Saturday, January 24, 2015

Local council elections? - USTFU

In Malaysia there is a convenient socio-political manouevre called USTFU - that is, it's convenient for a certain party, wakakaka. Its applications would be as follows:




  • USTFU or May 13 will occur again
  • USTFU and don't insult my religion
  • ...................................... my race
  • ...................................... my ruler
  • ...................................... my culture
  • etc

USTFU has proven to be very useful in the distant past but today I reckon it lacks its old latent punch. 

Recent practitioner of USTFU is Pak Haji Hadi Awang when he raised concerns over DAP's keenness to have local council elections.


TMI published In Hadi’s May 13 remarks, civil society sees shades of Perkasa, Isma reporting that Jeffrey Phang, the co-chair of the Coalition of Good Governance (CGG ), lambasted Pak Hai for his May-13 warning as illogical, wrong and an attempt to spread fear.

Phang said: "Bringing in a threat of racial disturbance and violence to substantiate his objection to local council election is highly irresponsible and tantamount to fear-mongering and brings the PAS leader to the same level as the likes of personalities from Isma, Perkasa and Perkida."

"CGG finds it illogical to link a May 13 possibility with local council elections. Hadi Awang’s assumption of racial animosity among the people is wrong."

TMI reported Phang saying ... the public's overwhelming response to the recent flood in Kelantan was proof of the closeness of all Malaysians, irrespective of race and religion.

LKS and daughter with flood relief aid for Kelantan

Phang stated: "The racial threat by Hadi is untenable as the target of charity by the urbanites is towards the rural Malay heartland population which was most affected by the flood. Hadi’s statement that ‘local elections will widen the urban-rural gap and trigger instability’ sounds illogical when put into this context."

Actually local councils already exist but its members are appointed rather than elected.

This was what I wrote in 2009, after Pakatan took over 5 states, including Penang:

When Lim GE said no to state awards of datukship he became even less popular with those PKR members.

We know that some Penang PKR members believe they are entitled to positions and prestige – so, on top of Lim’s no to datukships, they were further pissed off when Lim GE decided to do away with appointing pollies to head local councils, a position badly abused in the past to the detriment of the rakyat's benefits. He and the Penang exco decided on professional administrators to head (note: not ‘helm’ wakakaka) the councils.

On 18 March 2010 I posted Gerakan doesn't support local elections in Penang? Gerakan bloke involved was the notorious attention-seeker so I am not going to even mention his name here, wakakaka.

In 2010 there was an interesting article by TMI titled The lost third ballot written by Lim Sue Goan. The article was originally at mysinchew.com

Lim wrote (selected extracts): The garbage, ditches, roads, street lamps and grass in front of your home are all under the management of the local government. It will be the local government’s fault if there is a killing trap on the road.

Even so, it is ridiculous that we pay taxes but enjoy no right to replace the local government.

Local government elections were abolished following the declaration of the state of emergency during the confrontation with Indonesia in 1965. Malaysians have lost the third ballot since then.

The people have no right to question the appointment of local governments by the state governments. It all depends on the people’s luck whether the local governments carry out their duties well.

Lim then blasted the federal government’s arguments against local councillors being elected, giving an example of unaccountable local government:

There are local government elections in other democratic countries and their experiences have proved that the central, state and local governments can be separated while they are working together.

Layers of oversight mechanisms can stop local governments from making mistakes, so that they are more accountable and transparent, achieving the goal of checks and balances.

At the same time, through their votes, voters can replace district officers and city councillors with poor performances. Because they are afraid of being replaced, local government officers will be more responsible and work harder.

Currently, the lack of oversight and checks and balances have resulted in poor management and financial deficit, as well as corruption.

Many local governments have been spending large sums of money from time to time to carry out landscaping projects but these projects ended up as “white elephants projects”.

It is simply a waste of public money. For example, the former Kuala Lumpur Mayor was alleged to have signed a RM32.4mil contract with a private company to supply flowers to the Kuala Lumpur City Hall (DBKL) for three years.

In other words, a total of RM900,000 would be spent each month to beautify the DBKL’s tower. Would the former Mayor do that if there was a local government election?

My uncle told me there was a government appointee (thus not an elected representative) heading the local council in Sebarang Prai (Butterworth). I think Koh Tsu Koon might have been the CM then. The government appointed council head decided to conduct a ‘study tour’ purportedly on low cost housing, BUT where did he conduct his 'study tour'?

Remember, it's about low cost housing!

Well well well, he planned that tour to take him and entourage to 1st World European countries, yup, 1st World countries, when at that time the World’s most successful authority on low cost housing was just next door, our southern neighbour.

Under whatever council procedural clause, he and his kutu-councillors were entitled to take along their wives on this extensive European tour, and so they did, and one happy huge group of un-elected local councillors and staff plus wives went on an European tour with all expenses paid for by the Penang taxpayers.

That was the precursor of the Selangor infamous Disney World ‘study tour’, but it was far far worse than 'Disney World' because none of those jollying kakis were elected, yet permitted to spent oozes of taxpayers' money without any need to validly justify for the tour nor account for the expenditure.

Despite public outrage he didn't give two hoots – he knew he didn't have to account at all to the Penang public as his appointment was by the BN ruled government.

The then Penang Gerakan CM didn't (or more likely, didn't dare) do a single thing!

And if Lim Sue Goan’s allegation of the contract signed by the KL mayor in 2010 was true, then we have had basically another outrageous non-accountable nonsense of a non-elected mayor signing a contract to spend nearly a million ringgit of public money each month for 36 months, just to beautify the DBKL’s tower with flowers!

