Here is a good and brief reply that was among the comments (exactly my sentiments, so I didn't bother to post anything) to this highly hypocritical article (from an Islamist of the PAS party) in Malaysia Today, that actually fights for an Islamic state in Malaysia. It was indeed a very well written article from a smart man, with intentions to hoodwink the unsuspecting reader who doesn't understand his motives. The reason why I had put the comment before the article, was so that the reader would be able to read the article with a proper, unbiased perspective..
I'm quite impressed with this piece of work ..... especially the last bit :-
"Only a vibrant and genuine democratic state will ensure and provide for every citizen to partake and advocate their respective ideological commitments and defend the right of others to exercise theirs be they Secular, Islamic or Agnostic or what have you. That is truly the defining criterion of a democrat. This shall remain our enduring mission that will unite us together. Will the true democrat please stand up!" ........................................
Allow me to begin by defining two words - OPINION and CONVICTION :-
An OPINION is a position you hold with a varied degrees of intensity, that merely voices your preference. A CONVICTION is that which is rooted in your conscience; .........so that if you were to toy with your opinion, you would be jostling with your preferences. If you were to toy with your conviction, you are going to deal with your conscience, before you alter it.
Now let's dissect what you have written.
Firstly, you're from PAS Research Centre (whatever that is).
Then, you do not wish to take sides, and yet have spoken for Democracy/ Democrats as it would give you the opportunity to attain power via elections.
However you speak for a party that aims for an Islamic state - and an Islamic State by Syaria, isn't compatible with Democracy, freedom and justice based on universal values!
And you have the audacity to say,"Will the true democrat please stand up!"?
Get off your high horse, man - take a good look at yourself and the principles that your party stands for!
As long as you speak in this manner for PAS, you've made yourself nothing more than a hypocrite - and it stinks to the high heavens!
Do you even realize that it is people like you (i.e. PAS supporters) that provoked NTR to come out with such seditious statements so as to play politics?
Are you so shameless, that you wanna "sidestep the debate" with the excuse that it is a lost cause?
I somehow sense a conflict, a dilemma in you - between that of your conscience and your opinion.
The only problem here is - I don't know which one speaks here!
Is it any wonder that despite all your religiosity, people don't trust you?
GUEST COLUMNISTS Dr Dzulkifli Ahmad PAS Research Centre
The pronouncement made by the DPM that Malaysia is an Islamic State has expectedly sent shock waves across the nation. Already we are measuring swords between detractors and advocates of the ‘Islamic State’. The full-blown outcome of this debate, now turning into a War of Words, has yet to be witnessed. Having frantically wrote “Dark Alley of Self-Destruction”, the writer has now to pen down this piece, in an effort to mitigate the anticipated damage that will be caused by this ‘edict’. Very sad indeed.
The DPM has chosen such an opportune time to unleash his ‘well contrived strategy’. This may very well be presumptuous. What could be better than to have it pronounced on the occasion of the “International Conference on the Role of Islamic States in a Globalised World”? If Malaysia is anything but an Islamic State, what business has she to do with that conference? Hence, his insistence that ‘we have never, never been secular...we are an Islamic State”, (Bernama, 17/0707) logically fall in place, when refuting an allegation by a pressman that Malaysia is going secular. Appropriate though it may seem, it is not as innocuous as we would like to believe so.
The writer has deliberately used the word ‘well contrived strategy’ of the DPM. Yes it could have been his knee-jerk response given the theme of the conference. To say anything less than one that is premeditated, doesn’t befit his stature as the heir to the premiership and equally debasing to his supposedly high intellectual caliber.
Given the various debacles of the current regime including of his own of late, and with the 12th General Election looming ever closer, what could be more expedient than to distract the entire nation, nay plunge and embroil them in a fury of endless raging dispute of the ‘very nature’ of this 50 year-old nation. If it has worked well the first time it was exploited by the then PM in September 2001, it should work equally well this time round. Why? Well, the gullible (read opposition parties, the civil society and some sincere partners of the BN) are still as vulnerable as they were used to be. If the parameters are still the same and kept constant, the same approach should deliver the same result. So he thinks.
For as long as any notion of an ‘Islamic State’ is an anathema to Non-Muslims and a ‘Secular State’ equally an abhorrence or abomination to the Muslims constituency, the Umno-BN regime will continue to exploit this dichotomy as the best ‘bogey’ to keep the nation ‘torn apart’, ‘united’ and ‘subdued’ under the BN’s hegemony. This is the greatest Malaysian paradox. The perpetrators turning saviors, while the citizens of the nation relentlessly mandating them, come every election. This is truly and uniquely Malaysian.
So what should be done?
Precisely this is the reason for writing this piece.
The writer is of the strong opinion that continuing the debate in this manner is in fact totally counter-productive to every effort of reform and change towards the betterment of the nation. Already the DAP is organizing an English Forum entitled “An Islamic State After 50 Years?” parading on the panel everyone else except those representing the most ardent advocate of the ‘Islamic State’. The inclusion of a panelist from them however, will only add to the vigour and rigour of the debate. But will it provide the sanity and intellectual acumen now desperately needed to end this acrimonious contestation? God knows!
The plethora of writings by distinguished columnists and academics now abound, are no less inimical and injurious to the whole cause of reform, to say of the least. Both are waging their ‘jihad’ or ‘crusade’ and equally adamant to be defending their democratic rights as enshrined in the Federal Constitution. The writer could empathise and concur with most of their arguments, be it historical, legalistic, moral or intellectual in nature, from both ‘divides’. That said, he neither thinks it necessary nor finds it fruitful to comment or even prolong it. He would simply side-step the entire debate.
If at this juncture, you think that the writer is merely trying to appease everyone, you are entirely in error. That will be the last thing he intends to do. On the contrary, he is almost at war with everyone, especially those who are advocating or espousing change and reform, yet taking others on the path of self-destruction on a ‘zero-sum’ contest. What could be a greater folly?
