Rise of the Planet of the Goats

                     I just started playing the Goat Simulator, and it is as awesome as I thought it  would be. In the game , you take the role of a goat whose raison d'être is to terrorize the citizens of a city and destroy everything .  The goat makes cars and trucks explode just by headbutting them, leaving a trail of destruction and horror  throughout the small map.

         It is a game made for those who had dreamed for so long to be a goat, and indeed it is a dream come true. What is better than being an overpowered goat who has the ability to shoot into the space simply by colliding with a truck?

                 One who is estranged to the world of gaming might perceive that the Goat Simulator is the height of folly, a waste of time, or even a disgrace to the goats, due to the blasphemy done by the developers by giving it strange powers. Some might even brand this masterpiece as trash not worth looking at, but I strongly disagree. Only in a way which is strongly philosophical and retrospective could one fully appreciate being a goat.

 

           Being a goat means living a liberal life free of problems and transgression of the modern society. One is freed from the fears of the upcoming exams and the pressure that comes with it. There is no mortgage to be paid or children to take care of. It is a life of blissful ignorance and complete disengagement with the society. Nobody could call you a liberal or a secularist when you are a goat, or condemn your laziness which was an actual genetic trait.

        To top it all, being a goat in the Goat Simulator is to be immortal. No amount of damage or injury you take would kill you, and the goat avatar would simply rise again in all its glory and awesomeness after being hit by a convoy of trucks. It is only during the unfortunate case in which the computer crashes or blows up due to the meaninglessness of the game would the goat ever die. You are free to do whatever you wish , from licking the citizens with its overly long tongue or destroy petrol stations with a headbutt. Truly a magical experience; there is nobody that is able to stop the path of destruction.

          What makes the Goat Simulator a truly better experience than our harrowing daily life is that the goat has the freedom to do things we are so afraid to do, and to make choices in its stupid life without the fear of being judged or stigmatised. We human beings can’t even read some books due to the fear of being brainwashed or being led astray. While it is true that goats can’t read, the freedom of which it is granted symbolizes that it actually has the potential and the will to do things by itself. I am waiting for some day during which the goat simulator has the ability to read and outwit those cowardly human beings.

 

         The main principle of the life of the goat is that it is not restricted to any law and creeds of weird organisations which pressure their members to conform to the backwards and unyielding ways of thought. The goat is free to think whatever it wants to; whether to  destroy tanks at the north corner of the town or break into houses of innocent people. It has the power to decide by its own discretion, which is wrong and what is beneficial for the benefit of the goat and its community as a whole.

        Secondly , the goat does not have to worry about what his human neighbours have to say about him; well; he’s a goat after all. The immature and childish thoughts of the proletariat beings around him will not deter or destroy his mind and desire. His raison d'être is clear and immaculate; destruction and havoc.

 

            After experiencing the free life of a goat , I figured out that we do not have the freedom of thought and the strength to venture into a dimension of strange ideas which is so vast and interesting. Our religion had emphasized so much upon the discovery of knowledge , the importance of reading; so much that it was the first ayat in the Quran. What are we so afraid of? What can a book do to the mind? Corruption of the mind is a choice made by oneself, not by ideas in writings. Be free like the goat, my friend!

             In these times where we are too afraid to seek the truth from issues due to the incapability to trust our own judgement, we should follow the path of the goat. We humans should be able to grant ourselves freedom to read and think about liberalism and those other  ‘Western’ ideas we were so afraid of, the real meaning and philosophy behind it,  or else the free life of the goat would always be better than our small existence upon this planet.

                 I believe that it is the obligation of those who wish to fight for a cause to study and seek profound knowledge of what he is fighting for. Being someone without authority does not reduce our mental capacity to think and discover by ourselves, neither should we restrict ourselves from thinking about choices that we make.

Be better than goats.

*goats referred above are those exclusively in the simulator, not those that are being domesticated.

** 'Siri Serangan Pemikiran' books are always available in bookstores .

***images courtesy of Kotaku.com

TPPA~

           Free trade is what the name itself implies. A trade that is free. A simple explanation for  free trade is like a market where traders can sell whatever they want, regardless of the amount, to whomever they wish to sell to, without having to bear taxes or be restricted under government policies. By committing to free trade policies, governments do not discriminate against imports or interfere with exports by applying tariffs (to imports) or subsidies (to exports) or quotas.

