West Malaysia Allah, East Malaysia Allah

This is part 2 of the letter I received from Persatuan Peguam2 Muslim Malaysia.

 

The Birth of Allah's Son-Part 11

 

 

 

The Judge presiding the case of the Herald, Datuk Lau Bee Lan, in her decision disallowing MAIS, MACC and Majlis Agama of States as interveners, made special mention of the fact that the applicants in this case were unable to provide concrete evidence that the use of the word "Allah" is sensitive to the Muslim community and would cause disharmony, disunity and confusion among the Muslim community. As such, it may be inferred that the Judge was of the opinion that the usage of the word "Allah" by the Herald and the Church would not be of material consequence as far as the Muslim community is concerned.

 

Events that unfolded during the days immediately succeeding the decision proved otherwise. NGOs, Islamic organisations and various other organisations whether politically connected and apolitical were greatly moved by this outright disregard of the Muslim's community sensitivities. The government, initially unsure of the correct stand to be taken, followed the stance set by our former premier in this issue, where Tun Mahathir in his statement immediately after the Court decision was handed down stated that "….the word "Allah" is specific for Muslims.." and "…in Peninsular Malaysia we have never heard of Christians using the word Allah when referring to God in the Malay language, why are we using the word now?..". Tun Mahathir's sentiment is shared by many Muslim groups in Malaysia who questioned the motives behind the application by the Church to use the word "Allah" in the Herald which may, subsequently lead to the use of the word of "Allah" in a Malay language version of the bible. The other versions of the bible, which is the English, Chinese and Tamil language, do not include the word "Allah" in their publications. As such, it seems that the word "Allah" and as such, "Allah's Son" are meant to be used exclusively for a Malay language version and targeted for the largely Malay Muslim community.

 

The demonstrations of opposition to the Court decision that took place all over the country culminated in sporadic attacks against Churches in Kuala Lumpur, Selangor, Perak, Malacca and Sarawak, hinting to possible civil unrest if left unabated. A news report dated 11^th January 2010 in the Star which states "…Some 1,700 members of the Protestant Church packed the hall for the joint Mandarin and English services from early yesterday…" points blankly to the age old customary usage of English and Mandarin in their Church services, which reinforces the suspicion of the Muslim community towards the intention of the Church in using the word "Allah" in the Malay language pages of the Herald-Weekly and the Malay version of the bible.

 

In respect to the attacks against the Churches, there have been notable efforts by the government to pacify the Christian community whereby monetary compensation and contribution to repair the Churches were offered. The Muslim community generally do not condone the attacks and belief that these attacks are isolated incidences and committed by extremist individuals. However, similar efforts by the government to pacify the Muslim community are wanting and the Christian community have not come strongly forward to state their disagreement with the application by the Titular Roman Archbishop to use the word "Allah" in Malay language pages of the Herald-Weekly. In order to contain extremist individuals and comfort the wounds of the Muslim community inflicted by the Church's Court application, a more decisive stand has to be made by the government authorities.

 

Although the stand by the government authorities in this issue is uncertain and lacking in direction, the Yang Dipertuan Agong Al-Wathiqu Billah Tuanku Mizan Zainal Abidin ibin Almarhum Sultan Madmud Al-Muktafi Billah Shah ("Yang Dipertuan Agung") came forward to point the direction that the government is supposed to drive in this issue. In the statement issued by the Yang Dipertuan Agung dated 9^th January 2010, the Yang DiPertuan Agung reminded all parties to respect Islam as the religion of the Federation and emphatically stated that the use of the word "Allah" shall precisely follow that as understood and complied in the Islamic context. The statement made by the Yang DiPertuan Agung had to a certain extent, provided some semblance of relief from the black abyss that currently envelopes the muslim community.

 

The statement by the Yang DiPertuan Agung that Islam is the religion of the Federation is of great significance in its meaning and effect. Under the Constitution, Islam holds a special position that is unquestionable. This special position is entrenched in Article 3 of the Federal Constitution that states, "Islam is the religion of the Federation; but other religions may be practised in peace in harmony in any part of the Federation." Therefore, Article 3 establishes the sovereignty of Islam as the religion of the Federation and the rights of other religions to be practised shall not encroach on the rights of Muslims to practise Islam nor cause disharmony to Islam. The description of Islam as a religion above others under the Constitution is aptly described by Judge Mohd Nor Abdullah in a decided case in the year 2000 (Meor Atiqurahman bin Ishak & Ors v Fatimah Sihi & Ors [2000] 1 CLJ 393), where Islam is likened to a majestic tree known as the "Pokok Jati" which is tall, strong and luminous. It stands and walk before others, its presence is in the main arena with its voice heard loud and clear. If its nature is not as such, then it cannot be said to be a religion above others in the Constitution.

