100 in 2005

Hye all,

Yesterday, The Muslims were celebrating its Awal Muharam @ New Year according to the Muslims' calendar.(1427 Hijriah) The chinese had their Gong Xi Fa Cai on last Sunday ( Loads of peeps thronged in Chinatown witnessing the great Lion Dance ) .. In fact, less than two months ago, the world was commemorating the new year of 2006. I guess everyone are still in the Auld Lang Syne mood, now...

Ermmmmm.. These are the things I've done @ been at @ had for the last year's days. I hope all the mellowed moments will be cherished and remember forever and may all da bad memories and the downs been erased away from my mind. Studywise, may all my plans turn out flawlessly and be a good ending for my degree life.

I pray that 2006 will make me and us a better place to live ahead. Let be no wars....no discrimination.. and no bloodsheds !!!. We had enough, havent we?


100 things I've done @ been at @ had in 2005-2006


- been to the Siti Nurhaliza in Concert @ The Royal Albert Hall, London.

- obtained Whitworth Park work placement from June to September and gained £3100

- summer part time job @ OCS £120

- been the mentor for the National Mentoring Programme at Manchester City College

- MSM's Majlis Perwakilan Nasional in July

- Trip @ Jaulah to Southampton

- Zaidah came to the UK n stayed with me (although for a little while) huhu

- 10 days in London with Aunt Yatie, Thariq and Zaidah. We stayed at Bayswater (Zone 1 guys!! for 10 days)

- had a big quarrel with Zaidah

- felt alone when Zaidah left

- Winter Retreat 2005 .. Strathclyde Uni, Glasgow

- Sambutan Pelajar Baru aka First Years' Induction Week I wud say (HIJRAH) 2005

- Had a big quarrel with my bro (but we end up shaking hands)

- ma sist is facing SPM (Chayok, sist !!)

- ma bro got 8 As in his PMR. Thank God !! The whole family is rejoicing with his excellence (though expected) huh

- my brand new hair i.e. rebonding gituh !!

- moved to my new residence .. its 62 Ayres Road, Old Trafford, Manchester, M16 9WH

- My IBM Laptop got corrupted...siut tul arrr !!

- got my new Dell Inspiron 6000 Silver Laptop (wif my own money, yah)

- contracted a new agreement with O2 and got ma niu XDA 2i

- sumting sad happened in my life in mid-august which made me really down

- Shah (me housemate) married wif G-Min (ma senior sis in iiu). Long live the couple..

- I was re-born with a new life on my own

- I've launched my blog... taraaaaaaaaa presenting 2 u http://asignofthecreator.blogspot.com

- I've lost my beloved grandad, (the chief of the whole clan) who was called to heaven days before Ramadhan. May he rests in peace and God blesses his soul...Al- Fatehah

- My eid was superb though with da same costumes as last year (thanks to Zheng Toi..ahaks!!)

- I've watched the amazing Narnia wif juniors.

- also, for a King Kong movie with Shukor, me housemate

- been silly at Albert Dock, Liverpool

- I went skiing in Avienmore

- I've found myself (finally) huhu

- I've found a friendship who accepts me for who I am

- but,.... I lost a friendship which I value most in my entire life...

- a final year stud aka a fofular stylish senior..(",)

- I've found confidence in anything I do...

- went to Leeds n made niu buddies

- became a first-timer unemployed babysitter for the Mawardis (Adam, Harris, Daniel, and Hana.. I miss u guys so much !!! Love, Uncle Zuki)

- am at the highest enjoyment in life

- I am a 22 year old guy.. (still young, I suppose??!!)

- I received no presents for my 22nd birthday..huhu

- I treat myself a special dinner on my birthday

- somehow I felt I loss sumting and sumbody

- n of course found new things

- my longtime cousin Kak Lina married to Abg Lutfi (my apology for unable to attend da toast, guys)

- Raihan Concert in Manchester Opera House in conjunction wif Eid Celebration

- My friendster list is expanding tremendously

- I've realised sumting important in Glasgow (thanks to WMF)

- became more independent since I live on my own

- representing faizal and fendy in court hearing ==> bravo wanzue

- I've become closer wif neighbours especialy the 46 Ayres Road family (fall in love wif disaster_ peace) gulp..uhuk

- for the first time I went to Saffad (cant finish my Fatayer)

- I've got a free meal in Kebabish (Thanks Syuk, da tasty lamb beriyani)

- I spent GBP 60 for my 'relaxed' new hair at Razor Edge

- Felt sad cuz unable to perform full taraweeh i.e ada hari aku ponteng,hehe !!

