These are just plain opinions; they can be rejected, refuted, argued against or accepted. These words are not meant to impose my ideals upon anybody , and they are not going against the law of the diversity of thoughts~~

Tuesday, 30 April 2013


                 As an Economics student, I have learned with great emphasis, that doing an analysis with a baseless assumption is a grave error.   I myself considered it a sin , because of the number of times my teachers get annoyed for wild assumptions I wrote in my essays. It resulted in my works being degraded as  'highschool level' essays- a cruel and deep insult. An example for a baseless assumption is like  suggesting that children will die out of hunger, should the government stops giving book vouchers. It has no correlation with the main issue whatsoever, and there is no reason that it would happen. I think a better example is like suggesting that Japan should enforce its infrastructure now, because Ultraman and his lovely monsters are going to appear in Kyoto soon.
himpunan rakyat kl112

                 An Economist that works upon baseless premises should die alone in a terrible death, eaten by dogs in a monsoon drain, for his analysis is misleading and wrong, and decisions made from his views will lead to an economic downfall. He would work better as a manga writer or a novelist, for his imagination is very likely to be powerful. Politicians that utilize baseless assumptions  should become hikikomoris, beings that would never interact  with  people, for these kind of men are dangerous to the society and the nation

           A better word for 'baseless assumptions' made by politicians would be 'lies'. This is because those assumptions are not true, they have no supporting evidence, and there is no reason that it would happen. However, for the people who believes those assumptions, it becomes an 'inconceivable fear'. They fear for  predictions that have no reason to happen, similar to people believing in shamans making predictions about their fates.

                 My mother always tell me not to lie to anyone.  So did every wonderful mother upon this planet. My religion taught me not to lie, and so did every other religion in this world. It is not just a lie, it is a universal sin. Telling lies is a sin that has been recognized since the beginning of time, and it is an act despised by anyone. Lies break friendships, relationships, and lies hurt our hearts. I would lose your trust should I lie to you, my friend, and for that reason, I promise I won't lie to you, no matter what it is. Should there is something that I can't tell you, I won't  make lies to cover it up, but I would just be quiet about it, and I won't say a word. Such is the Bro Code that I learned.

              If lying is a universally recognized sin, then why does it  become acceptable in politics? Does lying become right in the name of a better government and a better nation?

              Tonight , in his Labour Day speech, our Prime Minister said that " it is hard to achieve peace and harmony, it takes tens of years. But chaos and disorder can happen overnight". What is he trying to imply here? I respect him for he is a skillful politician, but such statement is an example of a subtle lie, an impression put in our minds without us realizing it.

              Such assumptions might seem harmless , for it seems to be just a part of a campaign slogan , but the truth is , it is a lie. For example, BN has banners in my town that said these words; "vote for PR , and the country goes bankrupt in two years". Some might say that it is just a prediction about the future, so it is not a lie, it is not a sin. Nobody can lie about things that have yet to happen. However, I choose to disagree. If I suggest to you, that a kind friend of mine , who has done nothing wrong before, that he is  going to a gay bar next week , to gain money before going to the UK, what will you think of it? Is it fine because it is just an assumption of a thing that is yet to happen? Is it fine then, to take my words , and spread it to everyone in your Facebook friends' list?

                  I went to a BTN camp last month, and at the end of the camp, they showed us students a video about the violence in the middle east, Narathiwat, Palestine and Ambon, among a few of the places. We were shown people being shot alive, cut apart, and their brains scattered on the roads. Houses and schools were burnt down, and the people were deprived of their basic needs. They concluded the video by saying that we should appreciate the peace in our country, and for the sake of that peace , we students should keep the current government in power.
btn in a nutshell

          They didn't even have to mention that should PR come in power , something terrible will happen to this country. It was such a subtle and crafty lie , that I felt so sick and disgusted.

            It is time that people stop acting based upon these lies. There is no reason whatsoever that LBGTs will be legitimate when PR comes in power. There is no proof that DAP will turn this country into a communist heaven that kills all Malays, and surrender this country to Singapore. But there is always a proof that the current government is corrupted to the core  . I agree that being cautious is good for us Muslims, but being cautious upon baseless things is just plain wrong.

  "  O you who have believed, be persistently standing firm for Allah , witnesses in justice, and do not let the hatred of a people prevent you from being just. Be just; that is nearer to righteousness. And fear Allah ; indeed, Allah is Acquainted with what you do." ( Al-Maidah, 8)

       Isn't it time that this country becomes a democratic country, with the parties discussing about policies for the future of our religion, and our country, instead of all those lies? Be free of brainwashing lies and inconceivable fears, my friend. Vote for a change.

  Happy Labour's Day~~                    

Friday, 12 April 2013

Piala Ketua Pembangkang

                      My father used to give lectures at local mosques , before he passed away. There were about a dozen different places that he went in rotation every month. His students were mostly retired old men; pensioners, and they called him a  "guru taalim". Some of his students were his own teacher from his school days. Most of them were twenty years older than him.  My father was not a preacher; he was a high school maths teacher; and I do not understand how, or why,  but people asked him to talk about hadith every other night. My father himself told them that he was not a preacher; he's a maths teacher, but people does not seem to mind that at all.

