example of how "good" and "smart" our MPs can be..man not gatal isit?

Friday April 28, 2006

Leaders must behave decently


IS ANYONE at all surprised by the statement from PAS Member of Parliament Abdul Fatah Harun that women divorcees are gatal (randy)?

This is not the first time such a sexist remark has been made in the august chamber and we can safely say that it won’t be the last.

Malaysians should have, by now, become accustomed to the foot-in-the-mouth disease afflicting some of our legislators. From name-calling and sexual innuendoes to intimidation, subtle threats and racist remarks, we can expect all this and more at every Parliament session.

On Wednesday, Abdul Fatah Harun, the MP from Rantau Panjang, found himself a major news item. Indeed, for the first time, this almost-unheard-of politician had his photograph on the front page of many newspapers.

He gained notoriety for his question on whether some women who divorced their husbands were more intent on getting separated. He claimed that these single mothers did not look like they were sad about their divorce.

Saying that this was based on his observation at gatherings and parties, he said the women seemed to be gatal.

Abdul Fatah added that it was quite obvious why the women ended up divorced or why their husbands left them. Most of them were divorced because they were gatal, while those widowed were better behaved, he concluded.

The Islamist party's Terengganu leader cannot claim he had been misquoted, which politicians usually do when they talk themselves into a corner.

When outraged MPs demanded that he retract his remarks, he tried to get himself out of a tight spot by saying that he was merely referring to a small group.

Abdul Fatah is not the only one who have made such remarks. Recently, Jerai MP Datuk Badruddin Amiruldin, who thrives on controversial statements, blamed women who wear “indecent clothes” for rape.

“Clothes can be indecent too. That’s why rape happens. Clothes play a part when someone becomes a rape victim. Screaming and shouting are also indecent. These things are beyond our culture and religion,” he said.

Badruddin escaped national criticism because his quotes were only reported in one newspaper and picked up by a couple of news websites.

The Barisan Nasional MP had chosen to ignore the fact that, in numerous rape cases, the victims had been decorously clad in tudung and that many of the cases had taken place in conservative areas, including Kelantan and Kedah. These are states not known for their nightlife or women in provocative attire.

Children in school uniform, and grandmothers too, have not been spared by rapists. Should Badruddin blame them too then?

Rape is often a planned crime, not an impulsive act. A high percentage of rapists were known to their victims. Many were friends and relatives, even fathers.

If indecent attire was the major cause of rape, then we could simply impose a ban on such clothing, as Kelantan and some West Asian countries had done. There would then be no more rape, if Badruddin’s logic holds true.

In April last year, Chong Eng (DAP – Bukit Mertajam) and Fong Po Kuan (DAP – Ipoh Timur) found themselves targeted by some MPs. One MP implied that Fong’s assertive character was a typical reason many Malaysian women were single.

The uproar started innocently enough with Kota Melaka MP Wong Nai Chee talking about the rising number of divorce cases in Malaysia. At that point, Badruddin sought clarification from Wong, asking “what type of man would last with someone like the MP from Batu Gajah.”

In 2000, Datuk Mohamed Aziz (BN – Sri Gading) touched a raw nerve when he started his speech by saying “it is unusual for women’s issues to be touched (raised) by men” and after a pause, he added: “But women are supposed to be touched by men.”

When Datuk Bung Mokhtar Radin (BN – Kinabatangan) asked why single women found it hard to remarry, Mohamed reckoned that it was generally due to their not-so-favourable age. He then added: “Men, when it comes to younger women, they will definitely drool.”

Our Yang Berhormat expect to be treated with honour and respect because they are supposed to be VIPs, and most of them have titles. But can we expect some decency from them in return?

Surely, as leaders, they must uphold some degree of decorum, integrity and credibility if they insist on respect from the people.

A few days ago, one leader told reporters to “go to hell” – with the permission of the State Assembly Speaker – because he was angry. He explained later that he needed to “defend” himself.

On another occasion, the same person made an obscene gesture at an Opposition party member. Again, he did it because he lost his cool and he had to defend his party’s integrity.

Dengan izin penyokong-penyokong (With the supporters’ permission), we presume.

Many of our male MPs are good people who are respectful and sensitive to women. After all, many of them are grandfathers, fathers, brothers and uncles.

We should reject MPs who habitually display their utter lack of understanding towards women, who form a large proportion of voters.

Such MPs should be made to attend classes on sexual violence and problems affecting single mothers, so that they can speak with some intelligence on issues concerning women.

Otherwise, we will have to continue to suffer their silly antics.

Friday April 28, 2006, The star

Abdul Fatah slammed

KUALA LUMPUR: PAS MP Abdul Fatah Ibrahim continued to get shelling from angry female politicians and women’s groups yesterday over his remarks in Parliament that divorced women were gatal (randy).

