And what are YOUR principles?
My stand is very clear. I believe in fundamental rights — which means every Malaysian has freedom of choice, freedom of opinion, freedom of association, freedom of thought, and so on. Do you also believe in the same thing? And do you also agree that whichever government comes come to power — whether Barisan Nasional or Pakatan Rakyat — this government must respect our fundamental rights?
THE CORRIDORS OF POWER
Raja Petra Kamarudin
Okay, now that we have established what my principles are, let us now establish what are yours — that is, in the first place, if you have any.
Let us not talk about corruption because clearly my interpretation of corruption differs from yours. You oppose corruption in Umno and Barisan Nasional. I oppose corruption, PERIOD!
So let us agree to disagree on the issue of corruption, abuse of power, mismanagement of the country’s wealth, nepotism, cronyism, etc.
For example, when Umno and Barisan Nasional are in power, the Umno and Barisan Nasional crony-lawyers get the legal work from the government. When Pakatan Rakyat is in power, the Pakatan Rakyat crony-lawyers get all the legal work instead.
And when I point this out you argue that there is nothing wrong with that. It is quite ‘normal’ and acceptable, you say. Surely Pakatan Rakyat will not give the legal work to the Umno and Barisan Nasional crony-lawyers. It is natural that they will give the work to their own people. The fact that some of these lawyers also happen to be in the government is only coincidental. That is not corruption, abuse of power, nepotism or cronyism.
So, with that as but one example, let us agree to disagree on what corruption, abuse of power, nepotism and cronyism, etc., means. Clearly you look at things differently from the way I look at things. And while my perjuangan is to eradicate corruption, abuse of power, nepotism, cronyism, and so on, yours is merely to kick out Umno and replace one corrupt government with another.
I have my principles and you have yours and our principles differ by a mile. So we will just leave it at that and move on to the next issue. And the next issue is regarding fundamental rights.
What are your principles regarding fundamental rights? Do we share the same principles or do we have different interpretations of what it means?
For those of you who do not understand what I am talking about — which would, therefore, mean most of you — when I talk about fundamental rights I am talking about freedom of choice, freedom of opinion, freedom of association, freedom of thought, and so on. What is your stand on all these issues that affect fundamental rights?
As I said, we will put aside the issue of corruption, abuse of power, nepotism or cronyism. We will agree to disagree on that. Let us confine the discussion to freedom of choice, freedom of opinion, freedom of association, freedom of thought, etc., meaning your fundamental rights.
My stand is very clear. I believe in fundamental rights — which means every Malaysian has freedom of choice, freedom of opinion, freedom of association, freedom of thought, and so on. Do you also believe in the same thing? And do you also agree that whichever government comes come to power — whether Barisan Nasional or Pakatan Rakyat — this government must respect our fundamental rights?
Of course we do, you will scream. Well, do you?
Actually, I have baited you many times and each and every time you walk right into my trap and get snared. You people are fakes and hypocrites. You do not respect our fundamental rights. You deny us our fundamental rights. You are all talk and no action. You do not walk the talk.
You are as dangerous as those people from Umno, Perkasa, Pekida, and so on. You too are backward thinking and narrow-minded. You say what you do not mean and don’t do what you say. And that, to you, is principles.
Let me quote some examples. Some of you whack Anwar Ibrahim because, according to you, he is gay or bisexual. Is that respecting someone’s fundamental rights? Doesn’t one have the right to his or her sexual preference?
I have spoken to many pro-Pakatan Rakyat people who have been supporting the opposition since the days of Semangat 46 in 1990 and these people believe that Anwar is guilty of sexual misconduct as alleged.
However, they will not openly say so and they have requested me to not whack Anwar (especially after my mainstream media interview when I said I believe that Anwar is bi-sexual) because, according to them, this will hurt Pakatan Rakyat’s chances of winning the coming general election.
They do not want me to say what I believe and they want to deny me my right to speak not because they think Anwar is not bi-sexual but because they want to win the general election. In fact, they too believe what I believe about Anwar. They just do not want me to say so. And you call this principle?
In 2001 when I was detained under the ISA, the Special Branch officers asked me whether I think Anwar is guilty. They then offered to show me the evidence to convince me that Anwar is really guilty.
I responded by saying that I do not wish to see the evidence because I do not care whether Anwar is gay or bi-sexual. To me that is his choice and that does not make him any less suitable to lead the country.
They then pressed me further to try to extricate my response and I replied that yes, I do believe he is bi-sexual. Then they asked me why I set up the Free Anwar Campaign if I think that and I replied that the Free Anwar Campaign is about the sham trial that Anwar received. Anwar’s guilt was not proven in court, I argued. Hence Anwar is a victim of a sham trial even if he may be guilty of what they call ‘sexual misconduct’ — and which I don’t regard as so.