 

The Yang DiPertuan Agung, in taking the office of Yang DiPertuan Agong, is subject to the Oaths he had pledged as stipulated in the Fourth Schedule of the Constitution. In accordance to the Oaths taken under the name of Allah, the Yang DiPertuan Agong has an undisputable sacred duty as custodian and protector of the religion of Islam and Malay rights.

 

In the case of the Herald, the Yang DiPertuan Agong, having been advised by Constitutional experts, came instantly to the defence of the Islamic religion and being an institution by itself, was the first to pledge support for the Sultan of Selangor in the intervener application. The Majlis Agama of Terengganu, being the state directly under the Yang DiPertuan Agong was initiated as a party through its Majlis Agama Islam to the intervener application. For states that have no Sultan such as Malacca, Pulau Pinang and Wilayah Persekutuan, the Yang DiPertuan Agong took upon himself to instruct the Majlis Agama of these states to join in the intervener application. The Sultan of Johor, meanwhile, came into the intervener application through the advice of their Mufti.

 

The main thrust of the Yang DiPertuan Agong's and Majlis Agama States' concern is the confusion that the misuse of the word "Allah" would cause among the Muslims and non Muslims alike. The concept of Allah as understood, embraced and practised by the Muslim community in Malaysia is totally distinct and separate from the concept as understood by the Church conceptually, culturally and theologically. Whereas, the concept of Allah embraced by the Muslim community in Malaysia as defined in the context of Muslim and Malay tradition is Allah in a MONOTHEIST (TAUHID) sense as opposed to the concept of TRINITY of God as understood by the Church.

 

In the aftermath of the Church attacks, calls were made for the Muslim community to remain calm and not to disrupt harmony. Some opinions chided the Muslim community for their intolerant behaviour towards the Court Decision and even advised that the issue of the use of the word "Allah" in the Malay language pages of the Herald-Weekly has been unjustly magnified. The nation has forgotten one critical aspect in all of this mayhem; the Muslim community did not start the encroachment of the rights of other religious communities. Instead, the act of the Church in bringing the matter to Court is seen by the Muslim community as a belligerent and provocative act and this fact should be acknowledged by all, as a first step towards healing wounds.

 

 

Information Secretariat

Persatuan Peguam Peguam Muslim Malaysia.

Tweet

Read more...

Be nice, so that Muslims are treated nice.

Ah..so it's just some excuse to uncle-tom some people out there? We need to be nice to our minorities because hopefully, others will be nice to our Muslim minorities. Muslims all over the world are run down and run over. Now, that's a definition of being nice to minorities.

Once you compromise on the underlying principles you prostitute yourselves. Then, there is no stopping you being nice to all and sundry. The nice sounding signals are given by people such as Khalid Samad( whom Pas rank and file consider heretic), Miss Marina Mahathir, leader of the salon Muslims and Abim?( a bunch of Bolshevik believers).

We, the rest? Are all miscreants and religious bigots.

I received a copy of the views of some Muslim Lawyers who have banded together under the Persatuan Peguam2 Muslim Malaysia. This was some time ago. Obviously Nazri hasn't been to a place to see how this issue is viewed by Muslim professionals. You see, with Nazri, what HE knows he has got no problems. Hence a fortiori , what he doesn't know, is even more a no problem to him.

The birth of Allah's Son- Part 1

The Malays, as one foreigner once summed up, are a people who rest under the coconut tree with the sun shining brightly and cheerfully upon them whilst the wind blow softly against their faces.

This observation is meant as a compliment to the temperament of the Malay Muslims. As compared to Muslims of other countries, the Muslims of Malaya did not go through a period of great conflict and bloodshed to obtain independence. As a result, you have a Muslim community who is tolerant and receptive to other religion and races.

