Hudud: Hide your cake and hype it too

I learn from today's Star that the PR had a big pow-wow, chaired by Dato Seri Anwar on the issue of hudud, which had been causing an uproar within their ranks, threatening to split open the tradional fault lines between component parties.At the end of it, PR in a show of solidarity rejected the implementation of hudud, on one of the grounds being it is against the Federal Constitution.

Only a few days ago, I read that Nik Aziz was adamant on implementing hudud, with or without the agreement of the BN,or anybody else, and to the surprise of many Dato Seri Anwar gave him his full support, which of course angered and stumped many DAP leaders. I remembered Karpal Singh reacted strongly against hudud laws, enumerating what he deemed some of its rather gruesome punishment, like stoning to death and beheading for adulterous couples. The public would have noted the punishments would apply to some of the PR leaders themselves who seem to be head over heel on the implementation of hudud.

In todays Star alongside the news of PR's rejection of hudud,Nik Aziz affirmed his resolve to push on for the implementation of hudud, which of course set the public wondering just what is going on with the issue.

Earlier on we read of Anwar's full support for Nik Aziz and his hudud resolve, but now we read of the meeting chaired by Anwar rejecting the implementation. Was it a misreporting that Anwar fully backed the hudud, or is it an about-turn on his part under the pressure by the DAP?

Anyway, the official rejection by the PR, has the effect of making the hudud intention solely the idiosyncrasy of Nik Aziz,and a localised issue of Kelantan, while component parties of PR are quite clear in their opposition. In this respect, it can be said to be a good damage control by PR. In this manner the disquietude among non-Malays is somewhat placated and their support and votes are maintained. On the other had, Nik Aziz resolve is good for winning back some of the Malay Muslim ground which may have been alienated over the use of 'Allah' affair, and the abandonment of PAS principle of championing the formation of an Islamic state.

On the side of Nik Aziz's insistence on hudud, it is still a win-win situation for PAS and PR. I think everyone knows, including Nik Aziz and his supporters, that the hudud would never ever be implemented since it violates the Federal Constitution. What is gainful for them is that, the failure to have hudud can be conveniently blamed on the 'infidel' and 'obstructionist' BN. The hudud advocates would then be casted in the image of wronged champions of Islam.

But still the divergence between the official stand of PR, as the outcome of the pow-wow, and Nik Aziz's chosen path, is so jarring, crying out for explanation for the public. Now this is taken care of by a useful and convenient 'democratic' device, 'respect for differing views'. Accordingly Nik Aziz's camp had thank the PR component parties, especially DAP, for their understanding and 'respect for their stand'. Likewise the PR in unanimity had thanked Nik Aziz camp for their understanding and 'respect' for their stand and view in rejecting the hudud implementation. Accordingly Dato Seri Anwar had also underscored his willingness to discuss the hudud idea anytime it is aired, out of respect for differing views. All seems to auger well for 'democracy'.

Well the way it's going the PR, and its component, seems to strike a good balance in availing itself of the hudud question. It gives something to the Malay Muslim ground that had been alienated, while 'out-Islamising' the BN at no cos At the same time it had smoothly and formally distant itself from the issue, so as not to alienate non-Malays and non-Muslims on the same wavelength as Karpal Singh.

In this manner the PR can hide its cake and hype it too, all to its advantages!

PM Najib's Malaysia Day Speech: What freedom and for what? A query for both divides

PM Najib’s Malaysia Day Speech recently is worthy of note and response. This is reflected in the fact that it had evoked varieties of responses from the public , or more explicitly, from the mass media representing various interests. The speech had been hailed as ‘courageous’, ‘reflecting political will’, ‘a man of his words’, ‘ stunning of oppositions’, ‘ a wonderful gift to freedom lovers’ and many more positive accolades of various shades on both sides of the divides. Then there are the cautious and cynical ones viewing it as ‘election sweeteners’, ‘election ploy’, ‘ sleight of hand’, ‘ making virtue of necessity’ ,‘ ‘condescending’ , ‘theatrics for gullible Malaysians’ or even downright ‘ making idiots of the Malaysian public’ .


