The forum that never happened

Yesterday morning, the Bar Council attempted to hold a forum that was highly protested against. In the end, the forum had to be prematurely ended due to security reasons. 300 (some say 500) people, Muslims, gathered in front of the Bar Council HQ in protest, claiming that the forym was an act of provocation, and clearly trying to undermine Islam and its status in Malaysia.

To make my stand clear, I stand on the Bar Council’s side. I think a forum like the one that didn’t happen yesterday is an important step for the Malaysian community in general to voice their concerns and move towards solving the problems of grey areas when it comes to the law and religion.

I also disagree with the parties who said that the forum should have been a closed-door forum, instead of a public one. It is BECAUSE there are so many different views on this matter that it is important for the forum to be a public one. It is so that anyone who is interested can attend and hear of what transpires. If it were to be behind closed doors, there would be more cause for worry as there would be no way to know what exactly transpires during the forum. And most importantly, the public would not stand to gain as much.

But that being said, it’s not like the forum held yesterday saw much success. Contrary to what Ambiga said (that it was a success), I think the overall purpose of the forum was not even met, let alone it being a success. To me, the forum didn’t happen. The opposite of what the forum was supposed to have set out to achieve was instead what had happened. We did not see a more peaceful, civilised inter-religious discussion. We saw religious-polarisation.

To call the people who attended the forum names and to spout hateful sentiments towards the Bar Council for attempting to hold the forum is simply wrong. On the other hand, to call the demonstrators islamic-extremists who shame the beautiful religion of Islam is also plainly wrong.

To call each other barbaric and insulting names is the easy way out. But to truly create a multi-religious, multi-racial Malaysia where everyone respects everyone else, nothing is easy.

What do the demonstrators expect by calling the forum an “Islam-bashing exercise”? What do they gain by saying “Musnah Bar Council”?

What do we expect to gain if we call the demonstrators Islamic-extremists who don’t use their brains and are cavemen who don’t want to see development?

The answer is just one word: Nothing.

Forums as such will have to happen. It is for a better Malaysia if we can one day finally sit and talk about our concerns and differences without going at each other’s throats.

I don’t have any real suggestions or answers as to how such a forum can be held in the future. But I recognise its importance. I also recognise that there are some sensitivities that need to be addressed at the same time if we are to see forums like this become a successful event in the future. Nothing will happen if we thrust their concerns out the window, and deem them irrelevant. But nothing will happen if we sweep such “sensitive” issues under the carpet as well.

The protest that stopped the forum was unfortunate, not because there was a protest, but because it was one laced with vulgar words and attempted violence.

But no matter how I think they went overboard, the ISA should not be used against any one of them, assuming that it was, or will be. Two wrongs don’t make a right.

Advertisements

17 Comments on “The forum that never happened”

  1. Edi神 says:

    A good example of i5lamic value…

    Simply cant tolerate others.

  2. Kathy says:

    Most of the Islamic believers are not like that. It is those that incite hatred (most of the Malaysians know who they are) are dividing the country up. Read somewhere that religion is one area that a believer should be able to choose to remain in or leave when they decided to. But in Malaysia that is not the case.

  3. warrior2 says:

    Actually what is the purpose of the forum? To resolve grey areas as you put it? So by having an open forum AND NOT A CLOSE forum will enable the truth to be found/the grey areas removed? If it had been a close forum, those who attended would not have benefitted anything?

    The BAR Council can play its role in resolving this impasse (if it hasnt being resolved already by the many courts` decisions) but to defy logic and advice in the face of chaos and possible acts of violence is totally unacceptable. Anything could have happened that day! The molotovs could be a warning!

    My view on actions to be taken…take everybody involved to court if they had violated anything. I dont get it with those people who hold the position that the ISA shuldnt be used because when ISA was used for terrorism, religious extrimism and other non political offences/acts, nobody bising!

