30 October 2006
Let's train ourselves to more tolerant
I refer to the report “PM: Be more tolerant to boost multi-racial ties” (Sunday Star Oct.29).
The call by the Prime Minister on Malaysians to learn to be more tolerant so that race and religion will no longer be sensitive issues in the future is very encouraging and must be taken seriously by citizens of all race and creed.
It is disturbing to note that after almost 50 years of attaining independence, racial and religious issues continue to be very sensitive and create a lot of anxiety among the people. In fact there is general acknowledgement that race relations over the years has become worse and is continuing to deteriorate further with time.
In fact our younger generation today seems to be less tolerant of racial and religious diversity as they are not exposed to communal living with others.They live cocooned within their own community and have grown up ignorant of the sensitivities of communities other than their own.
We must accept that this is a manifestation of the failure of our political system, especially the education system, which has failed to instill the comradeship among the various ethnic groups.In fact by segregating the races for whatever reason,we have only succeeded in instilling suspicion and even hatred among our people of various races,even as early primary school age.
This is very unhealthy and we must take immediate steps to rectify the unfavorable situation before it does irreparable damage.
Instead of confronting and solving the problems related to race and religion in a civil and unemotional manner through dialogue, they are shunned and pushed under the carpet, only to resurface later with greater magnitude.
Of late at least there is some acknowlegement by our leaders of the existence of serious inter-ethnic probems in the country which may be a good sign.Recognising the problem alone is not enough, it is more important to take steps to overcome them amicably by discussion and dialogue.
Our children from young must be taught the importance of living together in peace and harmony. They should be made aware of the sensitivities of other ethnic groups and must learn to tolerate them. As parents and teachers,we must drill into them the concept that all races are here to stay and have an equal stake in the good and bad of the nation. Poverty and ill-health in any one community would ultimately affect the peaces and stability of all.
Let us also share the Prime Minister’s hopes that the people will train themselves and their children to become more tolerant so that issues pertaining to race and religion will no longer be sensitive in years to come. This is not only a responsibility of every citizen but also the most important act of patriotism to the nation.
Dr.Chris Anthony
Monday, October 30, 2006
Saturday, October 28, 2006
Singapore’s success story a fact
I share with Dr Chris Anthony the sentiments expressed in his letter Universities: Boost national pride to reap success.
Dr Mahathir Mohamad rebutted Lee Kuan Yew’s apology letter on the marginalisation issue to our prime minister, blaming LKY for being ‘too proud’. After Anthony’s letter, I can’t help but to agree with Dr M that LKY is indeed proud of his country’s achievement and if our country could achieve the same results as Singapore, I certainly think Dr M would feel proud too. Don’t we wonder how can a small country of a population of 4.4 million peoples can achieve so much? Not to mention that it does not have our abundant resources of oil and gas and land mass.
A recent issue of The Economist said that Singapore reserves stands at US$130.7 billion while Malaysia only has US$79 b. This shows how well they manage their country’s financial affairs. In the same issue of the magazine, under the title ‘A survey of talent’, Singapore’s education policy was explored.
I quote: ‘One of the most successful schools at getting students into American Ivy League universities is Raffles Junior College in Singapore’. And this is just one of their 17 junior colleges in Singapore. I was told by a friend who studied in UK that for the past many years, Cambridge and Oxford received the most students from a single country, Singapore, and not from where we would think, China or India.
And given the fact that Singapore sends her best students to the best overseas universities, I would think that only their second best students study at National University of Singapore. Even so, the NUS can achieve an international ranking of 19, on par with Tokyo University and only behind Beijing University.
The NUS is one of the top three universities in Asia! Look at the position of Singapore Airlines and MAS. SIA doesn’t even have space for domestic routes yet it is flying high, competing internationally and recording profits year after year. How can they do it?
Dr M always looks down on our neighbour, talk downs to them about being a small country. Yet just look at the above few real life examples and results on who can actually stand taller, at least in the eye of international community. The facts stand out very clearly
Anonymous
Malaysiakini OCT.26 2006
I share with Dr Chris Anthony the sentiments expressed in his letter Universities: Boost national pride to reap success.
Dr Mahathir Mohamad rebutted Lee Kuan Yew’s apology letter on the marginalisation issue to our prime minister, blaming LKY for being ‘too proud’. After Anthony’s letter, I can’t help but to agree with Dr M that LKY is indeed proud of his country’s achievement and if our country could achieve the same results as Singapore, I certainly think Dr M would feel proud too. Don’t we wonder how can a small country of a population of 4.4 million peoples can achieve so much? Not to mention that it does not have our abundant resources of oil and gas and land mass.