With a view of personal assessment, keeping in mind the above responses, trying to see the truth in them, while carefully guarding against interested partisanship, I went through the text of the speech. I have the following comments to make, fleeting thoughts (and not learned legal scrutiny) crossing my mind in my cursory survey.

The discourse on our history and background to the nation’s development and progress is merely a backdrop to the point that the context was different then, necessitating those laws or acts being reviewed or removed. Those were terrible times, with many enemies of the people and nation, hence those laws had been promulgated. But as the argument goes, times has changed, so must our laws.

They had been rendered obsolete, irrelevant, meaningless, dysfunctional. Good times had been ushered in too, development and progress had been good if not spectacular, making those laws sort of less necessary now. Malaysians are better educated, with the assumption then they are now more matured politically.

Are all the assumptions made therein correct or accurate in relation to the place of those laws in our history? Are the ISA, the various emergencies, the checks on freedom of the press and publishing, freedom of assembly etc relevant only in times of under-development and in times when the people are less educated? This is a dangerous assumption to make in my opinion. The simple truth is that a well to do person, of the highest class, excellently educated or superbly qualified, can well nigh be a chauvinist, religious bigot, racist, terrorist or slimy rabble rouser of various moulds. Furthermore the very assumption that we had ‘developed’ and ‘progressed’ due to diligent ‘planning’ is an assumption which we should carefully scrutinized. Had we resolved all our developmental problems which had been our ‘fault lines’ in terms of ethnic relations continually?

Its rather stark that the only personality mentioned in the speech was the late Tun Abdul Razak, father of the speech maker. Tun Abdul Razak was caste in the mould of a freedom lover who had by circumstances to preside over the suspension of freedom. But the love of freedom prevailed at the first opportunity to restore democracy, when the late Tun chose to give up power when he could well cling to it.

When only one solitary personality is cited, and conveniently, concerning a crucial period in our history, when scores of personality, social groups, various parties, all had their role, were silently passed over, it raises questions or even suspicion. It gives a sense that this is the ‘crafted’ part of the speech which links to the role and script PM Najib has cast for himself in the speech. It conjures the picture of a ‘dynastic’ love of freedom and zeal for reforms and transformation. It gives a sort of ‘tradition’, ‘roots’ to what PM Najib is about to announce in the later of the speech. It evokes the image of a ‘great son’ continuing the great work of a 'grea father'. Is it effective in profiling great leadership with tradition, roots and national history behind it? I leave it to the Malaysian public for their assessment in this respect.

The speech and the political intents it foreshadowed raises many other reflections, queries. If the drift of the speech is that laws like ISA is irrelevant , obsolete or dysfunctional, why abolish it, and replace it with two other laws in due course. Does not this in a way indicate it continues to be relevant in some respect? Why not tweak the ISA to constitute necessary adaptation and contextualizing? Incidentally Singapore is maintaining its ISA, but has long modified it to smoothen some of its alleged ‘draconian’ aspects, like shortening the period of emergency detention, and instituting reviews and checks, involving legal opinions, advice and presidential decision. Frequent objections to our own ISA had been over its abuse or potentials for it. Why not then check abuses or opportunities for it, rather than abolishing the law and then having new ones in its place. If the concern is over abuses, laws are always open to abuses, old or new.

Concerning the law pertaining to freedom of assembly, the speech promised review, presumably towards greater leeway. But almost in the same breadth it emphasized strong principle against street demonstrations. Now we all know, this is precisely the context of recent contention on the issues of freedom of assembly. Given this fact, it does look like the issue would remain contentious even after the new law is put in place. Clearly the public seems to clamor for greater freedom to demonstrate (always professed to be peaceful in intention by them). Anyway, will the’ new freedom’ soon to be ushered in under PM Najib’s watch make street demonstrations an integral aspect of our Malay way of life?

