Americans voted a Real Estate Celebrity as POTUS–That’s Politics

November 12, 2016

Americans voted a Real Estate Celebrity as POTUSThat’s Politics

by FMT Reader

After months of rallies and campaigns, banners and slogans, and countless trolling by both the Democrats and the Republicans, the United States voted for a real estate celebrity who has no political history whatsoever.

Image result for Donald The Trump

 Image result for Najib the Celebrity

He is an eccentric businessman who gave ample opportunity for haters to hate, in every given situation, be it his electoral promises, choice of words, demeanour even his hair. To his haters, he was everything a president should never be.

But, eventually the election came and America took a stand. They wanted the eccentric businessman to lead them. And everyone wants to know why.

What was the sentiment that drove his supporters, a large number of Americans, to vote for him? He had no track record to prove his capacity as a powerhouse leader and no one knows what are his strategies to make America great again.

Yet, with such ambiguity, the people voted for him and made him their president. Very much like how Malaysians had voted for the same coalition party for 59 years, or 13 general elections to be precise.

While one may think that the election campaign was ugly, it is the aftermath that has turned out uglier. Protesters took to the streets to profess their dissatisfaction. They are angry and they do not want Trump to lead them.

The elections were rigged they say, Hillary won the popular vote they claim (which she did), the whole process was a joke they roar.

Another déjà vu for those of us in Malaysia. Will all these protests bring about a different outcome than it did in Malaysia? I sincerely don’t think so.

Image result for bersih 5.0

This is mainly because, when we protest, we don’t really have an end goal. We are angry, disappointed and we express ourselves. We feel our voices are being ignored and that sends us into a fit of rage. To me, that is all there is to street protests. We challenge a system that we so graciously put in place, a system that we are a part of.

The Americans had just proved their participation by casting their votes less than 48 hours before these protests.

Image result for Protest against Trump at Trump Towers

Image result for Jamal Yunos and The Red Shirts

This is an indication that people, Americans and Malaysians alike, are very much confused in their political and democratic objectives and they remain emotionally charged. People are still very much fueled by factors like race, religion and gender and these, when cleverly knitted into a web of fear and uncertainty, sadly will determine who gets their precious votes.

America has chosen its president. Social media can troll him as much as it wants. People who aren’t in favour of him can mock his policies, his hair, and his poor vocabulary all they want, but will it change anything “bigly”? Absolutely not!

Will it “bigly” change the outcome in the 2020 elections? Most probably it won’t either. Because racial sentiments, divide and rule policies, religion and gender supremacy still binds the mentality of the voters, the outcome will be the same, be it in America or in Malaysia.

Looking at America today feels exactly like looking at Malaysia during the last few general elections. Something that no one would have expected to happen did because the fundamentals have now become equal.

Democracy, in essence, is a system where the supreme power is vested on the people. A system that enables a people’s government by the people.

Thus, it is powered by the exact same energy that powers the people into voting. If race, religion, gender and creed supremacy is what drives one to pick one’s government, then that is exactly the kind of government one will end up with.

Malaysians can learn quite a bit from the American elections this time, or rather refresher lessons. The next time you walk your way to the polling booth, look for a government that can enhance your lives with policies beyond the shackles of religion, race, gender etc.

Look for policies that can propel the nation and all its people to greater heights.

Can’t find any? Then opt for a lesser, maybe even unknown evil. A lesser, unknown evil, in my opinion, is far better than a known evil, as I would have known the degree of “evil” that I’m dealing with and how much I can tolerate.

For the past 13 elections, we have elected a single party to run our country. We have always been led to believe that this is the party that works in the best interest of this country and its people.

Fifty-nine years have passed, why dispute that notion now? Well, the answer is that a generation of voters have changed since but the ideology still clings on to each and every one of us.

So, only when we free ourselves from these “restrictions”, can we truly look forward to an effective, neutral and inclusive government. But are we truly ready for the leap?

Maybe yes, maybe no. But it is a perspective worth pondering and we, Malaysians are all still left with a little bit more time to decide.

An FMT Reader.


An Open Letter to Dr Dzulkefly Ahmad (and those in the Hudud Technical Committee)

May 14, 2014

Open Letter to Dr. Zulkefly Ahmad on Hudud Technical Committee

Zaidby Dato Zaid Ibrahim

Dr Dzulkefly Ahmad is a member of the PAS Central Working Committee. He is an articulate and pleasant man whom PAS uses regularly to show that it is a moderate party.

