Gabungan Penulis Nasional (Gapena) backs moves by the government to ban books,

Literary group Gabungan Penulis Nasional (Gapena) backs moves by the government to ban books, including creative works, if they are deemed to be in contravention of the laws of the country. 

 A group of old faggot fascists calling themselves writers. What do they write really? Writers and literary figures are supposed to be creators of new ideas and new thoughts not servants echoing what their feudal lords say. GAPENA consists of a bunch of feudal-minded illiterates. Gapena is obviously beholden to the BN Govt.With mindset, I just wonder what would they write? And it is no wonder they can only write books which will be imposed by the Gomen to sell to students; otherwise who else will read their books? Have we ever wonder that we have to dig so hard to find reasonable text even for the school certificate examination let alone at the next level of learning! Whereas in term of depth of thinking, for every one book produced locally by GAPENA, you will able to find may 3,000 English equivalent in the market which meet the above creterion!are supposed to be inquisitive, and that includes questioning things. Just because something is official or even in the constitution does not mean it cannot or should not be questioned or even changed. Otherwise, there would not be the numerous amendments to our constitution, all made during, I might add, the rule of BN. That's the problem with Malaysia and these small minded Malaysians. Whenever they are afraid of something that benefits them may be changed, they immediately cite the "official" and "constitution" line and forbid discussion. They think that by doing so they are maintaining the status quo but in reality merely causes more discontentment amongst right thinking Malaysians. Language and religion are classic examples. So long as the issues are deliberated respectfully and with civility, what is the problem? This they will call progress within the coconut shel no wonder Malaysia is going backwards. I thought one of the roles of literature was to challenge the status quo. Not to buckle under its repressions. From now on we can disregard anything these guys have to say...or write those in Gapena have not grown up while the rest of the nation have. Who do they think they are to detect what books to read, what not to read. They have no monopoly of the truths, they profess self righteousness but in fact they are just fallacies (far-to-see) of the by-gone era. Do they write really? I rather believe they suck, every letter of the word. When art and literature are supposed to be in accordance with government law and religion, they are no longer called art and literature. They are actually called propaganda. If the country opposes Shia ideology, then why is it been hypocritical trying so hard to have good relations with Iran ? If you ban a book because it is Shia, can the Shia;s not ban a Sunni book? If you ban Christians from using Allah then can the Christians not ban the Muslims from using that word also?. Islam is supposed to be a religion of love , but bigoted , dogmatic extremist have hijacked the word of Allah for their own selfish political reasons .That is why we must oppose this evil propagated by UMNO , Perkasa and Hassan Ali

Where the mind is without fear…You become fearless when you lose that which you value the most.

The enemy is fear. We think it is hate; but, it is fear.

— Mahatma Gandhi

We are often warned not to push anyone into a corner because that is when they fight their best and most vicious battles. A good hunter will never force a wild animal in a situation from where it perceives no escape; the animal must feel there is still some escape route. Because it is when the animal loses hope of escape, that it will fight at its wildest and cause the worse harm.cornered creature, man or animal, is dangerous, even vicious. For, that is the point at which one loses all fear. You become fearless when you lose that which you value the most. Because, when that happens, the rest doesn’t really seem to matter as much. And, you also realise the futility of having lived in fear of losing something that is now beyond reach.You understand that you could possibly have been able to enjoy the finer intricacies of your object of desire much more if you hadn’t lived in constant fear of losing it. When you lose it, you see the futility of all the anxiety, the heartburn over it. You start looking for and finding ways of living without it. And the human mind and spirit, amazingly resilient as they are, discover reasons and conviction for why you are better off without that which is now lost and that is the point at which you start enjoying the positive aspects of fearlessness. For, when you fear nothing, nobody can manipulate you anymore. You would be your own person and not dependent on anyone for your happiness or peace of mind. Your best bouts of courage are reserved for times when you have nothing to lose.In ancient warfare, commanders would often burn the boats their army arrived in order to obliterate any threat of their soldiers turning tail and escaping. With their only means of retreat cut off, the only way to safety for the soldiers was to fight till victory, or they would be literally fighting till death. That’s how the phrase ‘burning one’s boats’ or ‘burning one’s bridges’ originated

Most manipulations in relationships occur because we hand over the weapon of our fear to be used against us to those we love most. A lover is able to manipulate his beloved’s emotions by threatening withdrawal of love and care. He will sulk, not talk or withdraw caring gestures — all the things that a loved one values. So you give in, bow to the will of the lover, and make compromises, all for fear of losing that which is cherished.related article

