Masyarakat Madani

Two of these Umno Bloggers, Aspan Alias and Mohd Ariff Sabri Aziz, have now joined DAP. So you no longer call them ‘dogs’ and pigs’. You call them ‘towering Malays’ and ‘patriot Malaysians’. If they one day leave DAP to rejoin Umno, you will again call them ‘dogs’ and ‘pigs’ and no longer refer to them as ‘towering Malays’ or ‘patriot Malaysians’.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

YM RPK,

The word sword reminds me of what you like to quote always i.e.: Live by the sword, die by the sword, live by your word, die by your word...may I put that also?

Your recent article which many seen to be siding Tunku Aziz was ill written indeed. Well, Tunku Aziz proves to be no real English gentlemen, not even near...How on earth can he advised us to support a corrupted regime leader?

What say you, sir?  Just love to hear from you.

But no offence, this time you were 500 percent wrong. This is not about PR or PR supporters their reluctance about agreeing to disagreeing...This is how unlucky that we, the Rakyat being cheated by Tunku Aziz an your wrong analysis about Tunku Aziz.

Petra is rock, but no ordinary rock...it is a rock island? How can rock island sinks so easily...Please enlighten on this subject matter about Tunku Aziz and how could you go so wrong? - JC

************************************************

That was the comment that ‘JC’ posted in my article ‘The IGP must fall on his sword’. Since ‘JC’ did not scold me, curse me, vilify me, or call me names, I am obliging him or her with a response and not only a response in the comments section but in the form of an article.

‘JC’ said, ‘Your recent article’. I do not know which article 'JC' meant but I suspect it must be the one entitled‘Dear Tunku Abdul Aziz Tunku Ibrahim’. ‘JC’ also said, “which many seen to be siding Tunku Aziz” and “was ill written indeed”.

I shall address all those points plus the other points in that comment by ‘JC’.

First of all, I thank ‘JC” for his or her comments and would like to state that I sincerely welcome opposite views to mine. What I do not welcome are curses. ‘JC’ did not swear and curse at me. Hence, I not only allowed the comment but am replying to it as well.

Furthermore, when I wake up in the morning, the first thing that comes to my mind is: what am I going to write about today? That is always a problem because I doubt there is any subject matter that I have not written about yet, so much so many are upset that I talk about ‘the same old thing’. Hence, when people like ‘JC’ post comments in Malaysia Today, this gives me a good excuse to reply to it, which means now I have something to write about.

So please do contradict me and ask me to respond. But don’t post comments demanding that I reply. I seldom respond to demands. Being the stubborn arse that I am, the more you demand the more I would ignore you. The manner in which ‘JC’ has ‘requested’ my response works for me. I hope it works for you as well.

I would like to start by stating that I am a bit disappointed by Tunku Abdul Aziz Tunku Ibrahim’s endorsement of Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak. That I do not deny. However, I would still not scold him or curse him or call him names in spite of that. He has made a choice and I respect his choice, the same way I would expect others to respect my choices. If I do not respect the choices of others how can I expect others to respect my choices?

The bottom line is, I would treat people the same way that I expect others to treat me.

If we cannot respect the choices of others when it comes to politics, how can we do the same about more important things like religion, which is an even more ‘potent’ issue? Some of you choose to be Christians. Some are Hindus. Others are Muslims. And so on. That is your choice. But do I scold you, curse you, vilify you and call you names just because you have chosen differently from me?

Is it decent of me to call Christians ‘stupid’ because I believe that Jesus did not die on the cross as Christians wrongly believe and because I believe that the Bible did not come from God like how the Qur’an did since the Bible was not written by Jesus but by unknown people more than a hundred years after Jesus died?

The fact that I am not a Christian means I do not believe in Christianity. If I did I would have converted to Christianity by now. However, while I do not believe in Christianity and I think that the Christian doctrine is wrong, I do not call you ‘stupid’ or scold, curse and vilify you.

The title of this article is ‘Masyarakat Madani’. This was a phrase made popular by Opposition Leader Anwar Ibrahim. In English that means ‘Civil Society’. PAS, in fact, in a way, also propagates this when they recently said that Malaysia’s Constitution should be amended from ‘Islam as the religion of the Federation’ to ‘Islam as theadeen of the Federation’. ‘Adeen’ means ‘way of life’.