The constitutional position of Islam and the Malays can best be understood by making an analogy to a house owner who welcome visitors into their house and allowed their visitors the right to use the living room, dining room, the bedrooms, the garden, and all other areas, except, the house owner was to say, "Never ask for the right to use my own master bedroom. It is my special privilege." After a few decades, the house owner has shared everything in his house except for his own master bedroom. He finds that his visitors, having enjoyed unlimited access and use of all the parts in his house are now knocking on the doors of his master bedroom, demanding for the right to use his own master bedroom, his last bastion.

The case of the weekly Herald has jolted the largely Malay Muslim community into the realisation that their last bastion, their master bedroom (i.e. Islam and Malay privileges) is now very much at stake. The positive outcome from the Herald fiasco is the unity of the Muslims coming to the fore to protect and defend a matter held dear to their very essence, their religion, culture and sense of identity.

The Herald had since 1986, illegally used the words "Allah" to refer to God in its publication. Under Control of Undesirable Publications of the Printing Presses and Publications Act introduced in 1984, the Kementerian Dalam Negeri (KDN) has the power to introduce the Garis Panduan Penerbitan Kementerian Dalam Negeri ("Guideline") to regulate publications such as the Herald. According to the Guideline, words such as "Allah", "Kaabah", "Baitullah" and 'Solat" are not allowed to be used by religions other than Islam. The KDN then issued a letter dated 19.05.1986 instructing and advising the weekly Herald not to use the words contained in the Guideline. Such words are deemed as sensitive to the Muslim community and may cause disharmony, disunity and confusion among the community especially the Malay Muslim community.

However, instead of adhering to KDN's instructions and advice to cease publishing the word "Allah", the weekly Herald repeatedly breached the Guideline by reproducing the publication in the Herald containing the words "Allah".

The Archbishop of the Titular Roman Catholic Church ("the Church") himself admitted in his Affidavit that a total of eight letters were sent to the Herald by KDN advising them to cease the use of the word "Allah" in their publication which went unheeded. They have blatantly disregarded the Guideline since 1986 until 2007, and with that action, provoked the sensitivities of the Muslim community. Since no immediate and decisive action was taken by KDN in response to this consistent breach, the Church was emboldened enough to file a Judicial Review dated 19.03.2008 for the following declarations:-

1. 
   
   
   
   
   that the Church is entitled to use the word 'Allah' in The Herald, a weekly Catholic publication of the Church;
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
2. 
   
   
   
   
   that the Guideline by the Kementerian Dalam Negeri is illegal; and
   
   
   
   
   
   
   
3. 
   
   
   
   
   That the use of the word "Allah" is not exclusive for the religion of Islam.
   
   
   
   
   
   
   

The Herald meanwhile, posted their publication online until it came to the attention of the Majlis Agama Islam Selangor ("MAIS") and the Malaysian Association of Chinese Converts ("MACC") who were deeply concerned on the effects of the publication on the Muslims in general, especially as they were under the impression that the publication was to be solely for internal circulation of members of the Church. With its posting online by the Herald however, meant that the general public and those outside of Kuala Lumpur including the world at large would have unlimited access to the Herald. The MACC feared that the publication would cause confusion among converts due to the terminology used. It may also open the floodgates for other beliefs to challenge the Guidelines and use the word "Allah" in their practise.

As a body entrusted with the protection of the rights and interests of Islam and the largely Malay Muslims, MAIS viewed these developments with alarm and concern. MAIS is empowered under state legislation to dispense their duties as the lawful representative of the Sultan of Selangor including to advise the Sultan of Selangor on any matter impacting the unity and interests of the Muslims. Having presented to the Sultan of Selangor the gravity of the matter, the Sultan of Selangor found the situation to be sufficiently compelling for MAIS's intervention. With the blessings and unequivocal support of the Sultan of Selangor, MAIS filed applications to be admitted as interveners for both the Summons and Review. Their action was emulated by other Majlis Agama Islam of the States of Wilayah Persekutuan, Terengganu, Johore, Pulau Pinang and Melaka. Throughout the case, solicitors and MAIS officers handling the case attest to the ease by which they were able to advise and brief the Sultan of Selangor and to obtain further directions. The deeds of the Sultan of Selangor shall be crafted in our historical manuscripts as a monarch who has displayed a deep conscience and understanding of his role as protector and custodian of Islam and Malay rights, in the case brought by the Church.

