New Year's Eve bullshit

At Malaysia-Today, I read of the DAP being offered RM1.2 billion by Israel, yes Israel to win GE-13, following which (hypothetically after Pakatan had captured Putrajaya) it would build for Israel a military training camp as a reward for its election campaign donor.

The accusation was made by PAS research director (PPP) Dr Mohd Zuhdi Marzuki .

He raised this in the aftermath of a DAP man, Chong Zhemin, questioning the government’s move of denying visas to two Israeli windsurfers attending a tournament in Langkawi.

But after making that bodoh political faux pas, (adversely affecting Pakatan Harapan among the Malays, particularly for Amanah) Chong withdrew his criticism apologising for not being mindful of Muslim-Malay sensitivity about a Zionist Israel. Chong also re-affirmed his support for Palestine and anti-Zionism.

I offered these comments in the post in Malaysia-Today (typos and missing words there corrected here):

Israel build a training camp here? I've never heard of such preposterous bullshit and which probably has been why DAP didn't bother to answer - why would/should they when the bullshit is so humongously implausible,

But then we need to remember Dr Mohd Zudhi Marzuki, the director of PAS Research Centre is a significant leader in ISMA.

Dr Zuhdi Marzuki second from right

is he an Islamic promoter or an ultra rightwing promoter?

In case you can't remember what ISMA is, it's an ultra rightwing group which had made a bigoted/racist statement last year (2014) to the press about Indians and Chinese being brought into Malaysia by the British to weaken the Malay identity and undermine the community’s birthright to peninsular Malaysia on the pretext of multiculturalism.

So just bear this in mind, he is not just PAS (some of whose members I still have respect for and friendship with) but ISMA (f**k this racist organization).

Fact: Israel lies in the Middle East, where its environment is semi-arid (almost desert) and which borders the Mediterranean. Militarily, it is "tank country" on land with its air force flying in almost perfect dry weather most times. Why the f**k would it require a training camp in Tropical (bloody wet rainy) Malaysia?

Dr Mohd Zudhi should offer a better bullshit which can't be so easily shot down. Pathetic.

If Israel needs a tropical country to exercise in, then there is Philippines (Christian country which it has friendly relations with), Thailand (ditto) and Vietnam. If it needs other than a tropical country there is Australia, India, USA, and even China, etc (all have desert like land), which all have very friendly relations with Israel.

If Dr Mohd Zudhi's "suggestion" is not so sinister against DAP, his silly joke of a bull would have been good for laughs, but knowing how anti Israel some Malaysians are (and I admit I'm one of them, though with good reasons and not blind as a f* bat, wakakaka) this so-called "revelation" by an ISMA man is both dangerously unfair and dangerous. But then he is ISMA, isn't he!

We also need to bear in mind that PAS had been an important member of Pakatan Rakyat leading up to and during GE-13. The political perspective then did not foresee PAS breaking up with DAP.

There was even a period when DAP would have campaigned and stood for elections under a PAS flag.

Does Dr Mohd Zudhi remember all this as he is also a PAS member apart from his involvement in ISMA?

Even if PR formed the government after a hypothetically different GE-3 outcome, would PAS and PKR (both as partners in PR) have allowed Israel to build or for DAP to build for Israel such a training camp?

The sheer bullshit of Dr Mohd Zudhi is mind boggling staggering.

Dr Mohd Zudhi should not make such silly but spiteful comments, even against his enemy.

Cradle snatching?

MM Online - Appellate court upholds unilateral conversion of Hindu mum’s kids, defers to Shariah courts

I needn't narrate to you the judicial outcome of the case as no doubt most of you would have already read about it, save to say the decision of the Appellate Court was NOT unanimous, with the ruling borne on a 2 to 1 decision.

The dissenting judge was, as reported by MM Online, Hamid Sultan [who] said that the matter was not the jurisdiction of any court, but a mistake that is legally void and made on the part of the religious authority concerned.

He said that for a non-Muslim child to utter the “khalimah syahaadah” or Muslim declaration of faith, the minor must apply to the state religious department accompanied by a parent’s consent, which he said did not happen in the case of Indira’s three children.

“So what are the requirements? It is very simple... a person who is an adult must have an application and take the oath, khalimah syahaadah, and if it’s a child, the child must make the application and the father must consent.

‘In this particular case, the father made the application and there is no provision for father to make the application, and khalimah syahaadah was never taken by these children,” he said.