Concerning the law on freedom of the press and mass media, on the circulation of ideas and publication, some formal changes would be ushered in, the essence of which is really quite strong in continuity rather than radical transformation. Annual renewal of license is no longer required. License is to be deemed granted, in force until revoked. Hence administratively it has been tidied, no annual work required or necessary, but the control is still in force, in place. The difference is really between the possibility of ‘license being denied’ and ‘lincense being revoked’ As to the substantive change between the two, it is for the public to assess.

The PM’s speech is heavily laden with liberal rhetorics, as many of his speeches are. As for their contextual relevance to today’s situation, especially our own nation, much had been said and written about by critics of classical liberalism as to their contextual or historical inadequacies for contemporary situation. ‘Philosophy of the people, by the people, , for the people’? Who are ‘ the people’ within the particular context of the speech? What is ‘will of the people’ functionally and operationally speaking? What is ‘development’ or ‘progress’ ? What is ‘developed ‘ and ‘modern’ nation aspired for? What is ‘freedom’ ? Checking carefully for the overall justification for ‘reforms’ in the speech, I discover that the ‘reforms’ of the laws is really meant to be in harmony with the change in economic policies announced years ago. The change in law is intended as ‘political change’ that ‘completes the economic changes’ announced. In other works it is all towards the declaration of Transformation, twinning political and economic changes really under the ambit of Transformation.

One notable feature of the speech to me seems to be the lack of personal conviction, or even party conviction in the speech and its ‘vision’ of Transformation and Change. The speaker adopts the voice of the compromising or accommodating personality. It is in the voice ‘this is what the people want’, ‘this what the nation desires’ and the like. The speaker speaks of ‘risks’ he is willing or has to take for ‘survival’ . The speaker touches on the question of ‘trust’ in people as the motivation for accommodating them? There is little to indicate the speaker's position or conviction on the issue of freedom, liberty, change. The speaker does not argue for freedom but 'grants'it to the people, puts the burden on the people or citizens to rise up to the occasion in uniting and forging a nation based on freedom granted.

I think it is this lack of personal conviction, combined with the tenor and style of thinking of the speech, peppered with rhetorical liberal concept of progress, development, people’s will, freedom, of unity, transformation and change, which colored the responses of the public. They sense the speech as an electioneering one, on both sides of the divide. They see the speech as either scoring points for BN or taking the wind of the opposition’s sail. But the issues raised is more vital to our nation and its survival, beyond election.I hope both the ruling party and the opposition see and understand this clearly. Freedom, its institutionalisation, checks and balances is by no means to be treated as dices in a political gamble.

PAS Passage to Paradise

Recently, in connection with the sex-video 'exposure', PAS leader Nik Aziz made a declaration to the effect that those out to 'mengaibkan'( to shame, disgrace) Anwar Ibrahim will have the gate of paradise closed to them, not unless they kiss the feet of Anwar and beg for pardon. I think this is the height of arrogance on his part to appoint himself the gate keeper to the door of paradise. Given his party position, which fuses theology with politics, he is virtually saying he has the authority and power to determine who should be the dwellers of heaven or hell. What is worse, his pronouncement is tantamount to abusing religion for a crude political ploy  to safeguard PR vested interests. Such political move really exposes our public life and politics to dangerous trends. We all know that the approach of narrow and partisan orthodoxy and religious extremism is quite basic to PAS politics, and that Nik Aziz's pronouncement is by no means a departure from the past. However, the latest attempt to wield his theological influence over the sex-video issue takes it to a new level altogether, which I believe would violate the feelings of many PAS members and supporters.

Incidently, it should be noted that the issue of the sex-video is by no means confined to a question of the personal weakness of an individual. This is what distingushes the position of a public figure and the man on the street. When the man on the street indulges himself in this respect, we tend to view it as a personal weakness, or moral failing. In the case of a public figure, or a leader, it assumes a different meaning and significance altogether for us.