On the other hand, if the lover overplays his hand and carries on the withdrawal act beyond a point, the beloved may finally get used to the idea of rejection and taking the loss as a fait accompli, lose all fear in the relationship Fear of losing leaves you impotent not just in relationships but also in everyday situations such as your work life, with friends or relatives and even with strangers. It extends beyond material things to prestige, respect, happiness, peace of mind, etc.At work, how often we let people get away with delivering shoddy work, doing an injustice to someone or cheating us just because we fear losing our peace of mind over an altercation! We allow incompetent people to underperform for fear of creating a situation and so losing our calm.In financial situations, fear of loss makes us lose money! In the ’60s, reportedly a couple who invested big time in a single stock, PepsiCo, saw a major portion of their money vanish as the market took a downslide. This scared them so much that they not just dumped Pepsi, but never bought a single share after that. If they had only overcome that fear of loss, the same portion in PepsiCo w ould have been worth $3 million by now!

For courage is not just required for doing battle, but also for maintaining a sense of calm, for making money, for living a good life — in short for everything. The ‘fight or flight’ syndrome kicks in irrespective of the fact whether the thing we fear losing is physical, mental or a financial threat.Those who can learn the trick of transcending this fear of loss, would find the courage to enjoy that which they love most while they still retain it. Says Jiddu Krishnamurty, “What is needed, rather than running away or controlling or suppressing or any other resistance, is understanding fear; that means, watch it, learn about it, come directly into contact with it. We are to learn about fear, not how to escape from it.”Think of the worst that can possibly happen. Get used to the idea and accept it. From there on, things can only get better… and you can acquire courage even as you retain the object you feared losing, for you fear that no more. You know loss is a possibility and you are moving ahead with that in mindSays Dale Carnegie, “You can conquer almost any fear if you will only make up your mind to do so. For remember, fear doesn’t exist anywhere except in the mind.”

Let justice be done Chan Kheng Hoe THE former chief justice had recently proposed that the civil and syariah systems of legal justice in this country be amalgamated. He specifically proposed that Muslim and non-Muslim judges can both determine cases argued by Muslim and non-Muslim lawyers alike, both in accordance with the common law and syariah principles. This has met with protests by the MCA which considers the proposal to be unacceptable. I think otherwise. The proposal is timely and sensible in view of the make-up of Malaysian society today. We are a society that is being torn apart. On the one hand, a major segment of our society wants to be more Islamic. On the other hand, a vocal minority is concerned about its standing. The MCA contends that to amalgamate the civil and syariah systems would erode the rights of non-Muslims guaranteed under Article 11 of the Federal Constitution. The MCA further contends that such an amalgamated system would lead to non-Muslims being subject to syariah law. The argument clouds the real issue. A person does not go to court because he/she is desirous to submit to the common law system. Nobody wakes up one day and says, let me go to court today because I just feel an affinity with common law. On the contrary, parties go to court primarily to seek justice. In a criminal law system, the state administers justice by punishing wrongdoers. In civil cases, parties who feel wronged seek redress from the court. In other words, the court functions both as an organ of state to govern society and its norms, and as a dispute resolution forum. As such, the court should not be judged on the basis whether it applies common law or syariah principles. Instead, the court should be judged on the basis whether it manages to fulfil its primary function. Has the court been effective as an organ of state to govern societal norms? And has the court been effective as a dispute resolution forum? If the dual system as practised today is intended to create clearly demarcated lines (as the MCA implies), it has clearly fallen short. Jurisdictional lines get blurred in the thick of legal action. Muslim judges find themselves in a dilemma being asked to rule against syariah law, and their own conscience, in the civil courts. Emotions are raised and justice gets lost in the process. With all parties appearing before one single court, which can decide taking into account legal principles held dear by each party (even when they are in conflict), the court would be in a better position to sift through the applicable principles, and deliver the one product expected of the courts – justice. As the system now stands, there are occasions when the court is not delivering justice, but merely decisions. Kheng Hoe wishes the former chief justice a happy retirement. Comment: 

THE MCA DOG START BARKING WITHOUT KNOWING WHAT IS IT BARKING ABOUT MAY HE WAS PROMISED BY HIS BIG BROTHER CONTRACTS HIS BIG BROTHER WHO USED CALL HIM PENDANG BABI SO HE IS BARKING

