15 April 2010

================================
IMPORTANT MESSAGE FOR ALL
The articles are captured from the original writer, MsMarina (with her permission). SambalBelacan is just compiling articles to make easier to find. Any comments received will remain un-respond because it's not mine.Reach her at her very own blog at http://rantingsbymm.blogspot.com/ Please.
==================================
Wednesday April 14, 2010
Stretching social mores
MUSINGS By MARINA MAHATHIR


It is time we re-looked at laws governing social behaviour that, instead of protecting people’s dignity, expose them to shame and humiliation.

HOW do we know if social mores are deteriorating? Is it when more people are arrested for doing wrong in public? Is it because people are keener to report their neighbours? Or is it because the definitions of social wrongs are expanded?

I wonder about this because of two recent cases. In one, 39 young people were charged with khalwat for all being together in one room.

Previously, khalwat was the charge put on two unmarried people in close proximity. Now, it seems a whole roomful of people can be charged for the same thing.

It makes you wonder if this might mean that people in a classroom or lecture hall can be charged for the same offence. Would this be a lead-up to having single-sex classrooms?

What is even more disturbing is that none of the young people charged had any legal representation when they had to face the syariah judge.

Does this not compromise their rights? Or do we presume that young people in a room together should have no rights at all.

Then last weekend in another case, the Federal Territory religious department not only saw fit to burst into an apartment in the early hours of the morning but its officers also ransacked the place and broke doors while shouting at some girls living there.

They didn’t even identify themselves as religious officials and when asked could not be specific about what the alleged crime was.

In both cases, the religious authorities claimed to have acted on a complaint but neither the complainant nor the nature of the complaint was made known.

What sort of society are we turning into?

We are the only Muslim country in the world that has laws that allow invasion of privacy.

Neighbours or others are allowed to call the authorities on suspicion of activities that they cannot possibly ascertain or verify and who remain free to besmirch others’ reputation for no apparent reason.

Are we turning into a society of sneaks and snoops? More importantly, is a society of sneaks and snoops Islamic?

In the Quran, God admonishes: “O you who believe! Do not enter houses other than your own houses until you have asked permission and saluted their inmates; this is better for you that you may be mindful” (Surah 24:27).

A hadith states: “Beware of suspicion. For suspicion is the most untrue form of speech; and do not spy upon one another and do not revile one another” (Sahih Muslim, Kitab al birr wal silah, Bab al nahy an al tajasus).

Where does breaking down doors and destroying property come into it?

Not only does the Quran emphasise respect for privacy, it admonishes against making false accusations.

“And those who launch a charge against chaste women, and produce not four witnesses (to support their allegations), flog them with eighty stripes; and reject their evidence ever after: for such men are wicked transgressors” (Surah 24:4).

And yet we are keener to flog the supposed accused rather than the accusers.

Indeed, there is a story of the Caliph Umar who, while patrolling Medina one night, saw a man and a woman committing adultery.

The following day the caliph informed other companions and asked them whether he should enforce the prescribed penalty (hadd) for zina (fornication) on the basis of his own observations.

To this, Ali replied that the law of Allah stated clearly that four witnesses were required to prove zina, and that this provision was to be applied equally to the caliph.

Other companions are also reported to have concurred with Ali’s opinion (quoted by Al Ghazali, Ihyaa Ulum al Din; Kitab Adab al Suhbah p.369).

While quoting this report, Al Ghazali observes that this is strong evidence that the shariah demands the concealment of sins (satr al fawahish); it also discourages spying on or reporting the private affairs of others [Kitab al Adab p.345-6].

So we have to ask whether we have strayed far from what our religion says, in that instead of protecting people’s dignity, we are instead keener to expose them to shame and humiliation.

It is time we re-looked at our enthusiasm for these laws, as they clearly have no basis in religion nor in any sense of fairness.

What’s more, their implementation will always be discriminatory.

It is no coincidence that the people caught in these recent cases are invariably young and living in apartments affordable to students or those who just started work.

This makes them more vulnerable to such allegations than those who are able to afford apartments with better security. Is this justice?

Let us not forget that it is up to the accusers to provide proof of guilt, not the accused to prove their innocence. Otherwise, they should be sued for defamation.