It's obvious some government officers had/have a total lack of civic responsibility and/or a propensity for expensive gaya taste at public expense. And isn't it a jolly happy beautiful world when you are allowed to spend other people's hard earned money without any need to account for the expenditure to them.

And it sure as hell didn't help when our successive BN states governments (for Penang and Selangor, up to early March 2008) have for the last 25 years virtually closed one eye to the rot taking place in the nation's system of governments, ministries and departments.

To borrow someone's immortal words, those councillors are just 'unrepresentative swill' (ie. un-elected by the taxpayers).

Perhaps PM Najib should stop worrying about Pakatan sweeping the council elections and reconsider the good of the nation, that is, if he is sincere in his efforts to curb corruption.

Now why has Pak Haji gone to the extent of warning about another May 13, a USTFU warning hitherto monopolized by UMNO kakis, on such a small issue, one which could cut down those unrepresentative swill mis-spending public money?

To try to read his mind, let us go back to 1961 for an example. Then, the ruling party which formed the Penang State government was Perikatan (predecessor of the BN) which was then made up of only 3 parties, UMNO, MCA and MIC. Wong Pow Nee (MCA) was the CM.

Yet when local elections were held in 1961 for the City Council of Georgetown, Penang, it was not the Perikatan who won. The Socialist Front (known to Penangites as goo t’au tong – parti kepala lembu) won 14 of the 15 seats, in any language a humongous landslide.

Why?

Because many sectors of Georgetown was the socialist heartland, places like Weld Quay, Beach Street, the Magazine Road - Bricklin Road area and the Campbell Road – Prangin area, Carnarvon Street, etc. It was Karn-neen-nare Land alright, wakakaka.

The MCA which depended on the middle class and above had a snowflake chance in hell of winning.

The mayor was, according to my family, a Socialist Front man named Ooi Thiam Siew, who was quite urbane and spoke very eruditely in both pukka English and Chinese (Hokkien, maybe even Mandarin) even though his cohorts were from the socialist heartland.

14 out of 15 seats won by the Socialis Front! This is what PAS fears because local elections by its urban nature can be and will probably be in the general case (except for places like KB) dominated by the Chinese pollies. Even in Kedah, places like Alor Setar and Sungai Petani could well see the town councils manned by mainly Chinese.

PAS doesn't want this to come about not because it is worried about Chinese-dominated councils not looking after Malay residents but more because (a) it wants to be able to appoint its own people as part of the Pakatan appointment-sharing, (b) it is petrified of UMNO making hay out of Chinese sunshine at PAS’ gloomy expense and (c) in the final analysis it is a parochial Malay party inasmuch as it claims to be an Islamic party.

Both Pak Haji and his former party deputy president Nasharudin Mat Isa have never been comfy working with Pakatan's non-Muslims non Malays and preferred instead to work with UMNO, both PAS leaders being proponents of 'Malay-Unity' in the immediate aftermath of March 2008.

Then, somehow the party Erdogens convinced Pak Haji of the strategic benefits for PAS in remaining as a partner of Pakatan. Thus Pak Haji Awang embraced, perhaps grudgingly, Pakatan's multi-ethnic policies probably because he was shown and had accepted the ‘bigger picture’, of PAS riding on Pakatan’s back to a true Islamic State ... well ... until the recent Selangor MB fiasco among Pakatan partners when he reverted to his true colours.

I suspect Pak Haji, apart from disliking Anwar Ibrahim, has been harbouring a deep grudge (resentment) in his heart when he perceives PKR being given the special treatment by DAP at both national level politics (supporting Anwar Ibrahim as PM-designate) as well as in Selangor (supporting Dr Wan as MB).

No doubt he must have mulled angrily: why should the PM be AI when PAS is the bigger party, or why should the MB in Selangor be from PKR when PAS has 15 seats to PKR's 13?

I personally feel there is some justification for his resentment, that DAP has ganged up with PKR to subtly marginalize PAS from the important appointments.

Even in the halcyon days immediately after the 2008 GE, DAP has supported a PKR ADUN to be MB Perak, but the the Regent stepped in to appoint PAS' Nizar Jamaluddin instead. 'Twas a serendipitous royal choice.

It's for the DAP to explain why it prefers PKR over PAS in Selangor, though in recent times, PAS' unilateral push for hudud in Kelantan would have by now provided DAP with a convenient answer, wakakaka.

Anyway, that has been why PAS in the person of its Pak Haji party president has been lukewarm towards local council elections.

Equally it explains why Najib doesn't even want to think about it,because he realizes that he cannot depend on both MCA and Gerakan to gain control of the local councils.

I wonder who might have been Datuk Bandar of KL if local council elections had been allowed? wakakaka.

Why 'God' loved Isaac more than Ishmael

I refer to some parts of RPK’s Much ado about nothing (part 2), wakakaka those which states:

Abraham with (at that time) a futuristic mode of transportation, wakakaka

According to Genesis, Abraham had a wife named Sarah who was barren and could not give him any children. Sarah had an Egyptian slave named Hagar, so Sarah told Abraham to use Hagar as a surrogate mother since she (Sarah) could not give Abraham any children.

Hagar soon became pregnant and not long after that Sarah, too, became pregnant. So now both of them were pregnant. Hagar’s son was named Ishmael while Sarah’s son was named Isaac. But Ishmael was elder to Isaac since he was born first.

Sarah soon became jealous and told Abraham to get rid of Hagar and Hagar’s son, Ishmael. So Abraham dumped both of them in the desert and left them there. God, who called Himself, El Shaddai, then appeared and told Sarah that she will become the mother of all nations.