He wrote an open letter a few days ago addressed to all Malaysians. This letter, which was carried on The Malaysian Insider, addressed the topic of why PAS has not fundamentally changed despite developments related to its Hudud Plan.

PAS conceived the Hudud Plan to overcome restrictions to the implementation of the Kelantan Syariah Criminal Code (II) Enactment 1993 by removing limitations imposed by Federal law—namely, the Syariah Courts (Criminal Jurisdiction) Act 1965—which limit sentences that Shariah courts can legally impose on offences within its jurisdiction. The idea is that, with the removal of the limitations, PAS will be free to implement hudud, even including the amputation of limbs.

Dr Dzulkefly has taken pains to reassure Malaysians that PAS has not changed fromdr-dzul what he described as a political party full of ideals. He says that the party is still committed to the Islamic ideal of a “Benevolent State” and that PAS is a party for all Malaysians and is committed to justice for all, despite its attempt to implement the Hudud Plan.

The reason he has had to pen such a letter is because he realises that PAS has suffered a great deal in pushing for the Hudud Plan, and by withdrawing the Plan he thinks Malaysians will forgive his party.

Dr Dzulkefly is someone I know reasonably well because we used to be in forums together in the days when I was active in politics. I remember him telling an audience in Melbourne that he was convinced PAS was a reformist party and that he—not some extremist group within the party—presented the face of the “real” PAS. Of course I knew that this was untrue. He was not the face of the real PAS and I did not contradict him then, but I will do so now.

The real PAS wants an Islamic theocracy. It wants to implement Islamic laws and hudud. Indeed, the real PAS has not changed that aspiration since its inception. Dr Dzulkefly and others like him are the veneer of a “moderate” PAS but they are the minority in the party. They do not represent the real PAS.

Dr Dzulkefly and others like him are useful to the party when it comes to attracting urban voters with Islamic aspirations, but when PAS passed a unanimous resolution to implement hudud at its most recent Congress, where was Dr Dzulkefly and the other moderates?

Dr Dzulkefly clutches at straws to defend the introduction of the Hudud Bill. He makes reference to the party’s obligation to fulfil its “mandate” to the people of Kelantan. But there was no such mandate given to PAS. PAS did not explicitly make the introduction of hudud a principal platform in its manifesto for the last General Election.

So far, PAS has used hudud only as a way to differentiate its position from UMNO, to revitalise the party from time to time, and as an outlet for conservative elements to assert themselves. Please do not drag the people of Kelantan into this political game.

Dr Dzulkefly confesses that, because the full force of Islamic punishment like hudud cannot be imposed by the Shariah Court due to Federal legal limitations, he feels deprived. He suggests that Muslims are prevented from practising their faith simply because some aspects of hudud punishment can’t be carried out.

But if what he says is true, then hundreds of millions of Muslims all over the world must all feel similarly deprived because they too are practising their faith without hudud.

I’d have thought that a universal PAS man like Dr Dzulkefly would be gutted to impose Islamic laws in the country when there were also many others (Muslims and non-Muslims) in the country who were satisfied with the man-made laws promulgated during Merdeka and the formation of Malaysia.

Shouldn’t the universal man in him feel he should honour the Merdeka pact with other Malaysians, instead of just worrying about how his faith is somehow impaired without hudud?

Instead, Dr Dzulkefly says that hudud is a legitimate aspiration of PAS and its followers as part of the larger commitment to the Shariah. I have no issue with anyone having aspirations of any kind. However, the one thing that we must have in promoting our aspirations to the people is honesty in the idea itself.

If PAS is sincere in all aspects of implementing Islamic law and hudud, it should have had its Technical Committee formed 20 years ago when it first passed hudud into law. Despite its zeal, it should have thought about the effects and ramifications of hudud on the people before passing the law, instead of worrying about it now.

Does it make sense to the people of this country that PAS wanted to implement hudud in 1993 and passed a law to that effect—but then decided to form Technical Committee with UMNO to study its implementation only in 2014?

If PAS is sincere, it will tell Malaysians that the implementation of Islamic law will require fundamental Constitutional changes and a complete tearing down of our existing basic law—democracy, our freedoms and way of life as guaranteed by the Constitution will no longer be part of the system.

Dr Dzulkefly must tell us what the implications are for non-Muslims living in this Islamic state, and for Muslims too. PAS has to tell us the number of “moral enforcers” (the new Police Force) that will patrol and monitor our lives in every corner, waiting to arrest us for any possible offence (which will be many, since it will be a society free of all sin).