01 April 2010

================================
IMPORTANT MESSAGE FOR ALL
The articles are captured from the original writer, MsMarina (with her permission). SambalBelacan is just compiling articles to make easier to find. Any comments received will remain un-respond because it's not mine.Reach her at her very own blog at http://rantingsbymm.blogspot.com/ Please.
==================================
Wednesday March 31, 2010
Neither here nor there stand
Musings
By MARINA MAHATHIR


The problem with Malaysia is that on the one hand we want to be part of the community of nations; on the other, we are notorious for ‘particularism’, that is, insisting that somehow we are different from everyone else.

THIS may sound unbelievable to some people but when I was in primary school, I distinctly remember my class teacher discussing the “colour bar” with us. Today that might mean a place where we get our nails painted but at the time it referred to only one thing, racial discrimination.

In the 60s when we discussed this, the two main issues that appalled any right-minded person were apartheid in South Africa and the discrimination against blacks in the US that necessitated the civil rights movement.

Today it seems incredible that anyone should be barred from entering a restaurant or school or made to sit at the back of a bus just because of their skin colour but that was the reality in South Africa and in southern US for those who had black skin.


Holding back: Malaysia ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child in 1995 but maintained many reservations. – Reuters

Eventually the civil rights movement in the US succeeded in winning rights for its black minority, despite some high costs such as the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr.

What could never have been dreamed of then, a black President, is now a reality. And in South Africa, apartheid was overthrown and the disenfranchisement of the black population ended.

It was in that atmosphere that the UN Declaration for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) was established in 1963 and the Convention passed in 1966. (It might be interesting also to note that people thought racial equality was more important than gender equality; the UN Convention for the Elimination for All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) was not passed by the General Assembly until 1979.) Today 173 out of 195 countries have ratified the CERD.

The 16 countries that have not ratified the CERD are Angola, Brunei, Cook Islands, North Korea, Dominica, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Myanmar, Niue, Palau Samoa, Singapore, Tuvalu, Vanuatu and Malaysia.

Most of those are very small island nations that, apart from Singapore, simply cannot afford all the necessary processes to ratify and implement the Convention. That leaves us in the company of Angola, Brunei, North Korea and Myanmar.

I know we like exclusivity but this may not be the sort of club we want to belong to.

I recently sat in a roundtable to discuss the CERD and how and when Malaysia might sign it. Most of those participating were of the opinion that we should join the rest of the world and ratify it.

The exception was one government official who asked with twisted logic why the hurry since Singapore had not, and besides we don’t have any racial discrimination in Malaysia. Everyone else then pointed out that in that case, we should have no problem signing the convention. The problem with us is that on the one hand we want to be part of the community of nations; on the other, we resent anything that actually fosters community with the rest of the world.

Thus we sign onto the UN Charter and then ignore many of our obligations except when it suits us. For instance, some of us may turn our nose up at the UN Declaration of Human Rights but it does happen to be one of the key documents of the UN. When we join a club, we should follow the rules.

We are also half-baked when it comes to conventions that we do ratify. In 1995 we ratified CEDAW but put reservations on many clauses in it, mostly on the basis of religion. This despite the fact that large Muslim countries like Indonesia ratified CEDAW without a single reservation. Malaysian Islam must be different from other people’s Islam.

Similarly, Malaysia ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child in 1995 but has still maintained many reservations. These include reservations on Article 1 of the Convention that defines a child as anyone under the age of 18 and Article 2 which says that the convention applies to “everyone whatever their race, religion, abilities, whatever they think or say, whatever type of family they come from” and Article 7 which says that “All children have the right to a legally registered name, and nationality”.

This might explain why we are wishy-washy when it comes to child marriages and obstinate about not allowing the most basic rights to refugee children.

The point I’m trying to make is that all nations in the world are held up to certain standards and these naturally have to be universal. It makes no sense for each country to insist on living up to only their own standards since these are rarely high.

Malaysia is notorious for “particularism”, that is, insisting that somehow we are different from everyone else. In that case, we should not join the community of nations but instead take our cues from an isolationist state like North Korea. And see where that gets us.