Let it be known to all and sundry, that no amount of debate will substantively change anything in the Federal Constitution. It neither secularises nor islamises the Federal Constitution anymore than what it is. We can debate and discourse until the cows come home, but that doesn’t change anything of the very fabric of this much embattled nation. Quite on the reverse, it only deepens the various fault-line, aggravates the prejudices towards the ‘other’ and delays the renewal of a genuine nationhood further.
Let it be reiterated that this nation is a constitutional monarch supposedly practising a constitutional democracy. The Federal Constitution has evolved through the various phases of historical development, dating back to well before independence. It has provided for the various mutually exclusive constraints and demands of our very plural society. The constitutional amendments has come to witness a uniquely dual or parallel implementation of our judiciary not seen anywhere in the world, albeit without its lacuna or shortcomings unforeseen at the point of the amendments. It is far from a perfect document but nonetheless the supreme law of the land (Article 4).
However, what is obviously and grossly wrong is that, this democracy has been relentlessly raped and trampled upon by the power-that-be. It is this crisis that is now most deserving of our focus so as to enable us to redeem our lost opportunity for a genuine democratic reform and change, on the eve of the next general election.
Given the multitude of challenges at hand, from endemic corruption in government machinery to the sky-rocketing of the crime rate and all, we must not be deluded, sidetracked or distracted from standing united in addressing the real issues of the nation and swayed into the alley of self-destruction by unending debate of semantics and rhetoric created by these inept leaders.
The nation on the verge of celebrating her 50th independence, deserves a mutually respecting citizenry celebrating our multi-cultural heritage and our religious plurality, so as to enhance our effort at national unity and integration. Only a vibrant and genuine democratic state will ensure and provide for every citizen to partake and advocate their respective ideological commitments and defend the right of others to exercise theirs be they Secular, Islamic or Agnostic or what have you. That is truly the defining criterion of a democrat. This shall remain our enduring mission that will unite us together.
It has been hot news that the police report by MMT has launched a crackdown on all bloggers. It started with Raja Petra Kamarudin being called to Dang Wangi. I found it strange that my blog was also blocked! Why would anybody wanna block a blog? That too a bog that has so far not even received any visitors? It beats me - that's for sure ....... What is this thing they speak about ....... being responsible? Who incited anybody? It is a blog where where I just put up my ideas. I don't advertise it - only a couple of times I did put up the link, coz someone asked for it. It isn't a forum where I put up politically motivated ideas ..... politics isn't my cup of tea, for gottsakes! What the hell are these people thinking? How can I of all people even think of causing "disharmony"? It is an online diary where I just don't restrict anybody from taking a peek - what's wrong with that? If at all anything, the reader will prolly know what kind of a person I am! All my blog contains are discussions that took place at Malaysia Today, and my submissions, and of course some of my own thoughts which I put up. If they felt that what I had put up was inappropriate, they could've just told me via a comment or e-mail. There was no need to block it quietly, and act cool! Come on lah, boss - get real lah ............... I'm not troubling anyone what.
Citizenship defines the place one calls home for life, where one rests one’s weary head after having travelled the globe. It gives one identity
THE confusion is solved. When earlier this month Home Affairs Minister Datuk Seri Mohd Radzi Sheikh Ahmad told Parliament that 106,003 Malaysians had given up their citizenship to opt for foreign ones, he was referring to statistics dating back to independence.
Since 1996 to last April, some 26,804 non-Malays had surrendered their citizenship while another 5,310 had had their citizenships revoked under the Constitution, he said in a written reply to Batu Gajah MP Fong Po Kuan.
Four days later, his deputy, Datuk Tan Chai Ho, dropped a bombshell. Some 79,000 or 70% of those who had ventured to greener pastures were Malays, he elaborated.
Malaysians gasped. One could throw a stone and find a non-Malay emigrant: a former colleague who had settled in New Zealand, three in Australia, the Punjabi woman heading off to Canada to join her sister. But Malays?
On July 19, Radzi stepped in to clarify the statistics. Only 10,411 Malays had left the country since independence – averaging 200 per year.
“Most were women who migrated to follow their husbands,” said Radzi.
Chinese numbered 86,078, Indians 8,667 and other races 847.
Apart from marriage, non-Malays leave for practical reasons, free education and job opportunities being the most common.
Tan had named the United States, Australia, Taiwan, Singapore and Indonesia as favourite destinations among former Malaysians.
“Some study abroad and just remain,” said Radzi.
“Among the men, job opportunity was a strong reason to leave. They bring their families with them, which doubles the numbers.
“Some countries such as the United States require one to be a citizen to hold jobs in government as well as the private sector. The Green Card (denoting permanent residence) is not enough.”
In the midst of the confusion, Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi issued a pointed warning.
“Those who have given up their citizenship cannot get it back if they suddenly want to become Malaysians again.”
This is true.
A Malay woman from Perak who married an Englishman two decades ago gave up her citizenship in the first flush of romance. After a few years, the marriage turned sour and she tried to return to her siblings. Her efforts were in vain.
A similar predicament befell a Muar-born man who had worked as a “mess-boy” for a British admiral in Singapore in the 1950s. When the admiral was posted back to England, he took the youth, then in his late teens, along with him.
There, Pak Long (not his real name) grew up, bought property and assuaged his homesickness by organising summer camps for Malaysian students. He even partially financed a few.
Now in his 70s, Pak Long felt the call of his hometown. He sold his property in England and returned a fairly wealthy man, hoping to have his citizenship reinstated. The doors were shut to him, too.
To many Malaysians, citizenship is entwined with the idea of loyalty. To give up one’s citizenship is seen by both the authorities and society as akin to renouncing one’s love for one’s native land. In their eyes, citizenship is a privilege not to be trifled with.
Malaysia’s neighbours understand this. Unskilled and semi-skilled workers from Indonesia and the Philippines have flooded Malaysia and are busily trying to obtain original or forged permanent residence cards, or the MyKad denoting citizenship, to pass themselves off as Malaysians. Malaysia is their land of honey.
In Sabah alone, 17,308 or more than one in four of the 61,811 Filipino refugees currently holding immigration visit passes (IMM13) have been granted permanent resident status.
But if citizenship is so precious, why do so many give it up seemingly so easily?