PAS will have to tell the people of this country that there will be a new legal system and that the civil courts (if they still exist) will be subservient to Islamic law. It must tell Malaysians that the Penal Code will be replaced with a new Islamic Code. It must tell Malaysians that even the judges, and the way we appoint them, will be different.

All judges must be Muslim. In other words, Malaysia will go back in time; from the 21st century to the 7th. We must tell the people the whole truth. It’s not being truthful if we hide the vision of this new country from the people by only using pretty phrases and slogans of justice.

I expect honesty from our leaders in whatever ideas they have. They must not hide their true plans for gaining power just by using sweet slogans. If Malaysians need a new system to replace the current one, whether legal or economic, they must be told in detail what the new system will be.

Do not couch things in vague concepts to sell political products. What is the Islamic concept of the Benevolent State in practical terms? If Islam is for all, as is always trumpeted, then why is hudud to be implemented only in Kelantan and only for Kelantanese Muslims?

Why is there a need for political calculations? Suddenly we have experts saying that even the Rulers are subject to hudud but the 1993 law did not say so. The people must know the details; and if, for whatever reason that I might not comprehend, they want to change and follow PAS in all these reforms, by all means go ahead.

Malay leaders are seldom forthright and candid in their views when dealing with the people. UMNO uses race and religion to put fear in the Malays, and in doing so it divides and polarises the country. PAS is no different, except it uses religion.

PAS sells concepts like the Islamic State, “Islam for All” and so forth, under the banner of Islamic justice and yet it conveniently excludes non-Muslims when it discusses the impact of such measures. The party touts ideas like the Benevolent State without even telling us in detail what it means in terms of governance.

Can PAS show how “Islamic governance” or “Islamic economics” (or Islamic law for that matter) in Kelantan is materially different from what was practised in the BN states for the past 23 years? How is the “Islamic version” a source of inspiration? I doubt if PAS has anything to show for this other than slogans and dress codes.

I take this opportunity to appeal to all Malaysians with this open letter. We live peacefully today because of the present system. Our economic development has been unimpeded because we have had the same system since 1957.

Our democracy, although flawed, and the principle of separation between religion and the affairs of state (a principle now under severe attack) forms the Constitutional and legal basis of our country. This must be protected at all costs.

The alternative, no matter how sweet the sound and how noble the principle, seems to be a stone’s throw from despotism and authoritarian rule.

The issue is not just a question of implementing a new criminal law. It involves the much wider question of whether we want to replace the current system, under which Muslims and non-Muslims agree by consensus to the laws that govern us all, with a new system where only Muslims decide the laws of this country.

That’s the real issue.



UMNO’s Saifuddin calls for removal of Election Commission Chief!

by Eileen Ng
JANUARY 14, 2014

 Datuk Saifuddin Abdullah, speaking at a forum on electoral forum yesterday, says the Election Commission needs a new chairman who is not beholden to Barisan Nasional. – The Malaysian Insider pic by Nazir Sufari, January 14, 2014.

Datuk Saifuddin Abdullah, speaking at a forum on electoral forum yesterday, says the Election Commission needs a new chairman who is not beholden to Barisan Nasional. – The Malaysian Insider pic by Nazir Sufari, January 14, 2014.

Umno’s Datuk Saifuddin Abdullah has joined the chorus calling for the removal of the Election Commission (EC) members, especially its chief, Tan Sri Abdul Aziz Yusof.

He said there was a need for a new EC chairman, who was impartial, in the wake of the public’s loss of confidence in the commission.

“We need someone who is passionate, independent and who does not say things on behalf of BN,” he said, referring to the ruling coalition Barisan Nasional. “You are not helping BN anyway,” he said at an electoral forum last night.

Newly elected chairperson of electoral reform coalition Bersih 2.0 Maria Chin Abdullah had called for the removal of all EC members, citing loss of confidence.

She had said a petition drive would be launched to be delivered to the Yang di-Pertuan Agong.

The statement came in the wake of an admission by former EC chairman Tan Sri Abdul Rashid Abdul Rahman that past redelineation exercises were designed to keep certain parties in power.

Abdul Rashid led the EC in managing six out of the 13 general elections, as well as four redelineation exercises.

Saifuddin, who is CEO of the Global Movement of Moderates Foundation, said a more independent EC would enable both BN and the opposition Pakatan Rakyat pact to come together to negotiate on the proposed redelineation exercise.