The intervener applications by MAIS, MACC and Majlis Agama Islam of States were provided for by statutory provisions under the Rules of the High Court. Unfortunately, the Court did not allow their application even though MAIS argued for their inclusion under the various provisions in the Rules of High Court, including provisions for special entry to oppose the judicial review. The Court did not recognise the statutory duties of MAIS under state legislations as the lawful body to advise and aid the Sultan of Selangor in such matters of judicial review relating to the rights and interests of Islam and the largely Malay Muslims. The Court made a pronouncement that MAIS have no basis to justify that they have a direct interest in the case, in total disregard to MAIS's statutory function as adviser and aid to the Sultan of Selangor in matters of Islam and Muslim rights. Thus, MAIS was denied the opportunity to put forth their arguments before the Court by the Judge presiding the case, Datuk Lau Bee Lan. This situation proved fatal to MAIS's intervener application and was a major factor that led to a decision in favour of the Herald. The Court decision meant that the words "Allah" and consequently, "Allah's Son" were allowed to be used in the Malay pages of the Herald weekly. The reaction of the Muslim community to the Court decision dated 31.12.2009 has been largely one of disbelief, anger and humiliation; a deep wound that if it were at all to recover, would require a long healing process.

Information Secretariat

Persatuan Peguam Peguam Muslim Malaysia

Date: 11^th January 2010

Tweet

Read more...

When the mice are away, Nazri(the Cat) comes out to play.

I hope, Nazri isn't talking on behalf of the PM. I hope, he is on a frolic of his own. Because, if he does speak on behalf of the PM- the permission given is vastly out of sync with the character of a person responsible for coming up with the One Malaysia concept, KRAs and implementation of inherited KPIs. The permission represents recklessness and light thinking- while only serious and meticulous planning results in the creation of such concepts.

The way the government is handling this Allah issue, if what Nazri said is true, shows the government is clueless as how to deal with the matter. It goes along the way, solving issues as matters of expediencies.

This kind of management style isn't like MBO or something along that genre. Indeed, the way the government handles this issue is as though, it thinks of something as it goes along. This kind of thinking isn't culled from books like Blue Ocean Strategy which the PM favours or some lessons imparted by management thinkers.

If I were to describe the management style- it's the management style of Captain Jack Sparrow. In the film Pirates of the Caribbean, Sparrow thinks of a game plan as he goes along.

Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah has described the management style of the government succinctly:-

As a mark of our decline, at some point in our recent history the government itself began to speak the language of sensitivities. In the controversy over whether Christians are allowed to use the term "Allah" the government talks about managing sentiment when it should be talking about what is the right thing to do. This is what government sounds like when a political system and its leadership have come unstuck from the rule of law. IT GOES FROM ISSUE TO ISSUE, HOSTAGE TO THE BRINKSMANSHIP OF SENSITIVITIES. Small matters threaten to erupt into racial conflict. The government of a multiracial society that cannot rise above sentiment is clearly too weak or too self-interested to hold the country together. It has lost credibility and legitimacy. The regime is in crisis.

This is Captain Jack Sparrow's kind of management style- going from issues to issues, solving them as expediencies. The management style suggests no underlying, stable principles. While I agree with Tengku's description and observations, I do not over elements which he accepts as underlying principles. To him, it's the rule of law and doing what is right. Incidentally, doing what is right is the calling of the leader. Obviously by not doing what is right, the present government has no leadership.

Doing the right thing calls on the Prime Minister to bring closure to this issue but not in the way Nazri does- appeasing the voters in the fixed deposit states. If Allah cannot be used by Catholics in West Malaysia, it cannot so too in East Malaysia. There is only One Allah not Two. But we should not be too hard on a person known more for his outbursts and almost nightly sojourns at the watering holes in Shangri-La should we? Yes we shouldn't be too hard on salon believers, Gauche caviar , Chardonnay Muslims and members of the chattering class appearing on 101 East al Jazeera. The only thing worth seeing there was perhaps the interviewer.

Doing the right thing requires the PM to call for a congregation of the national council on fatwas, or something like a national council of muftis, national council of ulamas to state once and for all, the views of Muslims over this Allah issue. The principles of Aqidah and Tauheed are not less underlying principles such as doing the right thing and rules of law expounded by Tengku Razaleigh. Indeed, they are more relevant as regards matters of the Islamic religion than Tengku Razaleigh's rule of law and doing the right things.

I want to get away from the Allah issue. But it doesn't die down. This time Nazri Aziz, the minister who has this penchant for shooting from the hip tells everyone, that Allah can be used in East Malaysia. By his own admission he has been to an Iban Church and heard the word Allah spoken of. He has no problems with it.