Hamid Sultan said the certificates of conversion issued were therefore null and void, and did not need deciding by either the civil or Shariah courts.

What f* me kau kau was the ruling by the majority on the Appellate court that the civil courts have no jurisdiction over the Islamic matter, which it said was solely the purview of the Shariah courts, when it was blatantly clear those converted were not only non-Muslims minors (Hindus) but were proselytized by a father without their knowledge of what was involved nor their consent given (even assuming minors could give consent, which we know would be totally bull as in statutory rape cases).

Mind, one f* arsehole got away with statutory rape when he bonked a 13 year old girl because the court suggested the sex act was consensual - we'll come to that soon.

Everyone knows there's bad blood between the husband Padmanathan and wife Indira Gandhi, both being non-Muslims at time of separation, and each wants custody of the children. Thus this should be a clear case for the civil courts.

Almost 10 years ago, during a law forum on Constitutional Article 121(1)(A), Abu Talib Othman, the chairman of SUHAKAM and former Attorney-General, in fact the very man who had drafted the contentious Article 121(1)(A) in 1988 for then-PM Dr Mahathir, blamed the timidity of the civil courts in interpreting the constitutional rights of the syariah courts in the Moorthy case, for lacking the balls (kt's words, wakakaka) to interpret the provisions according to the intentions of the proponents (BTW, that’s the Mahathir government with Abu Talib as drafter).

Abu Talib accused the civil court judges of worrying about their promotional prospects as the possible reason for lacking the courage. He said: “The courts have failed to do so (interpret boldly) for the slightest unreasonable reasons in many cases where Islam is merely seen on the surface.”

In other words, what he was saying is that the moment those civil court judges detected the faintest whiff of any Islamic element, even though the Islamic connection wasn't the core issue, they would freeze into gutless abdication of their judicial responsibility.

When human rights lawyer Malik Imtiaz told him about judges who admitted to being Muslims first rather than civil court judges, Abu Talib advised him to report the matter and if there was evidence, those judges should be removed.

Abu Talib said: “They are unfit to be judges, then. Judges should remember their constitutional oath to protect and uphold the Federal Constitution as the supreme law of the land.”

But Imtiaz said that the Moorthy’s case was not unique as such cases have become almost a daily occurrence (and don't we just know that) but which the media had not reported. Imtiaz said what Abu Talib himself said, that judges of civil courts are currently avoiding or rejecting cases whenever there is anything vaguely Islamic in those cases.

Abu Talib said: “The problem here is caused by the court, not by the legislature. Judges are not complying with the constitutional oath they had taken. The courts today are taking the easy way out, either due to incompetence or under threat. Today, our courts are merely courts of statistics not interested in dispensing justice. With sentiments running so high, similar developments could lead to riots.”

OK, this then takes me back to the case in 1986 when a Malay school teacher "eloped" with (or kidnapped) his underaged Chinese student, Susie Teoh. Her father discovered she was missing from home and learnt of her conversion to Islam.

From the Aliran Monthly 2004, we read:

Susie Teoh was 17 years and 8 months when she became Muslim. Her father Teoh Eng Huat, a Buddhist, could not locate her and he took the Jabatan Agama in Kelantan to court. He applied for a declaration that, as father and guardian to the infant, he had a right to decide her religion, education and upbringing and that her conversion to Islam was invalid. The case was covered by the Guardianship of Infants Act, 1961, a federal law of general application, Art. 11 (1) (freedom of religion), and Art. 12 (3), (4) (right to education) of the Federal Constitution. 

The High Court ruled that the father's right to decide the religion and upbringing of the infant (under 18) is allowed "subject to the condition that it does not conflict with the principles of the infant's choice of religion guaranteed to her under the Federal Constitution." In other words, the infant has a right to choose her own religion if she does it on her own free will.

With respect to the last line above, what a lot of crock as we will see shortly when we visit the judgement of the Supreme Court.

It's almost akin to saying having sex with a minor is statutory rape UNLESS the sexual act was consensual, i.e. she does it on her own free will, or in the pseudo-immortal words of our Appeal Court in 2012, sex without force, cohesion or violence.

Yes, it had happened here in our Boleh Land, that is, having sex minus force, cohesion or violence with an underage girl of 13 and then escaping imprisonment for statutory rape, for a lucky f* someone who was said to have a "bright future", but not for f* him who presumably hadn't been deemed to have a "bright future". However, BOTH are f* maggots!