PKR strategic director Rafizi Ramli said the people had talked about reforming the EC for years and had even taken to the streets in support of electoral reforms.

He agreed that both Abdul Aziz and his deputy, Datuk Wan Ahmad Wan Omar, needed to be removed but noted that there was a “total mobilisation” by BN in defence of the two officials.

Rafizi said the lack of response from Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak to Abdul Rashid’s admission was a manifestation of how BN was retreating instead of going forward towards bipartisanship to strengthen democratic institutions.

On the redelineation exercise, the first-term Pandan MP said PKR’s stand was that it should be done on a basis that ensured equitability and fairness rather than the number of seats.

“Any change has to be structural in nature. The dissatisfaction is not in the number of seats but how the seats were gerrymandered in such a way that Parliament does not represent the voices on the ground.”

He said the matter could only be resolved if all political parties agreed on an acceptance variance on the size of constituencies and an assurance that minority interests would be looked after.

Meredith L Weiss, visiting associate professor in Southeast Asia Studies at John Hopkins University, suggested that there was a need to come up with a mechanism on campaign financing to enable the EC to monitor not just candidates’ spending during general elections but also those who are donating to their campaigns.

Social activist Hishammuddin Rais alleged that the EC was doing a “con job” and that Pakatan Rakyat or any other alternative force would never win the general election if the same structure was in place.

“We need to change this,” he said.

2014 calls for PRUDENCE

December 28, 2013

2014 calls for PRUDENCE

by The

2013 is coming to an end. It started highly charged on issues surrounding the 13th General Election; which witnessed Barisan Nasional retaining their power for the next 5 years. Various promises were made. Sweeteners were sprinkled to hood the public into believing that a better future holds in the coming months and years.

Nevertheless, barely 6 months into regaining Putrajaya, all hopes of joy and dreams of the rakyat to enjoy their hard eared money have been shattered in the wake of escalated cost of living. The government has made their promises sour in taste by announcing various prices hikes of goods and services as the closure to the year.

The public by large are flabbergasted in the manner policies are being hammered through, that will take toll on their incomes directly.

Big Spender Rosie and accomplice NajibIn the name of subsidy rationalisation and strengthening fiscal position, Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak has not left any stone unturned in ‘punishing’ the people of Malaysia by upping prices on daily essentials. First it was the hike in fuel price by 20 sen. Well as usual his justification was that we have one of the lowest priced fuel in the region. So subsidising it heavily does not make sense.

Then the sugar subsidy was removed. Again a very unsubstantiated, flimsy and lame excuse was used. Apparently the number of diabetics are on the rise because the government is subsidising sugar, thus the need for the move. What a genius deduction made by a person who has pretty much lost touch with the reality indeed.

But Najib was still not too appeased with the savings as he felt that more needs to be done to ‘safeguard’ the  interest of the public. Thus we are bracing a further rate hike on highway tolls and electricity in 2014.

And as icing, there is near confirmed possibility of hike in school bus and public transport fares. Taxis, buses, trains, and the LRT will all cost more in the coming year.A timely Christmas and New Year gift from Putrajaya for 2014.

As cumulative consequences and in definite terms, the overall cost of living will only spiral up as production of goods and services will also cost more. The entire supply chain  will not be spared and eventually the cost will drop flat on the laps of the consumers.

The hardest hit will be the middle income group which is already in a limbo with the current economic situation. Wages have not seen significant changes in parallel to inflation. The power of each ringgit has shrunk in its capacity over the years. It is baffling as to what is defined as a high income nation in the eye of the Malaysian government when in actual sense the purchasing power does not improve with time.

Consumers will need to dig in deeper into their pockets come 2014. A chunk of their salaries will go to paying higher current bills for sustenance; thus what will be left for savings will demand sharp juggling skills.

With a gloomy outlook on the global economic front coming ahead next year, it will be a much tougher battle to handle.

With many drawing up their New Year’s resolutions for 2014, please do keep in mind that financial prudence is highly recommended to be on the top of the list. That little pay increment or bonus one may obtain should be spread thin and well to cover any other surprises that BN may further spring on us.

For Saifuddin Abdullah, integrity doesn’t pay

October 21, 2013

For Saifuddin Abdullah, Integrity doesn’t pay

by Ram Anand@

COMMENT: I first met Saifuddin Abdullah slightly over a year ago, when I was asked to go to Temerloh to cover what was called a “consultative council”. You can be pardoned for not knowing exactly how such a council works, because Saifuddin was the only politician doing it at the time.