Now, there are two things to note here. First of all, God acknowledged Isaac (the younger brother) and not Ishmael (the elder brother) as the true successor and heir to Abraham.

and

Oh, by the way, Jews practice circumcision, an Egyptian practice at that time -- and Hagar was Egyptian while Sarah was not. Does this mean the Jews follow Hagar and not Sarah? 

Let me comment on the last part first, that of circumcision.

Gulp, I don't like the look of what appears to be a pair of pliers (on right)
what's that tool on the left?

RPK is correct that circumcision was then an Egyptian practice. The Egyptians were probably the first people to conduct circumcision, but then only among the royals and nobility.

Please note that when we refer to the biblical Egyptians we’re NOT talking about today’s Egyptian who are and have been mainly Arabs, and of course mainly Muslims since Prophet Mohammad (pbuh) introduced Islam to the Middle-Eastern world.

The biblical Egyptians were a different race, no, not even the people of Ptolemy’s and Cleopatra’s who came later and were mainly Macedonians and Greeks, remnants of Alexander’s army. The original Egyptians were a race of a much earlier era, and have since long gone; no one other than perhaps historians of ancient Egypt or Egyptologists know where they are now - perhaps in Padang and Negeri Sembilan wakakaka.

In a post earlier this year titled B-D,the new G-D of ‘Truth’ I had written about the same thing.

Strangely, for the Hebrews, a people who despised the Egyptians for their pagan beliefs, yet they adopted many Egyptian practices, including that of circumcision – see my post B-D, the new G-D of‘Truth’. Of course the Hebrews would claim that Abraham circumcised himself to show his covenant with YVWH.

OK then, we might as well begin our discussion with Abraham who the Bible told us came from Ur of the Chaldees, as in Genesis 11:27-31, which say:

27 Now these are the generations of Terah: Terah begat Abram, Nahor, and Haran; and Haran begat Lot.

28 And Haran died before his father Terah in the land of his nativity, in Ur of the Chaldees.

29 And Abram and Nahor took them wives: the name of Abram's wife was Sarai; and the name of Nahor's wife, Milcah, the daughter of Haran, the father of Milcah, and the father of Iscah.

30 But Sarai was barren; she had no child.

31 And Terah took Abram his son, and Lot the son of Haran his son's son, and Sarai his daughter in law, his son Abram's wife; and they went forth with them from Ur of the Chaldees, to go into the land of Canaan; and they came unto Haran, and dwelt there.

Abraham was born around 2000 BC according to those who also believed that Adam and Eve and their Fall happened around 4000 BC). But archaeologists said that Chaldeans (of the Chaldees) didn’t even exist until around the sixth to fifth century BC, nearly 1500 years after Abraham’s time.

Thus the claim that Abram (before he became Abraham) came from Ur of the Chaldees was likely a latter day invention (or writeup) at a time (after 586 BC) coincidentally when the Judeans, as slaves in Babylon, first wrote down the oral tradition of Abraham’s story while compiling the written Hebrew Bible Tanakh).


Now, just note Genesis 17:17 which says Abraham became hilarious when God told him he would have a son:

Then Abraham fell upon his face, and laughed, and said in his heart, Shall a child be born unto him that is an hundred years old? And shall Sarah, that is ninety years old, bear?

This tells us that the age gap between Abraham and Sarah was 10 years.

OK, flashing back to an earlier period, specifically 25 years earlier, to Genesis 12:4, we have (before he changed his name to Abraham):

So Abram departed, as the Lord had spoken unto him: and Lot went with him: and Abram was seventy and five years old when he departed out of Haran.

Abraham was already 75 years old when he was instructed by God to leave Haran after his father died. Therefore Sarah would be sixty-five years old, being 10 years younger than her husband. It also tells us that there was a gap of at least 25 years between entering Egypt and having their son Isaac.

In Genesis 12:14-15 we have:

And it came to pass, that, when Abrams was come into Egypt, the Egyptians beheld the woman that she was very fair.

The princes also of Pharaoh also saw her, and commended her before Pharaoh: and the woman was taken into Pharaoh’s house.

When entering Egypt, Abraham wanted Sarah to pretend she was his sister. The biblical reason was that he was afraid of being killed if it was known she was his wife, for he anticipated Sarah would attract lustful attention. And he was right. Pharaoh was told of her beauty, took her into his Palace and rewarded her ‘brother’ generously.

Here, some questions begged to be asked.


(1) What did the Egyptians see in a 65 year old Hebrew woman that made them acclaim she was fair (beautiful), and recommend the beauty to the Pharaoh, and why would a Pharaoh, who could have any woman in the land, want an old crone as his lover?

(2) Did the Pharaoh have his naughty ways with Sarah after taking her into the Palace?

(3) What was a pastoralist (shepherd) like Abraham doing in a cosmopolitan city like Ur (apart from the archaeological-historical fact that Ur existed only 1500 years later)? One would expect him to live in a tent in a rural area, but we are told by the bible he came from Ur of the Chaldees.

(4) Then, what would be the likelihood of a foreign commoner, a mere pastoralist, even allowing for him having a beautiful 65-year old wife, coming into contact with the royal house of Egypt, namely the princes and the Pharaoh? (Genesis 12:15) Can a great empire like Egypt be so small that a mere foreigner would, on entering its border, come into contact with or to the knowledge of its princes?

(5) Why is there a leitmotiv in the bible surrounding Abraham and Sarah, of the man and wife pretending to be brother and sister, of a Pharaoh or King taking (or attempting to take) the wife, of God then intervening to return the wife to the husband, and of the husband profiting greatly from the separation? The leitmotiv may be discerned in:

  • Abraham and the Pharaoh (Genesis 12:11-20)
  • Abraham and Abimelech of Gerar (Genesis 20:2-18) – Sarah was even older by then, around 90.
  • Isaac and Abimelech of Gerar (Genesis 26: 7-16) – we aren't too sure whether this was the same Abimelech for it was then more than 50 years later, but the King had a chief captain of the army named Phichol (Genesis 26:26) as was in the case of the earlier or Abraham’s Abimelech (Genesis 21:22).

