Hacktivism

The Internet is a truly amazing piece of technology. It constantly surprises me on the kinds of uses people come up with it. For the modern activist, the Internet would prove to be a very useful tool in bringing people together for a common cause. In the past, people have generally used it as a tool to disseminate information. But most recently, it is being used as a tool for attack.

If you're not familiar with Scientology, it's probably about time you found out about them. Wikipedia is a good place to start. If you prefer to watch a video instead, BBC Panorama did an expose on them a while back. You can find the video here. Watch it.

Anyway, this blog post isn't about them. It's about the interesting phenomenon of online activism, dubbed hacktivism. A group of online activists, calling themselves Anonymous, have come together and declared an online war on the church. This alone, is interesting to observe as they use various methods to attack the church.

1. Declaration of War
   They released an online video declaration on YouTube. If you find the voice-over funny, it's because it was done using a Text-to-Speech translation software. This prevents voice identification and allows the group members to remain anonymous. Also, it gives the group a single voice, regardless of who is speaking. The latter reason would be important, to project a single consistent image in their campaign.
   
2. Information Campaign
   They released a bunch of documents that were claimed to be secret documents. As mentioned in their declaration, their core tactic for taking down the church is to expose the truth. They have also released another video, challenging the main stream media to report the truth. Just like any other war, information is crucial to winning it.
   
3. First Blood
   They drew first blood by launching a series of crippling DDoS attacks on servers of the church. This kind of attack is a typical front-line assault on any online system. It's fairly simple to orchestrate and is particularly effective at taking down web servers. In some countries, this is illegal. However, due to the distributed nature of the attack, it is particularly difficult to police. Some parties have decried this tactic as it isn't very gentlemanly. However, as they have already declared in their video, they will use any tactic that the church has used before. So, it's quid-pro-quo, I guess.
   
4. Base Assault
   This takes the campaign to a whole other level. Know that a purely online campaign would not cripple the church, they are gathering in front of the London branch of the church in a fortnight's time as a show of force. This will be a serious test on the strength of their campaign. I'm tempted to pop down to London with my camera to record this historic event.
   

I'm excited just thinking about what they're going to do next. This is particularly interesting to me as it's the first coordinated hacktivist activity that I've been able to observe. Other activists who wish to take their campaign online, might even learn a thing or two from this campaign. I just hope that they don't turn out to be a bunch of crazies.

UPDATE: Just as I finished writing this blog, I read this: Tom Cruise today announced that the Church of Scientology would be pursuing all means, legal and otherwise, to shut down the Internet group referring to themselves as simply "Anonymous". I guess that the gloves have come off now.

A Coin has THREE Sides!

Most people in the world live with the idea that there are two sides to a coin. Many are even taught this in school. Unfortunately, this is patently untrue. Believing in such lies will only get one into trouble. There are at least three sides to a coin: look to the picture on the right for the truth.

With recent events, we have seen the shadow of growing Islamisation, enveloping our nation. There are plenty of such examples, like the recent intellectual property claim on the word Allah by some idiots in our Government. But this problem isn't only happening at home. For some unknown reason, there is a gradual creep of increased religious piety worldwide. For example, Christian extremists in the USA are challenging evolution with intelligent design and believe that they are a Christian nation. Sigh, where are the centrists?

I tried to do my bit recently, on the blog of our opposition leader. A parent had written to him, to ask for advice, and he decided to politicise the issue for no good reason. I found that fairly irresponsible. The issue was about the school principal madating the prefects to wear a songkok as part of their uniform. As a Chinese Christian family, the parent felt that this was an attack on their race/religion. From many of the comments, you can tell that most people see it in the same way.

I tried to point out the fact that it was not a race/religion issue, but an issue of personal freedom. I asked one comment, how wearing a songkok is against the 10 commandments as none of them mention attire, and got called an agnostic. I asked another, if the male prefects had been mandated to wear skirts to school instead, would it be a gender issue, and got called illogical. I find this fairly comical as I've also been called the exact opposite. Seems like I must have hit a nerve.

The thing that I find sad is that most Malaysians will see this issue as a race/religion issue. I cannot blame them as we have been conditioned from young to see everything through the lens of race/religion. As a result, politics in Malaysia will not change. Our National Front (BN) will continue to rule by divide-and-conquer and our Opposition will exploit exactly the same thing. On the surface, it does involve race/religion as the songkok is a Malay traditional head wear and Malays are, by definition, muslims. But dig deeper, and you'll see that it's a crime of stupidity, not hate.

I have always hoped that our Opposition will grow up and handle real issues. I have blogged about this many times before. The problem with Malaysia is that, through the many decades of conditioning, our fellow countrymen have become mostly bigots. The centre is growing thin and crumbling. When the centre becomes too thin, the coin falls over.

When that happens, as a nation, we are so screwed.

Problem Solving, the Malaysian Way!

One of the very first things that we were taught, during the first year at my former university, was problem solving. At first, I was fairly surprised that such a skill had to be taught. But then, I came to realise that some people lack the necessary logic facilities to work out how to solve problems. And as engineers, this could be a problem. Hence, problem solving became part of the syllabus, to teach us how to approach a problem and tackle it.

