This Day in History...

This Day in History: 8th December 1941-Japanese troops landed in Pantai Padang Pak Amat, Sabak, Kota Bharu, Kelantan, beginning a 70-day period (ended 15th Feb 1942 with the Fall of Singapore) known as "Operation Japan Pwning Europe".

History – a much maligned subject

With the announcement by Deputy Prime Minister and Education Minister Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin that History would be a must-pass SPM subject for 2013 (The Star, Oct 23), there has been many reactions from politicians, university dons, and amateurs.

There is indeed a need for History textbooks to be re-written, and done so with reference to professional historians, with evidence and research to verify the facts written in the books.

The fact is, there is room for much improvement in the textbooks.

It is unbelievable that much of the so-called “facts” in them do not hold water.

Forget the heated discussions on the “hidden history not much talked about,” such as the left-wing movement.

Even the most basic idea about the concept of history is laughably asinine.

For example, a Form 1 History textbook mentions the origin of the term “history”.

Instead of saying that it originated from the Greek term Historia, meaning inquiry or investigation, and based on the tome of the “Father of History” Herodotus of Halicarnassus, this textbook simply mentions it as being a fairytale, as history is just that: his-(or her) story.

Of course, the entire discussion of re-writing textbooks is but a part of a larger issue: the dignity of history as a subject.

History has been much maligned, especially by politicians with interest, no matter where they come from.

As such, History today has been taken out of the hands of the university professionals by pseudo-historians, biased politicians and amateurs for their own manipulation.

It is small wonder why History is not taken seriously by students.

If indeed History is to be respected as a legitimate subject, then it must be given back to the historians so that they can produce good history textbooks, and without interference from interested politicians or narrow religious views.

In this case, History must be given the same authority as Science in class.

The Theory of Evolution is thankfully allowed in Biology in Malaysia, even though it is rejected by the religious class with no basic knowledge in science.

As for the politicians and the idea of political correctness, their views must be taken with a pinch of salt when writing History textbooks.

The latest call by politicians for equal space for all (supposedly ethnic) communities in History books to show a sense of fair representation is quite flawed from a historian’s point of view.

This is based on the politically correct, but flawed, premise that all communities contribute equally to national development and historical change.

Nothing can be further from the truth.

The idea of history is to see change through the ages, and how change is achieved or who contributed to that change.

E. H. Carr, the author of What is History, a textbook on the philosophy of history among university students, pointed out that historical change is achieved by the dominant group or dominant force, and that this force forms the backbone of the historical narrative.

To diminish this role of the dominant group (ethnic or class) due to the idea of equal representation of other ethnic groups is another form of bias and twisting of history.

By all means, tell the history of all ethnic communities, as well as other communities in society.

But do not let History be cheapened in the process due to political correctness or bias.

Sejarah ditulis oleh mereka yang menang?

"Sejarah ditulis oleh mereka yang menang." Kita tidak tahu bila kenyataan ini dilahirkan, ataupun orang pertama yang menyatakannya. Mungkin Napoleon, atau Winston Churchill. Dan kenyataan ini digunakan oleh beberapa golongan, seperti anti-nasionalis, post-modernis dan parti politik untuk menolak penceritaan sejarah yang dianggap "rasmi", kerana dikatakan sejarah yang benar tu telah dikawal, dimanipulasi, bukti disembunyikan dan ditolak oleh golongan berkuasa ala Big Brother yang mempunyai hegemoni ke atas penceritaan sejarah.

Namun terdapat beberapa masalah dalam kenyataan ini, yang tidak akan diterima oleh mana-mana sejarahwan atau pelajar sejarah yang serius dengan kerjanya. Diharap persoalan ini akan terjawab.

1. Adakah kenyataan ini benar? Jika ya, mengapa? Atau lebih penting, jika ya, so what? Bagaimana ini membuktikan sejarah itu palsu, atau tidak benar? Adakah status menang itu menyebabkan sejarah yang diberi itu perlu ditolak secara terus? Mengapa? Apakah justifikasi untuk melakukan perkara ini?

2. Dengan kenyataan ini, adakah ini bermakna semua sejarah yang dipelajari merupakan hanya propaganda busuk kerajaan yang ingin mengawal sejarah lalu menghasilkan bias, dan kita sejarahwan harus 'mensucikan' dan 'memurnikan' sejarah?

