Disturbed I am by the recent (and not so recent) events happening back home while I am here in the land of sand. More importantly the issue about non-muslim citizens being threatened by one of our ‘esteemed’ ministers is extremely disturbing. Sick also I am about non-muslims citizens treated like second-class citizens. A few quotes which irked me:
Non-Muslims should not interfere in the religious affairs of Muslims, as this will make the Muslims uneasy.
How the heck does questioning something related to Islam make Muslims uneasy? And should we not ‘interfere’ in something that directly affects us? Especially the act which denies us the right of a fair trial in civil courts should be have converted into Islam. It’s not like we have been ‘interfering’ with what Muslims have been practising but isn’t it fair for us to question something that will directly affect our lives?
… warned that the Government would not hesitate to use the Sedition Act against those who insulted Islam.
So is it only Islam or will this apply to any other religion? Not that I agree to prosecuting anyone, but if you want to make a statement like that, then does it apply to all insults on any religion? Or like the double-standard way you govern, it only applies to whatever you want? Another point is how does questioning something become an insult? How does questioning an Act turn into an insult? Unless of course you’re thinking of the MPs we have in the Dewan Rakyat who do not think twice about shouting and hurling derogatory insults, then of course, questioning is insulting.
Expressing his concern about some recent articles written by non-Muslims, he said the tolerance level among Muslims was high.
Eh? Tolerance level among Muslims high? Then why would you think questioning something is an insult? And why would you think calling for a review and reform is an insult? Hallo? Why would everything related to Islam be an insult? If you’re talking tolerance, what about the tolerance level among non-muslims? Why not address that in the same breath?
“We do not want to take away your rights but religion is an important matter, especially to the Muslims,” he said.
He said there was also no need to have a law to curb open discussions as the people could practise mutual respect, tolerance and understanding while taking into consideration religious sensitivities.
What the…? In the first few paragraphs, he threatens non-Muslims and then suddenly preaches about mutual respect, tolerance and understanding? Firstly, I think all of us are currently practicing tolerance, respect and understanding. Some more than others thanks to self-righteous pricks who first threaten us then tell us we’re tolerant. Secondly, I think the group of people which you call on to be tolerant are those whom you CLAIM are so tolerant that they’re bleeding tolerance out of their ears.
Again, this shows us the level of intelligence our esteemed ministers have. They really should learn to process before shooting out of their mouths. But then again, if there’s nothing much up there, then it’s no wonder.
Next comes this whole issue of wearing the ‘tudung’ for non-muslim women police officers during official parades. When I read this, the first thought that popped into my head was “Why the heck for?” And how does the ‘tudung’ translate into part of the police uniform? How does making a woman wear a ‘tudung’ add to uniformity? Oh wait, everyone’s head is now covered so it looks very uniformed. There’s Malaysian mentality for you. The worse part is that the non-muslim women featured in the article said the regulation should not be questioned. Again, Malaysian mentality. The take all the bullcrap that is handed down and sit down and shut up. Not that I’m a religious person, but isn’t the ‘tudung’ part of Islam where the women folk have to cover their hair? So how does that apply to uniformity? Why impose something religion-based onto those who are not part of that religion? This comes back to the IIU ‘tudung’ incident as well. If we’re practicing freedom of religion (to some extent) then why impose a uniform rule which is religion-based?
Anyway, more stuff did I read about IPMC, APs etc. I found the notion of the govt re-educating AP holders highly amusing. The last time I checked, these AP holders are already very rich businessmen made richer by the APs and certainly do not need our poorly managed govt re-educating them on how to make money. Unless it’s a course on how they can siphon more money from the govt. Then, I’m sure they’ll be very interested in your re-education.
Can’t upload the photos I took with my camera. Silly me. I brought the docking station for the camera but didn’t bring the usb cable to connect the dock to the laptop.
No comments:
Post a Comment