The women have asked for an unreserved apology from the elected representative for his insensitive and hurtful statement.

“He should apologise to all Malaysian women, especially single mothers, as it is a huge blow and insult to us,” said Women, Family and Community Development Minister Datuk Seri Shahrizat Abdul Jalil.


Abdul Fatah: Says some women end up divorced because they are gatal
She said she could accept it when MPs joke with each other in Parliament but Abdul Fatah “meant exactly what he said.”

“He expressed the feelings of the men of his ilk and he has no respect for women.

“He does not have true religious understanding of women and he attributes everything that is wrong in this world to women,” she said, adding that men of his type were weak and insecure.

When asked whether she had often come across men like Abdul Fatah, she said: “I have, but thankfully not enough for me to be alarmed and disgusted. By and large, Malaysian men have respect for women.”

In Islam, she said, women are accorded the highest respect, even during Prophet Muhammad’s time.

Wanita MCA chief Datuk Dr Ng Yen Yen expressed “absolute disgust and horror” that an MP like Abdul Fatah is in Parliament.

“Having such people in the august House to formulate laws is dangerous. His whole concept of divorced women being promiscuous is unacceptable,” said the Deputy Finance Minister.

Dr Ng said all women MPs from Barisan Nasional including several deputy ministers took Abdul Fatah to task over his outrageous remark which reflected his total disrespect for women.

“We are very, very unhappy,” she said.

Dr Ng was grateful that Shahrizat and male MPs came to the defence of women after Abdul Fatah uttered the remark.

She also commended DAP’s Chong Eng for voicing her protest against Abdul Fatah’s insult, but wondered why other women representatives from the Opposition did not speak up.

Dr Ng said the episode showed that there was a need for more women at all levels of the Government, adding that a gender-sensitised Parliament was crucial if women are to be protected.

DAP MP Teresa Kok said Abdul Fatah did his party a disservice with his remark.

“Such a statement strengthens the image and impression that PAS does not respect women,” she said.

Sisters in Islam executive director Zainah Anwar said Abdul Fatah’s sexist and degrading statement undermined public confidence and trust in the ability and credibility of lawmakers responsible for passing laws that protect and promote the interests and rights of women.

A parliamentary gender caucus, she said, should be formed immediately to ensure that gender perspectives are included in all parliamentary debates, government policies and legislations

"Let He Who Is Without Sin..."

The "let he who is without sin, cast the first stone" incident is one of the most well-known lessons of the Bible. A woman, who had been caught in the act of adultery was brought to Jesus Christ by the scribes and Pharisees as a test to see if the Messiah was a liberal in matters of the Law of God. In response to their deceitful query, He didn't condemn the woman, not because He was a liberal, not because He condoned her sin, but because the men who brought the woman to Him were Hypocrites. He was the only person there that day who was free of sin, the only one who had the right to "cast the first stone." He didn't stone her (or her accusers), but instead forgave her and told her to "sin no more." Otherwise, the day is coming when she, if she didn't thereafter repent, won't be stoned, but will be burned - along with the hypocrites who brought her to Him that day, if they didn't thereafter repent of their sin:

"Blessed are they that do His Commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city. For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie." (Revelation 22:14-15 KJV)


The Woman, the Scribes and the Pharisees Were All Caught In The Act

It seems, perhaps, that Jesus Christ wasn't the only one who was "set up" that day. While they used the woman caught in adultery as the means to try to entrap Him through His answer, the woman herself may have been partly entrapped - the man that she was "taken in adultery, in the very act" with (by definition, if she was "caught in the act," the man had to have been caught too) was not brought to Him with her. Whoever he was, he was just as guilty and just as subject to "the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death" (Leviticus 20:10 KJV) that the scribes and Pharisees quoted in condemning the woman. Letting him go was more hypocrisy on the part of the themselves-adulterous scribes and Pharisees.


"And early in the morning He came again into the Temple , and all the people came unto Him; and He sat down, and taught them."
"And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto Him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst, They say unto Him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act. Now Moses in the Law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest Thou?"

"This they said, tempting Him, that they might have to accuse Him."

"But Jesus stooped down, and with His finger wrote on the ground, as though He heard them not. So when they continued asking Him, He lifted up Himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. And again He stooped down, and wrote on the ground."

"And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst."

"When Jesus had lifted up Himself, and saw none but the woman, He said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? Hath no man condemned thee?"

"She said, No man, Lord."

"And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more." (John 8:2-11 KJV)

Questions on morality? pah..hypocrites

Well said by the representative from the Bar Council!

I for one think that it is absolutely preposterous and ridiculous to press charges for indecent behaviour.I simply cannot comprehend the logic behind the judge's decision to allow the municipal to press charges against the Chinese couple.Their indecent behaviour consists of hugging and kissing.

