Tuesday, March 30
I wish that everyone would stop bickering and whining like a bunch of toddlers .
I wish we could suppress that bad force we see all day, and look at the good things in life.
Because by the end of the day............. we do really want all the good things to come.
So hold my hand my friend,
We could share the world,
Share the spirit of good.
Think about it for once, what does debate really mean to us all? is it just some other co-curriculum? or is it more than that?
Never put your spirit down even when some lunatic came hitting it.
NEVER EVER GIVE UP................ IN WHAT YOU TRULY BELIEVE IN
We need to regroup, get back the lost memories and experinces we had last year, Musleh, UIA, Training. We all miss the old wani, raihan, amira, azizul, kimi and laila, and anyone else that held the spirit of debate.
We're so gonna get it back............
PS: I'm sure if Ariffuddin was here, he would have said to never give up, he'll say that we'll find a way.
Saturday, March 20
KUALA LIPIS: Amendments to the Internal Security Act (ISA) and related laws are to ensure a comprehensive change in dealing with security issues in the country, says Prime MInister.
Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak said the review was also to keep abreast with times and the wishes of the people.
"The Home Minister has brought the matter to the Cabinet on Friday and the ministers agreed that if other related laws are not similarly amended, it will create an awkward situation," he told reporters after opening the Rural and Regional Development Ministry's 50th anniversary at Dataran Lipis here on Saturday.
On Friday, Home Minister Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Tun Hussein said the amendment to the ISA would be tabled along with amendments to six other laws.
The six are Prevention of Crime Act 1959 to review its effectiveness in preventing crimes; Section 27 of the Police Act 1960 relating to staging of assemblies without a permit; Banishment Act 1959 (Revised 1972) to determine if the law is still relevant; and Restricted Residence Act 1933 to review its effectiveness.
Other laws are the Dangerous Drugs Act (Special Preventive Measures) 1985 and the Emergency Ordinance (Public Order and Crime Prevention) 1969.
The ISA aspects to be reviewed are the detention period, rights and treatment of detainees, powers of the Home Minister and detention without trial.
Najib said the Government was serious in bringing about changes on the issue of security in the country.
"We will study and implement change to these laws in line with current needs and the wishes of the people," he said. - BERNAMA
Due to the alleged draconian nature of the ISA, several human rights organisations and opposition political parties have strongly criticised the act and called for its repeal. Foreign governments, notably that of the United States, have also pressured the government to repeal the act.
Several opposition parties such as the Pan-Malaysian Islamic Party (PAS), the Democratic Action Party (DAP) and Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR) have spoken out against the ISA. Many of them have leaders or prominent members who were held under the ISA, such as Muhammad Sabu of PAS, Lim Kit Siang, Karpal Singh and Lim Guan Eng of the DAP, and Anwar Ibrahim of the PKR. Previously in the 1960s, the law had been denounced by such opposition leaders as Tan Chee Khoon, who said:
|“||This infernal and heinous instrument has been enacted by the Alliance Government at a time when the emergency was supposed to be over. Then it promptly proceeds to embody all the provisions of the Emergency Regulationsad infinitum... which during the Emergency had to be re-enacted every year, but now it is written into the statute book||”|
However, several politicians from the Barisan Nasional coalition, including its largest component party, the United Malays National Organisation (UMNO or Umno), that has governed Malaysia since independence have also criticised the ISA. The fifth Prime Minister of Malaysia, Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, went on the record in 1988 to state "If we want to save Malaysia and Umno, Dr Mahathir (then Prime Minister) must be removed. He uses draconian laws such as the Internal Security Act to silence his critics." The year before, he had also stated "Laws such as the Internal Security Act have no place in modern Malaysia. It is a draconian and barbaric law." In 2003 when he became Prime Minister, however, Abdullah called the ISA "a necessary law," and argued "We have never misused the Internal Security Act. All those detained under the Internal Security Act are proven threats to society." But opposition parties believe it is a threat to Umno rather than a threat to the country.