Then Temerloh MP and a Deputy Higher Education Minister, Saifuddindatuk saifuddin abdullah (right) sported nothing more elaborate than slippers and a loose shirt when he greeted me at a regular “kampung” restaurant.The man was a strong advocate of ikan patin, the trademark Temerloh dish, so much so that at that night, he was actually throwing a treat to all village heads and community leaders in Temerloh.

Somewhere in the midst of it all was I, an alien who sauntered into an unfamiliar environment not knowing how comfortable I am allowed to get with this Deputy Minister.But it doesn’t take long for this man to grow on you- he made me sit next to him along with two professors from Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM) who were there to study his methods of trying to solve community woes in his constituency. And what came next was a two-hour conversation filled with honesty.

I asked him everything I would expect to ask a BN or UMNO politician, only so because he allowed me to. Every question was greeted with honesty, a smile, or mild laughter. I honestly thought, and still do think, whatever personal bias I might have, that he is truly the only one politician of his kind in Malaysia.

He ran a consultative council every few months to gather all village heads and community leaders along with related agencies to get them to communicate with each other in a single meeting room.

Saifuddin comes, officiates, and then spends the next few hours dedicatedly taking notes before making suggestions. Not at one moment did he “order” anyone to solve anything.

That’s just him – he doesn’t believe in solving just one problem for someone – he always thinks about a system that could solve all problems for everyone. To date, no one has successfully followed his footsteps in setting up such a council.

This was also the man who, despite being the deputy higher education minister at that time, stayed in Parliament till 4am to ensure that the University and University Colleges Act (UUCA) was amended to give more freedom to students to be involved in politics.

Mind you, the UUCA amendments, which came with restrictions initially, were done by his own minister at the time, Khaled Nordin. But Saifuddin was pretty honest about the proposed amendments at that time and as to why more leeway needs to be given – he told me, back then, that “you can’t allow a person to get into the water and ask him not to swim”.

Surprising loss

But all that feels like a memory now- in May, Saifuddin surprisingly lost his Temerloh parliamentary seat to PAS’ Nasharudin Hasan, a result many believe stemmed from internal sabotage.

It was understandable, he probably had more detractors in his own party than he had outside of it – his progressive views earned him brickbats, and his bravery in voicing against some policies did not appeal to the Umno grassroots.

On Saturday, Saifuddin lost his UMNO Supreme Council seat, another sign of rejection from UMNO towards his progressive ideas and actions. But to top it all off, he even lost the battle to retain his post as the deputy chief of UMNO’s Temerloh division.

The Umno grassroots have rendered him positionless within the party. Yes, this man was often seen rubbing shoulders with opposition politicians, and was also well loved by student leaders who are seen to be pro-opposition.

But even all these opposition sympathisers who knew him well enough can tell you, Saifuddin Abdullah will not jump ship. That’s just not him. This is a man devoid of much political ambition, but has plenty of political integrity.

The tragedy here is that the UMNO grassroots rejected a man who was probably more loyal to Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak’s “transformation” clarion call than the party hardliners and top leaders themselves.

Even in the hours after his defeat, he told Malaysiakini that he will seek a meeting with the UMNP disciplinary committee to work out solutions to eradicate money politics from UMNO.

“I accept (the results). I didn’t play money politics,” was all he had to say. However, he will not meet the disciplinary body to complain about his defeat.

“I’m not interested in changing the results, because it involved not only me but also higher positions too, and I’m aware people are not prepared to come forward as witnesses,” he said.

“Money politics is not a legal matter. It’s an integrity matter.”

Future undecided

Saifuddin has made it clear that he has not decided on his political future, though he will continue advocating New Politics, something he has talked about since 2006.

Chances are he will continue being an academic and a CEO of the Global Moderates Movement (GMM), while deciding on whether to have another stab at politics a couple of years from now.

Of course, there would be arguments that people like Khairy Jamaluddin represent the progressives in UMNO – but that can’t be further from the truth.

For Khairy, who comfortably evaded the media when faced with responding to Home Minister Ahmad Zahid Hamidi’s apparent high handed statements, progressive is just a brand and an ideal he wraps around his political image.

But when it comes to challenging the norms, Khairy, just like other so-called BN progressives P Kamalanathan and Nur Jazlan Mohamed, spends half of his time defending his government’s actions rather than challenging them when people expect him to do.

