Hopping, hullabaloo, humbug

Malaysiakini - CM defends proposed 'anti-hopping law'

Penang Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng said his administration's plans to enact a law to prevent state assemblypersons from switching political allegiance mid-term is to protect citizens from a breach of public trust and protecting democracy. […]

"For any elected representative elected on a party ticket to hop or cross over is an immoral, unethical and unprincipled act that shows utter contempt for the democratic choice of their voters.”

"If they were elected on the party they represent, they should resign their seat and seek a fresh mandate from the people if they chose to leave the party platform on which they were elected on," said Lim in a press release today.

He argued that democracy meant that voters should be given another opportunity to judge whether the decision by the elected representative to switch allegiance is acceptable, or not.

Precisely my stand all these years, and why I despise you-know-who, with the plural in ‘you-know-who’.

But alas, Koh Tsu Koon somehow found his voice (and balls) to tell Guan Eng off on this, as reported by MKINI in its news article Anti-hopping law: Koh slams Lim for double-standards.

Our dear Headmaster deputy Headmaster on NKRA asked Guan Eng why the latter didn't say a word about the two Sabah frogs, Lajim Ukim and Wilfred Bumburing, leaving BN to form new parties which have allied themselves to Pakatan?

Koh squeaked: "Where is the consistency? I did not see (DAP stalwart) Lim Kit Siang and Lim Guan Eng protest when two MPs (members of parliament) from the Sabah BN jumped into the Pakatan fold.”

"So, why practise double-standards now. Is he doing this for (merely for) show?"

I can answer that for Guan Eng. Lajim and Bumburing have NOT leaped into any Pakatan component parties, as they have formed their own parties. If they wish for their new parties to support Pakatan, I won't say that's of a frog-ological nature.

Okay lah, I admit I sound technically (and defiantly) correct but in reality morally f* weak in my attempted defence of Guan Eng.

That's the f* trouble when DAP patronises a Master-Chef who insists on serving les cuisses de grenouilles.

les cuissee de grenouilles

Also, I learnt that frogs are haram for the Shafi'i, Hanafi and Hanbali (though okay for Maliki) schools of Islam - hmmm, there must be an Islamic moral in this for our Muslim politicians on both sides, not that they care two figs.

Previously, DAP sweetie Hannah Yeoh, not unlike Guan Eng, had suffered from the same diarrhoeic affliction in 'consuming' the dish of les grenouilles de 916.

But it's a curse that DAP needn't have to suffer as its spiritual leader, my hero Karpal Bhai, has repetitively warned against eating non-halal stuff.

The problems surrounding defection have been made deliberately worse by an earlier BN-dominated parliament legislating to prohibit those, who resigned from their positions as MP or ADUN before their elected terms have run out, form standing as (respectively federal or state) election candidates for 5 years. It's this rule that has effectively prevented Dr Wan Azizah from re-contesting in a federal constituency.

Malaysiakini reported in its article Ex-PM decries DAP's anti-hopping law that Dr Mahathir asserted: "We are free ... we say we want to liberalise, to be able to speak one’s mind and criticise people and what not; that is our freedom. So what is it now in wanting to prevent people from party hopping?"

MCA president CSL made more or less the same statement about the federal constitution guaranteeing the freedom of association, as if the BN has ever respected the constitution, having changed it more than 200 times in a the last 30 years of rule to suit its political purposes.

Besides, since we all know the general Malaysian voting preference of electing a representative on the strength of his/her political party rather than the candidate as an individual, what about the rights of voters who voted Party A only to find their votes have gone to Party B?

So CSL, what about the voters' rights? Or would this be the only way that MCA can dream of ever having a MP or ADUN after the next election?

But then, shouldn't Dr Mahathir's claim of liberalness be also applicable to the wish of a MP/ADUN who may want to resign on political principles to re-contest again? So why had the (earlier) UMNO-led government legislated to prevent this by imposing a mandatory hiatus of 5 years?