    If it was the same Abimelech, 
    then it would suggest that Abraham and Isaac could well be the same person.

(6) Why was Sarah told to change her name from the original Sarai to Sarah, the latter in Hebrew meaning Princess? (Genesis 17:15)


What were the authors (or author) of Genesis trying to say, or do?

I leave the above for you to find out, wakakaka, including Genesis 12:16 which states: And he entreated Abram well for her sake: and he had sheep, and oxen, and he asses, and menservants, and maidservants, and she asses, and camels.

If according to Judeo-Christian belief, Abraham was supposed to live around 2000 BC, then camels weren't domesticated yet for another 800 years, until around 1200 BC, coincidentally around the time when the Chaldeans existed and indeed, coincidentally around the time the Judeans compiled their written bible, the Tanakh.

You can draw your own conclusion as to the reliability of the Judeans' story as written by them in the Tanakh.


Carrying on with other biblical mysteries, wakakaka:

The Israelis journeyed from Rameses to Succoth. There were about six hundred thousand men on foot, besides women and children ….. (Exodus 12:37)

The Book of Exodus narrates the preparation of the Hebraic exodus after the Pharaoh, cowered by the 10 plagues including the death of his firstborn, gave Moses leave to lead 600,000 male Jewish slaves plus their families, totalling some two million people, out of Egypt.

2,000,000 Hebrew slaves migrating out of Egypt!

Even allowing for some ancient exaggerations, yet there is not one single mention of this monumental migration in an ancient Egypt famed for its recording of anything and all things! No, not one!

Continuing:

Now the length of time the Israelite people lived in Egypt was 430 years. At the end of the 430 years, to the very day, all the Lords’ division left Egypt ….. (Exodus 12:40-41)

Nearly half a millennium of residence in Egypt by the hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of Hebrews – again there was not one ancient Egyptian record of them! Not one hieroglyphic, hieratic or demotic line anywhere!

As mentioned, this was a nation which recorded everything, about Pharaohs, their gods, floods, harvest, births, deaths, ownership of this and that, weather, social events, wars, etc, but not a skerrick of written line about 2,000,000 Hebrews living in their land for 430 years, let alone making a mass exodus.

This was an unexplained omission of amazing proportion by the Egyptian scribes. Or, was it?

Surely there must be something to explain the mysterious and very monumental omission in ancient Egyptian records on the significant Hebraic presence there, unless of course there was no Hebrew ever in Egypt, and thus no Hebraic exodus took place.

The most puzzling mystery has been that in a land of such fastidious recording of events, not one single line of hieroglyph or hieratic or demotic in Egypt’s famed and vast repository of recording made any mention of this race, their or their mass exodus from Egypt.

The only account of the Hebrews living in Egypt and their exodus out of Egypt is in the Tanakh, which coincidentally was written by their descendants, the Judeans while they were slaves in Babylon from 586 to 539 BC.


OK, as mentioned, the word Pharaoh is mentioned 274 times in the Bible in various descriptions and forms. In the first two books of the Old Testament (OT), namely Genesis and Exodus, it is referred to 155 times.

Yet, in that 155 times, the OT fails to identify which Pharaoh was involved in the respective events involving Hebrews. The time span as chronicled by the Books of Genesis and Exodus would logically suggest that the Pharaoh of Abraham and Sarah should be a different person to the Pharaoh of Joseph son of Jacob, and indeed to the Pharaoh of Moses and the Exodus.

In the story of Joseph, he was sold to an Egyptian Potiphar, one of Pharaoh’s officials (Genesis 39:1). After interpreting his famous ‘seven fat and seven lean years’ for the Pharaoh (Genesis 41: 25-32), the latter made him the Grand Vizier, the No 2 man in the land, and conferred on him an Egyptian name, Zapethnath-Paneah and married him off to an Egyptian wife, Asenath (meaning Gift of the Sun-God). She was the daughter of Potiphera, priest of On (Genesis 41:45).

Notice how detailed were the personalities identified, yet the name of the Pharaoh was not revealed. Instead the Pharaoh was merely referred to as ‘a new king over Egypt, who knew not Joseph’ (Exodus 1:8).

As for Moses, we read of Pharaoh learning of the killing of an Egyptian by this Prince of Egypt (Exodus 2:12), and naturally wanting to have Moses executed (Exodus 2:15). Of course by then Moses had fled.

Much later, after marrying Zipporah and witnessing the burning bush, he heard that the Pharaoh died. Around then, God ordered him back to Egypt to demand from the new Pharaoh the release of the Israelite slaves (Exodus 3:10).

Again, we observe the lack of details about one of the most significant Pharaoh in the biblical saga. Who was this Pharaoh? Or better, who were the Pharaohs, the one who died as well as his newly crowned successor?


Compare the seemingly evasive or, if one wants to be less conspiratorial, broad brushing of the Pharaohs’ identities, specifically those associated with the stories or events of Abraham to Moses, with the detailed genealogies of others in the Old Testament, as presented in Genesis Chapter 4:17-22 (Cain’s), Genesis Chapter 5 (Noah’s, he of the Flood and Ark fame), Genesis Chapter 10 (The sons of Noah and their families’), Genesis Chapter 11:10-32 (from Shem to Abraham), and the list of details goes on.

WHY?

So, were there Hebrews in Egypt after all? Was there ever an Exodus?