Now besides the issues of authenticity or the identity of the perpetrators, the sex-video raises many other crucial and significant questions. Going by the facts revealed surrounding the exposure, there are issues of concern. In all the cases accusing Anwar, a pattern seems to emerge. There has always been a middle man, a functionary of sort, who takes care of his sexual needs. Someone who makes the arrangement, who fixes things, who picks up and delivers so to speak In short, who acts as the pimp. We had someone in the first sodomy trial or in his other liasons. In a revealing video, Nurlia ( if I am not mistaken) with whom Anwar had had sexual relations, in a recorded conversation with Anwar, referred to ' your friend who always picks me up and bring me to you'. I think in the latest scandal, Eskay performs this function too. The question is this. Has this been going on for a long time, from the time when he was the Deputy PM to being the leader of the opposition.? It does conjure an image of an influential leader set in his ways and lifestyle, who seems to be predispose to using his resources to this end. I leave it to your imagination the consequence of such a figure leading the nation.

Then there are many other questions. Consider for instance the queries raised by Eskay for public consideration. How many times Anwar visits Thailand in a year? Who greets him and see to all his needs? In whose house does he stay? What does he do in the house? Who pays for all these facilities and comforts? These questions do suggest a poser who is in the know. And the questions are of very serious charges. It raises the question is Anwar a leader with a particular life style of decadence? And such weakness seems to place him under the control and manipulation of certain vested interests.

Putting it all together, we have a disturbing picture of Anwar Ibrahim ( of course subject to further public introspection) On the one hand we have the image of a leader with a powerful hold on a credulous and fanatical supporters, and on the other hand a leader who has personal weaknesses, very much in contrast to his messianic public image,  and who on that account is easily controlled or manipulated by vested interests.

I am not naive not to know that many other politicians are similar. Neither am I saying that Anwar would be an exception in this regard. All I am saying is that the public be vigilant and subject all our leaders to the same scrutiny and critical examination, and not be blinded by theatrics and antics of all shades, including the theological and the millenial kind. This posting is nothing more than an earnest plea that we preserve and maintain the dignity of our democracy and defend it against its enemies 

Politics and magic

Ordinarily, politics is roughly defined and understood as the determination of power for decision making and the distribution of values in society. Hence politics is also perceived as the process of choosing or selecting leaders. In this regard therefore, the political domain is very much part of the natural world, anchored in the pragmatic domain of living.

What is magic as commonly understood and believed in from primordial time till today? Magic refers to a belief system and a general world view. Magic has its own ways of perceiving nature, the world and life. It has its own structure of mind, certain characteristic ways of functioning or 'thinking'. Basically magic operates on principles 'off' the natural world, oblivious of scientific or objective facts, always referring to the 'supernatural', 'invisible', extra-logical world ( not in the religious sense but in forces such as ghosts, demons, witches, black magic etc.) Basically magic is incapable of objectifying the world, seeing things naturally or scientifically. Hence facts matter little to it, for the mind is bent upon brushing facts aside in preference for some other arbitrary and unverified explanation. For example, when a road accident happens, magical thinking is not interested in the facts of the case, such as the conditions of the road, the vehicle, the actual circumstances or material facts leading to the accidents, but instinctively turns to the notions that the location is haunted or jinxed, divine retribution befalling the victims, or that someone had effected black magic or witchcraft on the casualties.

Given the above, politics and magic would appear to be structurally different, the one very much anchored in the natural world, the domain of facts (though it can be disputatious), while magic is off the natural world and oblivious, or at least indifferent, to facts and empirical evidences. But are politics and magic all that different, at least in our Malaysian context? Observing the development of some of the major issues today and the various political responses of the public, I do not think the distinction between magic and politics is all that clear. It would seem that there are strong parallels, structurally speaking, between magic and politics.

