Now, Even Marina Mahathir Is Censored

The Porlumpar Star is owned by the MCA and condescending into a useless piece of paper that is only good for kitties' litters or dogs' shit. How times has changed !!! Suara Tunku Abdul Rahman's, indeed !!!!

http://www.sammyboy.com/showpost.php?p=415146&postcount=14


The Column That Wasn’t
By Marina Mahathir

Folks, I’m posting here what should have been my Musings column tomorrow. The Star has refused to publish it because, after what happened to P. Gunasegaram’s article which was pulled out after the Home Ministry gave them a show-cause letter, they don’t want any ’sensitive’ articles that may jeopardise their KDN permit.

Now I’ve been writing for the Star for about 20 years now, believe it or not, and although it would be much easier and freer to just blog, I maintain my column because of the discipline and because of my many loyal readers who don’t necessarily read anything online. There have been other times when my column has been in danger of being censored (and very occasionally edited to sound gentler and nicer..) but still they came out when they were supposed to.

But this time they were adamant. As it happened, this evening I attended a dinner held by the MCA for NGOs. The MCA, as you may know, owns The Star. It was high irony for me to have so many people, including top MCA officials, tell me that they faithfully read my column when their own paper won’t publish it tomorrow. I was seated next to Dato Sri Ong Tee Keat himself and complained about it but he wasn’t keen to rock the boat, even though every time someone like me is censored, it’s one point gained by the conservatives who, rather than argue things out with proper facts, would simply prefer to shut everyone up.

Of course the problem is the Publishing and Printing Presses Act itself which requires every single publication to apply for a permit every year. And no media which wants to survive can afford to get shut down.

But still there is room for courage, to stand up for freedom of speech. If we capitulate every time, then why bother publishing at all?

Indeed the space for any form of public discussion is narrowing every day, with not only the PPA being used but also police reports against anyone who puts forward the slightest alternative or opposing view. This is what keeps the cops busy these days, instead of catching snatch thieves, robbers, rapists and other real social ills.

Yet online there is room for all points of view and is it really so bad? In this blog, I allow all points of view and what I’ve found is that when you allow it, apart from a few stubborn ones, eventually the humanity of everybody comes through. There is a yearning to understand one another but that can’t be done if there is no space for learning. Nor would you gain that insight into people if you didn’t allow everyone to express themselves.

And as many have pointed out, what is the point of censoring the mainstream media when there is the freewheeling internet? The other point we should make to people like The Star is, what is the point of constantly sucking up to the Government when they can still turn around and bite you? Not everyone has to be Utusan. Self-respect is important too, no?

So anyway, here’s the Column That Wasn’t:

When we want to compete with anyone in any field we seek those who are better than us. And we keep going until finally we are recognized as the best. For example, a tennis player starts at the unranked bottom and tries to play and win against better players until finally there is nobody to beat.

We do not however insist that everybody comes down to our level or to play badly in order for us to win.

This is what puzzles me about the syariah courts in our country. In 1988 a clause was inserted into our Constitution that has been interpreted as having erected a Berlin Wall between the syariah and the civil courts. Basically Article 121(1A) said “the courts referred to in Clause (1) shall have no jurisdiction in respect of any matter within the jurisdiction of the syariah courts.” This has caused untold problems because real life sometimes dictates that some issues cross over both jurisdictions. But leave that aside for a moment.

Although the new clause did not say that the two separate courts were equal to one another, there are some people who are of the view that the syariah court is superior to the civil courts simply because syariah law is deemed of a higher order than civil laws. This is because apparently God made syariah laws while mere human beings made the civil laws. Never mind the fact that human beings have been changing syariah laws over the years, for instance, by loosening laws that protected women from losing all their property to their divorced husbands. Like other laws in this country, syariah laws have to be drafted, tabled and passed through our various lawmaking bodies whether at the State or Federal levels. This process leaves a lot of human fingerprints all over them.

Civil laws are drafted, tabled and passed through Parliament. The difference is that at the tabling stage , they have to be debated before they are passed. The quality of the debate may be sometimes wanting but debated they are. This process provides some sort of ‘quality control’ over the laws so that they are hopefully current, reflect realities and are just.

The same does not hold true of syariah laws. When they get tabled at State Excos, non-Muslims do not participate because there is the notion that they cannot partake in any such debate. That leaves only the Muslim Excos, few of whom are women. This means that if a bill affects women, the opinions of the female minority in the Exco can be ignored. Furthermore, most people are ignorant about their religion and tend to leave these matters to those they believe know best. Thus if the State Mufti or religious adviser says it’s a good law, they are unlikely to challenge him. Thus are religious laws passed unscrutinised.