            In theory there should be nothing wrong with free trade. In fact, through comparative advantage, goods are made cheaper, and there would be a higher amount of goods produced , with addition of variations in production.  What the heck is comparative advantage? Read that yourself.

              People should start reading before they agree to protest against something.  Associating capitalism with the evil Satan while not knowing  what capitalism itself is, for example, is plain bigotry. Naming liberalism as a heretic West ideology, without even knowing  the basis of liberalism is not what intellectuals do; it is not what people with brains should ever practice. Regarding TPPA , just because the media overhyped it as a bad thing, that does not mean that we should jump into the bandwagon  and protest against it .

          To cut it short , TPPA or Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement is an agreement of free trade. Countries which signed this agreement are entitled to deregulate their trade policies when dealing with foreign firms from other signatory countries. That would reduce import tariffs and loosen environmental and safety regulations previously  restricted upon imports. This will obviously encourage investment and increase the volume of both imports and exports in a country. An increase in foreign investment and demand for exports would bring to an increase in job opportunities and therefore reduce unemployment. In what way is this TPPA bad? Please ignore the nuances of reports in the net that employs a rather negative tone about TPPA without even trying to explain about it.

 Sorry for being so boring. I don't know how to make this fun.

                 I am an advocate for free trade. If the Malaysian government actually trusted in free trade, my father and his neighbours would have bought Mercedes and Bentley instead of those mysterious local cars-haha- because free trade is the exact opposite of  protectionist policies  that Mahathir loved so much. Excise duties would be  reduced, quotas would be removed and imported cars would be so much cheaper. The same goes for all imported goods which appear expensive , while the actual cost is less than half the price.

            The problem with TPPA is that  the agreement undermines the voice of the people who voted for the government. If Malaysia joins TPPA, the government would have to conform to deregulation, and this is made without the people's consent. Environmental laws would be inapplicable to foreign laws, as they have obtained the 'right for free trade'. Firms can even demand compensation if domestic environmental policies are applied to them. Frankly, there is no way those hundreds of thousands of Malaysians who protested against Lynas , those who stood up against industrial pollution would ever support this agreement. To add to that , if Malaysia wishes to amend their policies to make them applicable against those foreign firms, we would require the agreement of all signatory countries to make it happen. In other words , should the people demand for better control upon pollution , there is no way the government could impose such laws upon those invincible firms.

                      To make it simpler, if a foreign firm pollutes a river in Malaysia, and our environmental laws demand them to pay for the damages, the firm can sue our government for compensation, because they were denied of 'potential future profits' . This is just so wrong , it doesn't even make sense anymore.                                                                                          

                    If a foreign firm build their factories here , domestic laws would again be inapplicable against their operations. Under TPPA, investors are given rights to procure land, resources, build factories ,or anything else they invested in. It doesn't matter that they are given rights to explore our resources, but to give them protection against safety and environmental laws is not something reasonable.

     

                The lack of regulation would mean that imported goods would undergo less safety and health checks. Therefore ,even  if imported food from signatory countries contain elements that make people dumb or grow extra limbs, we would just bring them in , in the name of free trade.

            TPPA grants too much freedom for investors and foreign firms. While it's true that free trade would bring in more job opportunities and economic growth, there is no reason to give foreign firms the rights to violate our resources and pollute our lands as they see fit.

             Forgive my exaggerations. Correct me if I am wrong.

Peace.

The Macai Mentality

            The word macai, according to a very suspicious open dictionary, means a group of people with low mentality, gullible , and easily influenced by negative perceptions. This weird dictionary further defines macai as stalwart supporters of a particular political party. I would prefer to define macai as supporters of a group , with a loyalty beyond the boundaries  of reason, and sometimes seeks to justify the acts of their leaders, although they are  clearly wrong. In Malay, the coin word for the acts of a macai is "kesetiaan tak berbelah bahagi" .

                  I have  no reason to write something so unpleasant, but this is just an analysis I made after months of observation.