Incidentally, the word ‘Egypt’ appears in the Bible more than 750 times while ‘pharaoh’ is mentioned over 274 times. More than any of the Israelite nation’s neighbouring countries, Egypt was the most described country in the Scriptures.

·   Egypt – the nation that, according to the Bible, held 2,000,000 Hebrews in slavery until God instructed Moses to lead his people out of Egyptian bondage. The Egyptian pharaoh only released them after a bitter and acrimonious struggle resulting in the deaths of all Egyptian first-borns including the pharaoh’s own.

·   Egypt – where the Israelite people including its kings would always run to for refuge and sanctuary when threatened by other warring nations such as the Babylonians. The Israelite so-called prophet Jeremiah threatened the Israelites about running to Egypt for refuge when the Babylonians were advancing, by relaying God’s message: “As my anger and wrath have been poured out on those who lived in Jerusalem, so will my wrath be poured out on you when you go to Egypt” (Jer 42:18). But the Hebrews nevertheless went to seek sanctuary in Egypt, and Jeremiah, notwithstanding his own warnings, followed, purportedly to rail against the Israelites for picking up Egyptian worship (Jer 44), but more likely to save his own bloody skin, wakakaka.


On Egypt as a perennial sanctuary for the Israelites-Judeans, it may worthwhile venturing across into the New Testament to recall Matthew 2:13 which advised Yusuf (Yehoshua’s dad, you know, Joshua or with the Greek name of Jesus)  in a dream, of Herod’s murderous hunt for the newborn Messiah:

Arise, He said, take the child and his mother and flee to Egypt and stay there until I bring the word ………

And most surprising of all, in Deuteronomy, under 23: Exclusion From the Assembly, God warned the Hebrews not to allow the neighbouring nationalities to enter the assembly of the Lord, even unto the tenth generation, except for the Edomites and the Egyptians.

The Edomites were of course also Hebrews, ‘cousins’ to the ketuanan Israelite people, as they were descendants of Esau, the firstborn of Isaac, who lost his birthrights to Jacob through trickery and deceit.

In fact, Deuteronomy 23:7-8 read:

You shall not abhor an Edomite, for he is your brother. You shall not abhor an Egyptian, because you were an alien in his land; the children of the third generation born to them may enter the congregation of the Lord.

The Edomites I can understand, but why this special treatment for their so-called mortal enemies, the Egyptians, those oppressors who supposedly kept the Hebrews in bondage for 430 years, and required a series of terrifying divine-sent plagues to intimidate the Pharaoh before he released them from slavery.

Indeed why?

I am afraid that again, I’m going to leave all the above for you to find out, wakakaka. Call me a bloody tease if you like, wakakaka.

So now we come to RPK’s first statement I posted at the beginning of this post, namely:

According to Genesis, Abraham had a wife named Sarah who was barren and could not give him any children. Sarah had an Egyptian slave named Hagar, so Sarah told Abraham to use Hagar as a surrogate mother since she (Sarah) could not give Abraham any children.

Hagar soon became pregnant and not long after that Sarah, too, became pregnant. So now both of them were pregnant. Hagar’s son was named Ishmael while Sarah’s son was named Isaac. But Ishmael was elder to Isaac since he was born first.

Sarah soon became jealous and told Abraham to get rid of Hagar and Hagar’s son, Ishmael. So Abraham dumped both of them in the desert and left them there. God, who called Himself, El Shaddai, then appeared and told Sarah that she will become the mother of all nations.

Abraham casting Hagar and Ishmael out

Now, there are two things to note here. First of all, God acknowledged Isaac (the younger brother) and not Ishmael (the elder brother) as the true successor and heir to Abraham.

On RPK's last paragraph, whether it was the Hebraic God who acknowledged ‘Isaac (the younger brother) and not Ishmael (the elder brother) as the true successor and heir to Abraham’ would, in my opinion, depend on who was the Hebraic God, wakakaka.

The Hebrew Bible (Tanakh) was written by various people but mainly by (though not all) Davidic supporters (obviously of the House of Judah). ‘Davidic’ supporters mean supporters of King David who was of the House of Judah, the most evil and treacherous man in the entire bible.

David was even more treacherous than his eponymous ancestor, cheating Jacob. He plotted the murder of King Saul who doted on him, and f**ked Saul’s wife and Saul's son Jonathan (yes, he and Jonathan were lovers) to get to the throne.

And it came to pass, when he had made an end of speaking unto Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul. ... Then Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul. And Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was upon him, and gave it to David, and his garments, even to his sword, and to his bow, and to his girdleSamuel 18:1-4 (KJV).

David and Jonathan

Though both his lover Jonathan and his wife Michal (Saul’s daughter and Jonathan’s sister) helped the bloke all the time, nonetheless he eventually had both of them murdered as he did to their father King Saul.

Naturally the Bible was written by his supporters to show that Saul became mad with jealousy etc etc and was forsaken by God, to justify David's trail of f**king and murders right up to the Israelite throne.

He also shagged the wives of many others to get what he wanted (presumably he must be a handsome Adonis) including the most infamous of all, Bathsheba, the wife of his most loyal general Uriah whom he deliberately sent into the thickest of battle to be killed.

Uriah, cuckolded and murdered by King David, so-called God's beloved

David was also guilty of many other crimes including treasonably consorting with Israel’s enemies, the Philistines, against Israel.

In the way that the New Testament would not have been written if there was no Yesohua ben Yusuf, the Tanakh would not have thus been written if there was no David.

David's supporters wrote the Tanakh to exonerate his many crimes, but fortunately for posterity they weren't the only writers of the Tanakh, hence through the writings of those who weren't his supporters we catch glimpses of his evil as well as the treachery of his eponymous cheating ancestor, Israel, or as Jacob was known by, in the Old Testament.