          His younger brother also gives lectures at local mosques. To my eyes, my father and his brother were essentially the same. They have  two sets of cars of the same model , a house with a similar plan and an eerily similar location  . They have the same number of eight children, and  got married at about the same age . They both have the same hobby, and both of them are teachers during the day. Even their acts and quirks are strangely similar-but there was one thing that made them complete opposites. Their way of giving those night lectures were so different, it's like comparing karipap with lasagna.

                      My father would calmly read hadiths and their translations from his books, then he would take off his glasses and face his audience.  He gave his students  brief comments from the writers' point of view, then he would explain it from his own opinion, in a perfectly professional and academic way-and as a child I found that so boring. He kept his voice down in front of his senior students; all of whom listened to him tentatively. He looked like a real professor in a lecture hall, where students who were forced to attend-like I was with him- would fall asleep minutes after the lecture starts.

                    His brother in the other hand is a very provocative speaker. His voice is very loud and clear. If you happen to pass by a mosque in Muar, and you can hear the lecturer's voice three blocks away, that's   probably him. My uncle's way of speech is able to make his audience cry their hearts out, and his students are old men and women with grandkids. He is able to exert pressure upon steel hearts and break them to pieces. The only similarity between their lectures is that they would try to relate their contents with worldly affairs; BN's corruptions, the government's aversion to religion , and voters' responsibility in the Hereafter-my father explains, while his brother provokes, and as a result , my uncle got banned from several mosques which have hardcore macais, among them was the royal Masjid Sultan Ibrahim.

                  I joined high school debates to show my father that his way of giving lectures was boring, and that I was a better speaker than he ever was. I preferred my uncle's brave and provocative way of speech; loud and unforgiving.  I spoke from the depths of my heart , and preferred personal attacks as my favourite weapon. The thunderous claps and laughter from the audience  every time I speak made me assume that such provocations were the essence of debates. I once called  a female debater an "elephant with big ears, but apparently deaf". It felt kinda cool back then-sorry , my bad. The ratio of my personal attacks to the facts that I presented was about 6:3. I gained support from the audience, but to my surprise, my team lost every competition we went in, even though we were spontaneous speakers, and our counterparts refer to written texts word by word.

                I learned that my provocations reduced our points, and the lack of contextual evidence to support our premises, added with my sharp  personal attacks led to our downfall. Well, calling a girl an elephant isn't exactly something tolerable.

               I was not able to proove anything to my father , as he passed away before I could win anything. He cheated in our competition by dying first.

          Later on, I went to my uncle's lectures to study his skills again; as I believed that his way of speech was still the better  option. But then, I was honestly surprised; I found that his lectures weren't provocative at all; I as a child had misunderstood him. I was wrong.  His way of explaining things was actually similar to my father-too similar in fact, it was just that his voice was way louder! Should he reduce the loudness of his voice, then they would be perfectly alike. Words cannot explain how taken aback I was. I watched recordings of our previous debates, and only God knows how ashamed I was to hear how stupid I sound in those videos.

                The essence of a debate is to present an idea to the audience, not to make them laugh. I was a joker back then, not a debater. The facts presented must correlate with the main idea, and in order to do so, I had to be able to make the audience confident with the words that I say. I need to make the audience understand my premise , more than to make them agree with my words. The point of a debate was not to determine the winner,   but to find out whose logic is better. After all, even though I gained the most support from the audience, the judges cannot accept my logical fallacies. It is a battle of ideas, not plain provocations and crude words.

             Then, in what way are debates unacceptable to the macai community? I believe that the reason that our beloved Prime Minister rejects every debate is that they have exactly no evidence to support their arguments. Pakatan brought forth their manifesto, facts of BN's corruptions, new ideas for a better living; everything that shows their readiness to govern. Macais on the other hand had nothing but sex tapes and plain provocations. They created baseless assumptions using politics of fear; PR's victory means a collapsed nation, LGBT, civil war ...the list goes on.

             There is no way that BN's representatives can win debates with assumptions and sex tapes. That's what they meant when they stated that debates aren't part of our culture,  I suppose. Plain word wars and crude provocations are a better option, I guess.

               In order to create a better future for the nation, our leaders should indulge in debates, in order to present better ideas to the people, rather than slanders and lies. Debates often results in the creation of new ideas; it is after all just a more intense form of a discussion.

         Should our PM choose to further refuse to join debates, Piala Perdana Menteri  should be changed to Piala Ketua Pembangkang. That way, the dignity of the glamorous competition can be restored.  Nobody puts the title of a cowardly speaker for a debate competition .

                 Back to my story , my fellow debaters and I changed our way of speech drastically , and we managed to win some of the competitions. Alhamdulillah, for a happy ending.

    But then, even after all those victories, I still lost to my father, because I only copied what he did, and created nothing new out of it. I lost to a dead man.

            And our PM can't even join a debate.