                       Macais and the macai mentality exists everywhere, in every group and party. The very existence of the macai mentality has succeeded to halt the progress of our nation's political development.  The general characteristics of a macai is as follows;

1. Seeks to justify every action and decisions made by their leaders, without trying to question it.

2. Employs baseless assumptions , slanders and pointless accusations  due to the lack of facts on their side.

3. The ones who swears on every political Facebook post.

4. Those people who are going to dance and sing like hooligans tomorrow morning.

5. People who consider those sodomy cases and sex videos as legit.

6. Every person that ever said that we should be grateful to the government.

7. ISMA

             A macai can either have all of those above, or even only one of them, to be qualified as a macai. The reason for their unwavering loyalty is beyond me- I have an idea for it, but that will take another post for it. Dr Tariq Ramadan wrote about critical loyalty in his book, What I  Believe. Critical loyalty is the exact opposite of macais' stalwartness. People with a critical loyalty  believes in their ideology, but they seek to question the acts made by their leaders, before they decide to follow. Islam is the true religion, but that does not mean that I have to justify every act made by Muslims. If some Muslims decided to bomb people alive for fun, then I should criticize such actions.

             Dan Ariely mentioned about possessing an ideology in his writings. The concept of possession of ideology is similar to the possession of our personal assets. Say that I have a bike that I ride to college every day. I bought  that bike with hard-earned cash, and the bike has done so many things for me. I formed an emotional bond with my bike, and I do like it very  much. Therefore , I put a great value upon that bike, and when I decide to sell it, it is most probable that the price that I put is much higher than anyone would want the bike for. The same goes for an ideology. When one took a liking in an idea, they put more value on it than anyone else, and they seek to justify every single deficit that the ideology has. For example, ISMA members enjoyed their activities so much, for it is so fulfilling, that they decided to accept and justify every action that their leader took. That is just an example.

          Although I support PAS and its endeavours, that does not mean that I should agree  and justify every acts made by the party. The act of some supporters who seek to justify every single action that PAS took, for the reason that they are ulama'  and they know more, classifies them as macais. We don't need this kind of people in our journey. This is a democracy, not  a monarchy. Every single person has the right and the ability to question everything. Being an underling ,or just a normal member does not reduce our brain capacity, nor does it take away our rights to question everything.

[And they should consider that] when those who have been followed disassociate themselves from those who followed [them], and they [all] see the punishment, and cut off from them are the ties [of relationship],

Sahih International

Those who followed will say, "If only we had another turn [at worldly life] so we could disassociate ourselves from them as they have disassociated themselves from us." Thus will Allah show them their deeds as regrets upon them. And they are never to emerge from the Fire. (Al-Baqarah, 166-167)

          This is not a war , where you either kill or be killed. This is just an election , where we have choices to make, and we question ourselves on which choice to make. I need to question myself to find out whether I understand the ridiculous MRP theory in college. I need to question myself to see whether this post makes sense or not. Question everything, my friend.

          To question is not to deny, nor does it seek to reject. To question is to reiterate  our faith and belief in something.

            A faith without questions is just blind love. Remember , my friend, to question is to understand , not to deny. Ah, what is love without understanding

                   Be free of the macai mentality , my friend. Think by yourselves.

Lies~

                 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~~                    

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.

          Peace.

                

Compromise~~

                  The victors of war can decide upon the definition of justice. They have the authority to rephrase the essence of justice , making it so that it bends towards their ideals and their way of life. Just so you know, Batman  is my cousin, and so we share our knowledge of justice. No, this is not just a blunder to release excess exam stress, but a summary of thoughts produced after inquiring a number of fictional characters of their world views.

                  I was engaged in a debate about Islamic laws. No, I wasn't involved, I was just an ignored bystander, as I was unable to match their ability to produce quick responses and sharp retorts.  Don't blame my inability, blame the education. My friends somehow reached an unofficial consensus that they wish to able to be freed of the shackles of Islamic laws; meaning that they can voice out whatever opinion they have, Muslims can convert to other religions at whim, and although said indirectly, they suggested that Islamic laws are somewhat barbaric and out of place; inhumane and impractical. Sorry if my summary is incorrect, but after a number of similar arguments we had, these are the impressions you created upon this fickle mind of mine.

            As for the reason to why they want to be freed of the shackles of Islamic laws , I have absolutely no idea. Perhaps that one of their siblings had their hands cut off, or their grandparent's head were severed, but I doubt that ever happened. It could be that when they tried  to express their world views, they were attacked with a flurry of death threats and anthrax in envelopes, but they are still alive and kicking to this day. We were different from every aspect of living, that every time we converse, I am unable to say a word. I really feel that I am a failure as a person.