  4. humm says:

    We all get excited when we want people to hear what we have to say. Yet, time and again when people wish to say something, we hear but never listen. Hey, this is all fine and dandy if we locked ourself somewhere and talk to ourself or those that share our views. Unfortunately, in the open, we can’t expect everyone to agree with us. Even more, there will be people with extreme opinion and different set of idealism, whatever that is right, wrong, can, or connot do. In our beloved country, it is a given that we have more than a fair share of people with differing race, religion, sexual inclinations and what have you. And we have lived till now not just through our respect for each other but also enforced by the so called authoritarian laws since the start of independence.

    I for one agree for an intelligent open debate BUT time and again, are we being naive or too eager without taking into account of the reality of the state of our society. The younger generation cannot understand why we are so racially biased. Why can’t we adults talk to each other like they can with their friends. Especially the younger ones that has grown up in a very narrow circles and never exposed to the sensitivity that lie out there. Go to the predominantly malay villages, go to the dominanatly indian community or the chinese hawker areas. Understand the level of political awareness, inclinations, and you will understand how easy it is to incite hatred and unreasonableness!

    The sad part of this event is that the Bar Council of all society should understand this better. They had ample warning at the grass root level. Strong opinions have been heard by many quarters. So, what else can we expect but for a predictable outcome.

    What does this all tell us? Although I believe in free and democratic intelligent debate but i believe our society has not reached a level where we can have it openly without stirring emotions. No man is an island. Stop thinking that we are free to speak all we liked (espeially that concerns others) without any repercussions. We can fly our flag upside down and the hell with what other think. Where do we stop before we turn into the monster that we very loudly stood against. Its OK when it concern just us, but when we start hitting at other beliefs and still feel right, then we are very much imposing our world views onto others.

    We can reach for the stars but lets have our feet firmly on the ground. Respect is not something we imposed on people, it is something we gain!

  5. Nanda says:

    I was there at the forum. It’s nothing of the nature of discussing or hitting out at any particular religion.

    The intention was to discuss and hear from all the parties (be it the converting, or the non-converting) on legal issues arrising from conversion of one party.

    When a non-muslim couple gets married, the marriage, which can be viewed as a contract, is signed under the provision of the civil courts. When one of the spouse now converts and decides to make it official/legal (note the distinction), the converting spouse now claims to be under the jurisdiction of Syariah Law. However, the existing contract in civil courts have not yet been terminated, but under the provision of the Syariah Courts, if the non-converting spouse does not convert in the duration of 3 months, the converting spouse can now move on, and the marriage is considered anulled. Now, the Syariah law’s jurisdiction is on the spouse that had converted, but the 3 months provision tries to further that jurisdiction on a person who is not professing the religion, hence it violates the federal constitution. But lets put the federal constitution aside for a moment. Let’s just look at it from a human to human perspective. Upon completion of the 3 months, the converted spouse now goes on and remarries eventhough the initial binding contract is still in existence in civil court. For the previous spouse, and suppose they have kids together, it’s impossible to obtain alimony due to 2 reasons, first, the civil contract is still not anulled and second, the converted spouse can claim that he is now under the jurisdiction of Syariah Law.

    Now, if you recall, I made the distinction between converting and making it official/legal, the reason being the moment God wills belief to enter your heart, there’s no one that can come and say to you that it has not. Its not possible to act against or try to delay God’s will. All that is left are mere formalities for our human institutions, that’s all. Hence, no one is questioning any individuals conversion, but what have to be clarified are the obligations that one cannot simply wash away. In matters of alimony, support for the previous spouse, for even if belief does not enter her heart (whatever belief that may be) fact remains, the couple shared a life together, they slept with each other and have kids together. One do not just wake up and shed the responsibilities. This is against any belief system, yet the provision has not been clarified in our system and furthermore, these acts of irresponsibilities are but are further eased by the Syariah authorities and the people sitting at the apex of our judiciary. Now this beggars the question on what basis can this be allowed? The point is, if a person would like to convert, please kindly go ahead, there’s nothing stopping that person, in fact nothing can stop the will of God, but kindly finish the previous obligations.Not finishing the previous obligations also seem to be in contradiction with the belief that the person is embracing.