What more, in the Susie Teoh case, the High Court's rule about "... subject to the condition that it does not conflict with the principles of the infant's choice of religion guaranteed to her under the Federal Constitution" was quite amazing considering the minor, Susie Teoh herself, was not even in court to testify if she had voluntarily become Muslim. So then how lah?

Continuing with the Aliran Report which saw the father taking the case to the Supreme Court:

The Supreme Court overruled the decision of the High Court and held that "in all the circumstances and in the wider interests of the nation no infant shall have the automatic right to receive instruction relating to any other religion other than (her) own without the permission of the parent or guardian".

Shouldn't this obvious point be f* clear in the first place? But wait, then didn't we have the bullshit about the bloke who was allowed to statutorily rape an underage 13-year old and escape unscathed because he has a "bright future" when even we laypeople know what the term statutory rape means?

Continuing with the Aliran Report - The Supreme Court, however, did not proceed with the declarations sought by Teoh Eng Huat as these were "only of academic interest" as Susie Teoh had reached the age of majority by the time the case was heard in the Supreme Court in 1990.

F* kowtim gnam gnam.

But a legal commentary said of the Supreme Court ruling, that the judgment remains fundamental in seeking a balance approach between a child’s right and parental authority and to provide basis for further argument should the same problem arise, in other words, forming a legal precedent ... 

Did the mother Indira Gandhi agree to the Islamic conversion of her non-Muslim children?

Speed reading or seedy reading?

Mohamad Tajuddin Mohamad Rasdi is Professor of Architecture at UCSI University, Cheras. Recently he wrote in to Malaysiakini to lament Dr P Ramasamy's letter criticising Rayani Air, the new airline which claims to be syariah compliant. Rayani Air is owned by a married couple, Ravi Alagendran and wife Karthiyani Govindan, both of whom are Hindus.

Malaysiakini reported Dr Ramasamy, Penang's DCM II, acknowledging that the two Hindu owners are "... primarily eyeing the Muslim market in Malaysia as 60 percent of the population is Muslims. The airline will be syariah compliant - only halal food will be served; Muslim staff will have their heads covered, and if non-Muslims are employed, they will have adhere to Islamic attire. There will be prayers before take-off and landing, no alcohol will be served, and pork will be prohibited."

However, I don't agree with Dr Rama's argument that "It is apparent that this husband-and-wife team have little regard for the non-Muslims in the country. Although they are Hindu, they don’t seem to understand that starting an airline on a syariah-complaint basis will have negative effect on the use of the airline by non-Muslims. Obviously, Rayani Air will not treat non-Muslims as equals in their travels and this will contribute to yet another form of polarisation in our already much-divided society."

Where is the evidence that "Rayani Air will not treat non-Muslims as equals in their travels"?

Ravi Alagendran and Karthiyani Govindan are just exploiting the Muslim market for their start-up airline. It's a reasonably smart strategy for a newcomer, to carve and secure a niche in the Malaysian Muslim market. And why not!

So long as there is no application of hudud legislation such as punishment by chopping off hands of pickpockets or flogging those found guilty of, say, yamseng-ing on board a Rayani Air flight I don't give a shit that it's syariah complaint.

Besides, passengers are the cash kings and queens so those not happy with the airline's syariah compliance needn't travel with the company.

In fact in some 'no-frills' airlines, if you don't cough up the dough for alcoholic drinks, the no-alcoholic-drink service would also be virtually syariah compliant, wakakaka, well at least for those who don't pay, so what's the issue?

After all, Rayani Air is a very small operator having only "... 350 staff, eight pilots and 50 cabin crew ... fly[ing] to Langkawi from Kuala Lumpur, with plans for expansion to Kuching and Kota Kinabalu" and reportedly with only two aircraft in its fleet.

Syariah compliant or not, it's just a means of air transportation and only within Malaysia so in actuality there will hardly be time for any decent yamseng-ing between KL and Langkawi.

BUT and a big BUT!!!

Prof Mohamad Tajuddin in criticising Dr Rama should not have twisted the latter's words. For example, he criticized Dr Rama, saying "I am absolutely shocked to read that Ramasamy has equated this couple’s idea of a syariah-compliant airline to one for whites only or Buddhists only. What nonsense is this?"

