need to sort my head out
i'm trying to do some work, but this whole Article 11 issue is doing my head in...
first of all, there is this whole mix-up between Article 11 & the Inter Faith Council (IFC). The "Islamists" have taken the usual activist demo tactics by taking to the streets to voice their dissent. in the usual NEP style, where instead of the minority trying to gain an edge through subversive strategies, the majority gain access and utilises all available spaces. what does this mean? a slippage of signs in the public imagination that can so easily be deployed by anyone who can control the media.
demo = threat to national security = bunch of rowdy splinter of society who likes to cari pasal.
demo = "Islamists" = opposition party = politikus that should be stamped out.
demo = legitimate when it evinces the threat of raising "sensitive issue" = govt protects civil rights
i received an alert about the demo about the ASEAN proceedings and Condoleezza Rice gracing us with her presence. it was confusing. first it was againt Ms. Rice. then it was against FTA. then it was about ASEAN. then it was the whole Isreal-Lebanon issue.
what am i taking to the streets for? on what issue? is this going to be another petrol price hike debacle, where i feel like a pawn in a sea of i dont know what? am i going to be marching together with people who feels that it is fundamentally dangerous to bring up anything that might challenge malay supremacy or the position of islam in the country? can strategic alliances really be so awkwardly temporary?
i didn't go. even though i feel so strongly against the signing of the FTA. i just could not. i feel that that is an after-thought. almost like putting everything that is contemporary together to try and condense as many passions as possible. stringing together abbreviations for simplistic anti-ism.
so Article 11 roadshows across the country. finally enough people feel strongly enough to sign online petitions and put their IC number to some political use in upholding the Federal Constitution. more than 22K signatures passed on the some dude in the PM's department to pass on to the PM, insyaallah. obviously he didnt even read the statement since he can confuse this with the IFC. asking for the roadshows to be halted, Pak Lah at the same stroke confesses on the front page of mainstream media that he doesn't read memorandums. NGOs, let this be a tactical lesson.
so let's see. Article 11 is a coalition of human rights groups, women's rights groups, faith-based networks and organisations. According to Malik Imtiaz, current exec director of the National Human Rights Society (HAKAM), the difference between this and the Interfaith Commission is:
"The Article 11 initiative is in no way connected with the Interfaith Commission initiative. They are separate initiatives, with very different objectives. Unfortunately, unscrupulous parties have twisted this states of affairs and presented the objectives of both initiatives as not only being highly bjectionable but also as being connected. It should be borne in mind that the Interfaith Commission initiative was aimed at making the Government aware of the benefits in establishing a statutory non-adjudicative body which could through recommendations assist the Government of the day in shaping coherent policy pertaining to religious harmony. A draft bill was endorsed by a national conference in February 2005 and, together with a plenary statement, presented to the Government. That is where all formal efforts pertaining to the proposed commission ended."
found a blog posting that explores the interfaith comission in more detail.
apart from the whole trying to establish a distance between the two, i can't help but ask, what exactly is the Big Deal?
why is it so bloody problematic to openly discuss about issues related to religion in this country? with the institutionalisation of Islam in this country, from constitution to legislation to court systems to judicial hesitance, this is a deeply political issue. it's affects everyone residing in this country socio-economically, it has implications in terms of voting, crafting of more legislations and policies. everything. why can't we talk about it? isn't this Fundamentally part of our democratic rights?
why isn't Pak Lah defending our rights for participation in our democratic processes instead of coming up with bull-shit May 13th/Ops Lalang kind of threats?
this gives leverage for clamp down of the internet, extending the capacity for the Printings and Publications Act to internet media? so then Ops Lalang is also applicable to those who post stuff on the internet (not that it isn't already... with the Sedition Act, Internal Security Act blablabla). so if we shouldn't print anything related to religion, will all kinds of news reports about this and that fatwa be breaking the rules? or even printing of the press statement itself?
it just doesn't make any sense. neither does the constant reiteration by Article 11 that it's not the IFC. we are talking about the freedom to practice faith right? i mean, Hindu temples are being demolished right, left, centre right? everytime the "Don't Offend The Muslims by Talking about Anything Related to Islam You Kafirs" come up, we just have to shut up because May 13 might happen?
come on.
my head isn't sorted out. but only because the arguments are so preposterous i don't know how to begin engaging with it seriously. i can't even laugh and say he must be taking the piss because the impact can be so damn fucking serious.