Don't tell me the bullshit that it's to prevent wasting public money in holding by-elections, because allowing the rakyat to elect or re-elect their desired representative should be their fundamental rights and an overriding priority, where by preventing the MP/ADUN who has resigned on a matter of political principle to re-stand, would be effectively denying the rakyat their choice of re-electing said candidate.

Rights, choice, principles - these are issues far more important than saving a few dollars, tax-payers' dollars, not the government's.

So, Dr Mahathir, you can't claim it's 6 on one while denying half a dozen on the other, because that's hypocrisy and double standards. And don't tell us about the Master-Chef as he was your protégé and his heart, soul and proclivities are still like yours, in and of UMNO wakakaka.

Incidentally, at this point, I must define who's a political frog because it would appear many still don't understand the distinction. The frog has to be a MP or ADUN who was elected under the banner of, say, Party A but takes his MP/ADUN position across to, say, Party B (even if he/she puts on a show of not joining Party B but votes regularly with Party B). In other words, a frog is one who treacherously betrays the choice and trust of the voters.

OTOH, a member from, say, Party A who is NOT a MP or ADUN and who leaves to join another political party, say, Party B or Party C, is NOT a frog. He or she most certainly has the right to freedom of association that Dr Mahathir and CSL have talked about, as this person won't be reneging on or betraying any voter.

But the biggest culprits aren't frogs but us, the voters. We Malaysian voters are the most stupid and hypocritical people. We are stupid because we kept re-electing contemptible frogs like Ibrahim Ali and his ilk. We are hypocritical because we claim we despise frogs yet accommodate them as heroes when they leap to our side.

We lack the political maturity of the voters in countries like Australia or New Zealand for it seems we do not really know how to deal with frogs, both those hopping away from or hopping into our favoured party. In more than one way, we actually encourage frogs by our inconsistent attitude towards them.

So pordah pariahs (that's us, not those opportunistic frogs)!

Police statistics on crime rates

The Malaysian Insider - Kit Siang roasts mum Putrajaya over crime stats claim

Lim Kit Siang today questioned Putrajaya's inaction over claims that its efficiency unit and the police had manipulated crime statistics by reclassifying offences to depict a reduced crime rate.

Pinpointing Home Minister Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Hussein as well as ministers in charge of the government's National Key Result Area (NKRA). Datuk Seri Idris Jala and Tan Sri Dr Koh Tsu Koon over the matter. Lim today said the trio should have "instantly" rebutted the "serious allegations of dishonest statistics tampering by the anonymous police officer".

On Wednesday, an anonymous letter purportedly written by policeman alleged of how crimes were being methodically shifted into "non-index" offences that were not registered as part of official statistics presented by efficiency unit PEMANDU.

"If Hishammuddin Idris Jala and Koh continue to keep their silence then Malaysians must thank the anonymous police officer for performing his patriotic duty to answer why Malaysians suffer increasing fear of crime despite claims of continuous drastic fall in crime rate", Lim said today in a press statement.

He added the government should instead appoint a new home minister"who is serious about fighting crime" and who is "honest with Malaysians about the actual crime situation in the country".

BN ministers honest? Uncle Lim was either naive or sarcastic wakakaka.

PKR and its arrogant tokong

Poor Lim Guan Eng!

Battered from without and now from within.

As if BN's insidious fabrications against him via his son and then his wife and so on so forth weren't rotten enough, Guan Eng has just been stabbed by a musuh dalam selimut Pakatan.

Tape recordings macam the Korrect Korrect Korrect episode have emerged on the web to tell a tale of how Lim's political ally, PKR in Penang, views him and his leadership. 'Twas not so much their opinions per se that matter but more about the inevitable damage those opinions allowed in the public arena would wreck to Lim's and consequentially DAP's disadvantage.

Loose lips sink ships, or in this case, (the potential to sink) the Rocket spaceship. As they say, 'perception' matters in politics and whether there's any truth in PKR Mansor Othman's vocalised opinion of Lim GE, doesn't matter a bloody fig. Each and everyone of his enemies, from those in MCA to pro-UMNO & ultra anti-Lim GE  bloggers (wakakaka), and even those in PKR, will have a field day dissecting, pseudo-analysing and writing ugly dissertations on Lim Guan Eng's political leadership.