3. Sekiranya kenyataan 2 diterima, adakah ini bermakna sejarahwan sudah mempunyai pandangan bias sendiri apabila mengambil keputusan untuk melawan sejarah "rasmi"? Jika ini berlaku, bukankah ini bermakna sejarahwan yang 'suci' dan 'murni' ini juga tunduk kepada bias dan tulisannya juga tidak boleh dipercayai seperti mana tulisan sejarah "rasmi"?

4. Sekiranya diakui sejarah itu berdasarkan perspektif semata-mata (kerana sejarah itu subjektif dan hanya bergantung kepada pihak yang 'menang'), maka adakah ini bermakna sejarah itu sendiri hanyalah permainan bahasa dan falsafah, kerana tidak lagi mementingkan eviden, sebaliknya pentafsiran ke atas eviden, atau lebih menakutkan, pentafsiran tanpa mempedulikan eviden?

5.Sekiranya kenyataan 4 merupakan kenyataan yang benar, adakah ini bermakna sejarah itu tidak benar, tidak boleh dibezakan daripada fiksyen?

6. Apakah definisi 'menang' seperti yang disebut di atas? Siapakah yang menang? Apakah penentuan sebuah pihak itu menang? Kemenangan di medan perang? Kemenangan dalam perjuangan politik? Kemenangan apabila pandangan yang dikemukakan diterima ramai dan menjadi sejarah 'rasmi', lalu menjadi sejarah pemenang?

7. Sekiranya kenyataan terakhir dalam 6 benar, iaitu pandangan yang menang itu ialah pandangan yang diterima ramai, apakah gunanya mempersoalkan kenyataan 'sejarah ditulis oleh mereka yang 'menang' seolah-olah pemenang itu bias dan jahat? Kerana penentangan kepada golongan 'menang' dilakukan dengan menulis sejarah 'alternatif' yang diharap akan diterima ramai dan menolak sejarah 'rasmi'.

8. Namun, apabila ini berlaku, iaitu sejarah alternatif diterima ramai dan menjatuhkan sejarah rasmi, kesan logiknya ialah sejarah alternatif akan menjadi sejarah rasmi, iaitu sejarah pemenang. Inilah bentuknya:

Sejarah rasmi--->ditulis oleh pemenang--->bias dan tidak suci--->ingin mensucikan sejarah--->perkenalkan sejarah alternatif--->diterima ramai--->menjadi sejarah rasmi--->ditulis oleh pemenang--->sejarah itu bias dan tidak suci--->ulang.

9. Historiografi sejarah sendiri membuktikan kenyataan ini sebagai salah. Sekiranya hanya pemenang perang yang menulis sejarah, maka tidak akan wujud 'The Peloponnesian War' karya Thucydides yang ditulis dari perspektif Athens yang KALAH dalam perang dengan Sparta. Sekiranya hanya pemenang politik yang menulis sejarah, maka AS akan dilihat sebagai kuasa yang murni yang menjatuhkan kuasa Axis yang jahat selepas kemenangan Perang Dunia Kedua, dan sejarahwan akan dikawal oleh kerajaan untuk tidak mendedahkan kesalahan kerajaan AS semasa tempoh perang, seperti penahanan warga Amerika berbangsa Jepun dalam kem penahanan di Manzanar dan sebagainya kerana bersikap perkauman.

10. Sejarahwan, tak kira apa pun pandangan politik, agama, ideologi, atau latar belakangnya, apabila menyiasat sejarah, harus tunduk kepada bukti (superiority of evidence). Kita bukan peguam atau ahli sosiologi yang memanipulasi bukti untuk disesuaikan kepada teori atau rangka yang sedia ada. Kita ialah sejarahwan. Teori kita dibentuk SELEPAS semua eviden yang sedia ada dikaji dan dilihat.

Mundane Observations 1

I walked back to college,

12 minutes of walking time, mind you,

Sigh

Just when I was comfortable

in my lecturer's room,

with the air-conditioner on,

Cataloging books in the shelves,

Listening to Cat Stevens and Jewel,

I had to walk back

just because

I forgot my pendrive.

Finally I arrive,

Rushed past the cars in line,

Up the stairs,

Before the washing machines,

I saw two cats,

"Wrestling"

The male eyed me annoyingly,

Before continuing his conquest,

Growling, biting, growling some more.

I shook my head.

Show-off.