A recent issue of The Economist said that Singapore reserves stands at US$130.7 billion while Malaysia only has US$79 b. This shows how well they manage their country’s financial affairs. In the same issue of the magazine, under the title ‘A survey of talent’, Singapore’s education policy was explored.
I quote: ‘One of the most successful schools at getting students into American Ivy League universities is Raffles Junior College in Singapore’. And this is just one of their 17 junior colleges in Singapore. I was told by a friend who studied in UK that for the past many years, Cambridge and Oxford received the most students from a single country, Singapore, and not from where we would think, China or India.
And given the fact that Singapore sends her best students to the best overseas universities, I would think that only their second best students study at National University of Singapore. Even so, the NUS can achieve an international ranking of 19, on par with Tokyo University and only behind Beijing University.
The NUS is one of the top three universities in Asia! Look at the position of Singapore Airlines and MAS. SIA doesn’t even have space for domestic routes yet it is flying high, competing internationally and recording profits year after year. How can they do it?
Dr M always looks down on our neighbour, talk downs to them about being a small country. Yet just look at the above few real life examples and results on who can actually stand taller, at least in the eye of international community. The facts stand out very clearly
Anonymous
Malaysiakini OCT.26 2006
Univesities: Boost national pride to reap success
Dropping standard of MU
In World University Rankings 2006 published by the Times Higher Education Supplement and conducted by
QS Quacquarelli Symonds, UKM rose by 105 places to break into the top 200-ranked universities for the first time, climbing from 289 last year to 185.
UM, however, continued its downward spiral, by dropping a further 23 places to 192. Its ranking fell from 89 in 2004 to 169 last year, causing a national debate on the status of the premier university and the validity of the criteria used for the rankings.
There has been all round applause on the improved ranking of UKM. We must give credit to all involved in the better performance of UKM but ranking 185 is not something to shout about. Instead of questioning the validity of the criteria used for the ranking it would be wise if we on then quiet work harder to achieve a much better ranking, probably among the top 10, in the years to come.
It is really disappointing but not surprising that UM is continuing to drop further from 89 to 192 within two years. As a former graduate of the premier and oldest university, I am indeed embarrassed of its standing.
In the seventies UM had many prominent academicians of international recognition but today we are not able to name any such personalities.UM at its inception was at par with NUS but the latter is now far ahead at number 19 spot. In fact if we compare more closely, at all levels we are no where near NUS. What has gone wrong with our once premier university?
Our leaders and the relevant authorities are genuinely not at all perturbed by the deteriorating standard of our institutions of higher learning. They question the ways of grading these institutions and always blame others, especially the West, for conspiring and being bias against us.
The failure to practice real meritocracy in staff affairs and intake of students is the main causes of the dismal performance of our universities. Brain drain is a regrettable accompaniment of this policy.
Many of our lecturers have left for the so-called greener pastures overseas due to very shoddy treatment they received at local universities. Their talents are not tapped and rightfully rewarded. Rightful and well deserving promotions are denied and given to more junior and less capable ones. It is a strange situation where our own intellectuals are better recognized in foreign countries than in their own motherland.
Intake of students too is far from ideal. The best of the matriculation students are given scholarships and sent overseas, a practice that is not only detrimental to the standard of our own universities but an insult to them as well. If we do not hold our institutions with high esteem, who else will?
Many students with maximum possible results in the STPM examination are not offered the courses they seek. In the end only mediocre students are admitted to pursue studies at our own local universities. How we compete with prominent foreign institutions with such a myopic practice?
The great national pride and patriotism we had are slowly but surely being eroded and replaced with patriotism and pride for ones own race and religion. We prefer the prosperity of our own community than that of the nation.
The talents of all Malaysians must be tapped fairly without prejudice. Only this will reverse the present trend to place national pride above all other interests. Unless we actively do that the future may not look encouraging.
Dr.Chris Anthony
In World University Rankings 2006 published by the Times Higher Education Supplement and conducted by
QS Quacquarelli Symonds, UKM rose by 105 places to break into the top 200-ranked universities for the first time, climbing from 289 last year to 185.
UM, however, continued its downward spiral, by dropping a further 23 places to 192. Its ranking fell from 89 in 2004 to 169 last year, causing a national debate on the status of the premier university and the validity of the criteria used for the rankings.
There has been all round applause on the improved ranking of UKM. We must give credit to all involved in the better performance of UKM but ranking 185 is not something to shout about. Instead of questioning the validity of the criteria used for the ranking it would be wise if we on then quiet work harder to achieve a much better ranking, probably among the top 10, in the years to come.