With friends like PKR, DAP sure as hell doesn't need enemies.

Now, much as it may sound strange, I personally opine the hand that has plunged the assassin stiletto into Lim's back (or side, wakakaka) is not that of Mansor Othman, though he naively lent his hand to the assassin for the backstabbing job.

Othman must have believed an internal PKR meeting to assure the Tian Chua's (Chinese) faction in PKR they won't be sold out would have been conducted in confidentiality, and that a wee informal bad-mouthing might placate those worried cult members of the Heavenly Snake* faction of PKR. I have personally witnessed such so-called confidential meetings where the chair would with reckless bravado or lack of discretion let loose on rumours - I suppose we Malaysians just love to gossip on whatever, regardless of the truth. We usually forget the consequences.

* Tian Chua in Penang Hokkien sound like Heavenly Snake wakakaka

wakakaka

The truth is that PKR (if we leave out the PRM component) has been KeADILan has been UMNO. It undeniably possesses UMNO genes and characteristics but it claims to be multi-racial, a claim somewhat discredited by Anwar Ibrahim's poor treatment of many of its erstwhile Indian members who left in droves - now, if they hadn't, would Azmin Ali have a chance of becoming party deputy president and eventually party president?

So while the ex-UMNO members represent the core of PKR and dominate party policies and decision making, and precisely because of all these, the nons want so desperately to demonstrate their relevance in the party.

And, hey hey hey, there's the PKR Chinese faction, with its unspoken faction leadership reputed to have been assumed by Tian Chua.

Tian Chua is of course not his birth/legal name, which is Chua Tian Chang. It's obvious he has clung on to his Aussie-given name.

Western nations have this (culturally) bad habit of westernising Chinese names by relegating the Chinese surname to being the last name (where the western surname stands), thus Chua Tian Chang became Tian Chang Chua, and under the Western-Christian naming concept, which has First name (Personal or as Malaysians know it, Christian name), then Middle name, and finally Last name (or Surname), Tian was believed to be his 'First' name, thus Tian Chua, not unlike Elvis Presley from Elvis (1st name) Aaron (Middle name) Presley (last name) wakakaka.

Hmmm, I wonder what his parents or siblings call him? Probably Chai or Chang.

For more of Australian (western) mangling of Chinese names, please read my post What's in a name! wakakaka.

What;s in a name? That which we call a rose
By any name would smell as sweet
- Shakespeare, Romeo & Juliet (II, ii, 1-2)

And I wonder what role/status former MCA man Chua Jui Meng has in PKR, and what threat he poses to the current leadership of Tian Chua? But sorry, this have to be another story.

Anyway, long before the current 'Lim GE is an arrogant and cocky tokong' brouhaha, courtesy of PKR's Mansor Othman wakakaka, Tian Chua had been well aware that his Heavenly Snake faction in PKR might not have a role at all, or at best only a token one, if Anwar Ibrahim were to see DAP as the Pakatan component to be given responsibility for Chinese and Indian majority constituencies.

Thus, prior to 2008, in order to prevent such a terrifying Pakatan status quo from setting in to the disadvantage of the Heavenly Snake faction, he and/or his cohorts had the treacherous habit of making pre-emptive strikes against DAP in seat allocations, by making unilateral media announcements of seat allocations for Pakatan (not PKR) which strangely, if you believe in coincidences wakakaka, usually favoured PKR.

Of course those 'unilateral' announcements meant that DAP leaders would, after reading the morning news, invariably exclaim 'WTF!' wakakaka.

Alas, despite all its pre-emptive strikes, the general success (or lack of) by PKR in elections has been noticeably inferior to DAP , especially in Sarawak, and coupled with the avalanche-like dominance of DAP in Penang DUN, have dampened their (Chinese) members' confidence severely, thus it was hardly surprising these PKR members in Penang desperately sought Mansor Othman's assurances that he would not relinquish any of PKR's seats allocated in 2008, even the ones they lost, to DAP.