Prior to becoming Prime Minister, Mahathir had also adhered to a critical view of the ISA. In 1966, when Mahathir spoke out in support of the Internal Security (Amendment) Bill 1966 as a backbencher, he stated that "no one in his right senses like[s] the ISA. It is in fact a negation of all the principles of democracy." After becoming Prime Minister however the former premier had little if any hesitation using the law to suppress what he termed racialism but was seen by some as a move against his political opponents, the most notable of events being the infamous Operasi Lalang in 1987.
REVIEW FROM Kd:
Now we all know that ISA is preventive detention law that allows enforcers to apprehend people whom were suspected of breaching the security of Malaysia. Typically it's just lunacy, why? well simply they are allowed to apprehend them in a manner of without trial and without concrete evidence (tell me if I'm wrong).
ISA was "originally" used to curb the issues of communist and internal terrorist. On the 13 of May 1969, the ethnic riots (rusuhan kaum 1969) happened, and this caused the government to use the full force of ISA, also on the 27 of October 1987, the police used ISA again this time with the nickname "Operasi Lalang".
They apprehended 106 politicians members from both opposition and government, the Chinese were in fear of another 13 May incident happening again, abd it was all because of some Chinese vernacular schools...hish.
Base on my review and research, I think that an amendment of ISA isn't enough as it still apprehends "wanna be criminals" without trial. No one likes it. Duh. Once upon a time, during the 13 days ruling of PKM (Parti Komunis Malaya), they did a similar tactic, its force was called "Kempetai", and it issued a "kill first ask questions later policy".
The main reason of Malaysia is doing ISA in the first place is to hush up the communist from Malaysia, when we are doing such laws, we're not hushing it, we're encouraging it. As a Muslim major, Islam doesn't announce apprehension without trial, Islam at least orders 4 eye witnesses to prosecute a suspected criminal. Doing such laws might just give the idea that Malaysia isn't ruling under respect and leadership qualities, but by fear and under-minded. Where did the 1 Malaysia concept gone? "Rakyat didahulukan, Pencapaian diutamakan".
I really loved the idea of "1 Malaysia" as it is a starter for the concept of "1 Ummah", but to do things without putting priority towards the citizen is just contradicting it.
For Starters, if Malaysia is so afraid of it's citizen, then start educating them becoming good citizens than apprehending them when they never understood a thing of what they did. Hopefully, we wouldn't more communist than the communist.
Wednesday, March 17
Taken from the STAR newspaper, 17 March 2010, IKIM Views
From Kd: This is a counter article to the recent post I give about the social problems happening in our country......
Please read the latest article to get the whole story
Nobody can be a proper Muslim without knowledge and understanding, and that knowledge must be sought and disseminated with correct intention.
KNOWLEDGE and action are two fundamental elements making up the conceptual structure of Islam. Islam is a conscious and willing submission to God. It is a submission that is made “knowingly” and “freely”, without any compulsion. As such, the submission is not possible without knowledge.
Islam does not concede to a dichotomy between knowledge and action, or between theory and practice. The term “Islam” also describes an act, i.e., the act of submission. It means Islam does not simply happen to someone; it comes into being from one’s volition. And volition also does not arise without knowledge.
The action of every Muslim is subject to the rules of the syariah, correctly understood as the path to salvation prescribed by God through His Messenger.
“Islam” is also the name of a particular religion, and that means the above-mentioned submission is not subjective or formless; it is the submission which is made willingly and consciously according to the way prescribed by the religion called Islam.
Since nobody can be a proper Muslim without knowledge and understanding, knowledge-seeking becomes the first and foremost obligation of every Muslim, male and female.
Islam teaches that knowledge must be sought and disseminated with correct intention, to seek Divine Pleasure and Guidance. Studying religious sciences need not necessarily be a religious deed because the aim of the seeker could be worldly, and when that is the case the whole effort becomes blameworthy.
The following is al-Ghazali’s reminder to all knowledge-seekers: “If in your quest for knowledge your aim is to gain something for yourself and to surpass your fellows, to attract men’s attention to yourself and to amass this-worldly vanities, then you are on the way to bring your religion to nothing and destroy yourself, to sell your eternal life for this present one; your bargain is dead loss, your trading without profit.”
To have a correct and sincere intention is indeed not a simple matter. It entails knowledge of the nature of ultimate reality, and a definite commitment to a particular way of life in conformity with that knowledge.