Where political responses run along the structure of magic, we note the type of unshakeable conviction or illogical faith which runs counter to all manner of hard evidences or empirical facts. No measure of rational or logical discourse, scientific facts, technological arsenal like biometric, photographic and forensic scrutiny can make a dent on such outlook concerning matters which otherwise would be easily resolved by these approaches. Hence it is rather futile to appeal to such inclined members of the public on the basis of rational, empirical or scientific discourse. This phenomenon has led to the frustration of a great many who presume that politics simply runs on the basis of the rational, logic and the scientific, judging by the discourse on the internet. They soon discover that whatever evidences they advance, there will always be groups who have no use for such evidences, who instead will look for some anonymous, mysterious forces behind the facts, in an arbitrary fashion with no regards to the chain of cause and effects, or requirement of meaningful discourse pertaining to the matter.

What needs to be understood is this. It is not really a question of having enough or more evidences, but more the question of the nature and value of evidence itself. To those magically inclined in politics, they are not looking for evidences to establish the truth or the fact of a case, but merely to feed their emotion, faith and conviction. Hence anything that shakes or threatens their stand would be readily set aside, in favour of more satisfying elements which feed and reinforce their unshakeable belief. Instead of giving due consideration to the hard evidences, the magically structured would rather look for mysterious forces behind the evidences, very much like magical beliefs looking for wizards and witches whenever confronted by misfortune or life adversities. It is an integral aspect of magical culture to look for sinister forces lurking in the dark, working evil on individuals or groups in the society concerned. In short the idea of conspiracy in an all-embracing manner in disregard of natural or rational evidences is a basic element in the structure of magic.

Rational politics and magic run on different premises and appeal to different idea of ‘evidence’ and ‘truth’. Confusing the discourse of one for the other is to fail in distinguishing between differences of opinion and the difference between two diagonally opposed mental structure altogether. These two different minds or mental structures run parallel in politics, but will never ever have a meeting point anywhere. For this is the truth concerning magic. If indeed magical beliefs can be persuaded otherwise by rational discourse and hard evidences, both sharing the same premises in discourse, sharing the same idea of truth and measure of contradiction, magic would have disappeared long ago. Magic have survived for thousands of years, and will survive for thousands more, simply because it is a belief or faith which is impervious to the evidences of rationality and the objective world, and runs on its own premises or ‘logic’ (illogical or irrational to those outside of it)

RCI: DAP DIP ala DEB

The Star 21 April 2011 reports a rather interesting development in the Royal Commission of Inquiry on the death of Teoh Beng Hock. The gists of the report include: 'the business man told..his company WSK Services used bumiputra companies as fronts to facilitate claims for projects and programmes carried out in the Seri Kembangan constituency'; businessman acknowledges that 'the bumiputra companies received between five and 10% of the contract sum as payment'; he admitted 'most of the contracts to carry out small projects and programmes in the constituency were awarded to the company'; he disclosed 'Teoh was the conduit between him (businessman) and Seri Kembangan state assemblyman Ean Yong Hian Wah with regards to discussions related to pricing of projects in the constituency''. As we know Teoh was Ean Yong's political aide.

Now this is very serious, raising many questions concerning the DAP's integrity. The DAP gained much ground in the last General Election riding the anti-Dasar Ekonomi Baru or the New Economic Policy. The much maligned aspect of the DEB was of course its so-called 'affirmative action' perceived as favouring the Malays or bumiputras, and discriminating against the non-bumiputras. One of the earliest act of the PR Penang State Goverment upon coming to power was declaring that it would not adhere or implement the DEB or NEP, sparking much political controversies. Now it is rather ironic, going by the disclosure in the RCI, that the PR Selangor state goverment would seem to be practicing a principle of the DEB, that is giving consideration to bumiputra companies in the award of projects.