SO LOUD THE MOST ANTI ISLAMIST PARTY IS THE UNMO’S PARTNERcourt merger would subject non-muslims to syariah laws, says mcaTHE MOST ANTI ISLAMIST PARTY IS THE UNMO’S PARTNER

why are you all doing this to, win election?,you all WILL never respect ISLAM AND ALWAYS USE it when YOUR cards down THE ASSHOLES LIKE YOU SHOULD DO SOME RESEARCH BEFORE U OPEN YOUR MONTH YOU EVER REALISE TO CREATE their attempt to drive a wedge between THE MUSLIMS AND THE NON MUSLIMS.TO GO FOR THEIR BLOODS WORST THEN THE MAY 13 INCIDENT .you AN AGENT OF THE MOSAD WHO HIRED YOU TO CAUSE PROBLEM BETWEEN PKR,DAP AND PAS WE CAN CALL YOUR HOME MINISTER TO KEEP YOU SAVE AND SOUND

is there an urgent need to make necessary changes in Shariah under the Quranic gaze so that it conforms to the moral fervour of the Prophet and the ethical vision of Islam is for we muslim to decide. Shariah is nothing more than a set of principles: framework of values that provide Muslim societies with guidance. But these sets of principles and values are not static , they are dynamically derived within changing contexts. Taliban misadventure in Afghanistan has shown to us how narrow adherence to the text and tradition takes us away from the real world. What we have today is the caricature of Islam being projected as the true face of Islam.this we will decide you dogie, anything we want to do you reject why?

Those who both support and oppose Hudud do not know one bit what Hudud is. Many years ago I wrote a ‘thesis’ on the matter, which was published in Harakah, the official party organ of PAS. No, I am no lawyer. I am not even a religious scholar. I just have a brain; a brain God gave me. And God gave us brains so that we can use it to think. But I wonder why others do not also use their brains that God gave them to think.

No, Hudud is not evil. Hudud is better than what we have now. But it can be worse if we want to make it so. And chances are the evil in man will make it worse. That is what makes the matter dicey.

Nevertheless, the issue is not whether Hudud is better or worse. It is about whether the majority of the people want it as the law of the land. That is what matters. And we do not care what 23 PAS Members of Parliament want. We do not even care what 148 Members of Parliament want, even if they represent two-thirds of Parliament. We care what 75% of 16 million Malaysians want. If 12 million Malaysians shout, “Let’s implement Hudud”, then let that happen. If not, buzz off and get out of my face before I really lose my temper, you political prostitutes.

To hudud or not to hudud? That appears to be the question. Obviously PAS wants to, we all know that. And no worries, non-Muslims won’t be affected, we are assured. Hudud law won’t apply to non-Muslims. And that is what I have understood all along. Until Karpal Singh strolls along with his novel argument.

.WE HAVE THE THE SAME SITUATION IN MALAYSIA BUT WE MUSLIMS ARE MAJORITY

When Muslims in India insist on having a separate Muslim Personal Law for themselves, why don’t they also insist on implementing the Islamic Criminal Law for the Muslims; for example implementing the rule that the robber’s hands should be chopped off if a Muslim robs?
YOU MCA ALWAYS SAY THAT THOSE WHO WANT TO ARM SOUP GO TO KELANTAN HOW KURANG AJAR ARE YOU TO SAY THAT YET THE UMNO MUSLIM LEADER CLAPPED AND ENCOURAGE YOU TO SAY THAT, on the circulation of the “Special Message THE STAR, NST ,UTUSAN

 “Umno also gives precedence to Islam”. IT HAS ENTRUSTED, one GREAT Islamic scholar in Shari’ah,DATUK SERI ONG TEE KEAT to convince the Chinese voterS, it IS mandatory to vote for a party which can avoid their hands from be made soup. This is what the MCA HAS BEEN TELLING.

Answer:

1. Muslim Personal Law

Personal Law is a law concerning an individual person and the persons closely related to him, e.g. laws relating to marriage, divorce, inheritance, etc. It includes laws which are mutually agreed upon by a group of people. This law does not include any crime or an act that will harm the society directly.

2. India is Secular And Democratic

In any country, the Personal Law may differ for different groups of people and for different communities. Since India is a secular and democratic country it allows different groups of people to follow their own personal law if they wish.