Generally, the steps involved are:

1. Define the problem clearly and concisely.
   
2. Consider all factors, criteria and constraints.
   
3. Come up with ideas using different techniques.
   
4. Test each solution against the factors.
5. Choose a final solution.
   
6. Implement it.
7. Voila, problem solved!
   

Through my reading of various media, I've come to conclude that our government works with a different 7-step programme. From what I understand, it's generally:

1. Redefine our Constitution and create a problem where there was none.
2. Trumpet the problem and raise public awareness of it.
3. Present a solution, which is to restore status quo.
4. Do nothing (i.e. restore status quo).
   
5. Claim to have solved the problem.
6. Show that the government loves the rakyat.
   
7. Voila, problem solved!
   

There are just so many examples of such situations. The issue with the Christian publication, Herald, is one example. Actually, all other major national issues are the same, such as the NameWee and Hindraf scandals. In each case, the government tramples on the Law, artificially inflates the issue, and finally solves the problem.

So, it's really no wonder that we're still stuck with 50 year-old problems, such as national unity, and regressing further each day. Little progress can be made on the real issues, when the government is too busy putting out fires that it lit itself. Maybe, the solution is to send all our ministers for a problem solving course and teach them how to put out real fires.

I love this quote by Shepherd Book from Firefly:

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned."

Oh, we're so screwed.

Escaping through Islam

Now, just as I thought that I've got things figured out, I get further confused again. Reuters had just posted an article on the Subashini case. In short, it is sort of a custody battle between to parents whose marriage is now void. But in this case, the issue is not of physical custody, but rather, religion.

According to the article, "the Federal Court rejected her request for an injunction on technical grounds, leaving her free to try again, but one judge noted the court's jurisdiction was limited, given the husband was now a Muslim and therefore governed by Islamic or sharia law." It also states: "the judges' comments made it clear they recognized the husband's right, as a newly converted Muslim, to have recourse to the Islamic courts."

Okay, let's deal with a hypothetical situation:

As I understand it (IANAL), under Syariah Law, a woman who claims to have been raped, would need to produce either a confession from the rapist, or four male witnesses of the crime. Otherwise, the alleged rapist would usually get acquitted of the charge as there wasn't an easy way to prove the crime. In return, the woman, could then be charged under adultery (Zina) and punished accordingly, which is incidentally, stoning (for a married woman) or 100 lashes.

So, it would seem that the best recourse for any rapist in Malaysia, would be to convert to Islam after they're caught. It would give them the best chance of escaping the crime. It doesn't seem to matter whether or not the crime was committed before or after their conversion. They would have recourse to the Islamic courts and can duke it out there, instead of the regular courts.

This is totally confused!

I certainly hope that our country figures things out so that things don't confuse me utterly.

UPDATED@29/12: It seems that there's hope after all. According to this article, a recent 2-1 Federal Court decision has set a legal precedent in the country and asserts that: the Family Court has exclusive power to decide on matters involving divorce and custody rights of a couple of which one spouse has become a Muslim. The judges felt that a Muslim spouse cannot seek legal recourse through the Syariah Courts as it would amount to abusing the legal system. So, it seems that it's not going to be so easy to escape the civil courts after all and another potential legal loophole, has been closed.

Welcome, the Terrorists!

WTF??!! This is just too funny. Supposedly, the Hindraf group that were interested in submitting a weird request to the British High Commission in Malaysia, are a terrorist group! Well, at least according to our government, there are links between them foreign militant organisations. Quoting the article:

"Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Datuk Seri Mohamed Nazri Aziz said the groups are Sri Lanka’s Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) and the RSS, a militant organisation in India."

Personally, I just think that the government has officially gone crazy. Firstly, they pre-emptively take out the Hindraf leadership. Then, they attack the crowd gathering peacefully, with tear gas and water cannons. They even launched an attack, on holy ground, in Batu Caves! Now, they claim that the group is linked with foreign terrorist groups. All this happened because our government butted into something that wasn't it's business to begin with. Quoting our silly minister:

"As we know, the LTTE has been declared a terrorist group by the United Nations and the United States. If it is true that Hindraf leaders have links with them, Hindraf is also a terrorist group"

Wow, this must be a great endorsement. Iran has been named as one of the Axis of Evil by the US and deemed a terrorist state. We have plenty of dealings with Iran, especially in the field of oil & gas. In fact, our national oil company, loves the Iranians so much that they want to keep doing business with them. I'd think that dealing with a terrorist state is so much more dangerous than dealing with a terrorist organisation.

So, using the same logic, Malaysia must be a terrorist state as well. At the very least, our national oil company has to be a terrorist organisation. I can tell you this much, as silly as the company may be sometimes, it's certainly no terrorist organisation. I should know, since I have personal dealings with them. And how about RSS? As far as I can tell, they're not on anyone's terrorist watch-list.

The saddest thing is that things have degenerated to this level. Another simple matter, has been blown up to astronomical proportions by our lovely government. I'm just hoping that they know what the consequences are when the sh*t hits the fan. Before this, most sane Malaysians would've just treated the Hindraf as a group of bat-shi*t crazy people. But now, they're being politicised into victims of our political system. This is ironically, their main complaint, to begin with.

I wonder if anyone would ask our government to back up their words with facts. If Hindraf is truly a terrorist organisation, the government should come clean with the facts. Just calling them terrorists, don't make them so. Personally, I think that our government has gone crazy, crazier so than Hindraf. This just proves it beyond a doubt. I just find things extremely sad. There is only one group guilty of perpetrating ethnic terrorism in Malaysia, and it isn't the Hindraf.

More Non-Malays than Malays in Malaysian Universities?