It is even more ironic, if we reflect on some of the main causes of the failure of the DEB to restructure the economy meaningfully or justly ( we won't go into the issues over the policy aspects of DEB here) One of the main cause was certainly the farming out of business licences, contracts, tenders etc to non -Malays by bumiputras who then become 'sleeping partners' in the classic 'Ali-Baba' practice, or even the earlier ' Pembesar-Kapitan Cina' tradition. It is rather significant to note that the DAP seems to pay homage to this practice. Hence the DAP seems to be caught in not only 'implementing' the DEB, which it denounces as a major platform, but also its abuses of the past, which corrupted and sabotaged it. So plain speaking: what's this about! The DAP has a lot of explaining to do!

It is even more mind boggling, bordering on comedy, if we add to all this the fact that the BN has abrogated the DEP and ushered in the NEM, with much fanfare and political fireworks. Will the BN , like the DAP, make a distinction between pronouncement and practice, between 'policy'and ' implementation'? Will it also revert to the croony- ridden practice of the past?

Coming back to the RCI and the DAP, the disclosure raises many questions. In the first place, is it true?If so, is it a case of the corruption of an individual assemblyman, or is it 'systemic'? Is it a deviation of one, or a party mechanism, an institutionalisation of a practice, a tradition in the making, so to speak? If it is a case of an individual's corruption, the DAP would have to come clean in appropriate measure. Silence would be construed by the public as conspiracy or complicity.

The disclosure also prompts some reflection on our part. What with all the slogans and rhetoric in our politics! I hope it is not simply in obeisance to the imperative of power for the sole purpose of getting a piece of the action in corruption, regardless of public pronouncements and solemn promises. It is meaningless to the public if politics merely come to mean a change of syndicate commanding corruption and its beneficiaries. Politics would then degenerate into the quest for power and the monopoly to dip into the till at the expense of the public!

Anugerah atau Anu-ghairah? ( Saint or Sensous? )

Thought I would have a quiet weekend and forget for awhile (at least for the weekend) so many matters troubling our nation, what with a second death under mysterious circumstances concerning MACC, corruption cases (the arrests and court cases are good news, auguring well for our nation, but as indications of the prevalence of corruption they are most disturbing) involving the Immigration and the Customs, the Bible or religious issues, and many many other ethnic relation, issues portentous of serious conflicts in our nation. But no!...no way of shutting them out. It's all over in the news, as they say there is no escaping them. Might as well make some notes and impressions.

There is now this 'quest for truth',the identity of a man in a now infamous video clipping. If anyone can have the copyright or even just the physical master copy, he could make millions. It is that hot! But then we all know, that is not to be, right..given the circumstances. The circumstances and the development of the issue is as interesting, instructive as it is baffling in its twist and turn. As I had argued in an earlier posting, perspectives would greatly differ depending on how we defined the video basically, pornography or political document. As it turned out, even this basic starting point is not as simple or clear cut. Like everything else in our Malaysian politics, the lines are drawn by partisan views or political divides. The development is clear now, the opposition would define it as pornography, while for the establishment it is a political document on the action of a political leader , caught in 'the act'.

The basic definition held by the opposition, crying foul of 'porno', allowed it to use the law against those behind the video (away from the one 'in' the video), and to check the circulation of the video, or even public discussion of it, in short to will the video out of public consciousness, all under 'production', 'posession', 'disemination' under the law. This would make it much easier for categorical denial of the content. How is the public to judge then? What will come through is just plain, pure denial, appealing to faith or dogmatism, with no recourse to materials for verification or authentication. Of course this opens the way to the usual political stand simply based on ' he is not capable of such act', 'out of character' or ' yet another conspiracy'. Such faith has been somewhat dented lately when the 'abridged version' of the video had been circulated or publicised, taking care of the 'pornograhic' character of the document, omitting ' the act' as such, merely showing the build up, the preparation before the act proper. While disappointing many interested in 'the act', those interested in identification have enough to go by, towel or no towel.