If Nazri comes out with the government stand on the basis of having no problem when visiting and Iban Church, God Allah save us! Is this a decision based on an underlying principle? You are going there to do some balls licking fearing you lose the fixed deposit states.

Hallelujah!

I hope this declaration by Nazri isn't a frolic of his own. But it does not matter, if it's done in the course of his duty as His Majesty's Minister, then his boss or his employer is vicariously liable or responsible. We are being reasonable therefore to infer than Nazri's declaration received the blessings of the Prime Minister.

Please decide Mr. Prime Minister.

Tweet

Read more...

Soulful Saturday.

Two blogosphere citizens, one a prominent blogger, the other a prolific commentator, were perceptive enough to point out the similarities between the title of my article, Where Have All The Chinese Gone to a very popular song. The prominent blogger, Dato Kadir Jasin even came out with his own rejoinder which was so tongue-in-cheekish- Where Have All the Indians Gone.

The song is Where Have All the Flowers Gone. It was sung among others by Pete Seeger, The Kingston Trio, Joan Baez and Marlene Dietrich.

When I first heard that song, it had such haunting and soulful lyrics. I would like to share the song with my readers this morning. So, enjoy.

Tweet

Read more...

Exercising options through education.

I have seen the comments that came over my article about education. Education is indeed an emotive subject.

This morning I read Lim Kit Siang's criticism of Muhyidin's visit to the UK to encourage our best brains in the UK to come back. Lim Kit Siang wasted no time to blast the government for ignoring the best brains residing in Singapore.

That brings us back to the issue of education. The number of comments coming into my previous article, reflect an underlying concern. For the future.

The various comments given are all valid concerns. Some are more persuasive than others. They range from a barking retort demanding to know, is this an issue about paying and not paying for education to general and more numerous, indictments on our education system.

Unthinking retorts and fucking-isation of the system are not helpful for a meaningful discourse.

The majority I suspect are perhaps the expression of deep seated anguish and hopes about an uncertain educational future visited upon future generation by a regressive polity. In response, they, the parents, take responsibility over this matter. They act out this concern and responsibility by providing their children options. That's what it is really right? - The Chinese parents act to provide options for the children preparing them for the future.

Chinese parent act by going out of the system. Malay parents don't act aggressively enough to force options within the system.

The Malays on the other hand have to contend with a national educational and schooling system that does not stress enough on providing options for the future. It is damning for me to say this, but that's what it is. Our educational and schooling system is not giving parents options and choices for the future. It is the system per se- nothing about it being the policy of UMNO or not UMNO.

So I am not going to look at this issue as a system foisted by UMNO on non UMNO issue. It's about thinking about something that affects everyone in this country. Even though I asked where have the Chinese gone, my real question is actually, what of Malay education? Or more particularly, how are Malays affected by our education system?

The primary purpose is to discuss the educational system in this country. Even if I concede to a lunatic commentator who screamed that 'all this is another fuck up by fucking UMNO'- my answer to this fucking lunatic in a language style that has become second nature to degenerates like him/her is- your fucking brethren or whoever you support, has still got to come up with a thinking of how to better the system. If you want to 'outfuck' each other, I am certain there are sufficient UMNO degenerates and expletives maestros who are equally gifted in this particular style of arguing to entertain you.

Look at what the simple act of sending Chinese pupils to Chinese schools (vernacular schools) represents?

No, it does not represent the vindication for the insistence that vernacular schools be retained. The successes achieved by products of Chinese schools (for example in the instances cited by the Blogger Covert-operations in her comments on my previous article) do not validate the claim that vernacular schooling system is superior to the national schooling system. The good work ethics and good attitude and habits spoken of are reinforced in Chinese schools yes, but they are actually extension of the values already adopted at home.

This comes back to the early part of my previous short article that the responsibility of schooling of our children with good habits, values, and attitude begin at home. That responsibility seeks out options for the children. So when Chinese parents chose to send their children to Chinese schools, they are acting out that responsibility. Sending them there represents the translation of the responsibility of giving their children options. In this sense, the behavior of the Chinese in general, is almost instinctively economic. Economic in the sense that it is a behavior conforming to the maximizing postulates of a typical china man. That of seeking better returns, widening options, seeking out options but also cutting corners, going around the system or even being selfish etc.