So, we are talking about way of life here, the Islamic way of life as far as PAS is concerned, while Anwar furthers the cause of a civil society.

Well, good for PAS and good for Anwar. But what do all these mean? And are we just shouting slogans to impress the voters or are we sincere about what we are saying? That is the test of the pudding, as President Bush would say.

Islam forbids Muslims from insulting other religions. There is no dispute about this. All the scholars would confirm that this is what Islam says (although there are some who violate this ‘rule’, as they violate many other rules as well). And why does Islam forbid Muslims from insulting other religions? Well, mainly because Islam does not want anyone insulting Islam. And if you were to insult other religions then you are inviting people from the other religions to retaliate by insulting Islam.

Qura'an [6:108] “And (O Believers), do not revile those whom they invoke besides God lest they should, in their ignorance, revile God.”

Hence, to avoid others from insulting Islam, Islam forbids Muslims from insulting other religions. Basically, insults beget insults. So don’t insult others and others will not insult you. In short, be civil to others and others will be civil to you. That is the adeen of Islam and what Anwar’s Masyarakat Madani is all about. But I suppose the Chinese from DAP do not have adeen. In that case I can't expect these people to be civil, which does not say much for Chinese culture I suppose.

‘JC’ said, “which many seen to be siding Tunku Aziz”. However, ‘JC’ did not mention which part of that article he spoke about is ‘siding with Tunku Aziz’.

What I said was this:

“Anyway, what I wanted to say is: knowing my father, and hence knowing you as well -- unless I am wrong in my assessment -- it may be prudent that you gracefully resign from DAP. Since what you stand for is not quite what DAP also stands for, your graceful exit on the understanding that you have agreed to disagree would mean you can still remain friends although you may not quite share the same views.”

Is that ‘siding with Tunku Aziz’? How has ‘JC’ interpreted that as ‘siding with Tunku Aziz’?

I also said:

“The trouble with you, Tunku, is that you think like an Englishman. Hence, if it is not cricket, as they say in England, you will speak your mind. But in politics you can’t do that. You need to toe the party line. You have to do what is good for the party. And if you can’t do this then you have no business being in the party.”

Is that ‘siding with Tunku Aziz’?

‘JC’ also said:

“…this time you were 500 percent wrong” and “your recent article was ill written indeed”.

‘JC’ did not, however, mention which part of the article is 500% wrong. Maybe he or she should be more specific and point this out.

I said in that article, “My father was so proud that he voted Gerakan he would tell the whole world that he did so, much to my mother’s horror who would tell him to shush. He had high hopes that the days of racial politics had come to an end and that the future lies with multi-racial parties like Gerakan, which was headed by a whole bunch of intellectuals.”

Is this the part that is wrong? How do you know it is wrong? Did you know my father? Did you meet him in 1969, before he died? So how do you know I am wrong? Hence you have to be specific and tell me which part of my article is wrong.

On the part that ‘JC’ said, “your recent article was ill written indeed”, again, in what way was it ill written? Did I make too many spelling mistakes? Was my grammar atrocious and appalling? Did I use too many four-letter words in my article? Was I mocking Tunku Aziz and making fun of the way that his father died? In what way was my article ‘ill written’? ‘Ill written’ may be an opinion but there must also be a basis on how one arrived at this opinion. Hence ‘JC’ needs to point out which part of my article makes it ‘ill written’.

Okay, allow me to return to the subject of ‘Masyarakat Madani’ or ‘Civil Society’. And I would like to address that subject as follows:

One day I am returning late from a meeting and am driving along a pretty deserted road when I see a motorbike lying on its side and the rider sprawled across the road. I stop and get down and rush over to the chap lying unconscious on the ground.

He appears to be a victim of a hit-and-run. He is bleeding from the head but still alive. I ponder whether I should carry him to my car and rush him to hospital or call for an ambulance and give him first aid while we wait for the ambulance to arrive.

I then notice that he is wearing an Umno T-shirt. I stand up and spit at him and drive off. He is the enemy. Let him die for all I care. I am not going to assist the enemy.

Is that what we do in a ‘Masyarakat Madani’ or ‘Civil Society’?

The next day I am standing in a long queue. I have been standing in that queue for about two hours now and am only two people away from the counter.