    The above is just an example of one instance in which the provisions in our system are not clarified.

    The forum was conducted in a highly professional and rational manner with lawyers from both sides and also with law and muslim scholars as well as average Joes and Janes. Read the statement by Prof Mehrun Siraj.

    But looking at the placards that were carried by the protestors (whose right to protest I acknowledge) seem to imply that they do not know what the forum is all about. Attempts to explain are met with total refusal to listen and any statements were spin doctored. Similarly, some of the comments here also seem to imply the same, where it implied some did not understand what the forum was about. And this was hijacked by the politicians to give it a spin and portray that a religion is under attack when in fact nothing can be further from it.

    As for the point that people may not be ready for public forums, we have been hearing this for the past 51 years. If we do not start now, then when are we ever going to? To not open it to public defeats the purpose because the issue concerns the public, the Tom, Dick, and Harrys.

    As for the possible outcome which may have been untoward, I’d suggest go read verse 5:8 in The Quran.
    __________
    Thanks for the first-hand input Nanda. Greatly appreciated.

  6. Nanda says:

    The pleasure is mine, Mdm.
    By the way, I see that your post ‘The Power is in our hands’ is featured in the ‘Around the Blogs’ section in MalaysiaToday.
    http://us3.malaysia-today.net/2008/content/view/11221/84/

    Way to go.

    For the benefit of all,below is the link to Karim Raslan’s piece in regards to the forum:
    http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2008/8/12/focus/22058430&sec=focus
    __________
    Thanks for the link. Was about to read it. I find his articles quite sensible.

  7. humm says:

    I do sympatize with people who feel sad that a decent forum with good intentions could not be held and thus reflects the mental state of our society. I do wish that all of us can always have an intelligent debate which any mature person would agree can only bring more good than harm. However, if for the last 51 years we have been told that it is a sensitive issue to discuss certain matters and we choose to ignore just for the sake of trying, then I believe it is foolish to just ignore rather than look at the certainty of the matter concern. I certainly hope this is not part of the sudden ‘wind of change’ and current trend that we should now be free to question anything and everything.

    Well, to say that the forum is attended by highly respectable people and therefore it must be good for everyone certainly is a very narrow interpretation of the situation. Yes, there must be hundred odd people there but one cannot deny that there were also bigger number in front of the building that brews trouble. What about the bigger number of organization and independent institutions that voiced out their disagreement to the forum? Mind you these are also respectable intelligent people. For once, we even had PKR, UMNO, PAS, Majlis Peguam Peguam Islam among many others that disagree. We even had the PM, and the TPM that said no. OK they may not be the most acceptable to some but we also had DSAI that said the forum should be done in a closed door manner. So, who do we believe? We still think we are a nation ready for all?

    If try we must, then we must be prepared to accept the consequences. Again, I wish our nation had grown to a state where we can all sit down like family. Sad fact is, I don’t believe we have. How many more incidences must we have to demonstate this? The molotov cocktails isn’t good enough a proof? Have we forgotten the malay-indian clash in a community near selangor of recent years? The utterly despicable words used at calling each other during the forum? Are we ready to try?

    Yes, within the confine of the hundred or so within the forum could give you the impression that we are having a very civilised forum. But I beg you to reconsider in the bigger picture of the whole nation!

  8. warrior2 says:

    Nanda and ALL,
    my position is clear in that everybody knows the issue (those who take this up because most of us dont have time to dwell on this as they are busy with finding enough money to live), the BAR council knows about it by heart and dont need another familly or 2 to tell them what they had already knew. my question was and my position is that, if the intent is to find a solution to the impasse why must it be an open forum and not a close one (if you still really need one)? what is the real agenda actually? I wonder!
    Is the BAR council saying, we need more info from the public before we can find the solution? To publicise the issue so that many others are aware? Do tell me what is the real agenda!
    Can and have the BAR council have forums on chinese and indian perse issues including religious issues before?