The only black mark on Mansor in his tête-à-tête with his PKR colleagues has been his unwarranted remarks that:

They (the DAP) are sure of winning 19 (seats) and they want more. Because with two more (seats) they can form their own government and they can take from us (PKR reps) to be on their side and (then) abandon us (PKR).

Stupid, isn't it? Would Lim have done that and soured DAP's relationship with PKR at federal level or in Selangor and Perak?

But I suppose once Mansor allowed his mouth to babble away like the local village gossip-monger about the DAP, just to mollify and assure his party Chinese members he won't sell them down the river, he couldn't stop the momentum of the shit pouring out, alas, all without the moderating effect of conscious political prudence.

Obviously someone very very very unhappy in PKR has not only taped what Mansor said, but has released that recording in the public domain.

Lastly, we note that while the Malaysian media have reported such a controversial piece of news, of Mansor Othman and his private but naughty remarks against Lim Guan Eng, Free Malaysia Today has been significantly silent wakakaka. Buat ta'tahu eh? 

The Irony of Malaysian Lupa-ness

One definition of the word 'irony' is  'an outcome of events contrary to what was, or might have been, expected'.

It is not to be confused with 'ingratitude' which would be 'unthankfulness' or 'lack of gratitude', though sometimes one could argue, within Malaysian political context, there's connection between the two.

For example, in the 70's when Ibrahim Ali (yes, that Jabba the Hutt bloke) was a student leader and desperately trying to escape detention under the ISA, he frantically sought the help of a Chinese, namely, Lim Kit Siang, then Parliamentary Opposition Leader. In recent times, Jabba the Hutt has been virulently and venomously vicious against most things Chinese, in particular against Lim and his party., the DAP.

Jabba the Hutt

Would this be a typical case of Dr Mahathir's Melayu mudah lupa?

No, because we know Ibrahim Ali is a political survivor par excellence, a cheen chnea ch'am* carma† chameleon, and thus we know that his personal interests, khusus untuk numero uno, would have easily, conveniently and unconscionably suppressed any of that often touted Malay phrase hutang budi, that is if at all any exists in the first place, to Lim Kit Siang.

* cheen chnea ch'am is Chinese for bloody (wakakaka) pitiful

† for 'cari makan', an abbreviation coined by A Samad Said

Naturally, as Opposition Leader, Lim would only be doing his job in ensuring, within the laws, that Ibrahim Ali was not ISA-ed, and which Lim did, and for which he would not expect nor demand any gratitude, and Lim did not.

As I had written in a 2010 post Malaysian meaning of 'gratitude' about the survivor instinct of Ibrahim Ali who had the thick-skinned temerity, or perhaps in this case, we could use 'irony' (wakakaka) of Jabba, to speak about the lack of 'gratitude' of Chinese in Hulu Selangor and Sibu when they disdainfully rejected the PM's offer of campaign pork-barrelling financial allocations, as follows:

Look, if Pakatan becomes the ruling party one day, Ibrahim Ali will be there beside the new Pakatan PM singing a new song titled ‘Reformasi is for me’; if PAS assumes power, Ibrahim Ali will replace the Kulim Wonder as the No 1 Islamic warrior of Malaysia, and in the unlikely event of DAP becoming the ruling party, Ibrahim Ali of course will be in astronaut costume, helmet and all, to show he’s an ardent rocket jock wakakaka.

Jabba the Malaysian astronaut wakakaka

Of course there is nothing for the rakyat to be grateful for a politician's election campaign pork-barrelling, because the offered or allocated funds belong in the first place to tax payers, and not the prime minister or any politician.

In this confusion over or incorrect expectation of 'gratitude', which I posted in Malaysian meaning of 'gratitude', I averred to our Malaysian medieval feudalistic mentality, of still a prevalent belief in some quarters of our society that people are born with a divinely assigned position or status such as rulers, nobles, warriors and vassals, and where the PM (in modern times voted in by the rakyat, but perceived nonetheless as a ruler in our social culture) owns all or most of the land and national assets which he has the authority and prerogative to grant (as if his own) to his supporters in return for their loyalty.