But an important point his supporters wanted to make was to show that contrary to Deuteronomy 21:15-17, God wanted him to be King.

So what does Deuteronomy 21:15-17 say? Essentially and significantly the following:

If a man has two wives, and he loves one but not the other, and both bear him sons but the firstborn is the son of the wife he does not love, when he wills his property to his sons, he must not give the rights of the firstborn to the son of the wife he loves in preference to his actual firstborn, the son of the wife he does not love.

He must acknowledge the son of his unloved wife as the firstborn by giving him a double share of all he has. That son is the first sign of his father’s strength. The right of the firstborn belongs to him.

So, where did that leave Ishmael as compared with Isaac in the eyes of God?

That’s the reason I opined earlier: Whether it was the Hebraic God who acknowledged ‘Isaac (the younger brother) and not Ishmael (the elder brother) as the true successor and heir to Abraham’ would depend on who was the Hebraic God – wakakaka again.

But why did David’s supporter want to diminish the age-old concept of primogeniture, which is (until even today in many races and cultures) the right, by law, or usually by custom and even religion as per Deuteronomy 21:15-17, of the firstborn son to inherit the family title, properties, even greater blessings compared with other sons, and which was what buggered Ishmael out from being Abraham's rightful heir.

That’s because David was not the first born of Jesse of Bethlehem. He was the youngest of Jesse’s eight children (sometimes mentioned as seven).

How could an eighth child become King of Israel?

Of course he could ........ BUT only if the Bible showed that God didn't favour primogeniture despite Deuteronomy 21:15-17.

And we'll see how a bible commentator would cunningly get around these two conflicting points, wakakaka.

Thus, in the story of Cain and Abel we have God favouring Abel over Cain, the first born. Conveniently the Tanakh had Cain murdering Abel.

Yes, no reason of whatever sort was provided by the Bible for God’s favouritism. It would only be in other subsequent explanatory documents or books that embarrassed clerics creatively explained away God’s inexplicable bias.

was the Hebrew God a meat lover who thus preferred
Abel's barbeque offerings over Cain's veggies?

Then we have our Ishmael and Isaac, with Ishmael conveniently being an Egyptian. Guess which nationality was Isaac, wakakaka. Don't know? Well, go back above and re-read my post, wakakaka.

Following that, we have Esau and Jacob. Again, conveniently we are told Esau sold his birthrights away to his younger brother for a bowl of lentils. Even allowing for that pro Davidic creation, we have their mother conspiring with Jacob to cheat, yes, CHEAT, his father into blessing him when the old blind man wanted to do that for his first born Esau.

How could God love such a cheat? How could God love his descendant David, the most treacherous murderous adulterer?

Can lah, because the Davidic supporters, not unlike our Utusan Malaysia and Biro Tatanegara, wakakaka, could write any bullshit!

As if that was not enough, when Joseph (of the Technicolor coat in the Old Testament) went to see his father Jacob the Cheat for blessings for his sons, Manasseh (first born) and Ephraim (the younger), make a guess who Jacob blessed more, wakakaka.

The Bible tells us that despite Joseph positioning his sons before Jacob so that the elder son Manasseh would be blessed by Jacob’s right hand (this being the hand which gave the greater proportion of blessings) and Ephraim by his father’s left hand, Jacob crossed his hands so that his right hand was on Ephraim’s head instead while his left hand blessed Manasseh but less according to Hebraic custom.

When Joseph tried to catch hold of his father’s right hand to have it on top of Manasseh head, Jacob resisted and said “I know it, my son, I know it: he also shall become a people, and he also shall be great: but truly his younger brother shall be greater than he, and his seed shall become a multitude of nations.” (Genesis 48:19) - Wakakaka.


And we have the biblical commentator who wanted it both ways, saying as we have suspected all along, that

This shows how the idea of firstborn in the Bible (as per Deuteronomy 21:15-17) is often a position of pre-eminence, not necessarily meaning 'first out of the womb'. Wakakaka, what utter bullshit.

Thus by creative biblical composition, David enjoyed the position of firstborn, even though he was the youngest son. Thus he was fit to be King of Israel, as was conveniently written by men and not God.

So naturally we have those Judean BTN writers (wakakaka) with Psalm 89:20-29 (KJV) informing us how God viewed David:

20 I have found David my servant; with my holy oil have I anointed him:

21 With whom my hand shall be established: mine arm also shall strengthen him.

22 The enemy shall not exact upon him; nor the son of wickedness afflict him.

23 And I will beat down his foes before his face, and plague them that hate him.

24 But my faithfulness and my mercy shall be with him: and in my name shall his horn be exalted.

25 I will set his hand also in the sea, and his right hand in the rivers.

26 He shall cry unto me, Thou art my father, my God, and the rock of my salvation.

27 Also I will make him my firstborn, higher than the kings of the earth.

28 My mercy will I keep for him for evermore, and my covenant shall stand fast with him.

29 His seed also will I make to endure for ever, and his throne as the days of heaven.


That’s how and not why the Hebrew God inexplicably loved Abel over Cain, Isaac over Ishmael, cheating-Jacob over Esau, Ephraim over Manasseh, and of course the most evil man ever in the Bible, David the adulterous traitorous murderer and 8th son of Jesse of Bethlehem - all courtesy of the pro David bible writers.


Friday, January 23, 2015

Winds of Change (1)

The wind of change is blowing through this continent, and whether we like it or not, this growth of national consciousness is a political fact. We must all accept it as a fact, and our national policies must take account of it.