What Dr Rama wrote had been "Just imagine what will happen to the minorities if the government of India gives out licences for airlines to cater mainly for the Hindu majority in India. What if Sri Lanka promotes airlines that cater for the Buddhist majority? Or if European countries give preferential treatment to whites rather people of colour or blacks? We condemned apartheid in South Africa but aren't we are doing what we condemned?"

Where was it that suggest Dr Rama had "equated this couple’s idea of a syariah-compliant airline to one for whites only or Buddhists only"?

In fact Dr Rama warned about the apartheid paradigm if others emulate Rayani Air's unique catering for a specific religious or racial group.

Though I don't agree with Dr Rama's 'worries' (for reasons stated above), I am disappointed with Prof Tajuddin's preposterous twists in his accusations against Dr Rama.

Is he professor of architecture or fiction writing?

Another of his accusations against Dr Rama was: "Furthermore, asking the couple to act like AirAsia founder Tony Fernandes who mixes cheap fares with sexual appeal in the form of scantily dressed stewardesses says a lot about Ramasamy’s opinion perhaps on the issue of dignity for women."

This was what Dr Rama had actually written in his original letter: "Perhaps Air Rayani founders should learn some useful tips from Tony Fernandes, the CEO of AirAsia, and the number one airline in Malaysia."

"Fernandez was successful not only because he had the right management skills, but he also made it possible for ordinary people to travel cheaply and safely. He cared for those who could not afford to travel because of the practices of some airlines in imposing exorbitant fares."

Dr Rama had talked of Tony Fernandez' management skill and the cheap fares offered by his airline AirAsia.

Prof Tajuddin's preposterous insertion of "... sexual appeal in the form of scantily dressed stewardesses says a lot about Ramasamy’s opinion perhaps on the issue of dignity for women" was a nasty non-Queensbury ruled blow below Dr Rama's belt. Real f* kotor lah.

But Dr Rama has been kindly diplomatic in advising the Prof not to 'speed read' his letter, wakakaka.

The way I see it, Prof Tajuddin might have naughtily and opportunistically used Dr Rama's letter (some parts of which, as discussed above, that I personally disagree with) to recklessly throw shit to satisfy his own prejudice based on his own religious interpretation.

And WTF does Prof Tajuddin mean by 'scantily dressed stewardesses'?

He insults the stewardesses' dignity by his sexist male-chauvinism.

I wish such 'pious' Muslim leaders would stop their disrespectful misogynistic comments on women's body parts or attire. Keep the f**k out of women's personal space and privacy.

And most importantly for an academician, he should check his f* facts before launching attacks because if he doesn't, he'd and indeed has f* shot himself in his own foot. Malu saje!

Why some Malaysians love Israel

MM Online - On Facebook, student owns up to ‘I love Israel’ post with apology, plea for forgiveness

I'm not going to comment of the actions of Jonathan Ong Ujang per se, but to give my opinions or observations (unscientifically based as the latter are) on who would likely be Israel-lovers among Malaysians wakakaka.

I notice that Malaysian Israel-lovers would generally though not exclusively, be:

(a) Christians who (presumably) take up the side of Israel for their somewhat misguided belief that there exists a wonderful affinity or religious link between Christianity and Judaism. Some politically clever Jews in Israel, the USA and Europe, lend weight to this belief which has been the cornerstone of the USA's blind support for an aggressive oppressive brutal neo-Nazi Israel.

The reality is Jews (admittedly not all) detest Christians for a number of reasons, the chief two being Christianity's oppression of Jews for centuries and that Yehoshua ben Yosef (Jesus) was none other than a rebellious Judean heretic.

There is no such thing as The New Testament in the TaNaKh (Jewish Bible); there is no such person, prophet, messiah or son of god as Yehoshua ben Yosef in the TaNaKh or any holy book used in Judaism.

To Jews, Christians are NOT of their faith nor race (Judaism is in general a racial religion) and one Israeli blogger (Samson?) even laughed at the attempt of Christians to link Christianity with Judaism, saying Judaism is MORE akin or closer to Islam.

But for politically astute Jews, Christians are ripe for exploitation for their political-economic-military powers and support through their misguided religious belief in the link between Christianity and Judaism.

So Christians' religious-political support for Israel is one-sided but as we know, in religion there is no logic nor reason(ing).