Malaysia’s Constitution does not permit dual citizenship. That would account for the numbers who, after a few years of commuting to and fro to keep their papers up to date, allow them to lapse.
With fast-track globalisation, many today are in fact “citizens of the world.” They owe allegiance to no single nation and are confident of gaining employment anywhere.
They are also comfortable retiring in countries far from their lands of birth, not least of which because after having paid high income taxes for the years they have lived there, they stand to benefit from generous social security plans. Of course, many of these countries, too, have stringent citizenship requirements.
Australia’s anti-Asian hype, led by independent MP Pauline Hanson’s One Nation campaign, typified this sentiment. Even in Europe and post-9/11 United States, pockets of racial biases exist.
Citizenship gives a person the right to vote. He pays taxes, may buy land and could be enlisted in its armed forces.
A network of family and friends accentuates his childhood memories and loyalty. Most of all, he has the right to speak out on issues relating to the running of his country, which a foreigner, being a guest, might hesitate to express.
There were Malaysians who at different periods of the nation’s democratic evolution felt constrained to leave for societies which they felt were more “liberal” and provided space for greater “freedom of expression.” But these phases passed.
Pressured by Tan's alarming figures, Umno information chief Tan Sri Muhammad Muhammad Taib put out an exploratory theory that merantau (wanderlust) is in the Malay blood.
Beyond the archipelago, enclaves of Malay descendents live in Sri Lanka and South Africa. But seafaring pre-dated the nation state, when citizenship was an alien concept.
A Malaysian diaspora is exactly what the country needs to build up if it wants to have an edge in the shrinking world. Overseas Chinese have proven their worth to the land of their ancestors; the Indian diaspora is following suit, notably in IT.
The importance of citizenship is encapsulated in the concept of jus soli. During the independence struggle, Malays had objected to the Malayan Union proposal because they saw it as “giving in” to British demands that non-Malays be given citizenship.
Meanwhile, founding fathers such as Tun Tan Cheng Lock saw inculcating Malayan loyalty among the local Chinese population as the only way to build up support for the Malayan Chinese Association which he led and whose focus was to get citizenship rights in an independent Malaya.
The Federation of Malaya Agreement (1948) citizenship clauses were so stringent that in 1951, Chinese citizens of Malaya numbered only 12%.
Race has always been the cornerstone of Malaysian politics.
Singapore’s acute transient nationalism is an example not to follow. In its attempts to draw as many professionals as possible to boost its economy, the city-state has found that the foreign talents do not see the super-efficient island as home.
Meanwhile, homegrown Singaporeans resent the exemption for foreigners from the two-year compulsory national service, followed by 10 years of reservist duty, pointed out columnist Seah Cheang Nee.
Malaysia has to strike a balance between sending its citizens out and imbuing them with a sense of belonging. This is what the tanah tumpahnya darah ku (this land I would die for) is all about in the first line of the national anthem.
Citizenship defines the place one calls home for life, where one rests one’s weary head after having travelled the globe. It gives one identity. It is the place to live out one’s twilight years. Ideally, it is “the best place on earth.”
Shahidan wrote: My point very simply was to show that Zionists too committ terrorism in the name of God. Golda Meir and the Rabbi Mordechai Eliyahu, former Sephardic Chief Rabbi of Israel and key spiritual guide for Israeli settlers in Palestinian territory also uses the name of god to advance state terrorism.
Why then do you assert that 'nobody else screams for blood in the name of God'? You are being selective in your condemnation because you do not acknowledge extremists from other religions do the same, but you are being Islamophobic when you single out only this group. I won't go into the Christian and Hindu sources to also produce the extremist versions of these religions as I do not consider these extremists to be representative of their religions. ...........................
Yes, there are fringe sects and groups with political motives who do scream for blood - but I don't recall any that have such a worldwide appeal as seen among Islamist apologists. Shahidan - it is you who have equated Islam with terror, and then have resorted to calling me an Islamophobe! Zionism isn't a religion - it is a Jewish nationalist ideology. I have a phobia for terrorists, more so for those who do it in the name of God - no matter which religion - not Islam per se. If that makes me an Islamophobe, I'm guilty as charged, and I wouldn't apologize. Why has this blackened the face of Islam only, you may ask. It appears to me that in no other religion, do they garner such widespread, worldwide support. In Islam, violence has become a worldwide phenomenon, unlike in other ideologies. Then you label those who abhor these violence, "Islamophobes"! You choose to drive a wedge between those professing Islam and other Ideologies with violence, then blame them for not understanding the peace of Islam? Nobody said what the "neo-colonialists" that you call the Empire, isn't doing things wrong. But at least the good that they have done is out there for all to see, and it outweighs the bad. Now, what good have these terrorists done to demand equal stature as the "Empire" as you put it? Zilch. If at all anything, they use the resources, technology and science of the "Empire", to send any nation that they dominate to the middle ages, while hating and envying them for their prosperity! So, they have been persecuted and injustices have been committed against them - yes, they can fight on a political platform. There is no need for them to justify their evils (they are not immune to it, you know) by hijacking a religion (or deen). It simply is not justifiable, just becos the other guy is doing it! It is good that you have come out to say that you do condemn terrorism - I appreciate that. I do hope you understand also that the Palestinian conflict has nothing to do with Islam. As things are you guys have become sitting ducks to negative media publicity that you get from the "Empire" - in fact, I'm quite aware (as are many of your critics) that not all acts of terror publicised are the doings of Muslim "terrorists". Unfortunately, these mosquitoes are so many, that even you can't deny it, if it (reports) were untrue - hence, you play into the hands of the "enemy", and destroy the kind face of Islam that you try so hard to build. ========================== You wrote: My own view is that throughout history, political movements have hijacked religions to advance political agendas for territorial conquests as well as for mobilising against invaders for self defence. The latter may be less pernicious than the former. ................
So, are you saying it is justified? Are you really saying that every Islamist rebellion, anger, bombing, atrocity and anti-establishment action worldwide in the name of God is justified?
For God's sake, if not Islam's, I hope not.
Bottom line is, Shahidan, it is wrong to hijack a religion for a political cause, Period - no buts, ifs or why nots.
