I Am The Islamoholic

The word “idiot” now has a new name, and its the DAP (Devils After Power) MP for Kepong, “Dr.” Tan Seng Giaw (its an insult to call him a “Dr.”, that is why it is in quotes).

This is in reference to his imbecile, insensitive and bigoted statement concerning the adzan which is clearly a direct interference into the affairs of another religion. This statement, quoted in a Malay tabloid, was attributed to him and goes as:

I request that the mosque management should not be airing the adzan (Muslim call to prayer) too loudly as it will disturb children and those who work in shifts (from) sleeping.

And he said that in Parliament too, no less. Is this guy willfully ignorant of how the legislative works or does he not know that local matters are under the direct jurisdiction of the majlis perbandaran (local council)? Who were the idiots who elected him as a Member of Parliament anyway?

Now, imagine if The Islamoholic were to come up with similar “initiatives” as started by this imbecile which goes as follows:

I would like to request that the Hindus do not bash up their coconuts along the streets or carry their kavadi shouting “Vel! Vel!” during Thaipusam as this contributes to massive traffic jams and raises the index of noise pollution in the country.

Or:

I would like to request that the Chinese community do not light up their firecrackers during Chinese New Year or throw oranges into the sea during Chap Goh Meh as this undermines public peace and contributes to excessive wastage of fruits.

Or:

I would like to request that there should be no Christmas carols or any imagery of the Christian god to be shown during Christmas, as I personally detest Christians.

I wish I could see the reaction to these statements if they were to be uttered in Parliament. Theoretically-speaking, lah.

Taken from Malaysia Today. Authored by Biggum Dogmannsteinberg. Edited by The Islamoholic.

The Democratic Action Party (DAP) was a spawn from Lee Kuan Yew’s PAP. When Singapore was admitted into the Federation of Malaysia, it was so clear Lee Kuan Yew was ambitious and wanted to gain control of the Federation. The PAP messed into mainstream Malaysian politics. They broke the gentlemen’s agreement between him and Tunku Abdul Rahman Putra, First Prime Minister of Malaysia of PAP’s non interference into mainstream Malaysian politics. PAP however fielded 11 candidates in the 1964 General Elections.

When Singapore was expelled from the Federation in August 1965, the reminiscence of PAP were purposely left remained, personalities like Devan Nair (later became Singapore’s President) was to be a thorn against Tunku Abdul Rahman Putra’s administration. PAP connivingly activated its “political mines”, under the guise of Democratic Action Party (DAP). They had the same slogan, “Malaysian, Malaysia” as their PAP masters, earlier.

Although DAP professes multiracial socialist politics as their theme, in reality there is nothing multiracial about their approach. The mainstay of DAP leadership had always been Chinese and so far, they have had no policy as a “Malaysian multiracial party”. For example, DAP do not have a policy how to deal with the under development state of the Malays, being the 60% of the population. No mention about how many Malays still require affirmative action on education, to alleviate their socio-economic woes. Instead, DAP have been seen as championing Chinese chauvinistic agenda like the vernacular school system, which many felt is the root of the digression in any national integration agenda.

So how would it be possible for DAP to call itself “multiracial and the champion of socialism” if they have no specific agenda or plan to address the needs of the Malays, being 60% of the population? On top that, DAP has constantly tried to challenge the “Special Malay Rights” enshrined under Article 153 of the Federal Constitution. DAP systematically tried to “rudely” defy a social contract agreed by all parties during the negotiations of independence.

Many good DAP leaders fizzled out and faded away, even before they could complete their service to the rakyat. Why DAP stalwarts like Lee Lam Thye, Dr Kua Kia Soong, Kerk Kim Hock, Hu Sepang, Wee Choo Keong, Lee Ban Chien, Ronnie Liu, S K Soong, Teoh Teik Huat, Thing Chiek Ming, Lim Fui Ming, Fan Teng Yew and Fung Ket Wing no longer in the mainstream menu of the party?

Why is it back to the Father, the Son and the Daughter-in-law, over and over again? It only shows that DAP has always been an avenue for this family to remain in power indefinitely. Some might even say, it’s a revenue model for the family. Lim Kit Siang, who have been in direct control and power of the DAP since 1969 as the Secretary General, has been the Opposition Leader for almost 30 years (with the exception of 1999-2004, where Hj. Hadi Awang, PAS president assumed the position).

Notably, Lim Kit Siang does not attack or take swipes againt the Prime Minister and his family. It is so apparent. These are the abusive, opulence and excesses that so many talked about. So why is it that these people (Lim and family) never attack nor criticize the PM, the Son and the Son-In-Law? Is it because they want to be like the PAP Dynasty, Lee Kuan Yew, Lee Hsien Loong and Lee Hsien Yang and something Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, Kamaluddin Abdullah and Khairy Jamaluddin is trying to emulate?

DAP go around lambasting BN being a corrupt Government lead by corrupt leaders. Lets see how the DAP leaders themselves fare. Ask where did the monies collected for the “Free Lim Guan Eng” campaign went to? Why was it Lim Kit Siang instructed the monies collected be banked into Lim Guan Eng’s personal account and not the party’s, even though monies were on raised on DAP platform? No separation between Lim Kit Siang & Son Dynasty Esq. and party? Isn’t that corruption?