Sitting in My Office

Sitting in My Office,

Well, not Mine, obviously,

I'm just a Caretaker,

of a Lecturer's room,

(Prefer the term Steward

More dignified, really)

Earning my meager keep.

Turn on the PC,

Listen to songs on Youtube,

While typing translation works,

I look around,

At the many books on the shelves, arranged

And the ones not arranged on the table,

And the many letters and messages yet collected.

Looked up,

At the small hole above me,

Where a black mouse could be seen,

Peering below,

Sniffing,

At the leftovers of chicken rice,

and grape juice

The dumbbells at the foot of the table,

Good decoration,

But no practical purpose to me.

I look outside,

Dark clouds,

Branches swaying left with the wind,

And I'm thinking,

"And to think I chose,

to wash my clothes today!"

But I have been wrong before.

*Feel like writing this after listening to "Goodbye, Alice in Wonderland". Apparently, Jewel Kilcher is the most amazing poet-singer right now.

Saja-saja 1

This is me posting something for the sake of posting. Sorry I haven't given enough time to uploading this blog because of assignments and my academic exercise. Trust me, I have opinions on some things that should be put here, like religion, book reviews, debates on history, the tiniest issues that would hurt Pharisees and their moralising.

Maybe when I have the free time.

So here it is. A song I discovered by accident on Youtube a few days ago. It kicks ass (or whatever that words mean in Polish--because this is a Polish song).

It's by T. Love, called Ajrisz.

Raya Wish

To everyone,

Selamat Hari Raya Aidilfitri. Maaf Zahir dan Batin for my mistakes. The apology part does not cover my political, ideological and religious beliefs that may not conform to other people's view. Deal with it.

My One Prayer

I'm not much of a praying person, but God, if I have one prayer to You, it's so that my people, the Muslim community, would stop being so freaking paranoid about hoaxes on the internet (like the Freemason scare and how every single thing is a Zionist-Christian conspiracy to undermine Islam). Grant us the ability to get our priorities straight (and not give people hell for wearing Manchester United jerseys). Amen.

A Note, on Independence Day, for Myself and for the Reader (Part 1)

31st August 2010 is coming to an end. And our country, Malaysia, is officially 53 years old. I have a thing or two to say about that.

My Views on History

As an history student, I do understand and appreciate the struggle that our forefathers went through the obtain for us independence and recognition as a sovereign country in the world. I respect the neo-left amateur historians for their efforts to put forth new facts in order to enrich our history approaching independence (Fahmi Reza, Raja Petra Kamaruddin, Farish A Noor etc.). However, I cannot, in conscious and rational mind, accept their conclusion of forming an alternative view of history (and to them, alternative=truth), of Chin Peng and the Communists are legitimate fighters for independence, and current hatred for UMNO-BN today is biasly projected to the past and our forefathers were ridiculed as puppets for the British imperial-capitalists.

Now, to be fair, the British did wrong in banning the leftist, radical movements who were legitimately nationalist in nature. I'll give the leftists that. No historian would deny that. However, in Fahmi Reza's movie 10 tahun Sebelum Merdeka, it was projected as if the so-called elitist UMNO party pandered to British rule and was handed independence on a silver platter without any blood spilled. In my view, UMNO did demand for independence. But first and foremost, UMNO is a Malay nationalist party. One must first understand the feeling of nationalism among the Malays in 1946. They took it one step at a time. They fought on the platform of Malay nationalism, calling for Malays to have a sound basis in economy, in politics, in administration, in education of women, in education in general. Demand for political consciousness among the locals, and I mean proper consciousness, not a mob, was necessary before independence could be demanded. A similar view of gaining power for one's own community was also espoused by Malcolm X in his call for Black nationalism in the USA in 1965.

It is quite unfair that current neo-leftist history dilettantes, in their hatred for UMNO, push all of this aside and embrace the left-wing 'fighters', and put them in the same group as the Communist terrorists (yes, the communists used terror methods. They killed Malays in kampungs for 'working' with the Japanese; they used the race card and forced the Chinese to supply them in the jungles--even as they were barely surviving on monthly rations; yeah, nice way of fighting for the 'golongan marhaen', Chin Peng.)