3. Islamic Personal Law is the Best

Muslims believe that compared to all the different types of personal laws available in the world, the best and the most result oriented is the Islamic Personal Law. Muslims of India prefer following the Muslim personal law also because of their own belief in Islam.

4. Criminal Law

Criminal law is that law which is associated with a crime or an act which directly affects the society e.g. robbing, raping, murdering, etc.

5. The Criminal Law should be the same for all people

In any country, the criminal law unlike the Personal Law cannot be different for different groups of people. It has to be same for all people of different groups and different religions e.g. In Islam if a person robs, his hands are chopped off. This punishment is not prescribed in Hinduism. If a Hindu robs a Muslim, what would be the robber’s punishment? The Muslim would want the hands of the robber to be chopped, while the Hindu Law would not agree.

6. The Muslims in India alone cannot separately follow the Islamic Criminal Law without involving the Non-Muslims

Even if a Muslim agrees, that as far as he commits a crime he should be given the punishment according to Islamic Criminal Law, it would not be practical. In case an allegation is made against a Muslim for robbery and if the witnesses are Non-Muslims, and if each one follows his own Criminal Law, the punishment in Islam for bearing false witness is 80 lashes, whereas in the Indian Crimial Law, a person giving false witness can easily escape. Thus, for a non-Muslim to falsely accuse a Muslim of any crime is very easy, if both follow their own criminal law. However, if both follow the Indian Law where the punishment is lenient for false witnesses and robbers, it will encourage both the robber to rob as well as encourage the witnesses to give false witness for their own benefit.

7. The Muslims in India would prefer the Islamic Criminal Law to be implemented on all Indians

We Muslims would prefer that in India the Islamic Criminal Law be implemented on all the Indians, since, chopping the hands of a thief will surely reduce the rate of robbery in India. Similarly, 80 lashes for giving false testimony will prevent a person from giving false witness.

8. Islamic Criminal Law is Most Practical

Islam besides pointing out a crime, it also gives you a solution showing how to prevent the crime e.g. chopping the hands of a robber, death penalty for the rapist. The punishment is so severe that it is a deterrent for the criminal to commit the crime. He will think a hundred times before committing a crime.

Thus if crime has to be reduced or stopped in India the best solution is to implement ‘The HUDUD LAW.

Wee described as “an utter lie” the statement made by Anwar following his appearance at the opening ceremony of a new school block at SJK(C) Sin Ming in Puchong on Sunday that he should not threaten the school for inviting PR leaders to attend events.

He said Anwar should not use an education institution as his political arena to gain cheap publicity.

Tribute to educationist Sim Mow Yu

THE passing away of renowned Chinese educationist Datuk Sim Mow Yu on Feb 5 is a big loss for the community and country. His dedication to mother-tongue education is remarkable and his conviction remained steady despite many trials.

This included detention under the Internal Security Act and arrest under the Sedition Act in the 1970s over issues relating to Chinese education.Sim was expelled from the MCA Youth Wing in 1966 for fighting for Chinese education to be one of the official languages in the country.Sim’s astonishing determination to hold steadfast to propagating the importance of Chinese and mother-tongue education was driven by his optimistic outlook.The accomplished calligrapher headed Jiao Zong (United Chinese School Teachers Association) for 28 years and retired from the frontline at the age of 82. His feat was recorded in the Malaysia Book of Records for being the longest-serving school principal. Some 20,000 students received their education under Sim’s guidance.Sim also placed the greatest importance to filial piety.While Sim inspired one generation of people towards the importance of Chinese education, his death has presented us with a challenge of motivating future generations.Many leaders from the ruling elite have called for the closure of vernacular schools and disregarded mother-tongue education. The government is not concerned about new vernacular school policies, inequality of fund allocations to Chinese and Tamil schools and insufficient teachers. More than half of the schools lack infrastructure, trained teachers and resources. Over the last year, the people have become more vocal in demanding their democratic as well as cultural rights. Mother-tongue education has inculcated the seeds of multi-culturism and cultural rights. Such efforts should be continued by both political parties and NGOs.

As we pay tribute to Sim, I urge political parties to stop marginalising vernacular schools but ensure that the status of these schools are on par with national schools. I also hope leading movements including Dong Jiao Zong and Tamil Foundation together with The Federation of Malay Writers Associations (Gapena) find new ways to educate the future generations about the importance of mother-tongue education.