You(meaning all apologists for terrorists - not you only Shahidan), as I see it are actually trying to defend Islam (not terror), but have got it confused with political agendas. When Islamist terrorists are condemned, you jump to their defense, thinking that you are defending Islam (as intended by these terrorists). If you (meaning all apologists for terrorists - not you specifically) do not support them, you fear being ostracised in some way for being "unIslamic", or feel that you betray your God.
That is why, the image of Islam has been tarnished worldwide.
Draw a line between the politics and the "deen" - and all will be fine again.
News about Islamic terrorism is impossible to avoid these days, even in the sanitised Malaysian media. Unfortunately, it's highly unusual for Muslims in Malaysia to ever criticise their co-religionists, no matter how outrageous their actions are. Muslim terrorists regularly murder women, children, civilians, and non-combatants alike. They execute captured prisoners after the most vicious torture. Terrorists acting in the name of Islam also blow up mosques, murder imams, and even violate oaths taken on the Quran, such as when the Taliban captured the Afghan village of Qala Mussa earlier this year, after having sworn on the Quran to engage in negotiations with the local elders. And yet, there is rarely a hint of outrage in the Muslim world. Malaysia is no exception to this pattern.
For a Malaysian example of this bizarre behaviour, let’s review the Malaysian reactions to the recent (2005) passing of Dr. Azahari Husin, the notorious Malaysian terrorist, committed jihadist, and chief bombmaker for terrorist group Jemaah Islamiyah. Dr. Azahari, as you may recall, was directly implicated in the Bali bombings (both 2002 and 2005), the Australian embassy bombing in Jakarta, and the JW Mariott hotel bombing also in Jakarta. Azahari was in fact an unrepentant mass murderer, responsible for the deaths of hundreds of innocent people. But, as his family and the Malaysian media would have it, he was also supposedly a ‘genuinely warm and caring kind of guy’.
Here is the kind of spin his family put on their ‘fondly remembered’ Doctor Azahari, as was published verbatim in a Malaysian newspaper at the time:
…in his family, he was a respected big brother whose skills in Maths and zest for sports were a source of inspiration to his nine siblings. Azahari Husin’s sister, Suraya, 45, recalled that her brother loved cowboy movies and thought girls were "soppy".
He loved the outdoors and once hitchhiked on a lorry from the premier Malay College (in) Kuala Kangsar, where he studied, to his home in Jasin as a teenager. When he studied in Australia, he took motorcycle excursions across the desert. He loved orchids and sports cars.
The remainder of this media puff piece continues on in the same insufferable vein. And while the family finds plenty of wonderful memories to share with the all-too-willing Malaysian media, there is nary a trace of condemnation of the late doctor's multi-year murder spree.
Azahari's family eventually had this to say about the terrorist Dr. Azahari:
“… our family and friends never interfered with what my brother did. That’s the integrity of our family,” said (a younger sister of Dr Azahari Husin.)
“People can say what they want, but I know my brother,” she said when pressed for comments by newsmen at her house in Jalan Chin Chin here yesterday.
The woman, who lives a few kilometres from her parent’s house, said her father Husin Yaakob, 78, had left home for the time being, to live with one of her siblings, in anticipation of media interest in Dr Azahari’s family.
Azahari also received a hero’s send-off at his funeral in his hometown of Jasin in Malacca state. The ceremony attracted some 600 well wishers, who repeatedly screamed ‘Allahu akbar’ as his coffin was lowered into the ground. Many present at the funeral also voiced scepticism of Azahari’s role as a top terrorist. “Azahari will always have friends here. We shouldn't be asked to believe what is written about him in the newspapers,” said one man who identified himself to reporters only as Yusri.
These are very curious reactions all around, at the very least. Given the multiple opportunities to condemn terrorism, and to pronounce how un-Islamic all this terrorism supposedly is, Azahari’s family, friends and neighbours all refused to so state. Rather the opposite, actually—in particular, Azahari’s sister said for the record that family and friends “…never interfered with what my brother did”. This is a disturbingly noncommittal thing to say about a man intimately involved in carrying out mass murder, and for conspiring to commit even more mass murder. Indeed, it could even be construed as approval.
Compare the (at best) tepid response of the Azahari family to the response of another family that had one of its own become a mass murderer—the family of Cho Seung Hui. Cho, as many no doubt remember, was a Korean American who murdered 32 people just a few months ago at a university in Virginia before taking his own life. In the aftermath of this devastating tragedy, the family issued a powerful and eloquent statement to the world and to the relatives of the victims. This statement reads, in part:
On behalf of our family, we are so deeply sorry for the devastation my brother has caused. No words can express our sadness that 32 innocent people lost their lives this week in such a terrible, senseless tragedy. We are heartbroken.
…
We pray for their families and loved ones who are experiencing so much excruciating grief. And we pray for those who were injured and for those whose lives are changed forever because of what they witnessed and experienced.
Despite their shock, grief and unimaginable horror, the Cho family managed to compose and release this brief, but articulate public statement. In no uncertain terms, it makes it clear how the Cho family felt about the actions of their loved one, a loved one who, like Azahari Husin, mercilessly slaughtered so many. And still, this one simple statement is light years ahead of anything ever spoken by any of the family or friends of Dr. Azahari.
Why, indeed, did the Azahari family choose to not say anything even remotely similar to this? And for another example, why didn’t any of the families of the 9-11 hijackers issue statements like the Cho family? Why do all of these Muslim families to this day steadfastly refuse to denounce the unspeakable crimes of their loved ones?
It’s not hard to understand why. While a lot of Muslims may talk of peaceful co-existence, they tacitly approve of Islamic terrorists killing non-Muslims. More often than Muslims like to admit, these terrorists, either living or dead, are lionized as heroes in the Islamic world.
Many Muslims know that these attitudes will not play well in the West. Thus, the official policy of Muslim countries like Malaysia is to condemn Islamic terrorism. When need be (often right after a spectacular Muslim terrorist attack), Muslim countries and organisations are quick to release generalised, pro-forma, and mealy-mouthed condemnations of ‘all kinds of terrorism’. Strangely enough, however, they can never get around to disavowing Hamas, Hizbullah, Al Qaeda, etc. specifically and by name. Yet all the while, the mass media and much of the general public in Muslim nations, as seen in the Malaysian media coverage of Azahari’s death, are rather sympathetic to these cold-blooded killers.