(b) non Islamic non Malay Malaysians who saw in Israel an anti Islamic force and hence an anti Malay force which can provide them a substituted though stupid syiok sendiri satisfaction by whacking the Palestinians/Lebanese (some of whom are actually Christians), thus whacking the Muslims, and thus vicariously whacking the Malays.

They would not realize some racist Israelis hate or at least despise them (the non Malays) as goyims or untermensch (sub humans).

Yes, it's silly to cheer a racist supremacist race (the rightwingers in Israel and their supporters) as 'whackers' of another racist supremacist race (the ultras in the Malay community) even if only vicariously but then who says that hatred or immense dislike is logical or sensible.

I have witnessed this moronic syiok sendiri satisfaction in a Malay university professor when he talked happily and glowingly about the "brave" Vietnamese whacking the "arrogant" Chinese kau kau when those two countries had a border scuffle. wakakaka.

(c) then there are non-Malay Malaysians who love Israel for some unknown reasons, perhaps automatically siding the underdog, the myth of David against Goliath (though modern biblical scholars have indicated that David was a real bloody unscrupulous evil bastard, and that he wasn't the biblical person who killed Goliath but who (or his supporters) brazenly claimed that credit). 

So this is Christmas?

Every Christmas I'm reminded of John Lennon's song "So this is Christmas?!", sometimes titled "Happy Xmas (War Is Over)".

Palestinian babies killed by Israeli military in Gaza

Listening to his words and seeing the YouTube images, I cannot help but weep a few tears. That's when one couldn't help but ask "Where the bloody hell is god?"

Maybe that should be the song's title.

It's definitely a song for everyone, Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Taoists, Shintoists, etc.

Wishing you, my dear visitors, a Peaceful Christmas & a Safe 2016.

Compulsory 14 days minimum

Malaysiakini reported that the National Film Development Corporation’s (Finas) compulsory screening scheme, in which local films must be shown for no less than 14 days, was introduced in 2005 to assist local filmmakers to gain a minimum quantum of audience ........ 

aiyoyo, we need you in Malaysia more than ever lah 

........ unless of course the film is a local Tamil language film like Jagat.

So the film’s director Shanjhey Kumar Perumal has complained.

Holey moley, I wasn't aware of the compulsory 14 days of screening.

What compulsory rules will our authorities introduce next?

14 compulsory minimum days of visiting 'Lao Yat 2'?

Even a BN state government, namely Terengganu, had in 2008 abandoned the purchase of Proton Perdana V6 cars in preference for Mercedes Benz, wakakaka.

It was a government policy that all federal and state government cars were to be national cars, and the Perdana V6 was the designated car model for MBs and state excos.

But Terengganu MB Datuk Ahmad Said, on taking over from a poor royal-rejected Jusuf, spurned the Perdana for the German car, and spent almost 3.5 million ringgit in the process.

Ahmad Said's 'Mercedes-Benz-isation' was at a time when the rakyat was asked to tighten their belt, wakakaka.

The DPM, then Muhyiddin, said the cabinet would examine the Terengganu MB's decision to abandon government policy to purchase locally produced cars.

And what was the outcome of that DPM's examination? Zilch, as usual!

But nonetheless, doesn't this 'compulsory' approach in commercial business such as film screening smack of Kim-Jong-ism all over?

Wind of change?

When Pesaka President Ali Rustam said: "Stop giving Kota Raya scuffle a racial tinge", ...

... combined with the 'disowning' of Ali Tinju and his bawdy actions by his association The Malaysian Armed Forces Veterans Association, and his unusual back-peddling from being involved in the brawl at Kota Raja shopping mall, ...

... and also the wonderful news of the appeals court dismissing Jawi's charges against Kassim Ahmad as being unlawful, ...

... is there a wind of change blowing across our nation Malaysia?

Let's hope it also blows down Jakim, especially after a recommendation by Tawfik Ismail to dissolve the unnecessary organization.

Tawfik Ismail is the son of our former illustrious DPM, Allahyarham Tun Dr Ismail Abdul Rahman.

Tawfik reminded us: "Jakim was created during Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad's time and seems to serve no other purpose than to intervene in the personal lives of Malaysians."

"What is the purpose of Jakim? Halal certificates? That can go to the health ministries, trade ministry. What else does Jakim do? Print the Quran? We have a communications minister."