  9. Nanda says:

    On August 12, 2008 at 3:00 pm humm Said:
    Well, to say that the forum is attended by highly respectable people and therefore it must be good for everyone certainly is a very narrow interpretation of the situation.

    Nanda says:
    Never said its good for everyone because it was attended by highly respectable people. Was stating who were in it. If you recall, I also said there were average Joes and Janes. The initiation is good not because of its participation from whomsoever, but the fact that the effort has been undertaken to start something rather than keep bowing down to the culture of fear that has been instilled, that’s what that makes it good.

    On August 12, 2008 at 3:00 pm humm Said:
    If try we must, then we must be prepared to accept the consequences. Again, I wish our nation had grown to a state where we can all sit down like family. Sad fact is, I don’t believe we have. How many more incidences must we have to demonstate this? The molotov cocktails isn’t good enough a proof? Have we forgotten the malay-indian clash in a community near selangor of recent years? The utterly despicable words used at calling each other during the forum? Are we ready to try?

    Nanda says:
    So, since the fact is we haven’t been able to sit down like a family, hence we just keep moving on with our lives forever not working at steps to enable to one day sit down like a family? Do we admit defeat and stop any effort at starting something positive for the fear that has been instilled? How long do we have to bow down to intimidation? It has to start at sometime. Now is as good as any.
    So we wish that it is possible that we sit down as a family but when it comes to initiating what is necessary for that wish to come true we back down and stop under the pretext that the we are not ready. Are we now sincere in our wish? For if we are, then we have to initiate it. Its naive to expect change all over without any dissent. And if that ideal change is what one expects then one can keep expecting for the right circumstances and rest assured that it will not arrive if everyone waits for it without initiating the necessary steps for it and there is no other right circumstances and time better than the present time for any steps to be carried out.
    As I said, read 5:8.

    On August 12, 2008 at 3:00 pm humm Said:
    What about the bigger number of organization and independent institutions that voiced out their disagreement to the forum? Mind you these are also respectable intelligent people. For once, we even had PKR, UMNO, PAS, Majlis Peguam Peguam Islam among many others that disagree

    Nanda says:
    Agreed. Their rights to disagree is acknowledged. So do they have to acknowledge the rights of the others to practise their rights as guaranteed in our constitution. Its not merely just a leaflet, our constitution that is. Equally large numbers of people also agreed for the forum. So what do we say, that their views and rights are lesser than those who oppose? According to whom?

    On August 12, 2008 at 3:00 pm humm Said:
    Yes, within the confine of the hundred or so within the forum could give you the impression that we are having a very civilised forum. But I beg you to reconsider in the bigger picture of the whole nation!

    Nanda says:
    Exactly my point. Consider the bigger picture of the whole nation, in which not just UMNO, PKR, PAS, and Majlis Peguam Islam Malaysia are members, but also every other Toms, Dicks, Harrys, Joes, Janes, Jambuists and what nots.

  10. humm says:

    It is interesting to see that one wish to continue trying at all cost! By all means please do. When we argue that we may even have bigger majority that wants to hear what we say, bigger than those that oppose, against it, is all but just to justify for going ahead. Please do. Fact remains, there are strong majority that speaks out against than for it, as it stands. Don’t get me wrong, I am not arguing for or aginst. If you have one million and I have one million, it doesn’t prove anything. What we are saying is the manner that things could be done, has to take into account of everyone sensitivities. It should never be a one sided decision, and just banging on one right to freedom of speech.