I've recently watched a programme from the Beeb, HardTalk. To those who're not familiar with it, it is a hard-hitting programme that invites important people in this world to discuss difficult issues. The hosts like to hit their guests with hard questions and it's interesting for the viewers to see how they react. In this particular episode, our Foreign Minister (FM) was asked about the problems of race, in Malaysia.

As expected, he tended to side-step the questions raised by talking about the past. He explained why the policies that are in place, are there in the first place. But when he was asked by the host, why it was that it's easier for Malays to get into universities than non-Malays, he said that it was not true. According to him, there are actually more non-Malays than Malays in local universities. This struck me as rather odd, as I came from a university where only 10% of the student population is non-Bumi. Heck, one of our top universities in the country even classified it's local Chinese and Indian students as foreign students at one time. When they corrected this boo-boo, it dropped them from a Top 100 rank to relative obscurity within a year.

Throughout most of the interview, he gave the sense that we are a nation in denial. As has been the preferred method in recent years, he began to attack the fact that outsiders have no right to comment on the situation within, especially if the people themselves accepted it. While I agree that strangers to a situation, should not comment too much on the situations that they may not know much about, I think that it's delusional misinformed to think that the people themselves are happy with the present arrangement.

"I don't think it is right to look at Malaysia as a racist country." -- best quote of the show.

Of course the country itself is not racist. It's merely the present administration, with it's continued propagation of racial preference policies that can be considered as such. When asked about how the country has become divided, with each community sticking to themselves, he continued to deflect the situation. He recognised the fact that it was happening, but he doesn't wish to address the issue. He merely states that polarisation is getting worse everywhere in the world. And, our government has taken steps to tackle the situation.

According to our FM, Lina Joy was never barred from converting to Christianity. What she was stopped from doing was to convert her name. WTF??!! And he considers this issue a minor issue as he claims that there are more important things for the government to handle than this. He stresses the point that Islam is like a club. When you want to leave the club, you have to follow the rules and procedures of the club. I'm not sure which club requires people to spend 6 months in a detention rehabilitation camp before leaving but whichever club it is, I'm sure it is illegal to do so.

Oh yea, the old dude is coming to Cambridge to give a talk this Friday. I'm going to attend, with my camera. Hopefully, I'll get a few nice photos of the event. I'll try my very best to keep my mouth shut throughout the event.

Buddhism is Not a Religion. It is a Science of Mind.

Thought I'd share this interesting BBC video with people. It's a video on the life of the Buddha. It describes, quite accurately, the birth of modern Buddhism, which is quite possibly the world's first Open Source movement!

PM and Apostasy

I wonder why this news isn't featured in any of our local media yet. Maybe it's the latest news and they've just not picked up on it yet. Afterall, Reuters is a major newswire. According to the article, our dearest PM vows to resolve Muslim conversion woes. The article quotes our PM of saying:

"This is not about something that cannot be done. For those who don't want to be Muslims anymore, what can you do?"

I really don't have much to say. All I can do is hope that he will do the right thing and defend our Constitution. Article 11 defends our right to religious freedom. Recent events have since sought to undermine our Constitution. Let's all pray that our dearest PM will at least try to fix the mess. And let me be proud to call myself a Malaysian again.

UPDATE@0845: Seems like TheStar might have picked up a similar story, although it's article doesn't make the same claims as the Reuters one. TheStar merely claims that our PM is on a fact finding mission and wants to find out why people want to leave the religion. It doesn't say that our PM promises to fix any problems. I guess that Reuters must have sexed up the article a bit, while TheStar dumbed it down a bit. So, this meant that our PM isn't about to do anything. How unsurprising and disappointing.

Blindly accept Islam Hadhari?

Our dearest Prime Minister was quoted as telling the Malaysians to just accept the concept of Islam Hadhari. His claims that, because even foreigners are interested in the concept, it must be a Good Thing and we Malaysians should just accept it without question. Quoting the original article:

"Accept it as a new approach towards the development of Islam and that of the country. I have spoken about the concept in many countries and all have received the concept well. But here (in Malaysia) the Muslims are questioning it without knowing its actual meaning and objective."

Our PM has been very busy promoting this concept of Islamic government. He even claimed that foreign countries such as Russia and New Zealand have invited him over to speak on the topic. They've probably asked him to go speak on it since they do not understand it either. If the Malaysian Muslims themselves are confused, I cannot really blame the foreigners for being confused as well.

However, what exactly is Islam Hadhari? As a non-Muslim Malaysian, I am interested to find out. I've heard this term being increasingly used to describe a new philosophy of governance. I personally think that politics and religion should never mix. Although I am not an expert in Islam, it is still important that I understand it. So, I looked up what it meant in Wikipedia. Seems like this concept is a local Malaysian invention. From the wiki article:

"Islam Hadhari (Arabic الإسلام الحضاري) or "Civilizational Islam" is a theory of government based on the principles of Islam as derived from the Qur'an. It was originally founded by Tunku Abdul Rahman in 1957 (but under a different name), and is now being promoted by the current Malaysian Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi."