In reality, DAP is actually nothing more than an ultra long 40 years straight running Chinese opera called “Father, Son and the Daughter-in-law only!” and its getting very stale. Constantly, Lim Kit Siang ‘begged’ the support of the Chinese, every time DAP face General Elections. Since 1986, too many ‘Tanjong’ projects launched (to wrestle Pulau Pinang from BN) and yet no results. Just to illustrate the tyranny of Lim Kit Siang, throughout the campaign for the ‘Tanjong III’ project during the 10th General Elections of April 1995, he potrayed himself as the “Robocop”! Its seems there are no measurement of deliverables to the empty promises and failed attempts of the DAP under Lim Kit Siang & Son Dynasty Esq.

PRESS STATEMENT: MUSLIM YOUTH MOVEMENT OF MALAYSIA (ABIM)
13 APRIL 2007, 25 RABIULAWAL 1428H

ABIM views with grave concern the call made by the Opposition Leader Mr. Lim Kit Siang at the Parliament on Tuesday urging the government to set up an Interfaith Council. Although the majority of Muslims objected to the earlier proposal to form an Interfaith Commission, a fact that is well known to Mr. Lim himself, he argued that sensitive inter-religious issues will be resolved with the formation of such a council. His view on this matter implies that the IFC is the only means to promote inter-faith dialogue and that the Muslims’ objection to its formation lacks valid justification

Our objection to the formation of such a body, as well as the reasons why we objected, was well documented. However, constant calls made by the non-Muslim politicians and religious leaders for the formation of such a body on the ground that it will promote inter-religious harmony through dialogue and protect the constitutional rights of the non-Muslims only serve to cast Muslim organizations opposing to such a move in bad light. We therefore reiterate our objections on the following grounds:

• IFC is not a mechanism for Interfaith Dialogue. It is meant to be an institution that promotes a one sided view about religious freedom, which its proponents claimed to be based on “prescribed international norms”, without rooms for disagreements.
• IFC started on a wrong footing. Our representatives who sat on the multi-faith committee which was set up to discuss the formation of an inter-religious council in early 2001 was appalled by the incessant calls by the proponents of the IFC, most of them were members of the Human Rights Committee of the Bar Council, for a review of the constitutional provisions which restrain a Muslim from converting to other religions. Being insensitive to the reservations from the representatives of Muslim organizations, they presented cases on the application for apostasy, which they lost, and urged others to support their call. This confirmed our view that they were not there to hold dialogues but to promote and impose upon others their own view about freedom of religion, especially the right of a Muslim to apostatize.
• IFC is set to interfere with matters internal to one’s religion. It is a seemingly “inter-faith” body with a strong urge to criticize, condemn and make unsolicited recommendations on intra-faith issues beyond juristic competence of its members. This is glaringly evident by the actions of its proponents, including the non-Muslims, who continuously condemned basic tenets of Islam for which they have no competence to do so. Allowing such condemnation to take root in an “inter-faith” body will only do more harm than good in our efforts to promote religious harmony.
• There had been deliberate attempts by the proponents of the IFC to selectively put forth constitutional provisions which seem to be supportive of their view about the unbridled freedom of religion and discard others which are not in their favor in order to substantiate their arguments. And yet, they claimed to uphold the Federal Constitution. In the National Conference Toward the Formation of the Interfaith Commission of Malaysia organized by the Bar Council and a host of other organizations in February 2005, there were heated arguments on why Article 11(4) of the Federal Constitution, which limits the propagation of religious beliefs among those professing the religion of Islam, was not mentioned at all in the draft Bill for the proposed Commission. Despite legitimate claims that the organizers should take Article 11(4) into consideration in drafting the Bill, the general atmosphere of the debate during the conference had been o condemn the Clause 4 of Article 11 for restraining one’s right to unbridled freedom of religion. Although the constitutionality of the draft Bill was seriously questioned, it was finally adopted by the Conference. Now we ask, which Constitution that the proponents of the IFC, including Mr. Lim Kit Siang, are adamant to uphold? To us, this is just an example of “selective constitutionalism” adopted by the proponents of the IFC as a strategy to promote sectional interests.

We call on Mr. Lim Kit Siang to stop making assertion that the IFC is the only mechanism for interfaith dialogue and hold others at ransom to accept such assertion. We also call on the Opposition Leader to take into consideration the views of the majority of the Muslims who are against such a proposal when making statements on the IFC and other related issues. We really want to see that Mr. Lim and his Democratic Action Party truly promote the interests of all Malaysians regardless of race and religion. Reading Mr. Lim’s statement in the Parliament on Tuesday, as well as that of his other colleagues participating in the parliamentary debate on that day, we could not but conclude that the Opposition Leader and his party had not made much progress in this regard.

We believe that meaningful interfaith dialogue could only be held when all parties to the dialogue have sincere intention to promote understanding and harmony among different religious communities. It should not be an avenue for imposition of one’s view over the others or an opportunity to demonize other religions.

KHAIRUL ARIFIN MOHD MUNIR
Secretary General
Muslim Youth Movement of Malaysia (ABIM)