- Harold Macmillan, PM Britain






On 03 February 1960, slightly more than half a century ago, Harold Macmillan, PM of Britain, made his famous 'Winds of Change' speech in white supremacist South Africa, signalling Britain's increasing concerns over the ultra-racist apartheid system in South Africa. His aim was to persuade the white leaders of South Africa to abandon its racist policies and move towards racial equality.

The phrase 'Winds of Change' became a historical term in contemporary world history, and I want to examine such a possible phenomena in Malaysia today on several areas, but let's start with just one in this post.

So, are we sensing such a 'Winds of  Change' in Malaysia with regards to the government-sanctioned Islamization of Malaysia since 29 September 2001.

Malaysiakini reported that then-PM Dr Mahathir stated in his opening address to Gerakan Party's 30th national delegates conference that: 

“UMNO wishes to state loudly that Malaysia is an Islamic country. This is based on the opinion of ulamaks who had clarified what constituted as Islamic country. If Malaysia is not an Islamic country because it does not implement the hudud, then there are no Islamic countries in the world. 
If UMNO says that Malaysia is an Islamic country, it is because in an Islamic country non-Muslims have specific rights. This is in line with the teachings of Islam. There is no compulsion in Islam. And Islam does not like chaos that may come about if Islamic laws are enforced on non-Muslims.

Lim Kit Siang termed Dr M's pronouncement as the '929 Declaration'. He then sneered at MCA and Gerakan for immediately embracing and enthusing about Dr M's Declaration, not unlike the recent tudung-ed sweeties embracing the Korean pop groups, wakakaka.


Ms MCA and Ms Gerakan hugging K-Pop star Dr M

wakakaka 

Lim KS stated: Before his “929 Declaration” that Malaysia is an Islamic state at the Gerakan national assembly on September 29 last year, MCA and Gerakan leaders had been attacking the DAP for working “hand-in-glove’ with PAS to establish an Islamic State, proclaiming at the top of their voices that Malaysia is a secular and not an Islamic State. 

But immediately after Mahathir’s “929 Declaration” that Malaysia is an Islamic state, the MCA and Gerakan leaders were the first to give their full and unequivocal support that Malaysia had always been an Islamic state from day one of our nationhood 44 years ago ...


... as if the founding fathers and early leaders of MCA like Tun Tan Cheng Lock, Tun Tan Siew Sin, Tun S.H. Lee, Too Joon Hing or even the early UMNO leaders like Onn Jaffar, Tunku Abdul Rahman, Tun Razak and Tun Hussein Onn would have agreed to multi-racial and multi-religious Malaysia becoming an Islamic State.

For eight month after September 29 last year, MCA and Gerakan leaders were trumpeting that Malaysia is a moderate Islamic state

Looks like MCA and Gerakan were K-popped - note: not K-Y-ed though on the 929 Declaration it has to be said they were "asking for it", wakakaka.



But Malaysiakini columnist Lee Ban Chen wrote (in 2001) despairing of the MCA and Gerakan (and presumably MIC) as follows:

The most shameful and ridiculous are the non-Malay based component parties of the BN, which have been opposing the establishment of an Islamic state all along, to suddenly make an about-turn and support unconditionally Mahathir's version of Islamic state - albeit with an guilty conscience, if they still have one, that is.

The MCA propaganda machine had to invent an incredible term, "secular Islamic state", as a compromise to their former strong anti-Islamic state stand. It might be okay to appease the muddle-headed who have very little knowledge about Islamic state, but for the knowledgeable, especially among Muslims, a secular Islamic state is just unthinkable because "there is no half-way house between secularism and Islam", to quote Salleh Abas.

MCA president Dr Ling Liong Sik has exposed his out-and-out opportunistic political stand when he, on one hand agreeing with Mahathir's declaration that Malaysia is already an Islamic state, on the other said that Malaysia can also be called a secular state and that it was only a matter of interpretation!

He even resorted to sophistry, saying that many things can be called by more than one name. A rose in English is a rose, in Mandarin it is mei-kwei, in Malay bunga mawar and in Tamil roja but they all mean the same thing.

But sophistry won't alter facts. An Islamic state in English is an Islamic state, in Mandarin it is hui-jiao-guo, in Malay kerajaan Islam. It is true that they all mean the same thing, but they definitely do not mean secular state as suggested by Ling!

I hope you know the meaning of 'sophistry'. It's a polite term for bullshit! The dictionary calls it 'use of clever but false arguments, especially with the intention of deceiving'. Wakakaka.



Apart from Lim KS's objection, significantly two Malaysian leaders disputed Dr 's Declaration. The first was the former Lord President Salleh Abas, who pointed out that the highest law in the country is the Federal Constitution, with Syariah law (Islamic law) being only a branch within the constitution.

Malaysiakini (12 Nov 2001) reported: Salleh said that his stand on Article 3 was clearly stated in a 1988 judgment which ruled that the term 'Islam' in Article 3 referred only to acts relating to "rituals and ceremonies". He stressed that Malaysia can only be converted into an Islamic state when the word 'Islam' in Article 3 is amended so that Syariah could be applied fully to at least all Muslims.

Today we read/hear the same Salleh-like ruling in the recent Court of Appeal decision reaffirming the limits of Shariah law to only familial matters.

Note the word 're-affirming' which means the limited powers of the syariah courts were long since affirmed, as per what former Lord President Salleh Abas had ruled.

The Malay Mail Online reported in its Review Shariah law ambit, observers say after landmark court ruling (extracts):



Voices for change will lead to Winds of change

Lauding the appellate court’s written findings that expressly stated the secularity of Malaysia’s legal system based on the Federal Constitution, Muslim women’s group Sisters in Islam urged authorities to suspend Shariah criminal laws that exceed the stated restriction.

