry into the heart of an Israeli town (Sderot itself actually).

Twenty-four-year-old Mohammed (on his first rocket-firing mission) said Israeli men, women and children would one day end up fighters. "So let's kill them first," he said.

Months later I met him in a Gaza street. He had decided to retire from rocket-firing and return to computer programming.

Hamas's prime minister has an American-educated adviser, who once told me on camera: "Our rockets are not lethal enough yet but one day, God willing, they will be."

I also met two Israeli pilots from the Cobra brigade, their twisted snakes emblazoned on the sides of their one-man helicopters, each bristling with rocket launchers and a machine gun.

One pilot, Uri, pulled down his dark-glasses visor, then whipped out a Hebrew newspaper clipping with photos of a boy and his grandfather.

They died, he said, when this man was picking up this kid from the nursery school. Uri was taking off, aiming to kill what he defined as terrorists. "I always carry these photos with me on a mission," he explained, "to remind me that when I hunt down a terrorist I am protecting people like these."

Did he sleep easy at night? I asked him.

There was a long pause. "No," he said, "I sometimes lie awake and wonder, when I saw our target was close to civilians, whether I was right not to fire. Maybe I let him live and tomorrow he will kill more of our civilians."

From neither the Israeli nor the Palestinian fighting men could I detect much empathy for the innocent.

---

I think this is one of the few balanced articles that I can find on the Gaza war. There are no good guys or bad guys in war - only losers. No one wins in a war. Israel may have killed 800 plus Palestinians while only 13 Israelis have been killed so far. Israel has backing from the United States; Palestinians have the support of many Muslim nations (including Malaysia). Both Israel and Palestine have been attacking each other over a for almost a century. When will the violence end? When will both sides be able to enjoy a lazy Sunday afternoon without fearing bombs or missiles?

Enough blood has been shed.