First and foremost, there is nothing in our religion context that forbids such actions, presuming they are Buddhists..even if they weren't ,it isnt against their religion to do so, unless they were M*****s, which, clearly they aren't, so the rule of NO close proximity (khalwat) doesnt apply to them..So, what is the problem then??

Secondly, there is 2 sides to a coin, same goes for a story.The couple claims that they were only holding hands..i dont know whether thats true.They were then issued a summon!!?!? for indecent behaviour and asked to pay if they did not wish this matter to be pursued further.They did not pay of course, as it does sound rather unreasonable and complained and challenged the matter in court and the rest, as u know, is history.Naturally, the officers involved were suspected of corruption but i dont know wat happened after that.

Thirdly, even if they were hugging and kissing, what is wrong with that? It isn't against the law and even though Asians are supposed to be a modest lot and conservative in terms of thinking, that isnt enough reason to press charges .If hugging n kissing is considered indecent behaviour, what about those ribbon cutting ceremonies where they give a kid a peck on the cheek? how about those who ride motorcycles ? doesn't teh back person hug the front person? How about prize giving ceremonies where the presenter would normally hug the person who receives teh prize or award?Are these considered indecent behaviour?A peck on the cheek or a hug is very common overseas and it is considered basic politenes to do so..Are foreigners subjected to the rule as well?How about married/engaged people?No public display of affection?

also, don't our municipal authorities have better things to do other than accusing people of indecent behaviour? there are so many things about the city that can be done better/improved eg . public toilets, playground facilities, environment landscaping, cleanliness, drains etc. Do we have to waste our public resources(read: taxpayer's money, time, manpower) on these type of matters? nothing better to do than to waste money on bringing such cases to court is it? so many crimes happening yet case is brought to court ages later due to redtape Definitely there are better places to spend public funds on.

To hug or to kiss is a matter of one's own choice and not up to some busybody to determine whether one should do it.A panel set up to monitor indecent behaviour? HAHAHA.that's a good joke.Where do we draw the line? I believe that every sane person would know how to differentiate what is indecent and what is not in public.

when we say we want to be an advanced country, it seems to me that our thinking is going backwards at the same time.

Bar Council on morality, law

taken from the star, 06 April ,2006

THE BAR Council’s views have been sought regarding laws on morality and human behaviour in light of the case involving Kuala Lumpur City Hall.

Issues of morality

Morality covers a very wide spectrum of human behaviour. There are types of conduct that are considered unacceptable by most if not all persons in a society at a given time, an example being walking in the nude down the street. However, there are large areas of behaviour that may be objectionable to some but not objectionable to others in any society.

For instance, a couple walking down the street hugging each other in affection (not uncommonly seen nowadays) may be objectionable to some but perfectly natural to others. What about walking down the street holding each other at the waist? What about walking down the street holding hands? Where do we draw the line? Where should the law, if at all, draw the line?

In other words, apart from a few areas of consensus or near consensus, questions of morality or decency can often become a very subjective issue.

Should morality be legislated

It is not suggested that a matter concerning morality or decency should never be legislated. However, apart from few areas of consensus or near consensus, we should be very slow in legislating morality.

In addition, laws on morality or decency should take into account at least the following:

1- The starting premise must be that respect be accorded to an individual’s right of personal choice of behaviour, and that adequate space be given for the exercise of this right. Legal restrictions should only be imposed for reasons of public order.

2- One must not apply the “lowest common denominator” in a society. Restrictions on freedom should not be imposed simply to cater for the most conservative members of any society, the same way that we do not adopt as the standard the views of the most care-free elements in a society.

3- Such laws (if they are necessary) should be less open-ended and better defined, to the largest extent possible, so that one can be guided beforehand as to what the law does or does not permit; for how else is one to abide by the law when the subject matter it seeks to regulate involves a high degree of subjectivity?

4- Such laws (if they are necessary) should be federal in nature, and not be left to the wishes of each and every local authority, nor should they be in the form of subsidiary legislation.

Invoking laws on morality or decency

Laws on decency should only be invoked if the impugned conducts has threatened public order or the public’s sense of decency; not because it has offended the sense of decency of an individual or some individuals in authority.

What has gone horribly wrong in the case of Kuala Lumpur City Hall is precisely because the authority seeks to invoke a law purporting to regulate decency in a way that a lot of Malaysians find unreasonable or ridiculous.

Show of affection by holding hands, hugging and kissing are already common in our cinemas and on television.

They do not threaten our society, though some members of our society may find these inappropriate in their view.

This is surely insufficient reason to criminalise such conduct.

Most of us understand what is decent and what is not, without any necessity of the law telling us so. Many Malaysians do not want to be hypocritical and to see a person taken to penal task for something that we know in our hearts is well within the permissible limits of conduct in this 21st century.