Many Westerners believe that all this pro-terrorist talk will go away once economic prosperity comes to the Islamic world. Perhaps. However, it’s important to point out that many, if not most middle and upper class Muslims, share these pro-terrorist attitudes. So let’s just face the fact that, if you are a kafir (and most people on the planet are), a whole lot of Muslims want you dead or converted to Islam.....unless you're Jewish, in which case, only dead will do.
But don’t just take my word for it. You can look it up.....in the Muslim media.
Yet the Malays create numerous excuses to prolong their crutches mentality.
28/06 04:38:53
===========================
Yes mujehidin.
You said it right.
You wanna see how virtuous a nation is - watch the money.
NEPist think they can control money - they do not understand that money is an "idea", and not a piece of paper.
It is a contract for value, between two entities.
If there is exchange between them for anything other than this, slowly but surely, if perpetuated, it would lead to an economic meltdown. It would encourage corruption, and it would attract all the conmen, pirates, cheats and speculators who are the opportunistic capitalists (read- parasites).
That is why Zimbabwe is having an inflation rate of 4500%, today. They thought that the money will flow in the moment everyone had land and assets, once they give them wealth through “affirmative action”.
They did not understand that money will stay only with those who know how to "create wealth".
No legislation in the world can change the laws that rule the idea of "money".
Do the NEPists realize that by depriving others of opportunities to create wealth legally, by demanding respect through legislative acquisition of assets, they cannot suppress them (the entrepreneurial society) and elevate the Bumiputras? Indeed they don't. They don't realize that what they need to create, is a “paradigm shift” in the as a result of the acquisition of knowledge (via legitimate education/ competition), and not creation of overnight millionaires via “policies” of “affirmative action”.
Do they honestly believe that the rogues of the economy who have “struck gold” would actually care for the people of their own “kind”?
Do they believe, that by depriving the truly entrepreneurial guys of equal rights or legitimate opportunities and giving freely to parasites, would create wealth for the dispossessed?
Sadly they are mistaken .... all that they would succeed in doing is, driving the economy "underground" and creating a "black money" economy (as was the case in many socialist nations of the past e.g. India). This black money/ undeclared money cannot benefit the people and it has to circulate among the corrupt, or in the "entertainment and gaming industry". It encourages dubious business ventures in an effort to make it "white". (In India, there is even a movie theatre that screens the “Sholay”, three times a day – for the past 30 yrs - to an audience of no more than a handful, so that “they” can declare incomes from a “full house”!
The people raise a hue and cry when it is alleged that the police are part of the underworld – but do they have a choice? They are doing their job, as per the NEP, which has unwittingly given a boost to the underworld! Therefore it (the underground economy) has become an essential part of the NEP!
This black money is "hot" and it wouldn't stay, if it cannot turn "white" - hence the appeal of Swiss/ offshore banks, purchase of precious metals, entertainment/ gaming industry and dubious business ventures.
When there is strife and chaos as a result of an economic meltdown, this money will be the first to flee, while the people languish in squalor created by the "protectionist affirmative policies" that protect the criminals, rather than the victims.
This is what the NEP (as it is practised) is in actual fact doing.
This is where Malaysia is heading with its economic policies - Zimbabwe!.
Excerpted from the RZIM Critical Questions booklet, Why Bother With Truth? Published in Areopagus Journal 2/2 (April 2002): 13-18. Posted with permission by Areopagus Journal (http://www.apologeticsresctr.org).
How can we know the world around us? How can we know God? How can we know anything at all? These are some of the questions of epistemology, the study of theories of knowledge. Epistemology has two main goals. First, we want to find as much truth as possible. And second, we want to avoid as much falsehood as possible. These two goals stand in tension with each other. I can easily acquire very large amounts of truth. If I were totally gullible, I’d believe just everything I hear. That would give me the largest number of true beliefs possible. But the problem is that along with all the true beliefs I’d acquire, I’d also obtain many false beliefs. So I’d have some needles of truth hidden in a very large haystack of error. That wouldn’t help me much. Similarly, I could easily avoid as much error as possible. If I were completely skeptical, I’d disbelieve everything. That would safeguard me against every falsehood. But the problem is that I’d miss out on all truth whatsoever—and some truth might be very important. So that wouldn’t help me much either. No one urges us to believe absolutely everything. But some very important and influential thinkers do advise us to believe nothing (or very little)—or at least they recommend that we believe only when an idea is incredibly well supported. This is skepticism. Skepticism puts most of its energies into avoiding error, and very little effort into finding truth. So how can we develop an understanding of epistemology that goes beyond skepticism? How can we balance our desire for truth with our need to avoid error?