It's no wonder that the people are confused. The Malaysian Muslims themselves do not understand what it means because it's his pet theory. Imagine how the non-Muslims like me would feel. We would be so doubly confused. Since it's his own little theory, it makes sense for people to ask questions about it. We just don't really know what he actually means when he spouts those two words. According to wiki, there are 10 principles:

1. Faith and piety in Allah
2. Just and trustworthy government
3. Freedom and independence to the people
4. Mastery of knowledge
5. Balanced and comprehensive economic development
6. Good quality of life for all
7. Protection of the rights of minority groups and women
8. Cultural and moral integrity
9. Protection of the environment
10. A strong defence policy

Instead of asking the rakyat to just accept the concept, he should actively encourage them to ask questions. As a scientist, I understand the value of peer review and independent verification of any new theory. Since it's his own little theory, he needs to preach it so that everyone can fully understand what he means and there are no ambiguous interpretations later. Personally, I don't have a gripe with any of the concepts except #1 as God has no place in human politics.

On whether or not any of it is actually anything new and noteworthy, I'll leave it as an exercise to you. The wiki article contains several criticisms of the concept as well. However, I would be very interested to know how principle #1 would affect religious atheists like me. Would I be further discriminated against, by my own government, for my own personal religious believes? Will this further erode Article 11 of our Constitution? Unfortunately, I get the feeling that our dearest PM doesn't want to answer any of my questions.

Dalam sistem demokrasi, memang menjadi hak rakyat untuk menyoal setiap polisi kerajaan. Tiada salahnya kita semua menyoal. Hanya orang bersalah sahaja, yang takut untuk disoal.

PS: It seems like the official websites "www.islamhadhari.gov.my" and "www.islam.gov.my" are down at the moment.

Open letter to our Prime Minister

Our dearest Prime Minister is acting so very irresponsibly. He is brushing his hands completely off the Lina Joy case and pushing the responsibility onto the shoulders of the judiciary. According to quotes from the news media, he claims that he had no hand in the verdict. However, he doesn't seem to realise that this is no longer a political or racial or religious issue. This is now a constitutional issue and for that, he is required to act. I feel that I need to educated him a bit on what our democracy really means.

Dear Sir,

Democracy is generally regarded as a system of government of the people, for the people, by the people. It was thought up to be the best form of government that we can have today as it does not grant any person omnipotent powers. However, it is more than just about the majority and votes. There is much more to it than that.

In a system of government such as ours, separation of powers between the trinity of legislative, executive and judiciary is holy enshrined in the Constitution. Our written Constitution is admitted as the highest and most supreme law in the land. The idea behind the separation of powers is to avoid any dictator from rising into power. The legislative legislates legislature, the executive executes them and the judiciary adjudicates problems.

It may seem like these three branches are independent of each other and are free to do whatever each one wants. Now, the only way that this system can work is if there are checks and balances. The system isn't designed for each branch to exercise wanton power. In fact, it's designed so that the other two branches can keep any single branch from misbehaving. Just like the three legs of a stool, if one breaks, the whole stool falls. So, if one branch breaks, our country falls apart.

Now that our judiciary is disregarding the supreme law of the land, it is setting a very dangerous precedent. If we are allowing it to randomly pick and choose which bits of the Constitution it wishes to follow, we're in serious trouble. I would like to remind you, sir, that you draw your executive powers from the Constitution (Article 43). If the Constitution ceases to exist tomorrow, you are not the Prime Minister and I don't have to treat you with any respect.

So, to say that you're washing your hands entirely of the affair is just irresponsible. It is the responsibility of the executive and legislative branches to keep the judiciary in check. When a judge is openly quoted by all the local and international media as violating the Constitution of our country, he should have no business playing judge. The Bar Council has implied this in their official statement:

(1) "Malaysians must be prepared to confront these issues maturely and dispassionately within the framework of our Federal Constitution as the supreme law of the land."

(2) "We believe that the constitutional provision in Article 11 of the Federal Constitution which guarantees freedom of religion in our country has been severely violated."

(3) "It is, therefore, vital that the necessary legislation be enacted to ensure that no citizen would be penalised when he or she exercises the individual right to choose a faith and to practice it in freedom."

In case you don't understand, sir, it says that (1) the people should stay calm and realise that the Constitution is still the supreme law of the land (2) the unnamed judge has blatantly violated the Constitution (3) the other branches should intervene to right this wrong. So, washing your hands of the affair isn't even a choice. Although it's correct that the executive and legislative branches should not meddle with the judiciary, but when it is broke, it's up to these two branches to fix it.

So, please do not be an idiot and keep saying that, "the court made a decision and I don’t question that." It is your job to question. It is within your powers to question (read the Constitution). When the answer is so blatantly obvious, it shouldn't take too long for you to find it. So, I'm asking that you do The Right Thing. Fix the problem. Otherwise, I don't think that you deserve to be the Chief Executive of our country.

With Metta,
Shawn Tan.

According to Wikipedia, that picture is one of our Prime Minister discussing with George Bush about inter-religious cooperation due to the increased violence in the Islamic world due to the Pope's comments. So, please show the world that you are able to walk the talk.

Lina Joy aftermath - I'm ashamed to be Malaysian!

Today, our Federal Court in Malaysia has announced a decision with far-reaching consequences. I would like to remind everyone that I am not a lawyer. But even so, I can understand the law enough to know that this judgement is irrational. If this judgement is a sign of things to come, our country is seriously doomed.

According to Judge Ahmad Fairuz, "She cannot simply at her own whims enter or leave her religion. She must follow the rules." I would like to remind the most honourable judge that according to our Federal Constitution Article 11, we have all got the right to profess and practice any religion that we choose. In fact, it actually says that, "Every person has the right to profess and practice his religion and, subject to Clause (4), to propagate it." That's religious freedom to the max. You really can't ask for anything more than that.