"Jakim is an advisory body to the government, but constitutionally it really has no role. Islam is the province of the sultan of the state, it has nothing to do with the government."

"National integration in this country is the biggest challenge. How do you integrate the nation if you are going around this route of looking for faults among Muslims?"

Let the lovely wind of change blow Jakim into the sea.

The new couple

Cium cium cium kissy kissy sayang
We're so deliciously close together
Darling I am now like your bayang
In a country so "perfect" & super

We've gone PAS-t our old quarrels
Our UMs NO longer crossed akimbo
Just forgive & forget our old battles
From today you're my sweet beau

But what about the kaki kangkang

Slut who hangs on to your bahteow

Won't she harass you, her abang

Mind, don't blame her as she's heow

Hey, what about a ménage à trois

We'll play it a la falling dominoes

I think tiga is more syiok than dua

Tho' A will envy our peccadilloes

Wakakaka

Religion, Religiosity and the "Religious" in Malaysia

TMI - Top cop confirms reports lodged over attempts to convert Muslims (extract):

the term 'Church' used here is generic and embraces all religions

likewise for above picture of a 'church' 

Police have received a number of reports, in which Christians groups were attempting to convert Muslims, Inspector-General of Police Tan Sri Khalid Abu Bakar told a news portal today.

Nowadays, such police reports in Malaysia are common and in a large number of cases, made frivolously and usually with a sinister or vindictive political agenda.

Thus, even if the IGP informed us that a number of reports have been made about Christian attempts to proselytize Muslims, I would be cautious about accepting the reliability of those reports. Mind, this is not to say there isn't any such proselytizing.

Alas, the questionable use of police reports cut both ways and is not confined to only one group, political or religious. The Malaysian term for such reports is (in Chinese) char koay teow reports.

We've heard of the deformasi scare-mongering '40K Bangla' during GE-13 wakakaka but which unfortunately saw some over zealous vigilante actions on polling day. On this you may wish to read my Bangla in Pilihanraya, wakakaka.

Then on the other side, we obtain the usual bull, some with very serious dark intent, though one was undeniably the most ridiculous, which should really be entered in the Malaysian Book of Records as what it has been, to wit, THE MOST RIDICULOUS police report ever made in Malaysia, one against a DAP ADUN, RSN Rayer (Seri Delima) for using the word celaka (damn) against precious UMNO, wakakaka, and would you believe it, Rayer has been charged by the 'hardworking' police for that.

In Malaysia, unfortunately we cannot disconnect the political from the religious, where we have parties like UMNO and PAS claiming their at-times ugly actions and words were needed to "defend" Islam and Muslims, while the other side of the coin saw some Christian clerics being very (politically and politicized-wise) naughty, well, at least in my opinion, wakakaka.

Three years ago, in August 2012 (ie. one year prior to the 13th general elections) The Malaysian Insider's Muslim scholar: ‘Haram’ to vote DAP but not MCA, MIC reported that Abdullah Sa’amah, an Islamic scholar, told Utusan Malaysia that it's haram for Muslims to vote for DAP and its two allies PAS and PKR in the coming general election, all because DAP has refused to accept hudud.

On this, poor f* PAS received an unjust rough raw deal from UMNO, its current Islamic brethren, wakakaka. But that same Islamic scholar was f* silent on UMNO which also did not promote hudud.

He then had the brazen thick-skinned face to exempt UMNO allies, namely MCA and MIC (but alas, not, Gerakan, wakakaka) from that haram warning.

Muslims were told that the DAP had the bloody gall to demand equality for Islam and non-Islam, and equality for temples and mosques. How dare these f* kafirs and dhimmis.

OTOH, Abdullah told Muslims it will be halal to vote for MCA and MIC because these two BN branches are prepared to accept Islamic rule. Would that be true, YB Liow Tiong Lie?

Then, we read Free Malaysia Today's GE 13: What would Jesus do? Wakakaka.

Poor Yehoshua ben Yosef, a non-Christian Judean (Christianity did NOT exist in Jesus' time) dragged into today's Christendom's politicking.

It was on 07 August 2012, that a public forum was held in PJ, Section 8, at the Dignity International, A-2-7 Pusat Perdagangan, on the (then pending) 13th general election, to discuss GE-13 from a Christian perspective.

Why a Christian perspective and not a Malaysian perspective? Why bring your religion into my politics?