Truth and Knowledge
It’s critical to distinguish truth and knowledge. Too many people equate these two concepts, with chaotic results. But truth and knowledge are different concepts. Put simply, true affirmations are those that correspond to reality. So truth is a characteristic of statements that properly describe aspects of the real world. This is called the correspondence view of truth. The correspondence view of truth isn’t a method for testing truth claims or discovering knowledge. It’s a definition of what we mean when we say that a statement “is true.” According to the correspondence view, what makes a statement true is reality itself. A statement like, “This car is red,” is true, simply if the car in question actually is red. Truth doesn’t depend on anyone knowing the truth. So, for instance, even if no one’s around to discover that it’s 115° at 2:00 p.m. on August 15, 1977, in the middle of Death Valley, it’s still true that it’s 115° out in that desert. The statement, “It’s 115° at 2:00 p.m. on August 15, 1977, in the middle of Death Valley,” is true even if no one thinks about it. Truth is independent of human minds. The word knowledge denotes a person’s proper understanding of the true nature of reality. This proper grasping of reality can be knowledge by acquaintance. In this sense, we know what the color blue looks like. An accurate perception of reality can also take the form of knowledge of true statements that describe that reality. Both of these are important. Knowing a friend is more akin to knowing by acquaintance, and it’s more important than just knowing about a friend. But knowing true statements is also important. In fact, the two kinds of knowing are related, because knowing by acquaintance entails the truth of descriptive statements. If I know a friend named Greg, then I know many true propositions, including “Greg exists” and “I count Greg as a friend.” For a belief to count as knowledge for a person, it must meet three conditions. First, knowledge must be true. We don’t just mean that someone thinks the idea is true. We mean that the idea is true. Members of the Flat Earth Society (believe it or not, there is such a thing!) think that the earth is flat. Do we count their belief as knowledge? Of course not! They believe the earth is flat, but their belief is false and hence can’t count as knowledge. Genuine knowledge is true. Second, knowledge must be believed. We must believe a claim (that is, we have to hold a belief as true) in order to know it. Of course, believing something isn’t enough to make it true, and not believing it doesn’t make it false. But without believing, a true idea isn’t knowledge for us. Suppose it’s true that one of my great-great-grandfathers was a Confederate Army lieutenant whose troops played a key role at the Battle of Fredericksburg. Now suppose I don’t know this fact and don’t have any particular beliefs about the lieutenant. In this case, it’s obviously true that my great-great-grandfather was this lieutenant, but it would be very odd to say that I know this about my great-great-grandfather. In fact, I probably have very few beliefs about my great-great-grandfathers. I can know generic things: eight persons who lived sometime in the last 250 years are my great-great-grandfathers. They were males; they fathered my great-grandparents; and none of them ever watched TV or received an e-mail. But since I don’t believe anything individually about any of them, I can’t be said to know anything distinctive about them as individuals. We must believe something to know it. Third, knowledge requires some other fact that legitimates the knower’s holding that belief. The belief must arise out of this legitimating fact; it must be grounded in this “something else.” Now we’re being vague because the exact nature of this legitimating fact is very hotly debated. But the importance of this legitimating fact is that it separates genuine knowledge from true beliefs that are held purely by chance. Obviously, we shouldn’t consider a true belief as knowledge if that belief was the result of a wild guess. Say I win the lottery by guessing the winning numbers. Sure, I hoped that the winning numbers would be the first five digits of my Social Security number, but it’s wrong-headed to say that I knew that they would be the winning numbers! In sum, by the word knowledge, we mean a true belief held by a person for an appropriate reason—that is, grounded in a legitimating “something else.”
Forming and Testing Beliefs
If knowledge is true belief plus some legitimating fact, then how should we set the standards for assessing these legitimating facts? The 17th century philosopher Rene Descartes concentrated on this very problem. His philosophy set the stage for modern discussions of knowledge. Descartes’ approach posited very high—too high—standards for that “something else,” that legitimating fact that distinguishes merely true belief from genuine knowledge.
Methodism Vs. Particularism In order to weed out false beliefs and gain genuine knowledge, Descartes required that all candidates for genuine knowledge must arise from a method. Correct method (for Descartes, the geometric method) is the key to finding true knowledge. This approach is called methodism. Methodism, in this discussion, isn’t the religious denomination. Rather, it’s an epistemic theory that stipulates this: we know any particular true belief if and only if we arrive at or produce that knowledge by following a correct method. Here’s a specific example. Suppose someone asks me whether I know the statement, “My coffee cup is blue.” (Let’s call this statement p.) Methodism requires that before I can truly know p, I must follow a proper method by which I know p. So to know any particular truth, methodism says I must follow a proper epistemic method. Although Descartes’ methodism may seem like a promising way to ground knowledge, it’s fundamentally flawed. Methodism requires that before I can know anything, I must have prior knowledge of the method by which to know that thing. But then how do I know that method itself? My coming to know what method to use would itself require following a prior method. This quickly leads to what’s called an infinite regress. Every time I try to answer the problem, the problem keeps appearing. I start moving back a chain of questions. But every time I move back to a prior link in the chain, the problem repeatedly emerges. It’s like asking, “What explains Michael’s existence?” If I say, “His parents,” I just raise again the very question I hoped to answer: “What explains his parents’ existence?” “Their parents?” Ultimately, given the methodist approach, there’s no way to end this infinite series of questions. In the end, if methodism were true, I’d have to know something (the right method) before I could know anything. There’s no way out of this double bind. But there’s another approach to finding the legitimating fact that separates true belief from knowledge. It’s called particularism. Particularism starts by assuming that it’s right to know particular things directly (that is, without following a method) since we find that we already know many particular things. In certain conditions, we directly and properly form true beliefs. And we form these beliefs through a variety of means. We see a tree or hear a train. We compute things. We infer conclusions from things we see or hear. We learn from experts. We read the Bible. Each of these processes generally leads to true beliefs. And so it’s legitimate, particularism says, to count particular beliefs like these as knowledge. We shouldn’t be required to step back and first prove that, say, our vision is perfect, before we rightly know something we see. That would lead us back to the methodist trap (since we’d have to prove the method that we use to prove our vision is perfect). So it’s better just to assume that our properly formed beliefs are innocent until proven guilty. With these particular beliefs in hand as examples, we can begin to understand what knowledge is—and gradually to increase the number of things we know.