                 They brought up a case where a Maldivian girl was sentenced to a hundred strokes for adultery, and claimed that it was based upon a false judgement. Amnesty International condemned the case and called upon human rights activists to protest against this , but then again, that is the fault of the false judgement, not hudud itself , is it?

               It is the same when a man is falsely sentenced to death- that is the fault of prosecutors ,not the law itself, is it? If it becomes the fault of the law, then we have to amend the law every time there is a false judgement. I suppose that that is irrelevant.

                 Hudud laws serve as a punishment and a deterrent. Punishment for the crimes that were done, and deterrent for the community as a whole.  Prevention is better than cure?

                  Adulterers are caned 100 times in front of the public. The argument here is that it is too degrading for a human being, cruel and inhumane. Well then, if such a punishment is displayed to the people, would there be any person who would ever commit adultery? There will be,  but it would be at a number 99 percent smaller than the advocates of free sex nowadays. We should take into consideration the negative effects that occur when the law of God is not being followed. There are hundreds of thousands children who are born without fathers. Teens as young as 11 being pregnant is no more a rarity. Divorce is much more frequent than marriage. The so-called family institution collapsed  years ago when people decided that sex is plainly for fun. Cheating spouses had become so common that people talk of it as normal as if Arsenal had lost another game. Women are treated as sexual objects, and the amount of hentai on the net is too damn high. This list is endless, my friend.

                What is better , a collapsed family constitution, or only 4 or 5 people sentenced to caning each year and solves all the problems above?

           

                      I was raised to believe in Islamic laws blindly, as I was unable to understand the reasons behind it. But as I grew up, I am able to recognize the perfection of the laws that Allah dictated for us human beings. Suppose that a man has his hands cut off due to thievery, will the people ever resort to stealing ever again? What is better, having hundreds of robbery cases daily, with convicts and ex-prisoners stealing repetitively, or  a perfect act of prevention?

             I said earlier that the victors of war can rephrase the definition of justice. Should the Caliphate won the first world war and enacted Islamic laws, will this argument even exist? We had been taught by the victors of war of human rights and their freedom, and so we tend to feel that their law is better and much more compatible. Amnesty's definition of justice is nothing more than a set of words taught by the imperialists to suit their necessities.

           Perhaps the fact that we haven't seen the effects that Islamic laws can bring causes us to doubt it all over again, and perhaps we have the impression that the current social condition has no cure. But my friend, we surely can't forget that those people who defined justice have only won the war less than a hundred years ago, and before that period, the caliphate had created an era which women are being respected, family institution became the pillar of nations, and crime levels were brought down so low.

        Then we pondered upon the view that there is no absolute truth. You suggested that in an interfaith debate, none of the religions can claim to be the one and true religion, and only then we can sit together and debate; because if one staunchly believe in his faith without any chance of compromise, there is no use to argue. It becomes pointless. You seek for compromise between religions. This is my answer; I can bring forth every form of proof and evidence that my religion is true, and my religion is the absolute truth. That is the essence of a debate; the one with the best evidence and proof is the better argument of the two sides. I wish to question then; what is your reason not to believe?

              What is the reason that my friends despise this religion so much that they wish to escape from its guidelines? Why is that when they speak of people who staunchly exercised Islamic laws, they speak of it with disgust and disbelief ? You can't speak of these laws as if they are ancient tribal laws, when the Prophet who brought it forth was the one who was able to civilize Badouins. The Arabs killed and robbed and disregard laws. They have no respect for women, and they are the ones who bury newborn girls out of shame. How come the laws that turned them into civilized men be regarded as 'tribal' or 'inhumane'?

              What is the reason then? Is it because old people who wear turbans and keep long beards look old-fashioned and silly? Or perhaps it is because the ones who advocated Islamic laws did not graduate from Oxford? It can be because with these laws, there will be no freedom with liquor, no more free sex and no more porn on the net, but my friends are good people with healthy minds, not to mention them being 

excellent scholars.

I don't know. I have no idea.

History, seriously?