It is really disappointing but not surprising that UM is continuing to drop further from 89 to 192 within two years. As a former graduate of the premier and oldest university, I am indeed embarrassed of its standing.
In the seventies UM had many prominent academicians of international recognition but today we are not able to name any such personalities.UM at its inception was at par with NUS but the latter is now far ahead at number 19 spot. In fact if we compare more closely, at all levels we are no where near NUS. What has gone wrong with our once premier university?
Our leaders and the relevant authorities are genuinely not at all perturbed by the deteriorating standard of our institutions of higher learning. They question the ways of grading these institutions and always blame others, especially the West, for conspiring and being bias against us.
The failure to practice real meritocracy in staff affairs and intake of students is the main causes of the dismal performance of our universities. Brain drain is a regrettable accompaniment of this policy.
Many of our lecturers have left for the so-called greener pastures overseas due to very shoddy treatment they received at local universities. Their talents are not tapped and rightfully rewarded. Rightful and well deserving promotions are denied and given to more junior and less capable ones. It is a strange situation where our own intellectuals are better recognized in foreign countries than in their own motherland.
Intake of students too is far from ideal. The best of the matriculation students are given scholarships and sent overseas, a practice that is not only detrimental to the standard of our own universities but an insult to them as well. If we do not hold our institutions with high esteem, who else will?
Many students with maximum possible results in the STPM examination are not offered the courses they seek. In the end only mediocre students are admitted to pursue studies at our own local universities. How we compete with prominent foreign institutions with such a myopic practice?
The great national pride and patriotism we had are slowly but surely being eroded and replaced with patriotism and pride for ones own race and religion. We prefer the prosperity of our own community than that of the nation.
The talents of all Malaysians must be tapped fairly without prejudice. Only this will reverse the present trend to place national pride above all other interests. Unless we actively do that the future may not look encouraging.
Dr.Chris Anthony
Wednesday, October 25, 2006
Slamming the brakes on interreligious dialogue
Aneel David Kannabhiran
Malaysiakini,Sep 22, 2006
“Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus - with the central question on the relationship between religion and violence in general, in these words: Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached. The emperor goes on to explain in detail the reasons why spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable. Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul.”
Excerpt of Pope Benedict XVI’s Sept 12 speech at the University of Regensburg.
The first reaction by most Catholics in Malaysia on reading about the fallout over the Pope’s speech was most likely: “Why did he have to say such a thing?” Many would also ask that, if he wanted to drive home the point that religion and violence are incompatible, could he not have used Catholic examples - the Crusades for instance?
The Pope’s statements regarding Muhammad and Islam are ill-conceived, insensitive and ill-timed only because Muslims, from present and past evidence, believe that their religion must never be criticised or questioned - even by their fellow Muslims, more so by those of other religions.
Therefore it would not take any stretch of the imagination what their reaction to the Pope’s comments on their Prophet and religion would be. Churches in Palestine have been fire bombed and a nun in has been murdered in Mogadishu (possibly in relation to the controversy). Protests in India and Pakistan have turned violent.
The Muslim reaction, ironically, bore testament to the Pope’s reference: Muslims will not stop at violence to defend their religion. The sabre rattling by Malaysian parliament insisting that the Pope retract his statements and apologise is also typical of this ‘attack mentality’.
The only surprising response came from Indonesian clerics who urged non-violence and forgiveness. Calculated risk One could speculate that Benedict’s speech was a calculated risk to test if they would react in typical fashion or practice the peaceful, tolerant approach of ‘true Islam’.
This would lead one to conclude that the Pope is either very shrewd or very foolish. The pontiff’s limited apology is probably as far as the Vatican will compromise. In their minds, presumably, any further bowing to the Islamic world’s pressure will only show that Christianity can easily be cowed by another religion.
The Organisation of Islamic Countries (OIC) has hopefully put the matter to rest by accepting the pontiff’s amends. If, as Benedict later explained, the true meaning of his address “was and is an invitation to frank and sincere dialogue, with great mutual respect”, is it any wonder that any efforts at dialogue or interfaith understanding is met by reluctance, suspicion and summary rejection? The pontiff should re-think a more appropriate approach if ‘dialogue’ is indeed his objective.
One gets the impression that Benedict is far out of touch with realities on the ground. He spends most of his life amongst his own kind and probably never in his life had to live in a Muslim majority community. However, if one were to read and comprehend the full text of the pontiff’s lengthy and somewhat complicated speech, one would discover that it was essentially about the weaknesses of the Western world, its irreligion and disdain for religion and that both Christianity and Islam share a commonality in rejecting the linking of religion and violence.