Every research activity is carried out within a certain framework that is based on certain assumptions and aligned with some purposes. The credibility of the finding depends upon the validity of the assumptions and the soundness of the purposes, which means – upon verification – one would finally come to the conclusion either they conform or not to what is regarded as ultimately real and true.
If the researcher concentrates solely on the immediate objective of research (i.e., limited to knowing the nature of a particular object of knowledge as it is) to the extent of being heedless to the ultimate aim of knowing (which is the culmination of all other purposes, transcending immediate concerns and needs) his research will lead him nowhere.
The purpose of knowing ultimately is the purpose of existence itself. Without the knowledge of the purpose of knowing, knowledge and sciences may only serve secular aims and objectives, where no amount of research can satisfy man, because the knowledge gained from it does not give him any clue as to the meaning and purpose of his life, which is ultimately the foundation of his actions and behaviour, including knowledge-seeking itself.
Therefore Islam makes distinction between knowledge that is useful and that which is not.
Knowledge is useful and worthwhile in so far as it is related to the most basic problem of life, namely, the problem of human identity and destiny. This is the most basic problem because the answer to it is what everybody seeks to know, and without it this life becomes meaningless.
The answer, therefore, should be final, free from doubt and possibility of error because life is too short and unexpectable, and we cannot take the risk of living our life based on an answer that is subject to revision and correction.
This knowledge is also known as the knowledge of the reality of things. To this kind of knowledge certainty is a necessary condition, and by that we mean: (i) the object of knowledge is disclosed to the knower in such a way that no doubt remains along with it; and (ii) no possibility of error or illusion accompanies it; the mind cannot even entertain such a supposition.
Certainty, to quote Syed Muhammad Naquib al-Attas, is the permanent state of the soul having to do with the knowledge of permanent realities. It would not be attained and experienced if the justification for believing ‘A’, for example, contains the possibility of error.
Is it possible to attain certainty? Can man, with all the potentialities that he owns, ever attain certainty?
A Muslim will definitely answer in the affirmative. He is taught that realities of things are firmly established and that objective knowledge about them is possible and verifiable. If certainty is impossible then knowledge is also impossible, and if knowledge is impossible accountability and justice would also be impossible.
The knowledge of the nature of the ultimate realities is knowledge that does not change with the change of time and nations. It is knowledge about what is real and true about existence in general. It is what every thinking human being would want to know about his self, and about the world around him.
He would like to know, for example, whether God exists or not, and if He does what His name is and what His Attributes are. What he holds as an answer to this question will determine the way he is going to live his life. This kind of knowledge will have a significant implication on one’s life because it is ultimately the basis of one’s ethical judgement and action, hence, no error or doubt should be tolerated.
There must be certain implication to life for example, in believing that God does not exist, or that He does yet He does not possess knowledge or power. Uncertainty about this matter is a tragedy because how would one make decision in such a state of mind?
We cannot tolerate erroneous belief because every belief has got its practical consequence. There is nothing that can be categorised as “purely practical”, if what is meant by that an activity that has nothing to do with any theory, assumption, or belief.
All the horrors committed during World War II were based upon a certain theory, assumption, or belief; the Japanese believed that their emperor was a living god, and the Nazis in the supremacy of their nation over other nations.
yeah I know, I know, many of you don't like to discuss about it (neither do I) fact is, the majority of schools, teachers and doctors (God knows who they are) actually agree with these lunacy.
This issue started with three major events:
- The World Cup (Wonder where that came from)
- The increase of sexual abuse and kidnapping (in Malaysia)
- The idea that "prostitution" could be used as a "means of economy" (Amsterdam, Dubai, South Africa and Singapore)
So let's see the facts and figures in Malaysia:
- there's been at the very least 17 cases of kids being kidnapped and found dead, sexually abuse, raped, folded in a bag God knows how those monsters did it. With the Sharlinee case as the most horrifying one (she's been found folded in a bag, bones crashed)
- Cases of people being sexual abused. I don't know why in the world recently these things suddenly became apparent. In the STAR newspaper, you could see everyday of people being abused in one way or the other.
- And so, some people think that our society is uneducated about problems involving sex.