One view that got on my nerve, admittedly, is one that states Malaysia as not having true independence because 'blood was not spilled, unlike real independent countries.' Clearly, this statement, coming from the youth of this country, is quite disturbing, not least because it makes one recall the worship and adoration of war deities of old, spilling blood and sacrificing to appease the angry ones. But was blood really not spilled? Not against the British, but certainly against the Communist terrorists. The communists were responsible for the most atrocious crimes against the Malayan citizens at the time, most infamous being the cowardly assault on Bukit Kepong Police Station in Muar in 1950, rightly called the Malayan Alamo (Clearly, this argument could only work if people accepted the crimes of the Malayan Communist Party. However, since most followers of alternative history choose to whitewash Communist history, this argument might get us nowhere).

So let us move to the second and most important question of mine. Is independence by diplomacy really that bad? Did the Malayan delegates to London really went there for a nice trip, to have independence given tothem while they all sip wine and eat steak? Of course, it didn't happen that way. The forefathers did have to prove to the British that the races can work together, and this resulted in the election of 1955 (the multi-racial coalition of the Alliance of UMNO-MCA-MIC, with other equally multi-racial parties, such as Parti Negara and the Labour Party. Only PAS was mono-racial in nature). But diplomacy was not thrown out of the window, as some today would like our independence to have happened: a la trigger-happy rednecks.

If one looks at our neighbour Indonesia, who is so proud that they achieved independence through a bloody revolution, they never outrule diplomacy too. As the bloody revolution rages on, Haji Agus Salim, the Grand Old Man of Indonesia, went on a mission to Western countries as well as Asian countries to recognise Indonesian independence and sovereignty. This worked quite well to convince the US and Britain to change their stance of recognising Dutch rule over the islands. You can;t be independent without recognition from another sovereign state. Indonesia got it through diplomacy, and Malaysia got it through diplomacy.

So if Malaysia could gain independence through peace and diplomacy, and the ability to receive global recognition, then it's all good to me. Ok, I am done with my views here. I do not seek for people to agree with me.

There's a part 2: my views on on the annoying clarion call of 'Are we really independent?' that always comes out of the mouths of the religious folks.

Happy Independence Day, people.

Mea Culpa

Mea Culpa,

As you walk through the halls of the world,

You felt a chill to the bone,

And the core of your soul,

But it's not the cold of the wind that gets to you,

It's the entire view,

That though the road is full, you're still alone,

Why? (Mea Culpa)

You take the higher road, and was smug about it,

To cast the first stone is an amazing feeling,

True, to blame everyone but yourself is a blast,

You gain a few moments of glory,

Ego-feeding,

Building, rising to the heavens,

Before you're ruthlessly brought back down to earth,

Face filled with dirt, burdened

By the sins of the hurt,

You caused, to those that care for you,

Then remorse sets in,

Conscience breathing down on you,

Like the Furies of old, their screeches tormenting you,

You're lost,

And you reach your inner self to find the answer,

And you found it (Mea Culpa)

You have those that love you, and care,

And would try to understand the problems that you bear,

Teaching you that great idea,

Of forgiveness, that would pull you out,

Of that sea called despair,

But you persist in your self -pity,

And view them as the enemy,

And burn them for their (minor) iniquity, to you,

As if the Judgment of the Lord is in Your hands,

That moment of pride, to shame even Lucifer,

Made you bear even his punishment,

Of being cast out,

And you have none to blame,

But you (Mea Culpa)

You expect kindness to beget kindness,

When that is against the whole idea of love,

When you do something without expecting reward,

What is this nonsense of reciprocrity,

An insult to love itself,

Like expecting gratitude from the sun,

For having the honour to warm you,

And throw stones at her, for the fall of rain

Confess. my child

Mea Culpa,

Mea Culpa,

Mea Maxima Culpa.

God's Inspiration, for All Men

Just feel like writing this.

The eminent Indonesian Muslim scholar of the 20th century, Prof. Dr. Hamka wrote a beautiful line short, one-page chapter in his book, 'Kenang-kenangan Hidup', titled 'Ilham' (Inspiration), and it is summed up in these words, "Allah gives inspiration to his greatest creation, Man, and we should take the time to appreciate this beauty."

I like this statement. The beauty that Man produces with his hand should be appreciated by all. It is no sin to appreciate the poetry of Omar Khayyam or Milton, the music of Beethoven and Mozart, the paintings of Leonardo and the medieval Oriental Arts. Even the nude sculptures of Michelangelo's hand are works of art and beauty, and should be approached as such.