The reason for the references to the 14th century emperor’s contentions, although not directly expressed by the pontiff, could have been to demonstrate that the current (mis)perception of Islam by Western Christians has existed since then. Non-Muslim perception is based on what is reported - most of what one reads about Islam in newspapers are terrorist attacks perpetrated by Muslims in the name of their religion. The only jihad that is reported is of the ‘holy war’ variety.
Thus, can one blame non-Muslims, especially those in the West for perceiving Islam as a violent religion? Lip service Religious leaders from every faith repeat that terrorism in the name of religion is a violation and betrayal of any religion, but stop short at naming Muslims as the most prevalent perpetrators of such violence. Pope Benedict XVI is probably the first non-Muslim leader to dare say this publicly.
Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi, who is also Chairman of the Organisation of Islamic Countries (OIC) in his speech, ‘Dialogue, the Key to Multireligious, Multiethnic and Multicultural Societies’ at the 2004 World Council of Churches, spoke of those “who practise their faith in absolutist terms” and “misinterpret the very religion that they profess”. Badawi went on to admit that “Muslims are responsible for a number of terrorist acts committed today”, and further reiterated that, “the Palestinian issue or the conflict in Iraq are not just Muslim grievances. These are problems of universal concern”.
Therefore, the contention by some ‘analysts’ that America and its involvement in the Israel-Palestine-Middle East crises is the ‘root cause’ of each and every terrorist attack worldwide is beginning to sound pathetic. Every time a terrorist attack occurs, the Muslim moderates will repeat yet again that “Islam is a religion of peace, tolerance and non-violence”.
If this is the belief of the majority of Muslims, how is it the extremists in minority seem to be having the upper hand? Isn’t it time for Muslims to engage in intra-religious dialogue with the extremist elements within their faith? This question was put to Indonesian professor of Islam and Comparative Religion Syafa’atun Almirzanah in the September 2004 issue of CANews, who agreed, but pointed out that because Islam is a poly-interpretable religion it was difficult to arrive at commonality. “It is much easier to initiate dialogue between Christians and Muslims, than to initiate dialogue between progressive, liberal Muslims and our hard-line fundamentalists.
We invite the most extreme fundamentalist leaders for dialogue, but they often either decline outright, or become argumentative during the dialogue,” she said. OIC’s role Thus it would take an Islamic organisation with more clout to bring all Islamic denominations to the dialogue table. The OIC could very well be such an organisation. The OIC has to use all its power to compel all Muslim nations to participate in a hard intra-faith dialogue.
The objective of this dialogue must be: i) to compel all Muslim nations to rein in and control the extremist factions within their faith, urging them to relinquish their single-minded focus on the ‘holy war’ aspect of jihad, and subsequently arrive at an unwavering and demonstrative consensus that Islam is indeed “a religion of peace, tolerance and non-violence”, and, ii) to conscientise Muslims toward being more open-minded, rational and less sensitive when faced with questions and constructive criticisms from non-Muslims.
Until such a time, all attempts at dialogue between the major religions and Islam will have to be put on hold.
ANEEL DAVID KANNABHIRAN is a Malaysian, committed to the reform agenda of various human rights and social justice issues including that within the various religious institutions.
Aneel David Kannabhiran
Malaysiakini,Sep 22, 2006
“Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus - with the central question on the relationship between religion and violence in general, in these words: Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached. The emperor goes on to explain in detail the reasons why spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable. Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul.”
Excerpt of Pope Benedict XVI’s Sept 12 speech at the University of Regensburg.
The first reaction by most Catholics in Malaysia on reading about the fallout over the Pope’s speech was most likely: “Why did he have to say such a thing?” Many would also ask that, if he wanted to drive home the point that religion and violence are incompatible, could he not have used Catholic examples - the Crusades for instance?
The Pope’s statements regarding Muhammad and Islam are ill-conceived, insensitive and ill-timed only because Muslims, from present and past evidence, believe that their religion must never be criticised or questioned - even by their fellow Muslims, more so by those of other religions.
Therefore it would not take any stretch of the imagination what their reaction to the Pope’s comments on their Prophet and religion would be. Churches in Palestine have been fire bombed and a nun in has been murdered in Mogadishu (possibly in relation to the controversy). Protests in India and Pakistan have turned violent.
The Muslim reaction, ironically, bore testament to the Pope’s reference: Muslims will not stop at violence to defend their religion. The sabre rattling by Malaysian parliament insisting that the Pope retract his statements and apologise is also typical of this ‘attack mentality’.