But still the opposition remains steadfast in its charge of 'porno', denial of identity of main cast, with a political counter charge of the usual 'conspiracy'. The position taken, like all other issues, may be summed up in the maxim ' your word against mine' and ' your words are however lacking credibility, legitimacy or moral authority'. Hence if the public expects 'truth' in the form of admission or confession, or acknowledgement of facts, they are somewhat naive, I have to say. Given its basic formula, this is never forthcoming of the opposition.Even if there had been four live witnesses to the issue, it will be maintained that 'somehow' the person is 'not him'. Hence the public should reconsider its notion of truth, or their expectation of it, in this case. With or without RCI, their basic 'formula' will not change, neither would be 'the truth' entertained.

What about the BN or the establishment? Initially it was caught by 'porno' argument. Now it has wised up to the distinction of 'porno' and 'political'. It is on the counter charge. Minister Hishamuddin as custodian of the integrity of the police force is suing those crying 'conspiracy'. Minister Nazri Aziz is pushing for RCI, regretfully for the wrong reason to the effect: ' since they deny the truth, and blame the BN, the BN has to defend itself'. Now this would have the effect of making the issue of RCI a partisan one, a BN initiative or 'project', and an interested one. Wouldn't this feeding or playing into the hand of the opposition? Wouldn't it gives credibility to the accusation that the proposed RCI is 'politically motivated'? There are so many, much more credible reasons from the national perspective for so constituting an RCI, but the BN seems to be too 'BN centric ' to see or advance them. What about the rational of public accountability, national security, public interests, public right to know, and many more?

The issue is clearly taking a partisan view, hence the notion of truth, and the nature of the quest for it, expressed in the debate between 'anugerah' and 'anu-ghairah'. How will it end? Will the aura and near-saint cult survived the BN endeavor to transform 'anugerah' into 'anu-ghairah'? Will the RCI be instituted and will it change anything? I guess we the public will have to keep an open mind and see if indeed Truth will prevail!

Bibles: Stamping out the holy and the devil must pay!

We all know how sensitive religious issues can be within the context of our multi-racial, multi-cultural and multi-­religious nation. Although in terms of abstraction and conceptual analysis we can differentiate between these categories, in reality they are part and parcel of one reality of our daily lives simultaneously. This is especially so within the context of our Malaysian nation where racial, cultural and religious denomination greatly coincide or overlap. Hence it is seldom the case where a particular issue is exclusively 'racial', 'cultural' or 'religious', with no wider implications beyond the immediate and particular definition of the situation, spilling over into the general complex of the racial, the cultural and the religious.


I realise I am merely stating 'the obvious', which however needs restating, given the discourse even among our politicians or public figures on important and touchy matters. For example, take the usual polemics of politicians themselves on various occasions, consciously or unconsciously stirring controversies: 'Are you Malay (Indian or Chinese) first, or Malaysians first?'; ' Are you Muslim( Christian, Buddhist, Hindu) first, or Malay, Indian, Chinese or others) first?; 'Are you of your faith (whatever), ethnicity (whatever) first, or your political party (whatever)?

This'obvious' multi-dimensional aspect of our nation, can work out to be indeed a blessing or a dangerous curse, depending on our wisdom, tack and sensitivity of  the collective life. Our stand on issues can readily either integrate or unravel the nation, as they normally affect deeply our innermost sentiments or feelings. One unfortunate effect of this is that someone with a Machiavellian outlook has a powerful tool at his disposal. Any medium he chooses, be it 'ethnic', 'racial', 'religious', 'linguistic', 'party line', can easily amplify right across the board into other areas of life as well.