    What is factual in the turn of events is that the Bar Council wish to have an open forum but many many organization also opposes it. Forget about right or wrong for the moment, especially when they just depends on which side you wish to agree. Do you proceed regardless when there are clear opposition? If the opposition feels that it is a very sensitive matter to them, do you still do? Do you have the right to determine what is sensitive and what is not to others? If you say we have to do it because if we don’t then we are just bowing down to pressure, the i would say your ego is bigger than intelligence. Is it the freedom or speech or the manner that it is done that you are fighting for? After all, I do hear that for the case at hand, a closed door session is more acceptable to even some of the hard headed.

    The problem when we hear but do not listen is that we ‘feel’ we already know what was said. After all what is there to be so sensitive about. The european never understood why the muslim goes berzerk when they made a movie of prophet muhammad. After all its just a movie. Some malays may never understand why so much commotion when they tear down some temple in selangor. After all, many are built without proper application. So, do all these people views matter? To what extent do we have the right to say as we please, do what we like, even when there is a clear large number of people that against it. Does our number give us a bigger say, and therefore we must have an open forum for all? All for the sake of not bowing to pressure. We call that a good start to family talk?

    Your bigger picture my friend is just to justify a cause and outright ignore of the other side feeling. That cannot be right, and one begs to have a more sensible approach where compromises are made where you can still have your discussion without offending others.

  11. Non-partisan says:

    Whether the Bar Council should hold the forum/dialogue or not can be settled logically and objectively. The issue is not so much about open or closed dialogue because the protestors may just as well be outside the door of a closed session.

    In a mature democracy, the voice and rights of the minority should be given special priority given that the voice of the majority (bigger organisations/NGOs/etc) is likely to drown out the minorities’s voices.

    In a fledgling democracy, the voice of the majority always will try to exert their priority. But the stakes are a bit more complicated when there is no clear cut majority, especially when the non-Muslims ( who comprise 40%) and the Muslims as a group are divided on the issue of dialogue. So there is no clear cut two thirds majority.

    Don’t believe politicians who say Msia has many years to go before becoming a mature democracy. We became an adult overnight on 8 March 08 without any violence/tanks in the streets.

  12. Nanda says:

    Question: Opposing what? What it is that people are opposing?

    I believe I mentioned in my first comment that I don’t think most of the people who were protesting knew what was the forum actually about.

    And the whole thing was hijackked and spun by politicians to further portray it as a religion being challenged when in fact it is not at all the case.

    Hence, what purpose does it serve by holding it in a closed manner without anyone actually knowing what it is all about and further perpetuating the wrong notion that the forum was in fact about challenging a religion and hence the need to hold it behind closed door?

    An equally valid rebuttal would be to say that opening the forum also didn’t serve the purpose to show the public what it is about. I can see that point but I beg to differ.

    Firstly, it did not manage to entirely show the public what it is all about, I agree, due to misrepresentation and also spinning in the media as well as timed comments from the politicians in order to serve their agenda.

    However, with this initiation, we have an opening to debate and talk about it like what we are having over here. And that’s what I meant when I said it has to start somewhere. My points may have been read as merely to challenge and carry out an act or show of defiance, but in fact, that is not what I meant when I said we have to start somewhere. Allow me to clarify.

    Not bowing under intimidation is not intimation of ego. I sincerely believe it was a necessary stand to make. With a starting point we look ahead. But how do we move forward if we don’t even begin, or rather continously choose not to begin?
    For this kind of talk to continue in a closed manner, it will not be able to achieve its purpose for us to learn and further unite us due to the fact that it will not be transparent and the distorted notion that certain groups are discussing something against another would only be strengthened, when what we want is for all of us not to see it as a subject/interest of certain groups but rather, a subject/interest of Malaysians as whole. What’s stopping us from seeing it as a Malaysian subject of interest?Precisely the behind closed door stuff that provides avenue for distortion and spin doctoring which we know how capable our MainStream Media (MSM) and politicians are.