The pathetic preposterously politicised topic of discussion was 'What will Jesus be doing in Malaysia today?'.

The speakers were Rev Dr Hermen Shastri and Paul Sinnappan.

FMT reported:

A media statement on the forum explained that the cowardly fence-sitters are the sole obstacle in preventing political change in Malaysia.

“As the winds of change blow in this most exciting times of political change in Malaysia, the only obstacle that is preventing the change from actually taking place is the Malaysian ‘fence-sitters’ who for the last 54 years have been afraid to make that choice for change."

“Many among this also reside in our Churches and sit glued to benches and pews during Sunday service without fail, listening fervently to what Jesus may be saying to them,” it read.

The statement added that there is a growing awakening among all Malaysians on the need for real change – a reform of the political landscape for Malaysians.

“Yet there seems to be a disjoint of the faith growth within the Churches and the growth without among all Malaysians. This seemingly two worlds of faith and politics are a challenge to all Christians. Are there two lives or only one life, [which] we live according to the will of God?,” it said.

The speakers, read the statement, will take the audience through the Bible to study the political implications and experiences of being a Christian.

“This is to help us enter into present-day reality of the Malaysian political context, and answer the perennial thought: what would Jesus do in Malaysia Today?” it added.

Just as Islam in Malaysia has been highly politicized, so it seems too with the Christian church, well, at least in August 2012, wakakaka, who considered those who for the last 54 years have been afraid to make that choice for change as cowardly ‘fence-sitters’.

And just who the f* were they to label people who chose/elected as they wished/wanted as cowards? How dare they! Must we vote in accordance with their arrogant dictates?

And what did they mean by 'fence-sitters' when those voters had voted one way or another?

Did the 'change' they advocate meant changing the then-existing majority ruling coalition? Who-TF were they to determine that for us? Were we leemings in the eyes of the church?

As an atheist, may I humbly draw the attention of Christians, not excluding Rev Dr Hermen Shastri and Paul Sinnappan, to what Jesus told us in Matthew 22:21:

"Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's."

F* eat that! That's what Jesus would have done and said if he was here today.

Don't believe me? It's all in the Christian Bible, in Matthew 22:21.

But then again, some Christians like some Muslims like some Hindus and like some Buddhists have a convenient  'mudah lupa' mentality when it suits their f* self-interests, wakakaka.

Isn't it troubling enough that we already have so many Islamic clerics politicizing their religion for political gains? We certainly don't need any more clerics of other religious denomination interfering in politics.

We need a f* clear separation between State and Church.

Back to Abraham soon!

I’ll be continuing my “Who was Abraham?” series shortly – have been taking a break from it to focus on contemporary issues.

In the meanwhile, as a recap, here are the earlier articles:

Who was Abraham? (1)
Who was Abraham? (2)
Who was Abraham? (3)
Who was Abraham? (4)
Who was Abraham? (5)
Who was Abraham? (6)
Who was Abraham? (7)
Who was Abraham? (8)
Who was Abraham? (9)
Who was Abraham? (10)
Who was Abraham? (11)
Who was Abraham? (12)
Who was Abraham? (13)
Who was Abraham? (14)
Who was Abraham? (15)
Who was Abraham? (16)
Who was Abraham? (17)
Who was Abraham? (18)
Who was Abraham? (19)
Who was Abraham? (20)
Who was Abraham? (21)

Encounters of the THIGH kind

From Free Malaysia Today:

Forked-tongue PAS and a wishy-washy PKR

Mariam Mokhtar

December 16, 2015

Their leaders seem to lack principle, focus and direction.

PAS and PKR are parties which act like fish out of water. They flip and flop, gasping for oxygen. Is it any wonder that more and more Malaysians, including Malays, are attracted to DAP? Leaders of PKR and PAS appear to lack principle, focus and direction.

Last November, the PAS President, Abdul Hadi Awang, denied that he had entered into talks with Umno-Baru to form a unity government in Selangor. The allegation had been made by former PAS vice-president Husam Musa and confirmed by Shah Alam MP Khalid Samad.

Why was this not revealed before the PAS muktamar? It might have resulted in a different outcome, and the conservative faction under Hadi may not have triumphed. The grassroots need to be reminded of the warning by the late Nik Abdul Aziz Nik Mat that Umno-Baru is a party of “great liars” and that “Umno is like a cat that will pounce, take and then hide with its booty.”