(this is gonna be gross and disgusting)
- South Africa has estimated that at least 40,000 prostitutes will be pouring in the country due to the upcoming FIFA World Cup. Britain sent at least 1000 shipments of preventive accessories of STD. They are fighting to have a safe STD and HIV society.
- Dubai is opening it's economy sector for prostitution, they want to have a major in tourism. The idea might be absurd considering that UAE is an Islamic monarchy country, and the Sheikh actually allows it!
- In the UK it's estimated that at least 70% of the under age population has done sex (MASYALLAH UMMAT AKHIR ZAMAN!!!)
From my perspective, my mom's and many of my Usrah dudes gave there opinion about this:
They say that this "sex education" policy is a little too much, considering the fact of moral and religious standards. That the only problem is that the government isn't actually taking much note in Islamic studies and Moral teachings to students, not to mention they just made a new syllabus a few years ago, when I was form 1, Pendidikan Sivik dan Kewarganegaraan.
As if that's not enough..............
And now there introducing this new syllabus. UKM once tried to do a "sex education" forum, and I was among the unlucky ones whom had to go there, it seems students (especially non- islamic schools) actually like the forum (OMG).
But the idea that this would help curb our problem is really hard to prove. It's better to make people think that Allah is always watching and that there is a divine power that would punish you than making people understand that doing these immoral acts would lead you to jail.
As for me, the syllabus, the islamic studies we have now is already good enough to curb this problem, you just need to enhance it more, put more feeling. Remember that a great Muslim, a Muslim without problems is when he/she has improved there lives not just intellectually and physically, but also spiritually and emotionally. And unless the Government could understand this problem in the first place, these things wouldn't have arose in the first place. DUH.
Monday, March 15
SPM as we know it, is very important, not to mention very tiring, but the real thing isn't actually about how many As you got or how many scholarships you got (ok in my case, it does matters), but what really matters is what you did to strive for it. What did you do to achieve such results? Did you work hard? Do you think you deserve it? How did you react when you got your SPM results?
All these questions maybe to your perspective is not so much important but actually it all counts to whether you're somebody successful or not. Look at someone who got 13As and everyone "thought" he will do great in his future, that he might be some minister or some VIP or such. He got Bank Negara scholarships and went to the UK to further his studies, but by the end of the day guess what? he gave up in UK, he "thinks" it was too competitive for him that he fall out and end up being kick back to Malaysia (I'm not pointing out Malaysian Uni are bad, I just got IIUM that's great).
Another story from my sis (Nafeesa) whom is now in Jordan, there was this KISAS dude (yes somebody from KISAS) and somehow he/she (I don't know if it was a girl or boy, i just knew he got 13As straight and went for Islamic Banking) couldn't cope with the harsh areas of Jordan. It was called culture shock because he never went to so many hardship in his life. He's the type of person you would see getting straight As, no health or peer problems, getting everything he wants type of dude. But when reality struck, it hits you till you're out of control. This dude's story is a sad one and I pray for his Success.
The point is as I just stated from last year (hopefully you were listening), is that We have to be prepared, always, physically, mentally, emotionally and spiritually. There are some among us whom were very, very, very lucky (I don't need to point out who).
A simple philosophy (since I'm studying philosophy for my SAT's right now), the philosophy of war, which I read from the Chinese "art of war", just to point out we are all at war, one way or the other:
- You are acting at your strongest when your strength is at your weakest.
- When you are superior towards other, then act modestly, do not be too proud like a fool or else you will surely fall when reality strikes.
- Be cautious when you are arriving towards victory, remember victory is only so when you don't have any other threats.
- Learn from others, there experience might be far more valuable than all the preparations you made.
It's not important (Considering I have SATs with me now), what's important is how we react towards it, will we be crying? happy? or angry? The best among us is when anything happens to us, we will still be able to give out a 100% when the time comes.
So now it's your journey to achieve higher than this score (although I'm sure you can't beat my TOEFL score, 758/1000). And to do more incredible feats after this. I wish you all the best of luck, May Allah Bless you in your upcoming Exams. Pray for my SATs exam which will be held by the end of May, Wassalam.
Friday, March 12
Is a two-state solution justified? Compared to a one-state solution?