However, clause 4 says that, "State law and in respect of the Federal Territories of Kuala Lumpur and Labuan, federal law may control or restrict the propagation of any religious doctrine or belief among persons professing the religion of Islam." This simply means that the state law can block people from preaching any other religion or cult or to propagate a particular religion to anyone who is a Muslim. So, it merely stops someone from evangelising and forcefully coercing a Muslim to convert to another religion. So, who coerced and forced Lina Joy into converting into Christianity?

So, I don't know why the law is punishing Lina Joy who has not done anything illegal. If they suspect that she was coerced, then they should put whichever Christian evangelist who managed to convert her into jail. If they thought that her boyfriend did it, they could possibly lock him up for breaking the law as well. They cannot be together anyway, due to the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976, which bars a Muslim and non-Muslim from marrying. So, let's just go all the way and to whatever we can to separate them. They could possibly lock up the people from the church who baptised her. Idiots!

This judgement also implies that we cannot talk about our religions freely anymore. This was probably why our government withdrew their support for the previous religious conference. They probably didn't want a bunch of foreign speakers from inadvertently breaking the law by simply speaking and discussing openly about the religion. The rest of us rakyat have to be very careful when speaking with our Muslim friends, least someone accidentally curses and utters His name in vain. So, let's all just stick among ourselves, in our own little isolated communities and only talk with the Muslims when it's safe to do so.

So, the Federal Court has just mad a big boo boo that is spreading worldwide. I've already linked to the IHT and BBC articles. You can be sure that it will emanate through the whole world (it's currently the #3 top story at TIME). The Federal Court has just breached Lina Joy's constitutional rights to freedom of religion. In doing so, it has undermined the constitution. If we ignore the constitution, we can just safely ignore the Syariah Court, Federal Court and even our Government as they're all creatures of the Constitution. For this single reason, I think that someone should do the Right Thing (tm) and call for them to retire from their jobs. Judges who fail to respect the Constitution really have no business being judges.

This is a slippery slope and we have just fallen down to the ravine. I don't know what we can do to climb back out of it. Malaysia is becoming so intolerant these days. Forget whatever programmes the government tries to implement to inculcate national unity. They're all a joke. "Bersekutu Bertambah Mutu" my foot! Events like these just serve to illustrate the great divide and intolerance that has set in the country. We used to be so proud of our multi-racial, multi-cultural, multi-religion society. I feel sad to say this, but today, I'm truly ashamed of being a Malaysian.

Where has my country gone?
What have you done with it?

PS. In case this blog is misconstrued. I have nothing against Islam nor Muslims. I just think that judges who do not respect the Constitution have no right to play judge. Just like engineers who cannot build anything have no right to play engineer and doctors who cannot heal anyone have no right to play doctor.

Main main sendiri, bolehlah. Main dengan tanah air ku, jangan!

What has happened to religious tolerance in Malaysia?

I used to be really proud of the fact that we Malaysians, who are of multiple religions and various ethnicities, are capable of living together in harmony. However, recent developments in the country seem to indicate to me that this utopia is going to be shattered soon. That makes me really sad.

Our government had recently withdrawn it's support for an inter-faith dialogue. According to the news, no reason was given to the withdrawal of support. The "Building Bridges" conference is chaired by the Archbishop of Canterbury. His office was notified about 3 weeks prior to the event that the government had decided to withdraw it's support for the conference.

On the other hand, our government is enthusiastically trying to bring Manchester United into our country to play football. So, after rejecting the archbishop, we're now bringing in the red devils. For some reason, it just doesn't strike me as the right thing to do. There's nothing wrong with bringing in the football stars if they can make a buck out of it. However, abandoning the support for a inter-faith conference, especially in these times when religious paranoia is sweeping the world, isn't a very good idea.

So, I don't really understand why this is so. The only plausible reason that I could come up with is that someone within the government decided that supporting an inter-faith conference would be a bad idea. It might not go down well with the Islamic fundamentalists. Maybe if the conference was chaired by an imam instead of an archbishop, things might have gone differently. This incident will soon make us look like fools on the world stage. Kuala Lumpur is only one of the stops of the conference, in addition to London, New York, Qatar and Sarajevo. It was supposed to help show case how a moderate Islamic nation can thrive. I don't know what the organisers are going to think about us now.

Then, I'd recently read about the fiasco involving Maybank and law firms. It got exposed that the bank's requirements for engaging law-firms is entirely racist. They required at least 3 bumi partners with 50% shares of the partnership. This is a case of affirmative action gone wrong. In some countries, the directors of the bank would have been hauled to court on racial discrimination charges. However, in our country, they're just told do it unofficially instead of making it an official policy. I think that I'm going to take out every last sen that I have in that bank and move it over to PBB/HSBC when I go home. I'm certainly not going to support a racist bank.

UPDATE@1520: It seems that the religious seminar wasn't cancelled but postponed as our PM was busy during the period and didn't want the even to proceed without him [Shock and horror! - Ed]. This is obviously spin designed to cover our PM's ass in order not to inflame religious tensions. It doesn't explain the fact that the government issued an official letter withdrawing support for the event. Good thing that our government hasn't yet mastered the art of spin.

Religious freedoms in Malaysia

I did something really surprising yesterday. I went to listen to a law talk given by Justice Dato' Gopal Sri Ram of the Malaysian Appeals Court entitled, "Religion and the Malaysian Courts - Recent Developments". I thought that it would be an interesting talk, and therefor I went to listen to it.