The only surprising response came from Indonesian clerics who urged non-violence and forgiveness. Calculated risk One could speculate that Benedict’s speech was a calculated risk to test if they would react in typical fashion or practice the peaceful, tolerant approach of ‘true Islam’.
This would lead one to conclude that the Pope is either very shrewd or very foolish. The pontiff’s limited apology is probably as far as the Vatican will compromise. In their minds, presumably, any further bowing to the Islamic world’s pressure will only show that Christianity can easily be cowed by another religion.
The Organisation of Islamic Countries (OIC) has hopefully put the matter to rest by accepting the pontiff’s amends. If, as Benedict later explained, the true meaning of his address “was and is an invitation to frank and sincere dialogue, with great mutual respect”, is it any wonder that any efforts at dialogue or interfaith understanding is met by reluctance, suspicion and summary rejection? The pontiff should re-think a more appropriate approach if ‘dialogue’ is indeed his objective.
One gets the impression that Benedict is far out of touch with realities on the ground. He spends most of his life amongst his own kind and probably never in his life had to live in a Muslim majority community. However, if one were to read and comprehend the full text of the pontiff’s lengthy and somewhat complicated speech, one would discover that it was essentially about the weaknesses of the Western world, its irreligion and disdain for religion and that both Christianity and Islam share a commonality in rejecting the linking of religion and violence.
The reason for the references to the 14th century emperor’s contentions, although not directly expressed by the pontiff, could have been to demonstrate that the current (mis)perception of Islam by Western Christians has existed since then. Non-Muslim perception is based on what is reported - most of what one reads about Islam in newspapers are terrorist attacks perpetrated by Muslims in the name of their religion. The only jihad that is reported is of the ‘holy war’ variety.
Thus, can one blame non-Muslims, especially those in the West for perceiving Islam as a violent religion? Lip service Religious leaders from every faith repeat that terrorism in the name of religion is a violation and betrayal of any religion, but stop short at naming Muslims as the most prevalent perpetrators of such violence. Pope Benedict XVI is probably the first non-Muslim leader to dare say this publicly.
Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi, who is also Chairman of the Organisation of Islamic Countries (OIC) in his speech, ‘Dialogue, the Key to Multireligious, Multiethnic and Multicultural Societies’ at the 2004 World Council of Churches, spoke of those “who practise their faith in absolutist terms” and “misinterpret the very religion that they profess”. Badawi went on to admit that “Muslims are responsible for a number of terrorist acts committed today”, and further reiterated that, “the Palestinian issue or the conflict in Iraq are not just Muslim grievances. These are problems of universal concern”.
Therefore, the contention by some ‘analysts’ that America and its involvement in the Israel-Palestine-Middle East crises is the ‘root cause’ of each and every terrorist attack worldwide is beginning to sound pathetic. Every time a terrorist attack occurs, the Muslim moderates will repeat yet again that “Islam is a religion of peace, tolerance and non-violence”.
If this is the belief of the majority of Muslims, how is it the extremists in minority seem to be having the upper hand? Isn’t it time for Muslims to engage in intra-religious dialogue with the extremist elements within their faith? This question was put to Indonesian professor of Islam and Comparative Religion Syafa’atun Almirzanah in the September 2004 issue of CANews, who agreed, but pointed out that because Islam is a poly-interpretable religion it was difficult to arrive at commonality. “It is much easier to initiate dialogue between Christians and Muslims, than to initiate dialogue between progressive, liberal Muslims and our hard-line fundamentalists.
We invite the most extreme fundamentalist leaders for dialogue, but they often either decline outright, or become argumentative during the dialogue,” she said. OIC’s role Thus it would take an Islamic organisation with more clout to bring all Islamic denominations to the dialogue table. The OIC could very well be such an organisation. The OIC has to use all its power to compel all Muslim nations to participate in a hard intra-faith dialogue.
The objective of this dialogue must be: i) to compel all Muslim nations to rein in and control the extremist factions within their faith, urging them to relinquish their single-minded focus on the ‘holy war’ aspect of jihad, and subsequently arrive at an unwavering and demonstrative consensus that Islam is indeed “a religion of peace, tolerance and non-violence”, and, ii) to conscientise Muslims toward being more open-minded, rational and less sensitive when faced with questions and constructive criticisms from non-Muslims.
Until such a time, all attempts at dialogue between the major religions and Islam will have to be put on hold.
ANEEL DAVID KANNABHIRAN is a Malaysian, committed to the reform agenda of various human rights and social justice issues including that within the various religious institutions.