YEO YANG POH,

Chairman, Bar Council.

Define indecency, says Bar

taken from the star, april 07,2006

PETALING JAYA: The Bar Council wants the authorities to come up with a clear definition of indecency following the Federal Court’s decision to uphold the local authorities’ power to enact bylaws to curb indecent behaviour.

Bar Council chairman Yeo Yang Poh said indecency should be well-defined if there is to be legislation over it.

“It is not that there should be no legislation at all, but the question is, who should legislate? Such laws (if they are necessary) should be federal in nature and not be left to the local authorities,” he said.

“And if there is to be legislation, shouldn’t the law be very clear on how you define indecency?”

On Tuesday, the Federal Court ruled that KL City Hall was right in charging two university students who were allegedly hugging and kissing at the KLCC Park under Section 8(1) of the Park bylaws (Federal Territory).

However, the Federal Court also ruled that it would be up to the magistrate hearing the case to decide if hugging and kissing constitute indecent behaviour.

Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (Suhakam) commissioner Prof Dr Chiam Heng Keng said the local government should be very specific on the definition of indecency before enforcing bylaws to curb such behaviour.

“Different people have different definitions of indecent behaviour. Is a farewell hug or a peck on the cheek considered indecent?” she asked.

She said it would lead to abuse of power if enforcement officers carried out the law with their own interpretations.

Life lost over RM4,000

Below is a newspaper article of a cold-blooded murder that is guaranteed to send shivers down your spine.The reason it scares metoo is cuz i've been within close proximity of the shop n might have even seen the victim a few times..He died just bcuz of 4,000 dollars n a cellphone.the incident happened at around 745 and at 10 something, the body was still lying there.He took his last breath sprawled on the corridor outside the shop. (According to some accounts, he was attacked all along the staircase to the lower ground and was attempting to flee for his life when he was hacked repeatedly by the robbers) Needless to say, the scene wasn't very pretty and blood was splattered everywhere.

May the poor man rest in peace.Amen(Or as they say, God loved him more n so claimed him to God's side)

The Star Online > Nation

Tuesday April 4, 2006

By LOURDES CHARLES and MARC LOURDES

newsdesk@thestar.com.my

KUALA LUMPUR: Was Strudels Café manager Azman Khairuddin’s life worth a mere RM4,000?

That was the estimated amount the murderer made off with after slashing Azman on his head, neck and hand in Sunday’s robbery at Bangsar.

Police still do not have any lead on the murder, prompting city CID chief Senior Asst Comm (II) Datuk Karn Kam Peng to plead for information to be channelled to any police station.


“We need information and we need it fast. No one has come forward to give us any information yet,” he said.

“What we know so far is that Azman was surprised by the killer or killers when he opened the shutters of the shop for business.”

SAC Karn believed Azman had put up a struggle.

He was found in a pool of blood outside his workplace at Lucky Garden, about 45 minutes after he left his home in Pandan Indah at 7am.


Lokman: Says he is now afraid for his safety and that of his workers
The 34-year old father of three was supposed to work the evening shift but switched duty with a colleague, as he wanted to fetch his daughter from a camping trip.

Police found a trail of blood from the upper floor of the shop, leading to the kitchen downstairs and out to the corridor.

A safe that was kept upstairs was ajar and the money believed to be the weekend collection was missing. Only some coins were left. Azman’s cell phone was also taken but his wallet was left behind.

Azman’s murder was the second time Strudels Café in Lucky Garden was a target of crime.

According to a manager of a nearby fast-food restaurant, there was an unsuccessful break-in at the café about a month ago.

Lokman Nor Hakim Ismail, 23, said he now feared for his safety and that of his workers.

“There are so many snatch thefts and muggings going on in this area. I once saw an old lady whose bag was snatched in broad daylight!” he said.

Lokman said he was on his way to work at 8am when he saw a large crowd outside Strudels Café.


Akhbar Ali: ‘There are a lot of snatch thefts, muggings, pickpockets here’
“I saw a man lying face down on the road beside the café with his hands crossed on his chest,” he said, adding that he only realised that it was Azman when he heard the waiters working at Strudels saying that their boss had been killed.”

Akhbar Ali Syed Ibrahim, 50, whose restaurant is three doors away from Strudels, said he didn’t know about Azman’s death until his customers and workers started running towards the café.

“I couldn’t go out as I was taking care of the cash register. Then I heard that Azman had been killed,” Akhbar Ali said, adding that Azman would often come to his restaurant in the evenings for nasi lemak.

“There are a lot of snatch thefts, muggings, pickpockets here. Sometimes I’m afraid to walk outside alone,” said Akhbar Ali, who has been operating his restaurant for 34 years.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

© 1995-2005 Star Publications (Malaysia) Bhd (Co No 10894-D)