Whilst PKR leaders act like failed peacemakers and PAS’ leaders are more interested in the afterlife, Umno-Baru acknowledges the strengths of DAP.

Umno-Baru knows that the sphere of influence exerted by DAP is increasing rapidly. That’s why it became the target of vilification during the 2015 Umno-Baru General Assembly. Irresponsible Umno-Baru politicians tried to instill fear with talk about the spilling of blood, invoking scenes of violence and racial clashes. This was accompanied by a warning about a party controlling Malaysia that has “no regard for the Malays, Islam or royalty.”

During the lacklustre general assembly, Umno President Najib Abdul Razak extended a hand of friendship to PAS, saying the idea was for the two parties to cooperate in the name of “protecting Islam and defending Malay interests.”

At the same time, Hadi expressed an interest in working with those who could further the principles of Islam, and he urged Umno-Baru to “repent” and return to the Islamic way of life.

Nik Abduh Nik Abdul Aziz, on behalf of the PAS Youth wing, responded positively to Najib’s overtures. He said, “We accept the prime minister’s offer because previously anything that was proposed by the opposition was rejected wholesale by those in power. We welcome the call for closer ties on condition that the cooperation is based on religious values, as religion is a core part of Malaysian life.”

Nik Abduh is not a chip off the old block. He has failed to heed his father’s warning about Umno-Baru. Moreover, Nik Abduh has, in the past, invited ridicule with statements like the floods being “a punishment from God” for Kelantan’s failure to implement hudud.

Then, to confuse matters, the PAS supporters’ wing chief, N Balasubramaniam, claimed that Hadi had told him that PAS had no intention of cooperating with Umno-Baru. He said, “I have confirmed with the president” that there would not be political cooperation with Umno-Baru.

More confusion ensued when the Kelantan Umno-Baru Liaison Committee chief, Mustapa Mohamed, dismissed a statement made by the PAS Deputy President, Tuan Ibrahim Tuan Man, to the effect that Umno-Baru was dreaming if it was thinking of cooperation with PAS. Mustapa said that Umno-Baru and PAS had been collaborating for the past two years.

Which party is to be trusted? Will PAS decide which side of the political fence it wants to occupy? It cannot fall into bed with two opposing factions, Umno-Baru and the Pakatan Opposition coalition, unless this is PAS’ macabre version of a polygamous political marriage.

Is PKR masochistic? How much more of PAS’ betrayal can it bear? PAS leaders are seen as untrustworthy. Moreover, women, who comprise half the total population, have no time for a misogynistic politician like Hadi.

this image is not in FMT article wakakaka

just kaytee's inclusion wakakaka again 

Was Rafizi Ramli serious when he said that Pakatan Harapan had to “rope in PAS or risk losing the general election again”?

The problem is that the rakyat, including Malays, have this to say about PAS: “Once bitten, twice shy.” Rafizi and his mates need to return to the drawing board.

Mariam Mokhtar is an FMT columnist

Read also Zaid's thumb down for UMNO, PAS & PKR

Horny Malaysians

" ... we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be. We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender."

- Winston Churchill (04 June 1940)

FMT - Malaysia ranks 7th horniest in the world (extracts):

KUALA LUMPUR: After the adverse global publicity the country has endured due to the twin scandals of 1Malaysia Development Berhad and a RM2.6 billion political donation, Malaysians can finally take pride in some good news.

It seems the Malaysian sex drive continues unabated through all difficulties – political and economic alike – and we have emerged among the top ten countries in the world noted for a high sex drive, an article in Express UK revealed. [...]

Despite the perception that we are a conservative nation, Malaysians have a high sex drive, higher even than Mexicans, the Swiss and Spanish.

One commentator wrote: Luckily we still have Syariah Law on khalwat cases. Otherwise we may becoming the No 1.

But the survey referred to Malaysians and not just Malays, wakakaka.

Another suggested: Malaysia should strive for the top position, since we have so many sex maniacs around from within and those serving overseas.

Re "those serving overseas" he was probably referring to those naughty Malaysian(s) in the "land of the long white cloud", wakakaka.

Thus we may paraphrase Churchill's above immortal words to " ... we shall f**k on the seas and oceans, we shall f**k with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, ........ We shall f**k on the beaches, we shall f**k on the landing grounds, we shall f**k in the fields and in the streets, we shall f**k in the hills; ........"

Wakakaka.