Exploitation of this belief has sometimes been laughingly referred to as the disease of 'sehelai kain pelekat & RM100'.

Mind you, Jabba himself does not believe in the above but don't call it 'irony' but rather, take your pick, 'politicking', 'expediency' or 'hypocrisy', because the reality is that his messages, like most political messages, have been naughtily crafted for his targeted audience.

Okay, let's leave Jabba at his planet Tatooine, and may he stay there forever wakakaka.

Tatooine

When we talk about 'irony' and 'lupa-ness' how could we ever get past Dr Mahathir without reminding ourselves, very sadly, of his Bangsa Malaysia.

Here was a man, a far-sighted Malaysian leader, who took the initiative, with just two words, to infuse us with a sense of harmonious fusion, a sense of all belonging to one nation, a sense of togetherness in one proud nationality, perhaps even that of a new race a la 'Americans' (the gringo variety wakakaka), 'Australian', 'Canadian', etc.

Here is a man who talks about the nonsensical potential of Chinese taking over the country, whipping up Malay nationalism, ensuring we remain as divided as the days before Merdeka and especially immediately post May-13.

Would this be irony, or would it be his accusation of Melayu mudah lupa be the irony?

On the other hand, perhaps his Melayu mudah lupa has been 'prophetic' rather than 'ironical', as he amply demonstrated the veracity of his own accusation by his repetitive selective amnesia over his prime ministerial records.

Perhaps I'll indulge in just one more commentary on Dr Mahathir, the prime minister who during his earliest term, in 1983, promoted the concept of Kepimpinan melalui teladan or leadership by example. In kool parlance it's for leaders  to walk their talk.

Adanyakah?

Addendum @ 1900 hours - see The Malaysian Insider's Ideology and debt: A reply to Dr Mahathir by Pak Sako, who wrote that Dr Mahathir, who had complained about the injustices of the neo-liberal international order, had himself (during his government) introduced neo-liberal policies including the massive privatisation strategy (sometimes referred to cynically as 'piratisation' strategy) - 'twas said to be the policy linked to 'increased competition for resources within the ruling Malay party', and which redistributed resources 'in favour of emerging factions centred on key political leaders'.

Hmmm, another of his mudah lupa-ness?

Let's move on to ...... wakakaka ..... no, I'll let him off today, though I won't his followers, those M-cube, the Mindless Manmanlai Myrmidons - see my post Mindless Malaysian Myrmidons wakakaka.

Now, in my previous post, someone asked me to write something about Princess Nurul Izzah. Here goes, though it may not be what he/she expected.

Now, this would not be unfamiliar to you who read blogs. Those M-cube would frequently demand that Marina Mahathir (I presume you know who she is wakakaka) in her writing denounces her father before they would consider her as clean and acceptable.

Apart from Marina ignoring those totally senseless demands (unlike me she is polite and courteous, whereas I would just use the f*-o word wakakaka), as an Asian I believe it is utterly cruel and unreasonable for someone to demand that a son or daughter publicly condemns his/her parent, regardless of who the parent is or has done, I would not respect Marina if she ever publicly denounces any of her parents, no matter what they might have done, even (wakakaka) mass murders.

One can disagree with one’s parents and refuse to do what they do or what they want one to do, but one can never, should never ever badmouth them, no matter what their sins. As Chinese would say, a put-hau (unfilial) child is an affront to the Heavens.

I once wrote that Marina Mahathir is only responsible for her own conduct and the master of her own destiny. Her father’s should be those of her father. She doesn't need to be unfilial just to be accepted, which should be solely on her own conduct, rights and merits.

Just look at RPK’s post Your 10 questions with Datin Paduka Marina Mahathir* , where one of the visitors left this terrible moronic mindless comment:

* incidentally, RPK was incorrect in addressing her as Datin (implying her husband was the Datuk) when she is in fact a Datuk in her own rights - wonder how her husband should be addressed? Dateeen? wakakaka

Never bother to read what she wrote. Never believe she is an angel in Bersih 2. The many many SINS from her Mamak Papa to the Rakyat of Malaysia can never be cleansed and forgiven. Please remember that every night you go to sleep. Same to your brothers.