Background and context
For decades, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has revolved around one particularly pointed question and debate: should the Palestinian people be given their own state, or is a two-state solution to the conflict the best idea among the various alternatives? Barack Obama explicitly supports a two-state solution, saying that "a two-state solution is the only solution". While many in Israel and elsewhere oppose the idea, the two-state solution is considered the consensus solution under discussion by the key parties to the conflict, most recently at the Annapolis Conference in November 2007. While alternatives exist (such as a one-state solution or forms of autonomy under the status quo) Palestinian, Israeli, and global leaders are primarily engaged in the debate surrounding a two-state solution.
This is just a simple review about the debate, if you want to know more go here.
I'm just gonna go to the issues and how is it debatable, there are three altogether:
Peace: Can a two-state solution bring peace?
- Palestinians/Israelis cannot live in peace in one state While it is nice to believe that Palestinians and Israelis can live in peace and harmony in one state, with tolerance for each other and in keeping with democratic principals of inclusion, while nice, is simply naive. This idea has been made impossible by nearly a century of direct conflict between these people. While this might change in coming centuries, it is unacceptable to adopt a one-state policy now based on these naive ideas.
- Shimon Peres. "One Region, Two States". Washington Post. February 10, 2009: "Establishing a single multinational country is a tenuous path that does not bode well for peace but, rather, enforces the conflict's perpetuation. Lebanon, ravaged by bloodshed and instability, represents only one of many examples of an undesirable quagmire of this nature."
- A two-state solution is the least bad option Shimon Peres. "One Region, Two States". Washington Post. February 10, 2009: "The difficulties of a two-state solution are numerous, but it remains the only realistic and moral formula to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict."
- General statements in support of a two-state solution US special envoy George Mitchell: "In the case of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, we believe that the two-state solution, two states living side by side in peace, is the best and the only way to resolve this conflict."
- A two-state conflict will not end conflict Prof. Hassan Nafaa. "No Room for Two States". Global Research. February 12, 2008: "The conflict between the Palestinians and the Zionist movement is not over disputed borders or material interests and, therefore, resolvable by merely coming to an agreement over permanent borders and a give-and-take over material interests. Rather, it is a conflict between two identities, each of which claims sole propriety right over a given territory. Such a conflict cannot be solved by the same means that are brought to bear on conventional international conflicts."
- Israelis/Palestinians can coexist peacefully in one state. Sandy Tolan. "George Mitchell and the end of the two-state solution". Christian Science Monitor. February 4, 2009: "it was no less a man than Albert Einstein who believed in 'sympathetic cooperation' between 'the two great Semitic peoples' and who insisted that 'no problem can be solved from the same level of consciousness that created it.' A relative handful of Israelis and Palestinians are beginning to survey the proverbial new ground, considering what Einstein's theories would mean in practice. They might take heart from Einstein's friend Martin Buber, the great philosopher who advocated a binational state of 'joint sovereignty,' with 'complete equality of rights between the two partners,' based on 'the love of their homeland that the two peoples share.'"
- General statements in favor of a one-state solution Edward Said, a famous Palestinian writer and activist, advocated for a one-state solution, arguing: "Two people in one land. Or, equality for all. Or, one person one vote. Or, a common humanity asserted in a bi-national state."
Palestinians: Do Palestinians want their own state? Can they govern themselves?
- Palestinians want two-state solution, assuming settlements stop. Jerusalem - PLO Executive Committee Secretary Yasir Abd-Rabbuh replying to Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu's statements that he is ready to negotiate immediately with the Palestinians by affirming that no negotiations will take place before the suspension of the settlement activities. "Abd-Rabbuh said in statements to Al-Ayyam: There can be no negotiations unless the Israelis stop the settlement activities and we no longer wish to meet with the Israelis on the same table to exchange views and ideas while they change the facts on the ground in Jerusalem and all the West Bank. This is a policy that represents the highest forms of deception."
- Palestinians do not want peace and a two-state solution Jeff Jacoby. "Peace isn't Arab goal". Boston Globe. May 20, 2009: "International consensus or no, the two-state solution is a chimera. Peace will not be achieved by granting sovereignty to the Palestinians, because Palestinian sovereignty has never been the Arabs' goal. Time and time again, a two-state solution has been proposed. Time and time again, the Arabs have turned it down."
