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!

'Anwar sex video': A matter of depth and penetration (of meaning)

The Malaysian nation had been rocked yet once again with the politics of sex, this time involving the opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim. As usual it evokes the usual range of responses or reaction from various quarters. Seeing the whole episode as 'a phenomenon', we can categorize or typify the responses into standard or characteristic forms,which operate almost automatically whatever the 'issues', 'exposure', 'sensation', 'scourge', 'lie' maybe, without being bogged into 'partisan' or 'interested' views, consciously or unconsciously obliged 'to believe' or' not to believe' soundly.

The opposition of course had taken the most natural course of responding. Instinctively it has dissociated, denied the authenticity of the video, and then capitalise. Hence the denial that the main character is indeed the person alleged. Then the issue of content is sidelined or marginalised to become that of the depravity of those behind the whole incident. The issue is redefined as the immoral act of some to 'shame' (mengaibkan), 'disgrace', 'humiliate', linking the issue with past precedence which had somewhat won some public sympathy, in this case the Elizabeth Wong affair. In this manner it is hoped that public attention is deflected from 'content' and 'authenticity' (actual content of video) to 'disqualification' and ' admissibility' (the right of the video to exist is called into question), Strictly speaking this charge of 'mengaibkan' (to shame) refers to the doer and his action, but not to those out to expose it. The pornography is 'shameful' and 'shaming' but not the act of political exposure. By analogy, if a corrupt politician is caught on tape negotiating a shady deal, it is not for him, once exposed, to complain that the exposure is 'embarassing' him. Or at most, the motivation and the morality of those responsible for the exposure should be viewed quite independently of the authenticity and content of the video.  

Then the whole video affair is overblown to fit into 'the dogma of conspiracy'. Almost over nothing, the involvement of the PM, Home Affairs Minister, the Police force were insinuated, the whole affair pronounced as being orchestrated at ' the highest level', all calculated to 'fix' one man . Of course by now this dogma of conspiracy is wearing thin, becoming like a national cliche to those non-doctrinaire. Now the actual meaning of this 'dogma of conspiracy' is interesting and intriguing. Firstly there is a limit to its efficacy. As we know, it is not easy to fabricate truth or lie, even at the lowest level of everyday life. We may succeed in lying to one person, it gets more difficult to lie to two, even more so with three and so on. As the circle of victims gets wider it gets more and more difficult. What more at the national and historical level. You cannot simply fix and arrange a whole complex of cultural or historical phenomena  to support or reinforce your lie or 'conspiracy'. I am sure we realise it is not easy to fix a whole bureaucary, police force, members of public, journalists, battery of witnesses, judges, whole court machinery etc. As the popular expression goes, one may be able to lie to some people all the time, to all the people sometime, but not to all the people all the time.

I am not  as naive as to deny that there can be vested interests or political motives influencing political views or leanings. I am aware too that the nature of politics can involve plots or conspiracy in the conventional sense. But I am certainly sceptic towards ' conspiracy' as dogma: a blanket, instinctive,mechanical, emotional response to whatever political issues of the day. At the bottom of it,' conspiracy' as dogma simply functions as unthinking or fanatical anti-establishment ideology.

As we know the law speaks its own language, but the meaning of life is not entirely represented or monopolised by the legal meaning. For instance the sex video in question do have other meanings, at different depth and penetration. It admits of other angles and perspectives. Depending on positions taken, the video can assume other significance or meaning, deserving our consideration. For example, is it a 'porno'? The content maybe that, but if we consider the circumstances it may not be. Was it shot with a view of the porno market? Is it really meant to arouse, to stimulate, to cater to lust, or is it meant really to record the doing of a politician, with a view of exposure? Is it meant as a product for the porno market or not? Our answer to these questions will make it either a 'porno' or  a 'political document'

. And then there is the question of 'dissemination'. Was it really disseminated? Were copies made and widely distributed in the media, or made public? Actually it was shown not as porno to a sleazy market, but to selected invited senior editors, journalists, public figures with specific relevance. Not quite 'public' or ' porno market'. So  was it a porno item and pornographic dissemination, or simply the preview of a political document in the wider sense?  Whatever we may say about 'gutter politics' etc, the sexual behaviour of top politician or public figures is part and parcel of their public image and political standing, East or West, and history can easily bear this out (Consider Clinton or Christine Keeler?) We still remember the case of the US senator who had to resign over gay solicitation in a public loo.