The words of the philosophers and prophets, from Moses, Sakuntala, Confucius and the Hundred Flowers, Isaiah, Daniel, Jesus, Muhammad, Augustus, Averroes, Ghazzali, Aquinas, Dante, Locke, Rousseau, Hamzah Fansuri, Voltaire, Tolstoy, Mills, Bertrand Russell...they are men of great minds, producing works emanating from their minds, inspired by something more than themselves--an inspiration given by God Himself.

There should be no question of condemning this or that work, just because the hands and minds that produce them do not share our beliefs and religions. For we cannot compare their minds to ours. It would be an insult.

So let us enjoy the works that they produce. And enjoy the fruits of God's Inspiration. God does not choose whom He wants to bless with Beauty. Why should we?

Sigh...

Here it is. The crossroads. Me making my decision. And important one.

Hope after this, I don't regret it, and kick myself in the ass for it. Please, give me strength.

Hmm...

It's finally happening.
I have waited for three years for it to happen. The opportunity to compete in international debating tournaments is finally given to me. I'm going to Bangkok in 6 days. All the years of hope, and pain, and heartbreak, and depression, and training, and reading...debates have shaped me in my three years in university. And all I wanted was the opportunity to compete internationally. And I am given it.

I'm not supposed to sound ungrateful. This is not like last year. This is exactly what I wanted. What I always wanted since I joined debates in my first year.

But why am I not feeling happy at all?

A Short Explanation of what A Brain Is For

Class.

That thing in your head? It's called a brain. Though it may look gory, with blood and everything (if you're too uncomfortable, your textbooks will have the drawings of a brain in colours red, blue, green and Barney purple...tsk, kids!), it's actually quite useful, sometimes.

1-To eat. Watch the old videos in Faces of Death where people sit around a square table (question: how does one sit AROUND a square table?) eating the brain of a still-living monkey. Or otak-otak. That would be nice too...

2-Put in your room and act like you're in an episode of CSI. "Well, what do we have here? Hm. A brain on a floor. And there are footsteps on the floor entering the room. Wait, those are my footsteps..." Puts on sunglasses. Then take them off. Then put them on again. Then walk out of the house. Still with those glasses on. At 8.30pm.

3-Finally, it's basically the size of two average human fists put together, the ideal size for thinking purposes. Unless you're an idiot, which includes (but excludes the medically-certified idiot, pity them) racist, bigots, chauvinists, and religious fanatics (that's like 83% of the world population. Made it up like Barney Stinson), then the size shrinks to something smaller than a kumquat seed. Hmm...kumquat. What a funny word...

Just a Thought

Love doesn't happen because it's written in the stars. You make it happen. And love is of such beauty, that even if you fail to find it a thousand times, you just keep trying. To feel such beauty, the pain and heartbreak, great as it may be, is worth it.

On the Malays

The Malays

The Malay identity was one of greatness. For a thousand years, empires were built by them. Srivijaya was the father of Malay empires, Majapahit unified the areas known as Nusantara, or the Malay world, Malacca was the first empire that carried the Malay name and identity, Johore continued the legacy of Malacca, Acheh sealed the Malay's identity with Islam. The seed of the Malay spreads across the world, from Hawaii to Madagascar.

And the Malay was not proud of his greatness. He considered himself equal, friends with peoples of other empires, and yet humble. Malacca was vassal to the Chinese Ming Dynasty, but still consider it as friends on equal footing. Host to the various Indian states, but still welcomed them to trade and served in the Malacca court, like Mani Purindam and Tun Mutahir. The Achehnese welcomed the Turk and the discussion of Islamic theology and philosophy flourished, and history was developed as a proper discipline by Nuruddin al-Raniri, long before von Ranke's idea was used.

The Malays were open to new ideas and new views. The so-called feudal loyalty to the Crown was not to the extent of forgoing common sense and reason. Did not Hang Jebat challenge Mansur Syah for Tuah's death? Did not Hang Tuah's son challenge Mahmud Syah in the balairung for committing adultery with his wife? And did not Mahmud Syah lose the support of the young warriors for his cruelty in killing his own son? Was Acheh not founded on the idea of Islamic ideals, the people deposing cruel rulers like they did Raja Buyong the Drunkard?