Anyone who knows me knows that I generally don't like lawyers (although one of my best chums is one). In the limited dealings that I've had with them, I generally find them a bunch of arrogant idiots who have no sense of what reality is. The sad thing is that many of the law students here are already behaving like that even before they become real lawyers. Needless to say, I don't have many lawyer friends.

However, the speaker gave me a different impression of lawyers. He came across as someone who is fairly logical, and capable of intelligent thought. He was also very aware of how decisions that he makes will affect the lives of many people. No matter what has been said of him, I do like his in your face kind of attitude. He didn't come across as a nice guy because he was daring enough to disagree with his fellow judges in sensitive cases like these (and he made it plenty clear that he found their reasoning stupid).

The talk itself was very interesting. It wasn't filled with too much legal jargon as I could follow it quite closely. I could understand what was happening most of the time as I had been reading up on family law and syariah law recently. I've also always been curious about our country's unique constitution. I had fully expected this talk to be extremely boring, nice and politically correct. However, it turned out otherwise and I was very curious over many of the things that he had said.

He covered several major cases in Malaysia, both past and present, where Article 11 was brought into the case. The issue of religious freedom in Malaysia is a contentious one, especially in light of recent event. He explained in a very clear and logical manner, why the recent cases of Lina Joy and Subashini were not handled correctly by the judges. The most important lesson to take away is that the Syariah Courts in Malaysia only have power to adjudicate cases where both parties are muslim. Otherwise, it is under the premise of the civil courts. This is clearly stipulated in the relevant Islamic Law Act and constitution.

So, he did give us this feeling that the Malaysian legal framework is currently at a crossroads. He illustrated the fact that in all cases up to 1995, it was clear that the secular law was the law that governed Malaysia. However, with these cases currently in court, it wasn't clear how things will be in the future. He argues that these cases shouldn't even have their airtime in the syariah courts as they simply had no jurisdiction. So, any other arguments about subject matter jurisdiction was moot.

Personally, I do agree with that. In our government's fervour in attracting the muslim vote away from PAS, they have become more religious than before. The radicals, seeing the change, have exploited this situation greatly to their advantage. The non-muslim component parties of the BN aren't doing anything to help. I see this as part of a world wide trend towards religious conservatism. For some reason, everyone thinks that they're under threat. Religious paranoia can get very scary, as evidenced by history. I certainly hope we don't end up that way.

Punishing the innocent.

After watching this clip, you may certainly think so. However, after doing some research, I find the situation more convoluted that it seems on the surface. The case seems to rest on the fact that the marriage isn't legal by any law in Malaysia.

According to this document from the Kuala Lumpur Bar there seems to be a provision for a spouse to renounce Islam and convert to another religion. However, this is only allowed if ordered by the Syariah courts. There is also an implication that non-Muslims cannot marry Muslims as a non-Muslim spouse can apply for ancillary relief and get a divorce 3 months after a spouse converts into Islam [section 51 of the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976].

As claimed by the law expert from Universiti Islam Antarabangsa that there was no legal marriage. According to our government, if a Muslim wishes to marry a non-Muslim, that person needs to convert to Islam. So, they couldn't have gotten married under civil law unless they had obtained a court order from the Syariah courts. They can't get married under Syariah law either as one is obviously a Hindu and the other claims to have renounced Islam.

Our legal system in Malaysia is complicated. Article 11 states that everyone has the freedom of religion. However, Article 121 states that the Federal courts have no jurisdiction over any cases that fall under Syariah law. Since, the wife was born a Muslim and hadn't sought to renounce Islam [not that she would particularly succeed at that], and they have no legal marriage under the civil law, they are entirely under the mercy of the Syariah court, in accordance to the law. What makes the situation really convoluted is that there isn't a uniform Syariah law in Malaysia. Each state in Malaysia has full jurisdiction of it's own Syariah laws.

This case highlights a major issue in Malaysia. Just like the government, the laws are full of contradictions and confusion. Our laws are intrinsically divisive and against our government's claims on integration. No amount of national service is going to help integrate the people if they cannot get married and settle in peace. The laws are breaking up the family unit and punishing innocent children for the mistakes of their parents. Something has to change. Maybe this movement is a good start.

PS. It should be fairly obvious by now that I'm not a lawyer (IANAL) and that I know nothing at all about the law.

Controversy of Da-Vinci proportions!

This news had been simmering around the Internet over the weekend. I thought that I'd just blog about it today. It's an interesting bit of news that should interest at least a billion people around the world. It's controversy that surrounds Christianity.

"Brace yourself. James Cameron, the man who brought you Titanic is back with another blockbuster. This time, the ship he's sinking is Christianity." --- Time

So, that sets the tone of the news. It is from James Cameron. Doesn't make it untrue since he does a lot of documentaries. But would at least advise everyone to take the sensationalism with some salt and evaluate for themselves the evidence that he presents.

The documentary will centre around a tomb discovered 27 years ago in Jerusalem. The tomb was filled with 10 stone caskets. On the caskets, were carved inscriptions reading the names: "Jesua son of Joseph", "Mary", "Mary", "Matthew", "Jofa", and "Judah son of Jesua". Granted, that these names were quite common at the time. However, if the DNA evidence pins down the relationships, then, taken as a whole, the specific combination should be much less common. Supposedly, other evidence includes inscriptions on the tomb and the caskets as well.