In walks an old Chinese lady hobbling along with a walking stick. She must be at least 80 years old or more. She comes to the front of the queue. She looks at the counter and turns to look at the back of the queue. I also turn to look. The queue is now twice as long as it was two hours ago.

Why make her go to the back of the queue where she may have to stand for another three or four hours? I am just about to tell this old lady to get in front of me when I notice the MCA booklet in her hand.

“Are you a member of MCA?” I asked. “Yes, I am a life member,” she proudly tells me.

“Pukimak! Cina babi! Go to the back of the queue!” I shout at her. “I have been standing here for two hours. Why should I allow you to cut in? Everyone has been waiting here for hours so you do the same. Cina MCA bodoh!”

Is that what we do in a ‘Masyarakat Madani’ or ‘Civil Society’? But then the hit-and-run victim is an Umno member so why should I not leave him to die? The 80-year old lady with a walking stick is proud to be a life member of MCA so why should I not make her suffer? It is only fair that I treat the ‘enemy’ in that manner.

Okay, so I may talk about ‘Masyarakat Madani’ or ‘Civil Society’. That would be only how I treat my friends, those who share my political beliefs. I do not need to be civil or decent to those who do not share my political beliefs.

Anyway, if I help that Umno chap who is bleeding to death from a head injury or allow that old lady to cut in, people would say I am supporting Barisan Nasional. To prove that I am an opposition supporter I need to be nasty towards the ‘enemy’. Only then can I prove my loyalty to the opposition.

Are you going to say that my two stories above are too extreme? Sure, we declare war on Barisan Nasional people, but not to the extent of abandoning a hit-and-run victim or not showing compassion to an 80-year old lady hobbling on a walking stick.

And why not? Where do we draw the line? When is it okay to be considerate and civil and when is it not okay? The enemy is the enemy. There should be no exceptions to the rule. In fact, I not only hope that the Umno chap dies from his head wound but I also hope that the old lady gets a heart attack and dies standing in the queue. Malaysia is better off with two less Barisan Nasional supporters.

There are no exceptions to the rule. Either we are civil or we are uncivil. And the word ‘uncivilised’ comes from the word ‘uncivil’. So what ‘Masyarakat Madani’ or ‘Civil Society’ are we talking about? Does it exist only when we deal with our friends? Does this not apply to our perceived enemies?

You may think it is okay to curse the enemy and call them all sort of foul names. I have many friends in Umno and Barisan Nasional. Some of these Umno friends are Bloggers. But I do not call them ‘dogs’ or ‘pigs’ like you do. I am still in touch with them and treat them in a civil manner.

Two of these Umno Bloggers, Aspan Alias and Mohd Ariff Sabri Aziz, have now joined DAP. So you no longer call them ‘dogs’ and pigs’. You call them ‘towering Malays’ and ‘patriot Malaysians’. If they one day leave DAP to rejoin Umno, you will again call them ‘dogs’ and ‘pigs’ and no longer refer to them as ‘towering Malays’ or ‘patriot Malaysians’.

I, on the other hand, do not call them ‘dogs’ and ‘pigs’ whether they are still in Umno or they join DAP. What happens now if I had also called them ‘dogs’ and ‘pigs’ like you do when they were in Umno? And now they have joined DAP. What am I going to say to them: ‘I am glad you are no longer dogs and pigs’?

Most people would regard religion as above politics. If I can curse you and call you a ‘dog’ and a ‘pig’ just because we disagree politically, then there is no reason I cannot also call all non-Muslims ‘dogs’ and ‘pigs’. Why is it right for politics and not for religion? Religion is more important and hence being more important it is also more important that I curse you and call you alls sorts of foul names if you do not share my religious beliefs -- like they used to do in the old days when it was also right to kill ‘infidels’. And what is the difference whether you are a religious infidel or a political infidel? An infidel is an infidel whichever way you look at it.

So, I do not curse you and vilify you if you do not share my political ideology just like I do not do so if you do not share my religious ideology. The Qur’an says: do not take the Jews, Christians and those of other religions as your friends as they are the enemy. And since you are the enemy I have every right to curse you if you are a Christian or whatever.

But I do not, even though some of you do. And I do not because I believe in a civil society, which apparently some of you do not.

Qur'an. [5:52] O ye who believe! take not the Jews and the Christians for friends. They are friends one to another. And whoso among you takes them for friends is indeed one of them. Verily, Allah guides not the unjust people.