His (or her) mentality is not unlike the Israelites’ belief in the biblical saying that the sins of the father will be visited upon their children for several generations …

Thou shalt not bow down thyself unto them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me – Deuteronomy 5:9

or

I will even repay into their bosom, both their own iniquities and the iniquities of their fathers together – Isaiah 65:6-7

… which I opine is utter nonsense on the basis of logic, commonsense and secular justice, but then, a mindless Manmanlai Myrmidon could never ever understand logic or commonsense.

What if we were to demand that Nurul Izzah denounces her father for a host of evil sins? As I promised I won’t raise those sins here, but if you’re interested, please see my post Mindless Malaysian Myrmidons; if you want to continue to be an ostrich wakakaka, then skip it.

Shouldn't it be also good for the goose whatever is good for the gander?

In my post A Tale of Two Sweeties I wrote:

… whatever good Marina Mahathir might have done (as in AIDS and women affairs), they (as well as some UMNO-BN people too) would impute some ignoble motive on her part [...]

Then there were others who questioned her ’enjoyment of the privileges’ of being a PM’s daughter as if she could only be free of guilt if she had chosen someone else to be her parents. Such has been the stupidity of those mindless comments.

And incidentally, did Nurul not enjoy the same privileges when Anwar was the powerful rightwing DPM from UMNO?

It’s frightening that these people, who like their leaders, claim to fight for democracy, have 'ironically' shown themselves to be most undemocratically authoritarian, attempting to shout down at and silence anyone who has written unfavorably about their party and leaders. There’s no Voltaire-like understanding of free speech or democracy.

Irony? Lupa-ness? No, it’s just plain double standards!

Keep religions out of politics and civil laws

A belated Selamat Hari Raya to all Malaysians - I've been away on personal matters, to attend a funeral, that  for the father of my friend - more about this much later in another post.

Today, on reading The Malaysian Inside I was intrigued by an article The adulteress, the accusers, politics and Afizal, written by Rama Ramanathan. It's about the inexplicable unprecedented Appeals Court judgement in the case of rapist Noor Afizal Azizan, where the word 'consensual sex' was even raised and shockingly, accepted in a charge of statutory rape.

'Consensual sex' means both parties (in the case discussed in this post, included one mere 13 year old) had agreed to have sex with each other.

It shows the pathetic pariah-ish poverty of our legal system where the term 'consensual sex' was allowed to be employed in a case of statutory rape, in which one person, 13 years of age, was well below the age required to legally consent to the act. In fact, in statutory rape, unlike forcible rape, there is no requirement to prove force or threat preceded or was involved in the rape. The laws automatically presume coercion, because a minor or an adult who doesn't have normal mental capacity is legally incapable of giving consent to the act.

Perhaps Ramanathan was teasing the readers into drawing a parallel between the court releasing the rapist on a bond of RM25,000 (thus compassionately forgiving him for his crime) instead of jailing him for raping a minor, with the biblical story of Jesus saving a female adulterer from being stoned.

While some bibles do not include the verses of this tale, some do, like the King James version (KJV), which tells us (no worries, this is not a biblical lesson for I'm an atheist wakakaka, but merely an essential component of my post):

And early in the morning He came again into the Temple, and all the people came unto Him; and He sat down, and taught them.

And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto Him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst, They say unto Him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act. Now Moses in the Law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest Thou?

This they said, tempting Him, that they might have to accuse Him.

But Jesus stooped down, and with His finger wrote on the ground, as though He heard them not. So when they continued asking Him, He lifted up Himself, and said unto them, "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her."

And again He stooped down, and wrote on the ground. And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.

When Jesus had lifted up Himself, and saw none but the woman, He said unto her, "Woman, where are those thine accusers? Hath no man condemned thee?"

She said, "No man, Lord."