Friday, October 20, 2006
Another blow for inter-racial harmony
It is another sad day in the history of our nation.Malaysians Hindus were given another blow. Takaful Malaysia has called on Muslims not to greet Hindus Happy Deepavalli.Is it a surprise? No, definitely not. We know it is coming but did not expect it to be so fast and not from an top official from the Muslim business community.
Such statements would normally come from over enthusiastic upcoming young politicians.
What is more frightening is that none of the top leaders dare come with strong condemnation of this official who has gone overboard in issuing such directive to his staff. It is a very serious matter but being treated in such a trivial manner.
The trend towards Islamisation started in the seventies when Muslim girls have to wear the “tudung” in the name of religion. Since then there was no turning back and slowly but surely rules were introduced in the name of religion. The Muslims were segregated from non-Muslims by their strict dress code. Even for sporting activities they were not allowed to adorn the standard sports attire.
Then came the issue of “halal”.Muslims would not consume the food prepared by non-Muslim friends however close they may be. Today they refuse to visit their non-Muslim friends at their homes.
Common celebrations like “kongsi-raya” and “deepa-raya” are now forbidden as they are considered “ haram”.
Non-Muslim places of worship are not allowed near the vicinity of mosques and suraus.Some of these temples and churches which were there for more than a century were demolished or re-sited to less prominent places to “hide” them from the sight of Muslims.
What is in store for the future of the inter-ethnic relations in our multi-racial and multi-religious country which we claim is a model nation for the world? Definitely it is not going to stop here and we all are only too familiar that anything is possible in our bolehland.
Where are our leaders? Why aren’t they saying nor doing anything to stop the progression of religious fanatism and deviationism?
We are already been classified as infidels and should not be taken by surprise, if in the near future, we are told that talking to infidels is haram. Following that a time will come that the sight of infidels will also be haram.
It may be a polite way of asking us to leave. But where are we to go?
Dr.Chris Anthony
It is another sad day in the history of our nation.Malaysians Hindus were given another blow. Takaful Malaysia has called on Muslims not to greet Hindus Happy Deepavalli.Is it a surprise? No, definitely not. We know it is coming but did not expect it to be so fast and not from an top official from the Muslim business community.
Such statements would normally come from over enthusiastic upcoming young politicians.
What is more frightening is that none of the top leaders dare come with strong condemnation of this official who has gone overboard in issuing such directive to his staff. It is a very serious matter but being treated in such a trivial manner.
The trend towards Islamisation started in the seventies when Muslim girls have to wear the “tudung” in the name of religion. Since then there was no turning back and slowly but surely rules were introduced in the name of religion. The Muslims were segregated from non-Muslims by their strict dress code. Even for sporting activities they were not allowed to adorn the standard sports attire.
Then came the issue of “halal”.Muslims would not consume the food prepared by non-Muslim friends however close they may be. Today they refuse to visit their non-Muslim friends at their homes.
Common celebrations like “kongsi-raya” and “deepa-raya” are now forbidden as they are considered “ haram”.
Non-Muslim places of worship are not allowed near the vicinity of mosques and suraus.Some of these temples and churches which were there for more than a century were demolished or re-sited to less prominent places to “hide” them from the sight of Muslims.
What is in store for the future of the inter-ethnic relations in our multi-racial and multi-religious country which we claim is a model nation for the world? Definitely it is not going to stop here and we all are only too familiar that anything is possible in our bolehland.
Where are our leaders? Why aren’t they saying nor doing anything to stop the progression of religious fanatism and deviationism?
We are already been classified as infidels and should not be taken by surprise, if in the near future, we are told that talking to infidels is haram. Following that a time will come that the sight of infidels will also be haram.
It may be a polite way of asking us to leave. But where are we to go?
Dr.Chris Anthony
Thursday, October 19, 2006
Let's make Malaysia a truly model nation
I refer to your reports “Fauzi says sorry for e-mail” (Star Oct.18) and “Festive greetings all right” (Star Oct.19).
It is indeed a happy piece of news that Takaful Malaysia Syariah head Mohd Fauzi Mustaffa has apologised for his e-mail advising his colleagues against wishing Hindus Happy Deepavali.
Statements like these are the least required in a multi-racial and multi-religious society like ours.
While we welcome and accept his apology, we hope Fauzi made it on his own free will for the benefit of the nation as a whole. We sincerely hope it was not made out of force or for business advantage.
There may be many more such people who could have such misconceived ideas about religious tolerance. This thought is rather disturbing. People like Fauzi, in high positions, whose ideas could have tremendous influence on their subordinates must be very cautious in making statements that could be detrimental to national unity and harmony.
Our leaders should themselves come hard on those who make irresponsible statements that could undermine the racial harmony in the country which is already under strain of late.