Are you saying that Chinese parents are better and superior to us Malays in appreciating education? So what if I say yes because acknowledging that Chinese place a higher premium on education , as expressed by the majority of the commentators in my previous article) does not DIMINISH my own and other non Chinese estimates of the importance education).

What about Tamil Schools? Success from this particular vernacular schooling system hasn't come to any impactful levels that could give its champions shouting rights. This means, what's wrong in our educational and schooling system isn't about allowing or disallowing vernacular schooling system. It is about giving choices and options.

Maybe we can see the educational issue as an issue of offering choices for the sidelined majority? Then having a restrictive and one particular choice IS the issue that restricts everyone in Malaysia from exercising options to secure a better future.

The issue then comes back to one of sensitizing or making relevant our present national education system. That would then imply our present schooling system as being unfairly restrictive and discriminatory on the Malays. Malays have only once choice but non Malays have choices? We must look into this matter.

What do you do then? The Chinese took the way out by sending their children to their vernacular schools. They justify this by claiming the superiority of products of vernacular schools. They also forget, the same cannot be said of products from Tamil schools. ONE type of system (vernacular) producing different products doesn't support the arguments FOR vernacular schooling system.

It reinforces the need and urgency to look into aspects of the existing national schooling system.

You see, there were not so many comments on the people sidelined by our education system. The Chinese appear to have an option. They can opt for vernacular education that has proven to place Chinese students in general in good stead.

But what about those who don't have an option but have to endure and subsist within a given and invariably imposed education system? These are the issues I want to discuss.

Tweet

Read more...

Where have all the Chinese gone?

I was talking to a friend the other day. He lives very close to  a Sekolah Rendah Jenis Kebangsaan. A national school, funded fully by the government. Education is free. His daughter once went to this school because the school is within walking distance from his house. The daughter is now in Form Four.

He volunteered a very telling observation- to me at least. He noticed this year, when registration for year one students took place, there were no Chinese students. No Chinese parents came to send their children to Sekolah Rendah Kebangsaan. There were a few Malaysian Indians. The majority are Malays.

Possibly the scene is repeated across the whole country more or less in uniformity. To me, these are danger signs.

Where do the Chinese send their children to? To the Chinese Schools where they must pay some money and fees. Maybe pool resources to better the facilities at the Chinese schools. The medium of instruction is Chinese language. Will they suffer in future?

No is the answer. Last year in the 2009, Singapore GCE O Levels, the top scorer is a Malaysian girl with 10A1s. That's the GCE O levels, accredited by Cambridge Examinations Syndicate. This is the exam; you and I who are now in the early 50s took when we were in Form 5 in the English Medium Schools.

In Malaysia, she went to a Chinese school. Going though an SRJK.

One type of parent undertakes the task of educating his children as a personal responsibility; the other type transfers that responsibility to the state.

The Malaysian Chinese parents who elected to NOT Send their children to SRK instinctively knew because they chose to pay for their children's education, that education really begins at the home. They know that inculcation of values begin at home.

The other type who transfers the responsibility and transfers also the cost of educating to others, do so as the expense of leaving the inculcation of values at a later stage, though mass production.

Between a product that is mass produced and one that is specially made, which one is better, is easily identified.

What values are we talking about? That will be in another part.

Tweet

Read more...

The Burning of The Reichstag- is Anwar our Willi Munzenberg?

The Burning of the Reichstag

The Reichstag was the German Parliament. It was burnt down by a Dutch Communist, Van de Lube. The extent of the damage created suspicions that Van der lube wasn't acting alone. The Communists disowned Van der Lube saying he was a half witted, drug addicted homosexual. The communist party accused Hitler and the Nazis of sponsoring Van der lube. Hitler accused the communists to be behind the arson.

RPK- the indefinable iconic crusader of truth or sometime plain cyber anarchist depending on your preference, has likened the burning and attempted burning of churches to the burning of the Reichstag. To lend a sense of melodrama, he has inserted a clip of a film on you tube in his blog. The man reprising the role of Hitler looks similar to our Anwar Ibrahim.

I say, the comparison is an art form of disingenuity. I say lets respond accordingly.

Are our churches the Reichstag of Malaysia? Wouldn't it be more melodramatic if arson were to be an excuse to prolong power or to seize absolute power, the arson should be done of a grander scale? Say the burning of the national mosque, our own parliament, or maybe Istana Negara?