But the British came. And mischief was set. The Malays, long involved in trade and mining, was limited to the scope of farming and fishing. Swettenham, Winstedt, Wilkinson-they preserved the idea of the quintessential Malay in their heads, in their books, and in their policies, and the stereotype of the Malays was shaped.

We see the seed of this view today. The Malays, reduced to the level of a joke of a stereotype. The Malays are lazy. The Malays are stupid. The Malays are involved in drugs. And incest. And rempit. The Malays are too dependent on government aid. The Malays are idle, only prone to mindless entertainment. The Malays are stuck in a feudalistic view of the world. The Malays are superstitious, close-minded, racist to an extent, yet hypocritical and have no understanding of their own faith. Despite the fact that negative traits and its link to race is merely pseudo-science nonsense.

But who made the Malays this way? Who brainwashed the Malays to accept the stereotype blindly? The British are long gone. They can be blamed no longer. The Chinese and Indians for perpetuating this view? The Aaronic scapegoat is useless. Why condemn a whole people for the views of some idiots? And mind you, idiocy is colour-blind.

Did not Mahathir tell the Malays to shed the stereotype in the Malay Dilemma? Did not Syed Hussein Alatas argue that the stereotype does not exist in The Myth of the Lazy Native? Did not Anwar say the Malays could stand on their own feet?

So who is to blame? The politicians? Is it UMNO, who allowed some bigots to hijack the Malay identity and create the view of the kris-wielding racist? Is it PAS, who created the view of the religio-fascist, close-minded Malays? Is it DAP, who have nothing positive to say about the Malays, perpetuating the myth? Is it RPK, who seem to perpetuate the view of the self-hating 'liberal' Malay in his blog? Is it the whole monarchy system itself?

The main question here now. Who took the Malay identity from the Malays?

What My Mother Taught Me

Read this the other day. Really funny stuff.

1. My Mother taught me about ANTICIPATION...
"Just wait until you father gets home!"

2. My Mother taught me about RECEIVING...
"You are going to get it when we get home!"

3. My Mother taught me to MEET A CHALLENGE...
"What were you thinking? Answer me when I talk to you...Don't talk back to me!"

4. My Mother taught me LOGIC...
"If you fall off that swing and break your neck, you can't go to the store with me."

5. My Mother taught me MEDICINE...
"If you don't stop making funny faces, it's going to freeze that way."

6. My Mother taught me to THINK AHEAD...
"If you don't pass your spelling tet, you'll never get a good job."

7. My Mother taught me about ESP...
"Put your sweater on; don't you think I know when you are cold."

8. My Mother taught me HUMOUR...
"When the lawn mower cuts off your toes, don't come running to me."

9. My Mother taught me how to BECOME AND ADULT...
"If you don't eat your vegetables, you'll never grow up."

10. My Mother taught me about SEX...
"How do you think you got here? Stork, izit?"

11. My Mother taught me about GENETICS...
"You're just like your father."

12. My Mother taught me about my ROOTS...
"Where do you think you were born? In a zoo, izit?"

13. My Mother taught me about JUSTICE...
"You just wait when you have kids. I hope they turn out just like you...then you'll see what it's like."

Seriously, I love my parents. This is just a bit of laugh here...I hope I don't get disinherited or something...

Five Philosophies to Live By (since everyone else's compiling lists)

This is a personal list of philosophical rules of life that I compiled. Mainly because everyone else's doing it, and I think it's normal for people to jump into the bandwagon while it's still 'hipping and hopping'. :P

1. Always compliment yourself. Personally, I think masuk bakul angkat sendiri is an amazing philosophy. I mean, if you're not going to blow your own trumpet, who will, right? Of course, preemptively point out this fact to people before they point it out to you. This way, people will actually think you're humble.

2. Blame others before you blame yourself. Sure, sure, you can go through the whole 'muhasabah diri' thingy and it's ok, but seriously, it's not half as fun as blaming others when something bad happens. And then sue them. Hopefully the 5 UM law students I have as friends of Facebook can help me out here =D

3. Act as if you like intelligent books and films. Like Akira Kurosawa or Ingmar Bergman films, or Russian Nihilist books. Understanding this stuff is a different matter altogether, and is optional. Girls will think you're mysterious and attractive and fall for you. I have followed this 3rd philosophy for a while...oh, wait...now that I think about it, maybe I do need to revise following this one here. Hmmm...