- Palestinians are too divided to constitute a state. MJ Rosenberg. "Loving The Two-State Solution to Death". Huffington Post. December 22, 2008: "we are further from implementing the two-state solution today than we were in 2001. In fact, it can't be implemented because the Palestinians themselves constitute two states. Without Palestinian unity -- unity that ended with the Hamas election and then full seizure of power in Gaza--the two-state solution is simply not achievable."
- A Palestinian state would be dysfunctional "Why plans for a two-state solution in the Middle East have failed.". International Journal on World Peace. March 1, 2008: "The plan for a Palestinian state failed to comprehend that the Palestinians, unlike the Jews, had not created an apparatus for self-government."
Regional security: Would a two state solution help regional stability?
- Two-state solution and peace is critical to regional stability. For years, the middle east has been up in arms regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It is a source of tension between the Muslim world and the west, and a source of tension between populations and their governments. And, as a source of tension between Muslims and the West, it has been considered a source of terrorism. Solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is critical to relieving these various tensions. In so far as a two-state solution helps end the conflict and establish peace, it helps relieve tensions and restore stability in the broader middle east and in the global fight against terrorism.
- A Palestinian state would threaten its neighbors. "Two States? Many Problems". Los Angeles Times, Letter to the Editor. May 7, 2009: "King Abdullah II is not being straight on this issue either. He doesn't want a Palestinian state between Jordan and Israel because of the threat to Jordan that a Palestinian state would pose to him."
Saturday, March 6
Our recent debate training has stress out on two main things: How to tackle a Politic and Economy type motion. Now some of you who aren't from Maahad Hamidiah might be gigling wanting this type of information, well my juniors didn't had any problem understanding, both themes are actually a piece of cake, more easier than "Media and Entertainment" ( I don't read about that much).
But here, I won't be talking about politics and Economy, rather I would be talking on styles of debating, as right now, that's the main issue we need to solve!!!
I have to admit, your brains are way better than mines when I was your age, there were those with critical analysis (Amira), in depth elaboration (Aisyah F2) and killer rebuttals (Wani, ok maybe i just made that part up), but what was more important was actually the Style or method of speaking.
There are some people that has all those great facts and figures but when they speak it just makes me bored. (seeing how slow and low their voice are, you don't need to ask why).
So here are some tips to stylish speaking, I like to call it the 4C ("for see" or "Visualize")
- Calm. A debater (well a good one) is very calm, he/she thinks first before saying it out and keeps their mood very, very calm that even if somebody was pointing a gun at head point they wouldn't notice it (well speaking in front of an audience is a death defying act). There is also the fear factor of going in front of an audience. I whatever situation, you need to keep calm. Don't care of anything what other people are doing (especially your opponents, they really like to annoy people)
- Cool. A great debater is no hypocrite, they are no actors. they become themselves or in other words "Cool". It's very cool to be just yourself. Don't start being very mad or very political or out of your age (your 14 and suddenly your talking as if your really actually the Prime Minister, with that boring monotonous voice, BORING!!!). Even judges like it, they can actually see whether your lying to yourself and being a hypocrite (well...... good judges of course), they see you as if you are talking to them about their favorite shirt and games and hobbies (make friends with the judges....)
- Conviction. As much as this might contradict the "cool" style you need to show conviction in your speech. Say it as if it's important, "Obama must lead US to a brighter future!!!" (even if you don't care crap whether US has a brighter future....) but you need to show that the what you say is important, because well...... it is important. the best thing is to choose what words to stress out before you begin your speech. e.g: THW subsidies local fish. Stress the words Subsidies and Fish as if does two things are so important (even if you don't know what's subsidy and you don't like eating fish).
- Creative. Is it better saying: " I love you" or "if I only was allowed to call one person I would call you", the later is longer but much more dramatic and creative and feel-able (So who would you really call?), rather than just using one every day used phrase lets used an original phrasing, like what I used when to rebut the government about there credibility to imply a policy: "There policy has no credibility, it's not incredible it's un-credible" or " You want to know what's our proposal to this problem.........(pause for a sec for drama).... not yours that's for sure". It's creative and original.
Good Luck all of you..................