Hence the principle behind the Free Anwar Campaign is that he should be freed because they failed to prove his guilt and not because he is not bi-sexual. Anwar’s sexuality has nothing to do with this. Furthermore, I believe in freedom of choice, which includes freedom of sexual preference. Bi-sexuality, to me, is not a crime even if the Bible says it is and Islam ‘borrowed’ this from the Bible.
Ah, but this has nothing to do with religion, they argued. It is about the law of the land and the laws of Malaysia stipulate that homosexuality is a crime.
Well, some of those laws are old British laws, I argued, and that does not mean that the law is right. And if the law is bad then we must oppose it. Don’t we also oppose the Internal Security Act, Sedition Act, Printing Presses and Publications Act, Universities and University Colleges Act, and many other bad laws that are draconian and deny Malaysians their fundamental rights of freedom of choice, freedom of opinion, freedom of association, freedom of thought, etc?
The principle of the law is bad. Malaysians should be allowed freedom of choice, freedom of opinion, freedom of association, freedom of thought, and so on. And this includes the right to choose your religion, the right to reject the belief in God and to become an atheist, the right to be gay, the right to associate yourself with any political party (and not be compelled to support a certain political party) and much more.
So which are you? What is your stand and what are your principles? Are you a libertarian and a democrat? Or do you deny others their fundamental rights?
All I need to do is to write an article saying that I do not believe in the Bible, the Crucifixion, the Resurrection, the Trinity, and so on, and watch those Bible-thumpers accuse me of insulting Christianity. You are just like those people who accuse me of insulting Islam merely because I criticise those mosques that spread hate messages in their Friday prayer sermons (kutbah).
Just see how many people are whacking the Umno candidate for Shah Alam, Zulkifli Noordin. I despise that bugger but what was it that Zulkifli Noordin said that is so disgusting? Explain what he said. And he said what he was supposed to have said when he was a PAS Member of Parliament. Why did you not whack him then? Why whack him now only when he is an Umno candidate?
Can you see how thick your hypocrisy is? It is so thick you can cut it with a knife.
And why do you say I have insulted Christianity when I say that I do not believe in the Bible, the Crucifixion, the Resurrection, the Trinity, and so on? Is it not my right to believe what I want to believe? Since when does expressing my beliefs translate to an insult? All Muslims don’t believe in the (new) Bible, the Crucifixion, the Resurrection, the Trinity, etc.
You say that the Christians are modern, liberal, tolerant, open-minded and so on, unlike those closed-minded and extremist Muslims. You think so? Well, read the news report below.
France was one of the first secular countries and became so due to Napoleon Bonaparte’s good work. Yet the Catholics in France are foaming at the mouth and threatening violence just like the Talibans. Modern, liberal, tolerant, and open-minded my foot!
And it is not only the Christians (and Muslims) who are like this. Even the ‘pagan’ Chinese are the same. They too are closed-minded and extremist. See what they are saying about Michelle Yeoh just because she wants to attend a MCA dinner. Why did you not also whack and boycott the South Korean singer PSY for attending MCA’s function in Penang? In fact, you all attended that function. Why the double standards?
I like it when you people talk about principles and ask me about my principles. You do not even understand what the word means. And everything you do and say is not based on principles.
*****************************************
French cardinal warns gay marriage law risks violence
(Reuters) – PARIS: France’s top Catholic bishop warned the government yesterday that legalization of same-sex marriage risked inciting violence at a time the country had more pressing economic and social problems to tackle.
Cardinal Andre Vingt-Trois told a meeting of French bishops the planned marriage reform, which the government has speeded up amid mounting pressure from opponents, was a sign that society had lost its capacity to integrate different views.
Protests against the law, led by lay groups mostly backed by the Catholic Church, have become more agitated in recent days as noisy opponents rally outside the Senate and National Assembly and harass politicians supporting the reform.
Vingt-Trois, the archbishop of Paris, said the difference between the sexes was a basic human trait and denying it by legalizing marriage and adoption for homosexuals would weaken society’s ability to manage its differences peacefully.
“This is the way a violent society develops,” he told the spring meeting of the French bishops’ conference. “Society has lost its capacity of integration and especially its ability to blend differences in a common project.”
The Socialist-led government, whose popularity has plummeted amid economic woes and a tax fraud scandal, is expected to pass the law next week to make France the 13th country to allow gays to tie the knot. Uruguay legalized gay marriage last week.