4. Never, ever, EVER, invite preachers into your room. Not that I have anything against God or religion, but they will take too much of your time, telling you stuff you can read and then try to act as if they know more about your studies than you. And don't discriminate. Tablighs, PMIUM, Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons...KEEP THEM ALL OUT!

5. When in doubt, recycle Garfield and Dilbert jokes in conversations to make people think you're smart. Unintended side effect: people may instead think you're a pompous twit and stay away from you. Unintended side effect 2: people may actually read Garfield and Dilbert as well, conclude you're unoriginal and stay away from you anyway...better stick to Baby Blues and Calvin and Hobbes then.

An Ode, to my Dead Bonsai.

Oh, woe is me,
And my absent-minded head,
Didn't care for my bonsai,
And now you're dead.

Bought you in a store,
In that place, Mid-Valley,
How could I say no to you,
When you cost only RM 9.90?

Brought you back to my room,
And named you Green Leafy,
For that's the name of my cat,
(Or was it Fluffy?)

I promised to feed you daily,
And give you the sun,
Expose for ten minutes,
Then water you once.

But then I got busy,
Way into the night,
So instead of the sun,
You get fluorescent light.

One day I got up,
And to horror I see,
You are no longer green,
You are brown, 'dah mati'.

I hope you are happy,
And in heaven somehow,
Where angels water you,
For eternity now.

In the future, in heaven,
I hope I take care of you well,
But until then, my dear bonsai,
This is farewell.

On Getting BAck on My Feet

For the past few months, I have not been myself. Something came over me, something which I cannot control, for I have no knowledge, or experience to handle it.

And I got burnt.

Honestly, it was the most painful event in my life, yet. The feeling of despair came over me, and I do not feel that I am worthy of anything at all. No one is to be blamed, but I did burden myself with it for a while.

But time passes. And the pain isn't that painful anymore. And a revelation came, where I realised that there is something beyond this. Life. My life.

Only now do I see that there is something in store for me in the future. The Japan Project. The opportunity to compete in international debate competitions. The chance to study in London. Or Tokyo. Or Lisbon. My career as a lecturer. Visit the world. Find new friends. Or anything else that the Good God has not revealed to me yet. And my worth is re-established.

For all of this, I have no regrets for the past few months. I'm back on my feet, and I will no longer show weakness.

Mere Thoughts on Me and Friendship

Good God, I am a lazy blogger. Not that that's something to be proud of, but still, just need to say it.

Over the past month, I have found out a lot of things about myself. Most importantly, that I am human. Unable to control the elements around me.

My relationship with my best friend is, to say the very least, on the rocks. Each day, it feels as if we're drifting away from each other. Not for lack of effort on my part. Honestly, I don't even know what could cause this. I mean, we used to share a lot of things and views with each other. We haven't had a proper conversation in a month. For the first time in my life, I fear the end of our friendship, dissolving like foam on the sea, with no reason.

And with my two Academic Exercises, seven assignments, tons of weekly homework, Project to Japan..I fear I may succumb to all of this.

But yet, I also felt happy. I found that I am surrounded by many a good friend. My friends from the debate team (and one really patient senior who spends her time listening to and advising me), have always been supportive. Also my friends from the East Asian Studies. They have taught me the meaning of true teamwork (while only a month ago, I detested that word). God willing, we'll succeed in our efforts, and have Japan as our reward.

And I am glad when I found out earlier this month that a friend of mine is already in a relationship. I am honestly happy for her. Love is so difficult to find nowadays, and for someone to get it, it's a good thing. I'm a bit jealous of that happiness of having that close a relationship, I must admit, but I won't be bitter. I'm just happy.

An for the best friend I mentioned above? All I can say is that I trust her. That's what good friends are supposed to do. The ball is in her court, and I trust that when she is ready, she'll return the serve.

So much for friendship.

What's In A Name?

Last week, the Malaysian High Court had issued a ruling that allowed the Catholic Church weekly the Herald to use the word Allah in their Bahasa Malaysia publication in referring to God. The response by the Muslim community in Malaysia is, to nicely put it, disappointing. Not only did the Home Ministry filed an appeal to reinstate the prohibition, but the number and nature of demonstrations following the ruling is disturbing, to say the least, and it revealed the nature of intolerance among the citizens, even in using the name of God.