Until, that is, something happens such as when someone gets convicted of a syariah crime and punishment is meted out. Who knew until recently that people could get caned for drinking, or for having a baby out of wedlock until the recent cases of Kartika and the three women?

Not only are these laws not debated when they are being made but they can’t be debated afterwards either, unlike civil laws. To do so, according to some people, is akin to arguing with God it seems. (There are however some who think that God welcomes such arguments just so that He can prove He is right).

If one believes that syariah laws are superior to civil laws, should they not be held to higher standards? Should they not be subjected to more rigorous debate than civil laws out of fear that they may be unjust? If syariah courts are deemed superior to civil courts, should not their processes be more transparent and efficient? How is it that there are innumerable women having to undergo tremendous suffering because syariah court orders to their divorced husbands to pay child maintenance cannot be enforced?

How is it also that we suddenly hear about women being caned without any information about the processes they went through? Did they have the benefit of legal representation and heard in an open court? If they did, who were their lawyers and what defense did they mount?

Surely the best court of law is one that strives for justice, which shows it is fair to all parties. In this case, on whose behalf was justice served?

I have no problems with syariah laws if their foundation is justice, equality and non-discrimination for all, even non-Muslims. But when their intent, processes and enforcement are unfair, they only give the impression that Islam is unjust and discriminatory. Surely to give such an image of Islam is a sin.
[The column is not in today's Star]


http://blog.limkitsiang.com/2010/03/03/now-even-marina-m-is-being-censored/



Marina said censoring the print media is pointless. 'What is the point of censoring the mainstream media when there is the freewheeling Internet? The other point we should make to people like The Star is, what is the point of constantly sucking up to the government when they can still turn around and bite you?' Marina said.

Revisiting the Spin of Malaysia and Indonesia as ‘Moderate’ Muslim states


By Farish A. Noor



It is now ‘moderate’ season once again when the leaders of the developed Western world are on the lookout for moderate Muslim states and leaders to engage in dialogue with as strategic, economic and political allies and partners.

Needless to say, the leaders and governments of the Muslim world are equally pleased with this open invitation, particularly from the White House, and there are plenty of Muslim leaders and governments that are prepared to bend over backwards to accommodate the demands of the man who is currently residing in the White House too.

On top of that it ought to be noted that the honour of being anointed as a ‘moderate Muslim’ leader is something that most Muslim leaders today would wish for and cherish above all else, cognisant of the fact that such an anointment would be followed by a blanket support of their own domestic policies at home as well as lashings of economic, political and military support to boot.

During the bad old days of the Bush administration, countries like Thailand and Australia were given the dubious honour of being seen as the closest allies of Washington in Asia. Thailand was given the title of being America’s ‘no.1 non-NATO ally in ASEAN’; while Australia (or rather the Howard government) was dubbed America’s sheriff in Asia- a dubious recognition indeed that merely compounded the image that both states were anti-Muslim and anti-Islam.

Now that the keys of the White House have changed hands and a new American President is scheduled to visit Indonesia in the near future, it would appear that the developed countries of the world are once again on the lookout for ‘moderate Muslim leaders’ to court and cajole. Straight off the bat Malaysia and Indonesia come to mind as the two prime candidates for the top slot of ‘most moderate’ Muslim state in Asia. (While the governments of Burma, Thailand, Cambodia, Singapore et al must be cursing their luck for not having enough Muslims to make the rankings…)

But before we jump the gun, let us look at both countries – Malaysia and Indonesia – and ask ourselves if they deserve the coveted title of moderate Muslim state in the first place.

Indonesia, it has to be said, has suffered from bad press thanks to the Bali bombings and how the country was presented in the international media following the attacks of 2002. But it is sad and unfair to see how this country, which has had a long record of strife and violence, has not been given the recognition it deserves for its efforts in the long march to democracy and democratisation.

For a start, when talking about the long history of political violence in Indonesia, one needs to situate such discussion in the proper historical context and identify all the agents and actors involved. While it is true that Indonesia has a long record of political violence, let us not forget that much of that violence was sanctioned if not tacitly approved by the international community as well, who are just as guilty of condoning the rise of political gangsterism in Indonesia in the past.

During the violent and bloody counter-communist putsch in 1965 for instance, it was well known that thousands of suspected Communists of the PKI and their sympathisers were summarily wiped out by right-wing religious elements of the Nahdatul Ulama, with the tacit support (or at least non-interference) of the West.