“This is indeed a landmark decision and echoes Sisters in Islam calls to review the Syariah Criminal Offences law given the many unconstitutional provisions that violates fundamental liberties as guaranteed under the Constitution,” Ratna Osman, the executive director of SIS said. [...]

In its written judgment on a high-profile transgender case, the Court of Appeal said that that the Federal Constitution restricts Islamic legislation to marriage, divorce and inheritance, based on the Supreme Court’s ruling in the landmark 1988 Che Omar Che Soh case.

Former de facto law minister Datuk Zaid Ibrahim lauded the “clear thinking” judges for the decision and said that it took “lots of courage from Muslim judges to pronounce the appropriate place of Islamic law under the Constitution.”




He noted however, such decision has already been made decades ago but today’s ruling is an affirmation to that.

“If our judges had been willing to make the correct pronouncement of the law, the country would have been spared the uncertainty and confusion which 20 years of ambivalence has generated,” he said.

Syarie lawyer Akbardin Abdul Kader also agreed that the Federal Constitution limits Islamic law to familial issues, saying that the restricted jurisdiction has always been “clearly defined.”

“The state legislature has to pass enactments and laws according to these only,” Akbardin added. [...]

The three-judge panel of Malaysia’s second-highest court led by Justice Datuk Mohd Hishamudin Yunus cited former Lord President Tun Salleh Abas, who had ruled that the framers of the Federal Constitution had confined the word “Islam” in Article 3 — which says that Islam is the religion of the Federation — to the areas of marriage, divorce and inheritance law, based on the history of Islamic legislation in Malaya during British colonial times.

“In short, the Supreme Court takes the position that it was the intention of the framers of our Federal Constitution that the word ‘Islam’ in Art. 3(1) be given a restrictive meaning,” Hishamudin said in the appellate court’s full judgment released on January 2 in the case of three Muslim transwomen fighting a cross-dressing ban under Negri Sembilan Shariah law.


The second Malaysian leader to dispute Dr M's Declaration that Malaysia was an Islamic State was, would you believe it wakakaka, none other (then) the spiritual leader of PAS and the Menteri Besar of Kelantan, Pak Haji Nik Aziz who said:




“You can talk all you want. You can declare a piece of wood to be gold, or a wheelbarrow as a Mercedez, but in reality, nothing has changed.
For us, an Islamic country is one which is governed according to the tenets of the Quran and Hadith (sayings of Prophet Muhammed). Malaysia is a secular State. If the present Malaysia is already an Islamic state, then what do you call the state ruled by Prophet Muhammed and his friends?”

As for our 'Melayu mudah lupa' Dr M himself, just last year he sang a different tune, saying that Malaysia is neither an Islamic nor a secular state, but just an 'ordinary state' (whatever that means, wakakaka) with Islam as the official religion. Wakakaka.



He told reporters that although Malaysia has been proclaimed as an Islamic country before (I wonder by whom, wakakaka), it did not mean that Malaysia has to take steps to “make it Islamic”.

Well, your government as well as those of your successors (wakakaka) have.

He stated: “We are just an ordinary state that recognises Islam as the official religion of the country, and we practise things that are not against the religion of Islam.”



“We have declared ourselves as an Islamic state before, but that does not mean that we have to do all kinds of other things to make it Islamic. There are so many Islamic states that don’t even declare they are Islamic and they don’t practise many of the things that are supposed to be associated with Islamic states.”

Anyway, back again to 2001 - Far far more interestingly, and PLEASE TAKE NOTE of this one, Malaysiakini also reported (bearing in mind the news report was in 2001):

Terengganu Mentri Besar and PAS national deputy president Abdul Hadi Awang was quoted as saying that once an Islamic state is established, non-Muslims will be subjected to Islamic laws involving public interests although there will be exceptions for certain areas.


Gulp gasp omigosh, so there you have it, our dear Pak Haji Hadi and his 'non-Muslims will be subjected to Islamic laws involving public interests'.



In concluding I just want to say two things:

(a) it's evident that the political-ideological relationship between PAS and DAP now has to be, nay, must be deemed as irreconcilable (unless you're obdurately blind), and that DAP will suffer its 1999 punishment if it still insists on proceeding with an alliance with a hudud-bent PAS with serious severe consequences for non-Muslims - see my DAP - remember 1999 in which I penned the following (extracts only):

While politics is the art of the possible, there has to be a limit, i.e, short of a Faustian Pact in working together with PAS.

The DAP has done well enough - see my 2012 post The 2 dreams of Lim Kit Siang.

While it's natural for a political party like the DAP to aspire to majority rule eventually, either in a coalition or even by itself, I urge the party not to be stampeded by the personal agenda and timeline of Anwar Ibrahim who is known to be impatient and whose entire once-glorious career was let down by this, his Achilles heel.

It would be true to say that the concept of Pakatan, one in which a socialist-secularist DAP was brought to work with PAS, obviously a working relationship of dubious but undeniably short-term fashion, has been born out of Anwar's most un-manamanlai impatience to be PM.

Regardless of whether the Erdogens take over PAS, its stripes, fangs and predatory (big cat) scent are now more than ever very obvious to the Chinese and Indians.




And the Chinese in particular love to punish political parties which they believe have betrayed their cause or interests - recall Wong Pow Nee's Perikatan in 1969, Gerakan in 2008, MCA in 2013, wakakaka.

And DAP, please do not forget 1999.

(b) Finally but not least of all, I want to thank the 25 prominent Malaysians who signed an open letter to PM Najib expressing deep concern about the growing influence of extreme Islam in Malaysia. I believe this has given courage to many Malaysian Muslims to come out to the front to say what they have always wanted to say.