Let us move to the so-called 'problems' that they brought up with their opposition to the ruling:

1. Issue of sensitivity and fear. The Muslims went out and demonstrated, and showed their anger. Why? Because they fear that the non-Muslims will use the word 'Allah' to propagate their religions to Muslims, who will be confused by such usage. Does this fear have any bases? The obvious answer to that question would be in the negative.
Firstly, the idea of propagation made easier because the court allows the word Allah to be used by people of other faiths does not hold water, especially in Malaysia, where Article 11 (4) in the Federal Constitution already prohibited non-Muslims from proselytizing among Muslims. Especially, when the usage of the word Allah, in this case, is allowed in the Herald, a weekly newspaper only circulated among the Catholic community and not outside it.
Secondly, will Muslims really be confused? The education system in Malaysia compels Muslim students to take Islamic Studies since Standard One, for at least 12 years. Even Islamic schools were allowed to run in this system. These students would be taught the basics of Islam and the Holy Qur'an (with emphasis on the 112th Surah, al-Ikhlas-which affirms the strict monotheism of God) throughout this period. If indeed the demonstrators and detractors of this ruling felt that the entire Muslim community will forget what they have been taught in Islamic studies and schools for twelve years and fall into confusion just because one religion uses the name Allah, then the problem is with the education system, not the ruling.

2. Issue of the sanctity of Allah. The demonstrators asserted that it is impious for people of other faiths to use the name Allah, as it is the exclusive right of Muslims to use that name, and they fear that non-Muslims would misuse it. The question that should be asked is, misused to what end? For they could not provide any link between the word Allah being used by non-Muslim (or Catholics in this case) and the so-called misuse. If anything, the Muslims (I am sorry to say, for I myself am Muslim) are also guilty of misusing the Holy Name of Allah to commit atrocities (such as terrorist organisations like Al-Qaeda and the Taliban regime that oppresses women). If indeed the Muslims argue that they were denounced, then the same could be applied to the non-Muslims that misused the name of God. It is still not a good basis to deny them the use of Allah to refer to God in Bahasa Malaysia.
And we have to look at the effects of such demonstrations. The organisation Badan Anti Inter-faith Council (BADAI) has called upon the Malay rulers and the National Fatwa Council to take action to prohibit the use of such a name. This action, rather than keeping the sanctity of God's Holy Name, actually violates it, for it made His Name subject to the whims of a group of people, a grave blasphemy in any faith. Similarly, the organisation Perkasa (led by Ibrahim Ali) also committed a similar blasphemy when they linked the use of the word Allah to Malay rights, reducing God to an ethnic right.

3. Issue of the non-Muslims having no religious or linguistic right to use the name of God. This is not true. The demonstrators have mistakenly assumed 'Allah' to be the Arabic word for God, and therefore only Muslims have the sole right to use that name in their prayers and religious articles. Not so. It is well known that the Arab Christians use the word Allah when referring to the proper name of God.

When referring to 'god' as a common noun, then the proper translation should be 'tuhan' in Malay. But here is has been stated that Allah is the proper name of God. So the proper corresponding term to Allah in the Bible is 'the LORD'. Even Professor Dr Hamka, the learned Muslim theologian, used the term god/tuhan and Allah/the LORD in his book 'Pelajaran Agama Islam':

Kitab Keluaran, Fasal 20 (Book of Exodus, Chapter 20):

2. Bahwa Aku-lah Tuhanmu Allah yang telah membawa kamu keluar dari tanah Mesir dari tempat perhambaan itu. (I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.)

3. Janganlah engkau menyembah Tuhan yang lain daripada-Ku (Thou shalt have no other gods before me. )

4. Karena dalam enam hari lamanya dijadikan Allah langit dan bumi dan laut dengan segala sinya, maka berhentilah ia pada hari yang ketujuh. sebab itulah diberkati Allah akan hari perhentian itu serta diquduskannya akan dia. (For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.)
And if one looks at the New Testament, the word Allah is used even by Jesus Christ. In Matthew 27:46, Jesus cried upon the cross 'Eli, Eli, lama sabachtani', Eli being the proper name for God in the Aramaic language, a sister language of Arabic, corresponding to Allah. So it is untrue that Christians have no scriptural basis for using the term Allah to refer to the proper name of God in Bahasa Malaysia.

It is hoped that cool heads and sanity will prevail, and the Holy Name of God not be misused, or even reserved for a certain group of people.