first of all, there is this whole mix-up between Article 11 & the Inter Faith Council (IFC). The "Islamists" have taken the usual activist demo tactics by taking to the streets to voice their dissent. in the usual NEP style, where instead of the minority trying to gain an edge through subversive strategies, the majority gain access and utilises all available spaces. what does this mean? a slippage of signs in the public imagination that can so easily be deployed by anyone who can control the media.
demo = threat to national security = bunch of rowdy splinter of society who likes to cari pasal.
demo = "Islamists" = opposition party = politikus that should be stamped out.
demo = legitimate when it evinces the threat of raising "sensitive issue" = govt protects civil rights
i received an alert about the demo about the ASEAN proceedings and Condoleezza Rice gracing us with her presence. it was confusing. first it was againt Ms. Rice. then it was against FTA. then it was about ASEAN. then it was the whole Isreal-Lebanon issue.
what am i taking to the streets for? on what issue? is this going to be another petrol price hike debacle, where i feel like a pawn in a sea of i dont know what? am i going to be marching together with people who feels that it is fundamentally dangerous to bring up anything that might challenge malay supremacy or the position of islam in the country? can strategic alliances really be so awkwardly temporary?
i didn't go. even though i feel so strongly against the signing of the FTA. i just could not. i feel that that is an after-thought. almost like putting everything that is contemporary together to try and condense as many passions as possible. stringing together abbreviations for simplistic anti-ism.
so Article 11 roadshows across the country. finally enough people feel strongly enough to sign online petitions and put their IC number to some political use in upholding the Federal Constitution. more than 22K signatures passed on the some dude in the PM's department to pass on to the PM, insyaallah. obviously he didnt even read the statement since he can confuse this with the IFC. asking for the roadshows to be halted, Pak Lah at the same stroke confesses on the front page of mainstream media that he doesn't read memorandums. NGOs, let this be a tactical lesson.
so let's see. Article 11 is a coalition of human rights groups, women's rights groups, faith-based networks and organisations. According to Malik Imtiaz, current exec director of the National Human Rights Society (HAKAM), the difference between this and the Interfaith Commission is:
"The Article 11 initiative is in no way connected with the Interfaith Commission initiative. They are separate initiatives, with very different objectives. Unfortunately, unscrupulous parties have twisted this states of affairs and presented the objectives of both initiatives as not only being highly bjectionable but also as being connected. It should be borne in mind that the Interfaith Commission initiative was aimed at making the Government aware of the benefits in establishing a statutory non-adjudicative body which could through recommendations assist the Government of the day in shaping coherent policy pertaining to religious harmony. A draft bill was endorsed by a national conference in February 2005 and, together with a plenary statement, presented to the Government. That is where all formal efforts pertaining to the proposed commission ended."
found a blog posting that explores the interfaith comission in more detail.
apart from the whole trying to establish a distance between the two, i can't help but ask, what exactly is the Big Deal?
why is it so bloody problematic to openly discuss about issues related to religion in this country? with the institutionalisation of Islam in this country, from constitution to legislation to court systems to judicial hesitance, this is a deeply political issue. it's affects everyone residing in this country socio-economically, it has implications in terms of voting, crafting of more legislations and policies. everything. why can't we talk about it? isn't this Fundamentally part of our democratic rights?
why isn't Pak Lah defending our rights for participation in our democratic processes instead of coming up with bull-shit May 13th/Ops Lalang kind of threats?
this gives leverage for clamp down of the internet, extending the capacity for the Printings and Publications Act to internet media? so then Ops Lalang is also applicable to those who post stuff on the internet (not that it isn't already... with the Sedition Act, Internal Security Act blablabla). so if we shouldn't print anything related to religion, will all kinds of news reports about this and that fatwa be breaking the rules? or even printing of the press statement itself?
it just doesn't make any sense. neither does the constant reiteration by Article 11 that it's not the IFC. we are talking about the freedom to practice faith right? i mean, Hindu temples are being demolished right, left, centre right? everytime the "Don't Offend The Muslims by Talking about Anything Related to Islam You Kafirs" come up, we just have to shut up because May 13 might happen?
come on.
my head isn't sorted out. but only because the arguments are so preposterous i don't know how to begin engaging with it seriously. i can't even laugh and say he must be taking the piss because the impact can be so damn fucking serious.