Our younger generation today seems to be less tolerant of racial and religious diversity as they are not exposed to communal living with others. As a result they have grown up ignorant of the sensitivities of communities other than their own. We must accept that this is a manifestation of the failure of our education system which has failed to instill the comradeship among the various ethnic groups. We must take immediate steps to rectify the unfavorable situation before it does irreparable damage.
Our children from young must be taught the importance of living together in peace and harmony. They must be taught that all races are here to stay and have a stake in the good and bad of the nation. Poverty and ill-health in any one community would ultimately affect the peaces and stability of all.
Children of all races and religion should be made aware of the sensitivities of other ethnic groups and must learn to tolerate and live together harmoniously. The parents and teachers play a very important role in this teaching of the young.
It is reassuring that Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi has come strongly against those who are so myopic in their thinking as to be against extending greetings to fellow Malaysians who are celebrating their respective festivals. He has also rightly pointed out that it is perfectly right to join in the celebrations of those of other faiths. It fact it should be encouraged at all levels as it could cultivate inseparable bonds of friendship among those of diverse cultures.
We hope his views would be taken seriously by all, especially leaders at all levels of the administration, so that such misconceived attitudes and believes like these will not surface in future.
We claim that Malaysia is a multi-racial and multi-religious country, and truly it is. Our leaders claim we are a model nation for the world to emulate, as far as ethnic relations are concerned, sure enough it should be. But in actual fact are we truly a model nation?
We have all the great religions in our country, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduisms and Christianity. All of them are unanimous in their teachings - to share what you have, however scanty it may be, with those who are less fortunate regardless of race or creed.
In order to truly make our country an example for the world, we must rid ourselves of our suspicious attitude towards other races and share what we have with the less fortunate, regardless of ethnicity, in accordance with our religious inclinations.
Dr.Chris Anthony
I refer to your reports “Fauzi says sorry for e-mail” (Star Oct.18) and “Festive greetings all right” (Star Oct.19).
It is indeed a happy piece of news that Takaful Malaysia Syariah head Mohd Fauzi Mustaffa has apologised for his e-mail advising his colleagues against wishing Hindus Happy Deepavali.
Statements like these are the least required in a multi-racial and multi-religious society like ours.
While we welcome and accept his apology, we hope Fauzi made it on his own free will for the benefit of the nation as a whole. We sincerely hope it was not made out of force or for business advantage.
There may be many more such people who could have such misconceived ideas about religious tolerance. This thought is rather disturbing. People like Fauzi, in high positions, whose ideas could have tremendous influence on their subordinates must be very cautious in making statements that could be detrimental to national unity and harmony.
Our leaders should themselves come hard on those who make irresponsible statements that could undermine the racial harmony in the country which is already under strain of late.
Our younger generation today seems to be less tolerant of racial and religious diversity as they are not exposed to communal living with others. As a result they have grown up ignorant of the sensitivities of communities other than their own. We must accept that this is a manifestation of the failure of our education system which has failed to instill the comradeship among the various ethnic groups. We must take immediate steps to rectify the unfavorable situation before it does irreparable damage.
Our children from young must be taught the importance of living together in peace and harmony. They must be taught that all races are here to stay and have a stake in the good and bad of the nation. Poverty and ill-health in any one community would ultimately affect the peaces and stability of all.
Children of all races and religion should be made aware of the sensitivities of other ethnic groups and must learn to tolerate and live together harmoniously. The parents and teachers play a very important role in this teaching of the young.
It is reassuring that Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi has come strongly against those who are so myopic in their thinking as to be against extending greetings to fellow Malaysians who are celebrating their respective festivals. He has also rightly pointed out that it is perfectly right to join in the celebrations of those of other faiths. It fact it should be encouraged at all levels as it could cultivate inseparable bonds of friendship among those of diverse cultures.
We hope his views would be taken seriously by all, especially leaders at all levels of the administration, so that such misconceived attitudes and believes like these will not surface in future.
We claim that Malaysia is a multi-racial and multi-religious country, and truly it is. Our leaders claim we are a model nation for the world to emulate, as far as ethnic relations are concerned, sure enough it should be. But in actual fact are we truly a model nation?
We have all the great religions in our country, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduisms and Christianity. All of them are unanimous in their teachings - to share what you have, however scanty it may be, with those who are less fortunate regardless of race or creed.
In order to truly make our country an example for the world, we must rid ourselves of our suspicious attitude towards other races and share what we have with the less fortunate, regardless of ethnicity, in accordance with our religious inclinations.