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it"
George Santayana


The wise words of George Santayana, well, it is wise. Those who cannot remember the past, will somehow repeat the past. Although it was not defined which 'past' is meant. Is it if, you forget a victory in the past, somehow, someday, you will succeed? Seriously? If it is that way I want to forget every kind of achievements I did, then I'll be the most successful person ever. Mr Santayana probably meant that those who cannot remember their wrongdoings, failure in the past will probably do it again.

In a simpler way, we, the new generation will again sell the country to neo-imperialists if we ever forget the events of The Pangkor Treaty, or the occupation of Penang. No, that's rather hard. A person may fall into a hole on the road again, if he forgets that there is a hole.

But , there is a catch over there, Mr Santayana's words are deeper than that. Remembering the past, seriously , is not enough. You have to 'understand' the past. Remembering , as said by Mr Santayana, really does mean 'to recall and seriously understand'! Take an example, a car dealer and a customer. The car dealer might cheat the customer, by selling the badly shaped car at a high price. The car dealer discloses the real information of the car, while the happy customer buys the car without hesitation. If, that customer is a good man, he'll remember being cheated, he remembers how was he cheated, and he'll probably buy a better car in the future. But, if he is the opposite guy, things are not the same. He remembers losing money, after being cheated by the car dealer, but, if he doesnt know how was he cheated, then does it make a difference? He will be cheated like; forever.

I'm trying to express my anxiety; about our history, history itself, and probably history as a subject in schools.

A question in the recent SPM's History paper was "What is the name of the national anthem?"

Seriously?

Is the thirst for the grade so hardcore, that such question even exists? What do you expect from the students, if that is the question used to evaluate students' knowledge about history? That is not history, unless someone made the national anthem a history.
That is a small issue for almost everyone, and probably good news for the candidates. Bonus marks.

Learning history, like Mr Santayana said, is for not repeating the mistakes we've done, the wrongdoings of the elders. We ought to learn history so we do know , what we shouldn't do when we become leaders in the future. History teaches us that life isn't as bright as we imagined in our teenage years. There are springs, winters and autumns, and there are hurricanes, tornadoes and tsunamis. Unless history is really 'taught' to our students, the past mistakes of our elders; the corruptions, the lies, the stupidity will be repeated all over again.

The question paper is so easy that I don't think revision is necessary. I do know that failure in History means no certificates, but what does the certificates mean , if students fail to understand our history? The test is an evaluation, of their understanding. If it is just for the certificates, the whole period of five years of education is useless. The test should investigate, what do the students think about the history, what are their opinions of the causes of the past events and the consequences, not basic general knowledge!

Malaysians are among the worst readers in the universe. The amount of books read by Malaysians in a year, by average, can be counted by fingers alone. History, is mainly about reading. If the level of difficulty of the test is so low, youngsters will probably read less. What to read? Why read? The test is just for the grades, and it is damned easy.


"Have they not seen how many generations We destroyed before them which We had established upon the earth as We have not established you? And We sent [rain from] the sky upon them in showers and made rivers flow beneath them; then We destroyed them for their sins and brought forth after them a generation of others." ( Al-An'am;6 )

Allah ordered us to look into the past. There are a lot of ayahs reminding us about the past. About the prophets and their people,their deeds and the consequences. These are the basis of the human history, of which all of us should know. People should remember and understand, of the generations in the past. All those homosexuals do not understand history, because all of Prophet Lut's people were demolished out of their wrong orientation. The people of Madyan were destoyed because they cheated in their businesses, they were corrupted and evil.


"And to [the people of] Madyan [We sent] their brother Shu'ayb. He said, 'O my people, worship Allah ; you have no deity other than Him. There has come to you clear evidence from your Lord. So fulfill the measure and weight and do not deprive people of their due and cause not corruption upon the earth after its reformation. That is better for you, if you should be believers.And do not sit on every path, threatening and averting from the way of Allah those who believe in Him, seeking to make it [seem] deviant. And remember when you were few and He increased you. And see how was the end of the corrupters." ( Al-A'raf: 85,86)

Allah taught us about the history of the corrupters, and the punishment for their deeds. Dude, seriously, this is History.

If, history is just another grade on the certificate, for our students, beware and be patient. The future leaders will be most corrupted. Future leaders do know what's the name of the national anthem, of course they do! But they will never know that the mistakes done by the elders, are actually mistakes, and they probably will do it, again.

Deadly pessimistic-peace.