    I believe I described one instance of what was discussed, which is the legal aspects that needs to be made known to the people, and I think not many of us knew about it. Now, who needs to know these legal aspects? Its us, Malaysians who need to know about our system. So if the public do not have access and say in these discussions, what purpose are we looking to serve?

    And for the sake of discussion, when we say sensitivities, why do we not take into consideration the sensitivities of the other party as well?The decision to carry on is not one-sided, I believe it took into account the possibilities of protest as well. Do we honestly think that a closed forum would not cause similar reaction?Track back and look at what happened in JB. When all avenues seem to be leading towards the same direction, is that cause enough for us to call it quits?
    I sincerely believe that if we call it quits, it will only do more damage to us as a whole nation.

    Justify a cause and outrightly ignore feelings? Nope,you’ve got me wrong, that’s never my intention. I’m just saying why not consider the other party’s feelings as well?

  13. shar101 says:

    Dear Humm,

    How does a non-muslim seek remedy in cases such as these?

    The Syariah courts. In fact, there are provisions for this to transpire.

    On the other hand, if you consider the lop-sided decisions as well as the high-handed antics of the ulamaks and muttawas respectively, an aggrieved non-muslim will seek ‘shelter’ elsewhere. Furthermore, any sort of reparations given was somehow shown as a form of goodwill (rather than a process of natural justice) in the name of Islam.

    The belligerent attitude of the protesters last Saturday, including the ‘brave’ ones who barged in at 9.45am (I know they knew full well that the forum will end prematurely by 10am) and stood like sore thumbs at the front of the hall while ignoring the organizers’ calls to show decorum, have cemented further the odious image of ultra-malay religious intolerance in the minds of non-muslims.

    Would these ‘brave’ defenders of Islam be courageous if they had not received tacit support from a variety of malay politicians (AAB/SHA/AZH, etc) who seemingly ‘gave good advice to call off the forum’ prior to the event?

    And NTR was quoted as saying “We expected this to happen”. Really, ah? If so, why wasn’t there any effort by the RMP to disperse an illegal assembly? Are ultra-malay protesters exempted from such legalities?

    I am fairly certain that this event was exploited by ultra-malay politicians for their own narrow agendas i.e. the upcoming Permatang Pauh by-election and the UMNO GA in December. Hence, the purported ‘joining of hands’ to defend Islam by the BN and PR members. Like the oil-war in Iraq, this was a vote-war to garner support from the unsuspecting malays.

    In Karim Raslan’s article (link provided by Nanda above), it appears that national reconciliation has not taken root even with PR winning a larger presence in parliament.

    And despite the malays being the MAJORITY in this country, why are they led to believe that their endemic political presence can be eroded when there are more malay politicians in parliament compared to 2004?

    Perhaps, the backward-looking and outdated malay mindset can be analogized as follows:-

    If it’s true that the perpetrators who threw the ‘kerosene bombs’ into SAJ’s home was actually meant for the BC chairman who have since moved out three years earlier, malay intel needs a shot up their butts.

    Intellectual discourse never kills but abject self-imposed ignorance will.

    Oh yeah, I was there too. With Nanda, Haris, Melvyn and Eric. And they weren’t inclined to pummel me into submission if I had disagreed.

  14. humm says:

    I find it hard to accept the premise that the people who oppose the forum do not understand what it is all about! So, all the majlis peguam islam, all the NGO, DSAI, and many others were all just commenting for comment sake. Now, that is rather a far stretch isn’t it? I put it to you that that is what you wish to believe. You can’t possibly know what they do or do not know. It remains a conjecture, a speculation, and i believe it is not a fair one to conclude.

    So, the media spinning occurs! If it is supported only by the main stream media, then that would be more of an arguement to hold to. But here, we have PAS, PKR, UMNO, and many unofficial media as well. I would call that an opinion shared by the group with common interest. Fact remains, the group felt strongly against it.