But Saifuddin, as I have said before, is progressive both in thought and in action. There were moments where he backed down from commenting on certain issues, but he never shied away from the media – there was always a pat on the back, even an apology at times, and an explanation as to why he would like to stay out of certain issues.

Saifuddin’s defeat is not so much his loss or his problem, but it rather represents UMNO’s and Najib’s own failure.

His Deputy ministership was Najib’s handpicked appointment to the cabinet, a sign of the kind of progressives Najib wanted to include in his team – but when the political pressure cooker mounted on him after the elections, Najib did nothing but play to the political status quo and maintain the existing dynasty while pandering to right-wing sentiments.

And for Umno, the least said the better. Khairy’s claim that progressives will hold water in the party rings hollow.

At least Saifuddin Abdullah tried and will try, unlike many of us who feel comfortable making armchair criticisms. But the question is – will his failure deter those like him from attempting politics?

The Allah Issue will not just go away,so get real

October 15, 2013

The Allah Issue will not just go away,so get real

by Zaid Ibrahim

COMMENT: The Court of Appeal (CoA), as expected, has reversed thezaid Kuala Lumpur High Court decision on the use of ‘Allah’ by Catholic weekly The Herald.

The CoA, however, took a long time to hear and decide on the appeal, and this has enabled the general election to be safely tucked away without anyone having to worry about any adverse effect the decision might have had, had it been delivered earlier.

Before my fellow-Muslims think that the decision is a great victory for them, I must urge them to think properly. The decision may be a big victory for some Muslim NGOs or Nasharuddin Mat Isa, Ibrahim Ali  and Hassan Ali, but for the rest of the Ummah it will matter very little.

The decision binds only The Herald. How many Muslims read it? How many are threatened by anything besides their own insecurities? Besides, someone can always produce another publication with a new name and the controversy will start all over again.

Loud Mouth Zahid HamidiThe Home Minister will issue yet another directive that the new publication is ‘against public order’ and lawyers will be busy, as will Ibrahim Ali and his gang. Yet another public quarrel will ensue, and this will go on and on.

The CoA decision is limited to The Herald alone. This does not, and should not, mean that Christians are prohibited from using ‘Allah’ in their prayers, or that they are prohibited at all in Sabah and Sarawak.

Christians beyond The Herald (and Catholics too), can still use that Name whenever they want to, and in any celebration they have. Of course, some Muslim NGOs will counter this new situation and go to court yet again to stop all Christians, regardless of denomination, from using ‘Allah’ on any occasion, religious or otherwise.

They will probably seek to widen the scope of the original government order to include prohibiting Christians and other non-Muslims from using ‘Allah’ at all under any circumstance. What about Sikhs? Sikhs can’t be bound by an order limited to a single Catholic newspaper.

The CoA has also ventured into new territory, although I shall let my colleagues who are more learned in this part of the law dissect the judgement.

All I can gather from the CoA decision is this: Islam has primacy over other faiths and, if Muslims are upset about some part of the practice of non-Muslims – and the Minister issues an order to stop non-Muslims from that practice – then the order is considered ‘valid’.  The CoA has also made it clear that it will never disagree with the Minister’s order.

How will this be enforced?

Religious people fear God more than the courts, whether they are Muslims or not. This judgment means nothing to the God-fearing Christians.

The court can declare whatever it wants and some Christians (and those of other faiths, and perhaps Muslims too) will do whatever religion requires of them, regardless of the cost to themselves or others.

Religion has that effect on some people. It can drive emotion beyond reason. But many regular Christians believe that ‘Allah’ is the right Name for God. They will continue to use that Name and the Courts will not be able to do anything about it. How can anyone initiate contempt proceedings against so many people?

The courts will then look stupid – how do will they enforce such orders? This is the scenario I foresee happening in the coming years of this so-called 1Malaysia. Silly things will continue.

Likewise, Muslims will fight this ‘battle’ for years to come, and they will be so preoccupied by this war over God’s Name against Christians and other infidels that no one will have little time left for education, their families and their  general economic improvement.

This is why I sometimes think that this is all part of the Jewish-Freemason-Communist-Illuminati-American-Martian (insert favourite bugbear here) conspiracy—to sidetrack the Muslims, Christians, and everyone else from focusing on what truly matters in life.

We are made to think that we need to continue to fight great battles and to seek great victories. Maybe we want to think it.

Get real.

ZAID IBRAHIM, a lawyer by training, was involved in politics for a time. This article is reproduced from his blog ‘The Zaidgeist’.