These could be compared more aptly to the Reichstag yes? Then, it would be more proportionate for the Prime Minister to declare a state of emergency and accuse the Pakatan 'Communists' of trying to stage an excuse to seize power illegally. Hitler accused the KPD- Communist Party of Germany.

If Najib is likened to Hitler's Nazi Party, then Pakatan is our Willy Muzenberg's Communist Party of Germany. Now, this Munzenberg fellow is quite a character. He orchestrated a counter trial in London with a full quorum of lawyers and judges. As expected, he played the puppet master behind the scenes to contrive a judgment favorable to him.

I would say then comparing Anwar to Munzenberg is more apt, since over here, Wily Anwar wants to have a court convened on his own terms. He is of course going to be tried for arson of a different kind producing equally burning sensations.

Well, Willy Anwar Munzenberg has already accused UMNO using the Allah issue as an excuse for UMNO to portray themselves as champions of Islam. If UMNO cannot become champions of Islam who can? The answer pompously implied by Anwar - Pakatan and Pas. How? By championing the use of Allah by non Muslims.

Let's humor Anwar. UMNO a party of Muslims championing the use of Allah by Muslims does not qualify to be champions, yet Pakatan which champions the wish of non Muslims the use of Allah is? The Muslims who are against the usage of Allah by Catholics in Malaysia are not UMNO stooges or even UMNO supporters. They may be just objectors of conscience. These people don't give a damn about how UMNO handles this matter. We don't give a damn about Anwar's feet shuffle either.

The significance of the burning of the Reichstag was that it gave Hitler the perfect excuse to rout his rival the Communists and took absolute power. It therefore gave rise to the suspicions that maybe the burning was orchestrated by the Nazis themselves, most notably by Goering.

Van der lube character is no longer important as are the real arsonists here over the church burnings. He was found guilty by the German courts in 1933 and was subsequently executed. After the war a series of re trials were conducted this found him not gulty, guilty, not guilty. Finally in January 2008, he was pardoned because present day German courts ruled the laws under which he was tried, were unconstitutional. The sage of Van de lube will continue to enthrall audience.

The burning of the Reichstag gave contending political parties a forum to clash. In the original Reichstag, Hitler and his henchman- Goring, Goebbels, et all. On the other side, there must be one- representing the communist party of Germany- Willi Munzenberg who orchestrated a counter trial in England. His henchmen would have to be our own Malaysianised Ernst Torgler, Georgi Dimitrov, Blagoi Popov. Readers can liken these to any one on the Pakatan.

RPK's insinuation that Najib and UMNO will exploit the burning of the churches and therefore capitalized the sorry events just as the Nazi party did over the Reichstag is disingenious. Just like Reichstag, the churches here will give the Najib government, an excuse to assume absolute powers. There's one messing element. It did not happen according to the script, RPK wants to.

The government has acted with magnanimity, extending assistance and whatever else was needed to Christians. The government is equally contemptuous of the heinous crime perpetrated. Sharing grieve and having sympathies are not the monopoly of Pakatan people.

But once again, who is our own Willi Munzenberg?

Only one person fits the bill- Anwar Ibrahim, the 'Communist' Party in our Malaysia. He wants a trial that he personally approves. He delays trial at the civil courts coming out with 1001 excuses trying to discredit our entire judiciary to accommodate him alone. Let us call him our Willi Anwarberg.

So we ask, why is he being so evasive about being tried in open civil courts where all others, are subjected to? Why does he ask for special treatment and wants to be tried by a court of his own choosing? He finds a loophole in Islamic law and now insists he wants to be tried by the Shariah court and hasten his request for qazaf.

Pakatan can accuse UMNO to be behind the arson. UMNO can also accuse Pakatan as the instigators. THAT is the debate ongoing surrounding the burning of the Reichstag isn't it? That makes the story eerily similar to the Reichstag does it not? Don't stop. Either UMNO or Pakatan did it.

Consider this: The government has already suffered enough damage over its handling over this affair and now it stupidly aggravates the situation by asking some people burn churches? We know RPK thinks UMNO leaders as being imbecilic, but he has outdone himself by this unsolicited characterization.

The Reichstag is equivalent to our parliament. The more apt comparison would have to be the burning of our parliament not some churches in some shop houses. Now, is RPK sending a subtle message to arsonists at large, to burn our Parliament?

Tweet

Read more...