Well, if this tomb is *really* the tomb of Jesus, it will dispell two major cornerstones of Christiandom. First, that Jesus, after his ressurrection "ascended to Heaven to sit on the right side of the Father". Second, "that Jesus fathered a child, when he was supposed to have spent his short life performing miracles, redeeming sinful mankind and generally fulfilling his divine mission".

Whether or not the story is true, I would think that the documentary, which will be shown on TV, would be a very interesting one to watch. For Christians who have faith, I guess that their belief should not waver. And for Cameron, I just hope that he has his insurance premiums paid up and he has bodyguards. I hope that someone posts it on YouTube so that I can watch it.

Buddhism is not a Faith

DISCLAIMER: This is a religious blog again. It has the mysterious power to offend some sensibilities. If you do not have the ability to think with reason and logic, please do not continue reading. If you do so, read at your own risk!

As a result of the kind of question that I put towards people who try to convince me of the existence of a god/gods, I usually end up with them asking me about my religion. When I tell them that my religion doesn't demand faith, and is based on reasoning and logic, a common question that they ask me is of rebirth: How do I know that it actually happens? If you have not proof that it happens, isn't it called faith?

Before answering that question, I would like to point out again that my religion encourages me to question scripture and dogma. If it doesn't seem logical, do not accept it. If it seems to be rational and logical, then accept it. Now, I will try to explain from a logical way, why rebirth is acceptable to me. This is a personal thought process, it may or may not be acceptable to you [or even other Buddhists].

First, we have to define what it means by rebirth. As I understand it, the whole idea of reincarnation in the form that is expounded by the other major religions is not the same kind of rebirth as thought in Buddhism. In Buddhism, there is no concept of a personalised 'soul'. We're all made up of interchangeable constituent parts. Rebirth is merely a state transition.

As I'm an engineer, I usually try to use an engineering analogy. Makes it much easier for me to understand it. For simplicity, I will once again use the analogy of an engine that was not created. This engine, will serve it's function for a period of time. Due to wear and tear or some other factor, the engine will stop working one day. That's a mathematical certainty. Just like we do.

At this point, many possible things can happen to the engine. The engine can be left to rust, in which case the engine has transitioned into a new form, called scrap metal. After a while, it decomposes and we call it iron. It could also be broken apart, into what we call parts. It might be recycled into a million different metal toasters. It's even possible to recast it into a whole new engine.

So, if it's possible for this engine, to be converted from one form to another, why not us. If we look at ourselves long and hard enough, we will see that we're essentially similar to the engine, with different systems, sub-systems and parts working together. Granted, our cogs and gears are a little more complex, but we're essentially made up of nothing but a bunch of constituent parts that work together to perform a task.

Trying to see ourselves as 'special beings' that are different from anything else is vain delusion. Some people may say that we're different because we have a 'soul'. Now, show me some evidence of a 'soul' and I will think about the argument. Other people may say that we're different because we have a consciousness. Like I've said, we're more complicated than an engine, but if you look at it hard enough, a consciousness is also made up of layers, systems, sub-systems and parts. Just like how a piece of software works.

So, once this is established, the belief in rebirth is then no longer faith. It can be explained in a logical and rational manner. I have just given proof that rebirth can happen to an engine. So, why not us?

I am a religious atheist.

DISCLAIMER: This is a religious blog. Hence, it has the capability to offend the sensibilities of certain people. Seriously! If you're unable to use your brain to think, please do not bother reading any further. If you do, read at your own risk.

I'm a buddhist and I consider myself rather religious. This may surprise some people, but buddhism is an atheistic religion. Anyone who tells you otherwise, either doesn't know the religion, or has a different definition for theism. In buddhism, there is *no need* for a god/gods, and therefore, there isn't one. Refer to wikipedia.

A common debate going on these days, especially in places where religious fundamentalism is rising, is the whole science versus religion debate. This often centres around the theory of evolution versus creationism. These religious fundamentalists are facing a crisis today as their belief system is being systematically taken apart by science. Hence, the quiet battles that are being waged around many parts of the world.

I find the whole idea of a creator god totally illogical and irrational. The argument given by creationists is often that organisms like us are complex and the universe is complex and these complex things couldn't have existed without a creator and that the creator is this deity called a god/gods. Now, if we ponder this argument for a moment, we will find that it contains in itself, a fatal flaw: who created the god/gods? [in medieval times, this is the point at which i get stoned to death for blasphemy].

If it is impossible for anything to exist without being created, then it is impossible for the god/gods to exist without being created either. If it is possible for the god/gods to exist without a creator, then, it is certainly possible for other things to exist without being created either. Hence, the self contradictory logic that exists within that argument.

If the claim is that, there is possibly a super god/gods that created the god/gods (like what the Greeks believed), then the next question would be: who created the super god/gods? If the claim is a whole hierarchy of god/gods, then, the question is: where does it stop? If the chain continues 'ad-infinitum', then, it merely supports the notion that there is *no* creator as there is no beginning.

The engineer in me will use a simple engineering analogy to illustrate this. Let's take a look at an engine. Did we as human beings 'create' an engine? If you said 'yes', you probably believe in a god/gods and weren't thinking hard enough. Someone had 'invented' the engine, not 'created' it. There is a difference. As scientists/engineers, we merely discovered the rules of physics that govern the workings and learnt to harness it through the use of a machine. We most certainly did not 'create' it. So, things *can* exist without being created and I've just shown you an example of one.