Dr.Chris Anthony
Wednesday, October 18, 2006
The Star Online > Nation
Wednesday October 18, 2006
Malaysian PM backs mixed festivities by Muslims, Hindus
KUALA LUMPUR: Multiracial Malaysia's prime minister on Wednesday defended joint religious celebrations by the country's Muslims and Hindus.
"A joint celebration does not mean that Muslims and Hindus have to mix their religions.
"Everyone has their own beliefs and faith,'' Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi said in a speech.
"It does not in any way tarnish one's religion.''
The comments were apparently aimed at ending a controversy over whether Muslims should send holiday greetings to Hindus for their religious celebrations including the festival of lights, Diwali or Deepawali, which will be marked this Saturday.
Diwali will be followed next week by Eid-al-Fitr - known in Malaysia as "Hari Raya'' - the main Muslim holiday at the end of the fasting month of Ramadan.
The two lunar calendar holidays often occur back to back and are celebrated together in a weeklong holiday, nicknamed "Deeparaya.''
Abdullah was speaking at a ceremony handing out gifts to civil servants to mark both festivals.
But controversy erupted this year after the religious chief of a government-linked Islamic finance group, Takaful Malaysia, advised its Muslim employees not to wish Hindus "Happy Diwali.''
In an e-mail to employees, Mohamed Fauzi Mustaffa described Hindu festivals as being against Islamic tenets because they involve idol worship, considered blasphemous in Islam.
Takaful Malaysia, which is majority-owned by Malaysia's Bank Islam, later apologised after Hindu groups, many Muslims and government ministers expressed outrage at the comments, describing them as a narrow interpretation of Islam.
"The issue at hand is about ... creating a sense of unity among all the races in the country and one identity that we are all Malaysians,'' said Abdullah, a respected Islamic scholar.
"I do not want any confusion in all this ... I want to set the record straight that this does not in any way go against the faith of Muslims in the country,'' Abdullah said.
The government has carefully nurtured racial harmony between the three races since deadly race riots in 1969, and the country is often hailed as a model of coexistence for other multicultural nations. - AP
© 1995-2005 Star Publications (Malaysia) Bhd (Co No 10894-D)
Wednesday October 18, 2006
Malaysian PM backs mixed festivities by Muslims, Hindus
KUALA LUMPUR: Multiracial Malaysia's prime minister on Wednesday defended joint religious celebrations by the country's Muslims and Hindus.
"A joint celebration does not mean that Muslims and Hindus have to mix their religions.
"Everyone has their own beliefs and faith,'' Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi said in a speech.
"It does not in any way tarnish one's religion.''
The comments were apparently aimed at ending a controversy over whether Muslims should send holiday greetings to Hindus for their religious celebrations including the festival of lights, Diwali or Deepawali, which will be marked this Saturday.
Diwali will be followed next week by Eid-al-Fitr - known in Malaysia as "Hari Raya'' - the main Muslim holiday at the end of the fasting month of Ramadan.
The two lunar calendar holidays often occur back to back and are celebrated together in a weeklong holiday, nicknamed "Deeparaya.''
Abdullah was speaking at a ceremony handing out gifts to civil servants to mark both festivals.
But controversy erupted this year after the religious chief of a government-linked Islamic finance group, Takaful Malaysia, advised its Muslim employees not to wish Hindus "Happy Diwali.''
In an e-mail to employees, Mohamed Fauzi Mustaffa described Hindu festivals as being against Islamic tenets because they involve idol worship, considered blasphemous in Islam.
Takaful Malaysia, which is majority-owned by Malaysia's Bank Islam, later apologised after Hindu groups, many Muslims and government ministers expressed outrage at the comments, describing them as a narrow interpretation of Islam.
"The issue at hand is about ... creating a sense of unity among all the races in the country and one identity that we are all Malaysians,'' said Abdullah, a respected Islamic scholar.
"I do not want any confusion in all this ... I want to set the record straight that this does not in any way go against the faith of Muslims in the country,'' Abdullah said.
The government has carefully nurtured racial harmony between the three races since deadly race riots in 1969, and the country is often hailed as a model of coexistence for other multicultural nations. - AP
© 1995-2005 Star Publications (Malaysia) Bhd (Co No 10894-D)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
-
Steven Ko Yiu Hing - tragic death The tragic death of Steven Ko Yiu Hing,the medical student who was alleged to have fallen from fo...
-
We are very fortunate Ku Li is not the Prime Minister now.His statements have deeply hurt the feelings of the non-Malays who are also loyal ...
-
1Malaysia and communal politics incompatible The prompt action by Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak against his aide, Datuk Nasir Sa...