I read with interest and concern a news item in the Star, 1 April 2011, carrying the caption ' The Gideons not ready to collect ''stamped' Bibles'. The facts are as follows: 30,000 copies of the Bibles are awaiting collection in Kucing. The importer the Gideon says it has not decided the course of action and would inform donors and Church leaders in Sarawak when it decides. The terms of their deliberation suggest strong identification, sympathy and cross referencing with the experience of the Bible Society of Malaysia in Peninsula Malaysia over another batch of imported Bibles in bahasa Malaysia


The facts are as follows: Last Wednesday, the Bible Society of Malaysia (BMS) collected 5,100 copies of the Bible in bahasa Malaysia, previously impounded by the Malaysian government.BMS collected the copies for the reason; ' to prevent the possibility of further acts of desecration or disrespect being committed against the holy books of the Christians by the ministry and its officers'. Here the BMS is referring to the ministry's act of stamping and serialising the copies. Well, is it an act of 'desecrating' or being ' disrespectful' towards 'the holy book of the Christians? I think it is somewhat overstating it.

It was the ministry's way of giving effect to the spirit of the law. The court had decided that Christians have the right to the use of 'Allah' internally, within their circle, under the principle of the right to practice their own religion( a court appeal is pending). From the ministry's point of view, I suppose, stamping and serialising serves the purpose of identifying copies and ensuring its legitimate area of circulation. The act of stamping and serialising does not go into the content and message of the Bible to be deemed 'desecrating' or 'disrespecting the holy book of Christians'. The holy or divine message of the scriptures had not been diminished or stamped out in any way.


Now the BMS had decided not to sell the stamped and serialised copies but instead 'to preserve them as museum pieces'. Is it figuratively speaking when BMS speaks of 'museum pieces'? Figuratively or otherwise, BMS intention of polemicizing or politicising the matter is clear. It has every intention to exploit the 'defaced copies' in some manner to incite religious sentiments, turning an administrative act into the mark of the devil, 'desecrating, defacing the holy book'.

Now there is the question of who should pay? The Home Minister Hishamuddin and Minister Idris Jala have made efforts to get 'Christian donors' and 'friends' to pay for the stamped and serialised copies (deemed 'desecrated' and ' defaced' by BMS) BMS has rejected these offers in strong terms: 'BMS wishes to make its stand clear that we will only accept a cheque from the Home Ministry and will not accept any money from so called “Christian donors”.Now all of this makes it interesting, though intriguing. Why should the government try to pay for the copies? Is it pang of guilt? Does the Home-Ministry feel it has wronged? Does it regret its action? If in the affirmative, it should of course resort to some restitution of cost, not otherwise.

BMS's stand raises questions too. Obviously BMS is not concerned about money, otherwise it should matter little what is the source of payment. BMS meant payment to be a symbolic act, an admission of guilt, hence it can only accept payment from the Ministry. This is holding to its charge that the copies had been desecrated and defaced, hence the devil should pay.Hence we are back to the earlier question. Does the Home Ministry feel it has done wrong? If so, it should pay and not get someone else to pick the tab, which will make it even more intriguing: how are we to interpret this from the responsibility or accountability point  of view?

The latest response of the government with regards to the whole Bible issue seems to suggest that the goverment assume full responsibility for the act of impounding, stamping and serialising, perceived by organisations the like of BMS as 'desecration' and 'defacement'. This is indicated in the policy to allow the free import and printing of Bibles in all languages, including in bahasa Malaysia. In Sabah and Sarawak, the importation and printing of Bibles are allowed without the necessity of any form of categorisation or serialisation.In Peninsula Malaysia Bibles in bahasa Malaysia need to be categorised as Christian publication, with a clear sign of the cross on the cover. Some elements of an admission of guilt are also indicated on the part of the goverment in the strongly worded instructions issued to officials on procedures concerning Bibles. But the clearest form of admission of guilt and apology is expressed in Minister Idris Jala's imploration for Christians to forgive the goverment over the action, whom he says are not perfect, as all human beings are only 'beautifully imperfect'.    

It is instructive to reflect over the whole incident.I am confident that the issue is by no means entirely resolved, going by the tendencies and sentiments of parties  in the whole incident. For now I can only say, let us not lose sight of both the secular and the divine in our lives, and let us vigilantly keep the devil of bigotry at bay at all times!