    I do hear you that we should start somewhere, BUT i disagree with the manner it has to be done. To say that we must have an open forum and that is the only way that we can have everyone concern input is very naive. There are countless of open forums on less sensitive issues which only leads to more confusion, and what guarantee do we have that this one will clear all air about anything? Does closed forum means that the public interest is put aside? Was our statement of independence done via an open forum? Did we have a nationwide survey to get consensus on everything? I don’t believe even in more developed nation they do that. All in all, it doesn’t prove anything. Either way, it cannot be seen as something cast in stones on how things should be done. As a nation I believe we have to use a little wisdom in deciding what is good, and that will require to account for everyones opinion.

    I am not suggesting to call it quit either. BUT to stick to the manner the forum to be held despite all the protest, I cannot see how the other sides feeling has been considered. It goes back to what I’ve said, we hear but not necessarily we listen.

  15. Nanda says:

    When I said the feelings of the other side, I meant the feelings of those who wanted the forum to be held because this is not the first time it has been stopped. We have incidence in Penang and in JB where the organisers called it off. Which is what I was referring to going by the argument that this recent forum were not considering the feeling of those who did not want the forum to carry on, why can’t we also consider the feelings of those who want it to happen and had been suppressed all these while?

    How does discussion on legal matters translate into placards saying ‘Jangan Cabar Islam’ carried by the laymen? Does this imply the understanding that the laymen had when he/she joined the protest?

    If this constitutes the actual understanding on what the forum is all about by the common men and women who were gathered there, and if even here in this discussion, opinion contends that their understanding is indeed correct, I have no further comments.

  16. humm says:

    What is written in placards cannot be equated to the entire community understanding. Surely it only reflects but only to a small segment but not the whole. Similarly actions by a small group of muslims cannot be equated to islam as a religion. We have a lot of these kind of generalizations and I hope we have to be fairer than that if we are to progress. Fact remains, however, if you talk to most muslims, generally the feeling is that they are unhappy with the event. No matter how you spin, one way or the other, that feeling remains.

    I cannot understand your argument on considering the feeling of only those who wish to have the forum. That is a given when you wish to have the event. I would have imagined that when someone wants to have something, they consider the feelings of the opposite side! Then you would have been a good neighbour. What was obvious in this case was the strong beliefs by those who oppose the events was ignored. And again all in the name of freedom of speech, freedom to organised and be heard, and yes we hear you but we still believe its good to have it. It’s we decide, we believe, we we we …

    So where does non muslims get the remedy in this case? I sincerely hope that you do not believe that you can find one in an open forum. Forum discuss matters while you are standing. We can discuss our health problems with our doctor friends, engineers, etc but what we get is an opinion, some informed and some not. A good solution that considers all possibilities must surely be compiled by the experts in the relevent fields.

    Now that we have decided that this open forum is good for ‘us’ but somehow got stopped, we are blaming everyone around at our convenience. The ulamak, muttawas, calling people ultra-malays, blaming the entire malay community for backward looking and outdated malay mindset,malay intel butts, all but signs of venting anger where emotions takes over ones intelligence. It is a classic justification for more conspiracy theory where hidden agendas for GA and by elections gains are obvious benefit. Man, where do we stop and think rationally.

    Its also interesting how we pick points that agrees with our perspective. A claasic RPK type argument that suggest that the malays now have more representatives than in 2004, so why worry. Have we even bothered to understand and ask why they are worried? Are we just good at telling other what we think is right? Where has all the humility and ‘love thy neighbour’ gone to? Yeah I know you would then say, I love them but they hate me! How can maaa.. At least at this point you must agree that, you wanted the forum, they say please don’t. At least have a courtesy to look from their angle. To them, you are discussing islamic matters that concerns them in public. You are doing it without the participation of their people, representing their faith. To them, you are the agressor!

  17. bow says:

    Religious insanity practice by those protesters, they are extremists tie to islamo-fascist countries in middle east.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s