- I regularly drove though my mum forbids me strictly (sorry mum, I didnt mean to disobey you.)

- I became less committed to my studies..huhu

- I've been the "VIP" for Shah's wedding ceremony

- I've made a suprise-birthday-party for Abang M with Zaidah. It was a blast!!

- I was stranded at Victoria, London as I missed my coach... (cant actually describe how I felt at dat time)

- I marched (together with my frens) in a demonstration opposing the American Imperialism in Iraq from my uni to Piccadilly Garden

- It was da first time I received no eid cards (cant really believe it, though)

- I've made nasi ayam by myself...know wat, it turn out to be a disaster..ahakz

- I drove juniors to carboot sales on Sundays

- I bought sum trendy jeans from Oxfam

- Khaliz gave me free line rental..huuuuuhuu..

- I spent hundred of hours calling my Malaysian frens

- I've found someone which I can be truly me myself (thanks Z _ _ L)

- I realised my world is wide enough to meet new mates

- I've attended da first usrah eversince I came to the UK

- also, a very first tamrin in my life (u guys know wat tamrin is???) Ask the schollars

- I felt terrible when our cutie tiny car crashed in an accident.

- I've known someone from Germany...such a nice guy, I wud say.. We spent hours of chatting on our way back from Glasgow ..

- I was the committee for the Manchester Malaysian Carnival 2005

- I went to the Man United Stadia thousands of times accompanying ma frens

- I met someone at Hyde Park, London. We had a warm conversation n exchanged views.

- My relationship becomes cold, without realising it will come to an end (in da end,,, it happened) uwuaaaaaaaaaaaaa

- sumting worst in my life happened since.

- I dined with Abg M and M at one of the high-class restraunt in Manchester..

- I got a new tutor aka Dr Dora Kostakopolou though I never consult her (wat a bad tutee!!)

- I received my 'clicks's visit in Manchester...and we rawk da city.

- I've made nasi lemak i.e. coconut rice by myself

- I conducted a research about MSM, PERIKATAN (HIZBI as it then was) and MISG-ABIM

- I really enjoyed my nites in Grosvenor Place. Thanks to A for everything !!!

- I went to the Nottingham Games for the third time.

- I am expert of masak lemak cili api

- I've made my old buddy - S.E.H.A.

- I've become more mature (I think)

- I dun really care people judge me by outside

- I'm not afraid people judging me

- I regret many things I've done in the past.

- I've tried to focus on da +'ve side rather than the '-ve side of mine

- In the end, I've come to realise I've been wasting loads of my time

- I promised to get a good job later

- Lastly, I aimed to make 2006 a better year ahead..huhu.

ITS FINALLY OVER aka BILA SEMUANYA BERAKHIR ...

Dear all,


FinaLly the moments been waitin for have come...the temptations are Over!! Selesai!! Khalas!! Bohout!!! Feel damn relief when the last seconds of my last paper were announced. Pens down...I sealed the booklet wif my "original" glue (disgusting??!! I've got no choice, mate!! And so do they..huhu)... sit back and relaxed..

10 minutes later - I was heading to the library for a special celebration (upacara pembuangan buku2 law besar besaran) Its the most awaiting ceremony in dis semester..

20 minutes later - I went to the Clusters..its a windy Wednesday, but dat doesnt cause me any worry. If I'm sick, BE IT!!! I'M SICK HAVING EXAMS FOR AGES !!

Ermmmm...wat shall i do tonite??

1) Accompany Jeff for a nite movie. Wats da movie, mate? Yeah anything will do
2) Enjoying my marvellous chocolate ice-cream.. Hopefully, its still in da refrigerator
3) Ahaaaaaaaaaaaa... tidy up ma room !! God ma mum will freak out when she bumps into me
room now!! U guys should believe it.. it is such a mess !!

The view might not be enjoying..huhuhuhu. Hey,dats S.A.W.A. the snake!! She sleeps when I'm studying!! Not fair, huh...
4) Phoning Mesia???? Ermmmmm let me think.. i've spoken to me mum dis morning,,, and we chatted,talked and gossiped a lot.. huhuhu.. so, with whom shall i talk@gayut to?


Tomorow is gonna be a brand new day 4 me!! Long Live Zachary!!


p/s.. These are the essentials for those who are having finals. Thanks to mummy for sending me those months ago. But I'm running out of stocks here.. Wud u send them more, mum?? PLEASEEEEEEE ..I will save some for da coming exams, hehehehe..