In the meantime, we note other responses. Wan Azizah had commented why she refuse to watch the video because it is ' haram dan berdosa' (forbidden and sinful). Obvously she is going by the strict or direct meaning of the content. and not as a political document. Some parties are demanding the Trio be arrested for 'possession' and 'disseminating', obviously seeing it as basically 'porno'. Others are advising the public to stop being obsessed with 'sex'  again seeing it essentially as 'porno'. Ustaz Hadi Awang uses the Islamic card, arguing that Islam insists on having four witnesses, missing the point, that is the whole design of the video and modern digital recording, in part playing the role of 'witness'. Or that it can be part of the intention of the Trio in calling the selected niche pre-viewers, not to arouse them but more in the capacity of ' to bear witnesses'

The purpose of this posting is not arrogate myself the truth of the matter, as most of us don't know many details as yet, but merely to share other perspectives, worthy of our attention. Like I say, it is not simply a legal matter, but perhaps more importantly a matter of  penetration and depth (of meaning) beyond the legal.  Having said that, I have faith that truth will prevail if we do not pre-determined the matter prematurely either way. After all who is the person in the video is a question of fact which can be diligently or scrupulously established by proper procedures.

  

Cat Out of the Bag

I read the news in yesterday’s Malay Mail(15 March 2011) over the demands of 20 animal rights activists that the DAP takes action against its assemblyman and member of parliament, alleged to be siding and protecting ‘cat killer’ Chao Xiao Wei.

The news vividly brought to mind the video. Objectively speaking, it would be an understatement to describe the incident as simply ‘killing a cat’. The recording shows it to be a far more serious or disturbing than this. I must say that it was an act of utter cruelty.

It was a despicable sadistic act. When the perpetrator rained the blows on the poor helpless kitten, she would taunt the mother cat, looking her way after each blow, assessing and relishing the pain she must be causing to the desperate and anguished mother. The whole episode was not simply to ‘kill the cat’ but really a performance calculated to cause maximum pain not to the kitten but more to the mother cat, to torment and torture her against her maternal instinct.  The elements of cruelty is greatly enhanced or heightened considering she was then acting against helpless creatures, which must have given her a sense of absolute power over life and death, clearly evidenced by her mannerism and gestures. When the desperate mother cat courageously tried to save her young ones, she would be intimidated and menacingly drove away by Chao Xiao Wei. We see this happening twice in the video. Why was there a need to deny the mother retrieving and rescuing her kittens?

Then consider the actual act of slowly killing the kitten. She rained a series of blows over the poor helpless kitten, who tried pitifully to crawl  away. And once cornered in a sort of pit, Chao Xiao Wei bludgeoned the kitten half dead with her deadly umbrella.

 And the way she wielded that umbrella is noteworthy. It reminds one of Reihana’s ‘My Umbrella’, albeit the difference. The one uses the umbrella in a seductive artistic dance, while the other in a dance of death,  to torture and snuff life. Chao Xiao Wei actually prances to and fro with her weapon in the recording, to bludgeon the kitten and to menace the mother cat. Watch how she would support herself with her umbrella, one foot neatly tucked slightly behind the other, as if in a dance movement ala Reihana.

 She would take the half dead kitten, cast it down before the mother cat, and then most sadistically stamped on it twice, with all the force of her full weight. She kicked the kitten, a full keeper’s goal kick, in the direction of the mother.

I read in the newspaper, she explained her behavior as follows. She could not control her depression over her parent’s divorce. Frankly speaking, while I normally sympathize with those experiencing depression over personal problems, in this case I failed to see the explanation corresponding with the sadistic nature of the offence perpetrated.

Serdang MP Teo Nie Ching (DAP) said that she and her colleague were not siding or protecting Teo Xiao Wei but merely providing her with a channel to apologize. She added that Teo Xiao Wei has the right to apologize while it is up to the animal right’s activist to accept her apology or not. All this set me wondering. Is the issue of the cat killing merely an issue of animal rights and the concern of only animal rights activists? I don’t think so. In my opinion the nature of the act should outrage our sense of human decency, not necessarily confined to the smaller cycle of animal rights activists.

I am also wondering to whom should the apology be directed? In normal circumstances, if we feel remorseful over our action, it would be ideal if we apologize and make amends to the victims or aggrieved party directly. But then just how do you apologize to a dead kitten and to its grieving mother for sure? Rights and nine lives notwithstanding, animals still depend on the sense of human decency that militates against cruelty.