Testing Individual Beliefs But difficulties arise when we run into contrary evidence. Let’s say that, just by looking at it, I form the belief that a particular stick is straight. I have no reason to doubt this because my eyesight’s generally very good. Then I put the stick in water, and suddenly I form the belief that it’s bent. Again, my eyesight’s pretty good. But my mind tells me that the stick can’t be both straight and bent. So which of my two beliefs is true? Or let’s say my wife helps me pick out a tie that looks gray to me. I protest: “It’s too drab.” But she assures me that the tie is a nice shade of rose. Should I trust her judgment? It’s when this sort of thing happens that testing procedures become important. This is where we follow methods. We have procedures to help us figure out which of the conflicting things that our normally reliable belief-forming processes are telling us is actually correct. The conflict between beliefs produced by these normally reliable indicators leads us to question whether what we think we saw could really be so. I remember something in my high school physics class about light refracting when it passes through water, and this accounts for the bent appearance. Or I remember that I’m color blind in reds and greens, and this explains why the rose-colored tie looks gray to me. So what do we do about conflicting facts? We go to procedures to help us sort them out. (This is the correct insight that methodism takes too far.) Should we just give up and concede skepticism? Hardly. What are the procedures or strategies for evaluating competing beliefs? First, our beliefs should be rational. At a minimum, this means that our beliefs shouldn’t contradict one another. This is coherence, a negative test. Say I believe both that “I’m the world’s leading microbiologist” and that “I don’t know much about microbiology.” These beliefs are obviously incompatible, and so holding both beliefs at the same time is irrational. One of the two (or maybe both) must go. Coherence is necessary. But it doesn’t guarantee truth. Incoherence is a significant red flag. It guarantees that some beliefs are false. We should pursue strategies in order to avoid holding incoherent beliefs. Second, our belief should fit with the evidence. If a belief doesn’t fit with data we know to be true, we should give up that belief. Take the claim, “I’m the sixteenth president of the U.S.” This belief conflicts with many well-established facts: “The sixteenth U.S. president’s name was Abraham Lincoln”; “My name is David Clark”; “Abraham Lincoln is dead”; “I’m alive”; and so on. So I’m really not the sixteenth U.S. president. Generally, we look for beliefs that fit the evidence. But notice something very important. We don’t stipulate a rule: “Every belief must be proved by evidence before it counts as knowledge.” Among other problems, that rule would land us back in methodism. The problem with making this rule into an absolute requirement for knowledge is that the rule itself can’t be proved by evidence. No evidence could ever prove that “Every belief must be proved by evidence before it counts as knowledge.” So we do look for evidence to help us, but only when it’s appropriate.
Testing Large-Scale Models So far we’ve been talking about particular beliefs. But we also seek knowledge about large networks of truth claims. A large-scale scientific theory, for example, is a complex set of interlocking claims, all connected in a large network. Large-scale models include many different kinds of things, including scientific, historical, and even religious convictions. Large-scale models compete with each other to see which one does the best job of explaining all (or most of) the known facts. Thus, for instance, the heliocentric (sun-centered) model of our solar system competed with the geocentric (earth-centered) model. Though this isn’t well known, both the heliocentric and geocentric models explained the available physical facts equally well for centuries. Physical observations didn’t finally confirm the heliocentric model until more than 200 years after Galileo’s controversies. Thus, the heliocentric model didn’t compete with the facts. Rather, it competed with and finally defeated the geocentric model of the solar system by doing a better job of explaining the most facts. This is one way that large-scale models gain support—by outdoing their rivals at explaining the data. Here’s another example. When National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) investigators are trying to explain a plane crash, they look for evidence. They know what to look for because they’ve explained other crashes by finding telltale facts that guided them to large-scale explanations. The telltale facts are clues that unlock patterns of interpretation and lead to strongly supported explanations. The NTSB puts all the data together and concludes, say, that the plane crashed because a turbine blade in one of the engines shattered. The power of this explanation to incorporate all the relevant data—like the loud explosion passengers heard and the sudden loss of airspeed reported on the cockpit data recorder—is a major reason we hold that the large-scale theory is a properly supported, interlocking set of true beliefs. The individual facts are themselves grounded in experience (such as the sound of the explosion, the report of the plane’s reduced airspeed, and the shattered pieces of the blade). The large-scale theory incorporates and explains these and many other facts. Complex explanatory models can form ongoing programs of research and investigation. They not only explain what we know already. They can also guide us to what we don’t yet know. Take, for example, the discovery of Neptune. Uranus didn’t orbit the sun as the large-scale models suggested it should. But when scientists imagined that another planet was exerting gravitational force on Uranus, then its orbit suddenly made sense. So scientists began looking for this other planet, and sure enough, they found Neptune. This is similar to “superstring theory” which developed when theorists used mathematics to explain their observations. The mathematical calculations worked out beautifully when scientists assumed the existence of things they called superstrings. The calculations are powerful in that they explain a number of related issues. So researchers posit that superstrings exist even though they can’t observe them. Research programs that guide researchers to new discoveries are progressive. This helps confirm their connection with the real world. But testing large-scale constellations of beliefs isn’t simple. In fact, it’s sometimes impossible. Theories about particular events, like why a particular ship went down in a perfectly calm sea, may never in fact be understood. The problem might be that certain key pieces of evidence are stuck too far down on the sea floor. This means we could explain the event in principle, but can’t in fact. That is, there’s no logical reason why we can’t explain this event, but there’s a practical barrier to our understanding. So in this case, we should remain agnostic rather than claim to know what we really can’t know—at least until we develop a new submersible vessel that can get down to the wreck and find the key evidence. The truth about some complex processes might just remain hidden. Testing models is even more complex because it requires making judgments of several different kinds. What are the facts to be explained? (Sometimes the two models will explain different ranges of data, and there’s no way to step outside the two models to know which range of apparent facts is really most relevant.) What are the criteria by which we decide which explanation is best? (Sometimes the two explanations will excel at two different criteria—one model might be simpler while the other is more helpful in guiding us to new discoveries.) So our procedures aren’t straightforward and linear. But reasonable judgments are still possible. When the NTSB investigators find a cracked turbine blade, we know we shouldn’t blame the pilots for the crash (and maybe we should blame the jet engine manufacturer). Gathering knowledge isn’t always easy, but it’s amazing how much we can learn through carefully using all our strategies in a coordinated way.