1) As it explains, U just have to spend two minutes to get a "healthy" meal.. hehehehe., Really tasty when its chilling outside .. (sodap dimakan begitu sajo)

2) yummy yummy !! U feel more energetic by consuming this... Moreover its in chocolate flavour. And I'll die for chocolates..huhu

3) Ma breakfast ie. lunch for da day.. A bowl of cereals and a mug of Milo a day, keeps da drowsiness away..

Okie dokie.. time to leave now..

Regards,

XXX.

Upholding Our Secular Constitution: Part Two

Core issues in choice of religionTHE death of Mount Everest climber Sgt M. Moorthy last month and the subsequent tussle for his body between the Federal Territory Islamic Affairs Council and his Hindu widow led to "confusion" on the remedy available or not available within the country's laws -- particularly the Federal Constitution and syariah law -- regarding matters of conversion. The syariah court had ruled Moorthy was a Muslim but his wife had sought a declaration that he was a Hindu. Husna Yusop talks to Syariah Lawyers Association President Muhamad Burok to get a clearer picture.


theSun: The prime minister said matters on religious conversion must be spelt out plainly in the Federal Constitution and other laws to prevent confusion among Malaysians. What is your comment?

Muhamad: Firstly, is there really confusion? If there is, why is that so? Which part is confusing? We have the Federal Constitution which clearly provides for our rights, with respect to the right to follow the religion of our choice. Why do we say there is still confusion or some vague matters here? Tell me where is the confusion so we can tackle the matter specifically. All this while, we have written laws and there has been no confusion all along. But suddenly, Moorthy's case came up and because of this one single case, because some people are playing up the issue, now everyone is saying there is confusion. This is really disappointing.


Where does the law stand regarding conversion?

Since 1988, this issue has been clearly spelt out in the Federal Constitution. The court had dealt with many conversion cases before. Why is it suddenly a problem now? Article 121(1A) clearly divides the power between the civil and syariah laws. Both these systems have been in harmonious existence all this while, working with each other well. They run parallel to each other although we have yet to see the converging point. And we have specific sections and enactments on conversion. Under the Syariah Court Civil Procedure (Federal Territories) Act, 1998, for example, we have a specific chapter on conversion to Islam. This is the written law which specifically gives jurisdiction to the syariah court regarding conversion to Islam. It is very clear. It does not cause any confusion, does it?


There have been calls for an amendment or repeal of Article 121(1A) as it is said to negate the rights of a non-Muslim who is involved in a marital relationship with a Muslim convert.

Article 121(1A) is the demarcation of jurisdiction from syariah court and civil court. The article is actually the umbrella section or principle. It says since the power regarding conversion to Islam lies within the syariah court, the civil court has no jurisdiction over it. That is what it is. The power regarding conversion to Islam has been given to syariah court, not to civil court. Unless and until it is given to civil court, we stick to it. So, why do we say there is confusion? I cannot see where the confusion is.


How about the case of Muslims wanting to leave the religion? What are the core issues here?


It is regarding Islam, the hukum syarak (syariah law) itself. What are our rights under the Constitution? First, to choose our religion. Second, to practise what is taught by the religion. These are the two rights. So, if you choose Islam, you have to abide by the Islamic practices. Why would you want to choose a religion and later defy its teachings? That is where the problem lies. Do not choose a religion which you do not want to comply with. If that is the case, it is better for you to become an atheist -- do not choose Islam, do not choose a religion for that matter.


But in the case of a born Muslim, he did not choose his religion. What if he feels like leaving Islam for another religion?

To leave the religion, there are certain guidelines and methods under Islamic law. If we are born Muslim, fortunately or unfortunately, we are Muslims. Since we are born as Muslims, we are obliged to follow the Islamic law. According to the law, there are means to leave the religion. One can go to the syariah court and submit his application for this.


But it is not possible for a Muslim to renounce his religion, right? Are we trying to allow it?

It is possible. There are ways to do it. We are now in the process of preparing the methods to deal with such applications. I am not saying we allow it but there are ways for it to be done. The court will hear the case and decide whether he can leave the religion or not. We will impose certain conditions. He will be called before the court and we will question him on his intention to leave.


So if he fulfils all the conditions, he can leave Islam? But in Islam, the penalty for apostasy is death.

We have yet to come across such a case, so I dare not say whether he can leave the religion or not. The matter is being updated and an announcement will be made later. It is still at the drafting stage. It may not be specific for those born Muslims or Muslim converts but there will be a method for Muslims to apply to leave the religion through the syariah court. It is not meant to allow Muslims to become apostates. In the process, we will try to tarbiyah (educate) them so they will remain in the religion. We will continue to try to rehabilitate and reform their faith in Allah. I have looked through the proposed method in the draft and I would think it is fair.