And Jesus said unto her, "Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more." (John 8:2-11 KJV)

Ramanathan then asked: "I wonder whether some Malaysians think there is a similarity between the woman and Afizal the bowler who doesn’t deny having sex with a 13-year-old girl."

Well, I am still trying to draw a comparison between rape and adultery, where the former is a blatant crime of forceful physical violation, and the latter, a crime of morality but only in some religions and medieval societies. I'm afraid I have to confess I just couldn't see any similarity! Afizal admitting to his crime of statutory rape against a minor could not be equated to admission of adultery between two adults.

He continued: "I am not aware of anyone appealing to this story as a basis for compassion towards Afizal but I’m drawn to it."

Is Ramanathan claiming originality for postulating the parallel, and that there was a biblical precedent in favour of Afizal, wakakaka?

He continued: “The story of the Messiah and the woman caught in adultery is the most often told story of compassion sympathy and pity for the sufferings of others — in this case the woman’s humiliation and unequal treatment. Compassion is exercised where suffering is recognized”

… no doubt challenging us to consider whether we should extend to Afizal compassion, manifested in his bond rather than jailing.

Then rather confusingly, he wrote: “We are asked to believe the High Court judge who sentenced Afizal to a jail term did not have compassion, did not have enough sympathy or pity for the national bowler".

Hmmm, perhaps Ramanathan meant the 'raped victim' (rather than the bowler who raped the victim-minor)?  See following sentence (below) for context.

Continuing, he asked: "We are asked to believe the Court of Appeal acted compassionately in “freeing” Afizal binding him over as an encouragement to “sin no more”.

“Is that what the story of the Messiah and the woman caught in adultery is about?. Are we called to act as the Messiah did with respect to those who break the law?”

Then inviting us to ‘cast the first stone’ he asked of us:

“After all which of us has not broken the law? Have we not bought illegal DVDs? Have we not run red lights? Have we not driven in excess of speed limits? Since we ourselves are mean pieces of work and gladly not in jail. shouldn’t we be glad Afizal’s not going to jail? After all Afizal’s offence (let’s not call it a “crime”) is only consenting sex with a minor. A minor incidentally who can’t consent to abortion or breast enlargement. Is that what compassion means?"

Running red lights, speeding, buying pirate copes of DVDs? Can we equate these crimes to rape?

And Ramanathan cynically answered his own query on the question of 'consent' in that rape case where 'consent' didn't legally exist, as would be also the case of a minor 'consenting' to abortion.

Since Ramanathan has raised the issue of Jesus and his "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her", let me answer by recalling a statement of Jesus, which I had previously used to answer Rev Dr Hermen Shastri and Paul Sinnappan.

The two had on 07 August 2012, addressed a public forum in PJ, Section 8, at the Dignity International, A-2-7 Pusat Perdagangan, on the upcoming general election from a Christian perspective, where their topic was “What will Jesus be doing in Malaysia today?” – see Free Malaysia Today - GE 13: What would Jesus do?

I was not bloody impressed by their questionable attempt to use religion (Christianity) to influence Malaysian voters who are Christians. When I read of such clerical naughtiness, I am reminded of what a sweetie once told me about Denis Diderot's advice on priests - can't produce that quote here lest I be accused of lèse majesté, wakakaka.

In replying to Rev Dr Hermen Shastri and Paul Sinnappan's “What will Jesus be doing in Malaysia today?”, I wrote in my post precisely what Jesus told us 2000 years ago, as recorded in Matthew 22:21:

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

I'm not supportive of any religion intruding into Caesar's realm of politics and civil law, so please, let's leave Jesus and his "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her" from the case of Noor Afizal Azizan.

Besides, there was/is/will be no* stoning of him under Malaysian civil law, nor I suspect, even under religious ones as well.

* last night I left out a vital word 'no' from the above statement - hope it gave the sh*ts to the rapist wakakaka 

From my observations, in religious laws, the poor woman usually gets the worst of the lot, as was the case in the story of Jesus and the attempted stoning of the woman adulterer, because we may well ask: just where was that bloody man adulterer?

Read also: Malaysian Laws like Spider Webs?