During the violent annexation of East Timor in 1974-75 it was also the governments of the West that turned a blind eye to the violence there on the grounds that East Timor might have become the new ‘Cuba in ASEAN’ and was thus seen as the ‘red threat’ to countries like Australia and ASEAN.

Yet despite three decades of violent and arbitrary dictatorship under Suharto and his generals, Indonesia has developed to become one of the few truly democratic countries in ASEAN today with a press that is freer than most of its neighbours. We should also remember that so many of the reformasi leaders who brought down the government of Suharto and his army were also former student activists who were themselves Islamlist activists and intellectuals, contrary to the stereotypical image of Islam as a religion that works hand in glove with totalitarian forms of governance.

Today Indonesia’s Islamic universities – including the ones I am proud to be associated with – are at the forefront of modern Islamic education and are producing the first Muslim scholars who have developed a rational, objective and critical understanding of religion per se. Yet almost none of these developments feature in the international media that continues instead to harp on the idea of Indonesia being the hotbed of radical Islamist terrorism.

Conversely next door in Malaysia we see a totally different framing of Islam altogether. Malaysia has been seen and cast as a moderate Muslim state and a model state for others to follow, notably by the international media whose own exposure to the living social realities of Malaysia may stop at the poolside of the 5-star hotels in Kuala Lumpur.

Yet a quick survey of the country will give a very different picture of the state of normative Muslim praxis in Malaysia today: This is still the country where book banning is rife and where we have seen embarrassing contradictions such as the banning of the works of Karen Armstrong while the author herself was invited to speak at Islamic conferences in the capital. This is a country with a morality police that has become a law unto themselves; where feminist Muslim organisations like Sisters in Islam are constantly persecuted and demonised and where the space for Muslim thought, expression and social life has been shrinking since the 1970s.

Yet despite these contradictions, Malaysia is cast in a more positive light compared to Indonesia, when it is obvious to anyone who is familiar with the normative Muslim politics of both countries that the normative space for Muslims in Indonesia is infinitely much bigger.

And in terms of the discursive as well as normative-cultural frontiers to Muslim life and praxis in both countries, it is equally clear that the space of Muslim life is still bigger in Indonesia compared to Malaysia. So what gives, and why is Indonesia constantly placed in the dock?

One can only conclude that the negative image of Indonesia has more to do with the selective memory of the Western media that cannot look beyond the historical fact of the Bali bombing to recognise the realities of Indonesia today.

By appropriating Bali as a ‘tragedy for the West’ and positing it as an attack on Australians and other Westerners, the international media as well as the governments of the developed world have not only robbed the Indonesians of their right to grieve for their pain, but have also appropriated Indonesia’s identity and history in the process.

By doing do, they are in peril of overlooking the recent developments in the country that has probably gone through the most expansive and deep democratic revolution ASEAN has seen in ages, and have denied themselves the possibility of working with a truly moderate and democratic ally. That is Indonesia’s loss as well, but the bigger loss will be borne by the governments of the Western world.

Marina, marina, the PPA have been around since your papa time ?

Last time your papa PM, everyone angkat you.
Now your papa not PM, Home Ministry one call of course the Star shitted in their pants !

So, pls stop feeling aggrieved.

Your papa has a hand in the present sorry state of affairs.

elephanto said:

Marina, marina, the PPA have been around since your papa time ?

Last time your papa PM, everyone angkat you.
Now your papa not PM, Home Ministry one call of course the Star shitted in their pants !

So, pls stop feeling aggrieved.

Your papa has a hand in the present sorry state of affairs.

Click to expand...

Her papa was the ringmaster of Malaysian Circus Inc. But she grew up with a few tricks and a mind of her own. That is an admirable trait found in none of her brothers.

But we still have to give kudos to her for being didactic and tenacious in her part of the struggle, especially for womenfolks.

Because of people like her, Malaysians tend to be more accomodating and tolerating of each others' idiosyncrasies

kensington said:

That is an admirable trait found in none of her brothers.

But we still have to give kudos to her

Click to expand...

Fully agree. Always love to see her brave un-tudung hairdo.

That's why we have honoured her by naming our prized horse after her .... marina bay.

elephanto said:

Fully agree. Always love to see her brave un-tudung hairdo.

That's why we have honoured her by naming our prized horse after her .... marina bay.

Click to expand...

She is a prized mare alright. Refused to be blinkered. She bites too... Yee-haw