Knowledge and the Intellectual Virtues
Thus far, we’ve been discussing some of the key elements of a proper understanding of knowledge, including belief formation and testing. We’ve argued that knowledge requires true belief plus some account of that belief—something that legitimates the belief. But thus far we’ve been quite coy about what this account is. It’s time—indeed, past time—to repair that deficiency. What is this feature that, when added to true belief, constitutes knowledge? Here scholars disagree—in fact, there are few things about which epistemologists disagree more! Thankfully, it’s not our purpose to address all the academic squabbles. Rather, we’ll offer an account of knowledge that we find persuasive. t focuses on the relationship between knowledge and the intellectual virtues. What are intellectual virtues? Virtues are qualities of excellence possessed by a person. Intellectual virtues share some characteristics with moral virtues. In fact, many acts that are virtuous in a moral context are also virtuous in an intellectual context. Examples of intellectual virtues are honesty and courage. Being intellectually honest means making a fair appraisal of the evidence at hand, dedicating effort to reach valid conclusions, admitting personal biases that affect beliefs, and seeking to override or reduce those biases. In an intellectual context, courage involves, among other things, being willing to take a minority position when the evidence points in that direction. It also means investigating personally held beliefs with rigor. An intellectual virtue, therefore, is a characteristic of a person who acts in a praiseworthy manner in the process of forming beliefs. But an epistemic virtue isn’t simply an instance of intellectual skill. For example, think about the ability to see sharply. This is a skill that some lucky people have from birth. This ability isn’t developed over time. (In fact, eyesight falters over time.) So it’s not particularly virtuous. Virtue relates more to what a person does with abilities or skills like incredibly sharp vision. Further, the intellectual virtues don’t just happen naturally. Rather, they arise from habits. Like good habits (such as exercising and eating healthfully) and bad habits (like biting fingernails and gossiping), the intellectual virtues are the sorts of things that become more and more a part of us the more we practice them. Similarly, the more we practice their opposites, like intellectual dishonesty, the more difficult it becomes to respond to any given situation in an intellectually virtuous way. Intellectual virtues influence, and are influenced by, the motivations of the one employing them. A person must come to believe something out of proper intentions. Say that a student named John hears a teacher talking about a classmate whom John dislikes. “He is nice,” the teacher says. Because of his ill will toward the student, John hears, “He has lice,” and he jumps on this bit of negative information. Even if it’s true that the student has lice, does John’s belief count as knowledge? No. Even if he believes it, it’s true, and it’s grounded in a normally reliable belief-forming process (John has good hearing), from a virtue perspective, John’s belief doesn’t count as knowledge since this belief arose in an intellectually non-virtuous way. John’s belief was shaped by his malicious attitude toward the fellow student. Given all these points, we define knowledge in this way: Knowledge is true belief that is reached or acquired through an act of virtue. The key insight of virtue epistemology is that knowledge isn’t just an issue of whether evidence exists for specific belief at a particular time, but an issue of how a person goes about gathering evidence. So whether or not a particular belief is properly grounded for me has to do with how I formed the belief. Did I form this belief in accord with the intellectual virtues, reflecting praiseworthy habits of belief formation and testing acquired over time? Or did I form this belief in a manner that reflected slipshod handling of the evidence or haphazard reasoning processes?
Conclusion
We began by talking about our need to gain truth and avoid error. Skeptics are fixated on avoiding error. Their concern is the adequacy of a person’s evidence. To avoid falsehood, skeptics place a very high standard for admissible evidence. For some skeptics, the standard is so high that every belief becomes doubtful. We agree that avoiding falsehood is vital. And given our virtue-oriented epistemology, the notion of evidence is important. But more important is whether we rightly handle the evidence we have! An unscrupulous person can twist evidence to support the position he holds. But if we’re intellectually virtuous, we’ll operate differently. We’ll treat evidence honestly, overcome our biases toward our own culture’s preconceived notions, and refuse to misuse evidence to gain power or to pretend that our own pet beliefs are superior. So is knowledge possible? Even though people have many false beliefs, Yes! The existence of junk car yards doesn’t count as evidence against the existence of new cars. Similarly, the existence of intellectually non-virtuous people doesn’t show that intellectually virtuous people fail completely in their quest for genuine knowledge. In sum, due to human limits, some things are beyond knowing. But if we exercise the intellectual virtues, we can achieve genuine knowledge about important things. Skepticism wins some skirmishes along the way, but it doesn’t win the war!
James Beilby is an adjunct professor at Bethel College and Theological Seminary, St. Paul, MN.
David K. Clark is professor of theology and Christian thought at Bethel Theological Seminary, St. Paul, MN.
Here is a good and brief reply that was among the comments (exactly my sentiments, so I didn't bother to post anything) to this highly hypocritical article (from an Islamist of the PAS party) in Malaysia Today, that actually fights for an Islamic state in Malaysia. It was indeed a very well written article from a smart man, with intentions to hoodwink the unsuspecting reader who doesn't understand his motives.
The reason why I had put the comment before the article, was so that the reader would be able to read the article with a proper, unbiased perspective..
creeper wrote:
I'm quite impressed with this piece of work ..... especially the last bit :-
"Only a vibrant and genuine democratic state will ensure and provide for every citizen to partake and advocate their respective ideological commitments and defend the right of others to exercise theirs be they Secular, Islamic or Agnostic or what have you. That is truly the defining criterion of a democrat. This shall remain our enduring mission that will unite us together.
Will the true democrat please stand up!"
........................................
Allow me to begin by defining two words - OPINION and CONVICTION :-
An OPINION is a position you hold with a varied degrees of intensity, that merely voices your preference.
A CONVICTION is that which is rooted in your conscience;
.........so that if you were to toy with your opinion, you would be jostling with your preferences. If you were to toy with your conviction, you are going to deal with your conscience, before you alter it.
Now let's dissect what you have written.
Firstly, you're from PAS Research Centre (whatever that is).
Then, you do not wish to take sides, and yet have spoken for Democracy/ Democrats as it would give you the opportunity to attain power via elections.
However you speak for a party that aims for an Islamic state - and an Islamic State by Syaria, isn't compatible with Democracy, freedom and justice based on universal values!
And you have the audacity to say,"Will the true democrat please stand up!"?
Get off your high horse, man - take a good look at yourself and the principles that your party stands for!
As long as you speak in this manner for PAS, you've made yourself nothing more than a hypocrite - and it stinks to the high heavens!
Do you even realize that it is people like you (i.e. PAS supporters) that provoked NTR to come out with such seditious statements so as to play politics?
Are you so shameless, that you wanna "sidestep the debate" with the excuse that it is a lost cause?
I somehow sense a conflict, a dilemma in you - between that of your conscience and your opinion.
The only problem here is - I don't know which one speaks here!
Is it any wonder that despite all your religiosity, people don't trust you?