Then, some people may say that art is 'creative' and that there is 'creation' in art. All I can say is that these people are delusional. There certainly is a lot of creativity involved in art. However, it's no more created than the engine was. The artist had merely used a very good and possibly unique way of putting the constituent parts together (whether it's words, notes or colours) in order to evoke an emotional response from people. Fundamentally, it's no different from putting together the gears and cogs to get the engine running.

Personally, I have nothing against people who believe in a god/gods. Many (I'd even dare say most) of my friends are Christians and Muslims. Just don't bother trying to convince me of the existence of a god/gods. I'm a religious person and I'm an atheist. There is no conflict in that statement. Hundreds of millions of people around the world are like me. I will leave you with a short clip by Richard Dawkins, international atheist #1.

How the first Buddhist Circle went.

I think that the picture summarises it all quite well. There was some food, some interesting discussions, some fairly formal paperwork and lots of talking. All in all, I would say that it went well, although there is still plenty of room for improvement and growth.

For one, the topic of discussion could be more focused. We seemed to be running everywhere with the topics yesterday. It is probably okay as an introductory session since it touches a bit of everything. However, it would not be useful for noobs who are not familiar with the religion as yet. Therefore, it would be a good idea to have a 'topic of the day' discussion instead. That would benefit the noobs much more.

The singing sessions didn't really work quite well. I for one, have never found hymn singing of much use. It is not a technique that works for everyone. So, I certainly hope that we have less of that in the future. However, it seems that WeiShen likes the singing part quite a bit. He was shaking about and singing up front. I have a very nice picture of him doing that and is probably worth a bit of money!

The refreshments were more than good enough. I didn't expect it to be as well organised as that. Thank goodness for the seniors and gang. It was all fun and good to be part of the buddhist circle. There were a few awkward silences but overall, it went well for a first session. I do hope that the movement grows slowly.

WeiShen's First BC Meet

Disclaimer: These are my own personal thoughts/feelings about the meet. So, take it with a pinch of salt.

Yesterday evening, we had our first buddhist circle (BC) meet. I tagged along because WeiShen was organising it. Show support lar. I've already let him know my personal views about the BC. So, no point reiterating them here. The food was great! The undergrads were saying that there IS a difference between postgrad and undergrad cookouts. Yes there is okay! Most of the undergrads here cannot even fry an egg properly! Most of the postgrads already have had several years of cooking experience (and burnt eggs) for themselves. Of course lar got difference! Maybe I should also cook up a feast one day for my UG friends. The lame excuse is lack of time. I'd probably do it at least once lar. However, lack of room and facilities is a problem. Maybe I'll need to hijack a NewHall kitchen.

Then, there was a short lepak and sharing session in their common room. Damn, these mature/grad colleges have good facilities. Magdalene sucks in that sense. Cannot even get a decent lepak room in Magdalene. Anyway, the sharing session was interesting and informative. Although there were a few problems.

Firstly, was mandarin. Most of the postgrads who attended spoke mandarin and were from all parts of the mandarin speaking world. So, the translation matrix in my head was working overtime. Having to filter out the various accents before deciphering what they were saying. Difficult leh. At the end I was quite tired and spaced out a bit. But the rest of the BC will be done in English and those will hopefully be okay.

Secondly, I disagree with one of the things said about Buddhism, which is that there is theory and practical. Dhamma is the theory and the practical is meditation. The practical aspect of Buddhism is applying the teaching in your daily life. Meditation is a 'tool' to train the mind in order to allow it to function correctly. It's like physical exercise is a tool to train the body so that it can perform necessary work. However, it certainly isn't the practical aspect of Buddhism nor does it serve to show anyone 'the way'. WeiShen has told me that the BC will not do any meditation. However, there will be short metta meditation periods during the Buddhist talks.

Thirdly, the idea of the BC being a support network among friends is a laudable one. We all need people to hold our hands at various points in life. However, I do not belief in mixing religion with social (or politics for that matter). And when using the power of prayer to help your friends was mentioned, more alarm bells went off in me. To people who do not understand this, it may sound like some new-age mumbo jumbo. The power of prayer only serves to help if you're genuinely close to the person. And if you're really that close, I'm sure that there are plenty of more substantial ways that can help aside from having a prayer session. There isn't any use in joining a prayer session blindly. Prayer for the sake of prayer won't help.

I can see where this is coming from. I've been a buddhist since I was a wee kid. I've seen various different kinds of approaches used by different people at different points in time. Having socials like cookouts and origami and singing is all fine and well. However, I don't think that it's a good way of introducing Buddhism. There's a reason why the Buddha didn't use those techniques! With young kids, you tend to tell them stories like buddhist history, Jataka tales and such. With older kids, you tend to introduce basic Dhamma and some simple analysis of situations. With young adults, you tend to handle more complex situations, some synthesis of ideas and introduce deeper concepts of the Dhamma. With serious people, it is then possible to extrapolate all the Dhamma concepts by introducing Abhidhamma.

So, with this group of people, I would think that the best approach is to just talk. Start with what the Buddha started: The Four Noble Truths and then take things from there. Do it like a healthy supervision session with lively discussions. Invite questions from everyone and when there are none, toss out a few questions. Better still if it's possible to throw in real-life examples into the mix. Buddhism invites analyses and questions. That's the most beautiful thing about it. So, make use of this openness and just let things take it's course.