But this is like forcing someone to continue in a religion which he does not have faith in.

The principle is, in Islam, once we are in, we cannot leave. That is binding among all Muslims. It is a matter of aqidah (faith). This is a serious matter.


But this might scare away a non-Muslim who is interested in Islam, a potential Muslim. He may not dare to embrace the religion.It is better that way. Do not embrace Islam just for the sake of embracing the religion.


It is better to really get to know what Islam actually is. Learn about Islam first before deciding to change your religion. Do not decide to become a Muslim just so that you can have it stated in your IC. Or for other worldly purposes. This is a matter of faith. You are changing your faith. Changing what you believe in. Do not embrace Islam just because you want to marry a Muslim. This is the problem now. When someone converts to Islam not because of their faith in the religion, he will continue to do things contrary to Islamic teachings. He will keep it a secret from his family. But why? By doing this, by hiding the fact he is now a Muslim, he is actually tarnishing the religion.


For Muslim converts, is it in the law that they have to inform their family about their decision?

It is not in the law. But perhaps, we can make it an administrative requirement. I would like to suggest that we provide a column in the application form to become a Muslim. Ask the applicant whether his family has been informed or not. If yes, well and good. If no, we should call him and ask him why. We listen to his explanation. If we are satisfied with his answer, we accept it. Otherwise, we tell him this is not a wise thing to do. Either you inform your family or we do it for you. We do not mean to scare him away. We respect his decision but we want to ensure there are no complications later, like in the case of Moorthy.


So, you are proposing it?

Yes. One should be proud to declare he is a Muslim. He should even have a ceremony for that. Why not? This is a noble act, a good decision. There should be no problem. We are free to choose our religion. It is not like he was underage to make such a decision. In addition, a Muslim convert must be given continuous tarbiyah and training to enhance his knowledge in the religion. The religious authorities must not leave him alone. And, it is also important for Muslims to give more information to non-Muslims about the religion, so that there is no confusion.

We Muslims should not echo them when they said there is confusion in the religion. We should make an effort to explain to them. But first, we have to ensure we are well-versed about our own religion, otherwise we will only be echoing or parroting what they are saying. As Muslims, we should be clear on the religion. We must know, apart from the written man-made laws, we are also obliged to abide by the teachings of Al-Quran and Sunnah. As Muslims, there should not be any confusion.


So, the confusion is actually among the non-Muslims?

Yes, and Muslims are echoing them. Instead, they should explain and impart their knowledge. Muslims have this responsibility towards their non-Muslim brothers.So, there is no need to amend the law or anything as the confusion can be tackled by giving out the right information?Yes. The purpose of the enactments, the laws, the articles in the Constitution is clear. And they had been interpreted by the highest court of the country. What else do you want to change? If we amend or abolish the 121(1A), it means we are abolishing the syariah court. Before 1988, the jurisdiction of syariah court has always been monitored and intervened by the civil courts.


So, the article is fundamental to the syariah court.Can a non-Muslim get justice from a syariah court?

Of course. Basically, Islam is a religion of justice. Justice for all. It is against cruelty. Section 244 of the Syariah Court Civil Procedure (Federal Territories) Act 1998 says you got the inherent power for so long as you want to mete out justice. For the purpose of meting out justice, for the purpose of preventing injustice, use your inherent powers although it is not written in the act. Every court glorifies justice, not only syariah courts. But, in addition to this, the syariah court is being fortified by the hukum syarak. Section 245 of the Act says in matters not expressly provided for in the Act, the syariah court will apply the Islamic law. And what is the Islamic law? It is the Al-Quran and Sunnah. But, unless and until you are a Muslim, you do not read the Al-Quran. And even if you are a Muslim, not necessarily will you read or understand the Al-Quran. So, go deeper into what the Islamic law provides you, then only you will understand.


So, a non-Muslim can engage a syariah lawyer to represent him in the syariah court?

Yes. In the Al-Quran (Al-Maidah: 42), Allah has told the Muslims, if the non-Muslims come to you to get a judgment, you must deal with their case fairly. In our syariah court, a non-Muslim can tell the court, 'yes, I want to come under your jurisdiction and will abide by your decision'. So, the judge will then ask him, do you want to conduct yourself or you want a syariah lawyer? The court will then appoint a syariah lawyer for him if he asks for one. So, it is possible for the syariah court to hear a case brought forward by a non-Muslim.


How do we create this awareness that all Malaysians, not only Muslims, can get justice from the syariah court?

The most important thing is to teach and to learn about Islam. The problem is, Muslims do not seriously make an effort to learn from those in the know, and those in the know do not bother to teach those in the dark. Since independence, we have declared Islam as the religion of the federation but what have we done as a Muslim and as a Muslim-run government, to give explanation on Islam to the non-Muslims?

Obviously, what is happening now is our failure in carrying out our duties as Muslims. I am not pointing fingers at anybody but I blame myself, too. We Muslims, including the government, including the ulama, are not doing enough to make sure people know Islam and love Islam. In the end, because of our failure, now Islam has become the subject of abuse. We must admit this failure, this weakness, and remedy it.


So, there is no constitutional crisis here but only a matter of misunderstanding about the religion and the laws?

Yes. There is no such thing. Everything is clear actually. Going back to the case of conversion, we have in the law a section which said when a person converts to Islam, his or her spouse who has not so converted may petition for divorce. The spouse has the right to ask for a divorce if he or she does not want to convert. This can be done within three months after the conversion as stated in Section 51 of the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act, 1976. The Muslim convert does not have the right to petition for divorce but the other party who refuses to convert is given this right by the court. The law says it.


But divorce is not a good solution in marriage.

That is why when a person wants to convert to Islam, he must be fully convinced about his decision. He must think of everything, and everyone, which will be affected. It should not be an easy decision to change one's faith. Although ideally, we should not delay the process of conversion, the best thing is we should make sure one really understands the religion first before he declares his intention to embrace it. If we do it in haste, we are taking a risk. Complications might arise later.

Upholding Our Secular Constitution: Part One

We engage two legal minds -senior lawyer Haris Ibrahim and Syariah Lawyers Association president Muhamad Burok -on the issue of conversions and the rights of all citizens. Haris Ibrahim began the interview by asking JACQUELINE ANN SURIN if she had read the Quran, then promptly handed over a translated copy. Haris, who has been involved in several high-profile cases related to freedom of religion, shares his views on the recent cases of conversions in and out of Islam.


theSun: What do you think are the core issues that have emerged from the high-profile cases of Shamala Sathiyaseelan [who failed in her attempt to seek redress from the civil court for her two young children's conversion to Islam by her estranged and Muslim-convert husband without her consent], Lina Joy [who converted out of Islam and wants her religion changed in her I.C.], the four apostates from the east coast including Kamariah Ali and Daud Mamat [who are followers of Ayah Pin], and M. Moorthy's widow S. Kaliammal [who unsuccessfully tried to contest her husband's conversion to Islam after his death and to lay claim to his body]?


Haris: Firstly, I think you mustn't look at these cases in isolation. We've got to also see them in the context of what's been happening for some time now. But looking at these cases, looking at the context in which they've taken place, some real, pertinent questions arise.


One, do we still have at our disposal the way of life that was guaranteed under the Constitution? And if not, to what extent has that way of life been displaced by this clamour that this is now an Islamic state?I think we must also ask the question [pauses], where have the custodians of the Constitution - to wit the judges - been whilst this has unfolded. I think the real issue that confronts civil society if we want the way of life guaranteed [to us] back [is], what must we do? I think these are the issues.


[Sergeant] Moorthy's case and Shamala's case bring to the fore that the syariah courts and syariah law have been elevated to a status that was never intended by the framers of our Constitution.

We have a Federal Court decision of 1988 which considered Article 3 of the Federal Constitution and emphatically declared that this is a secular nation. In truth, I think what has happened is, we have witnessed the self-emasculation by our civil court judges in giving sway to the syariah courts and syariah law.

Why do you think this has happened?

It's a good question. Former Attorney General [Tan Sri Abu Talib Othman who is currently Human Rights Commission Malaysia or Suhakam chairman] says they lack courage. Professor [Dr] Shad [Saleem Faruqi, professor of law and legal advisor at Universiti Teknologi Mara, Shah Alam] has also offered a view that this phenomenon involves a - these are his own words - a 'silent re-writing' of the Constitution.

If it's lack of courage, then it's nothing more than an abdication of their oath of office. Their oath of office is to defend and uphold the Constitution.But, if you take the suggestion of 'silent re-writing', one has to ask the question whether this self-emasculation is a willing participation.

A willing participation?

A willing participation by the judiciary to take us from the secular state that the Federal Constitution guarantees to this declaration of an Islamic state that our former Prime Minister [Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad] left us with and some Members of Parliament are clamouring for.

The silent re-writing that Prof [Shad] talks about actually emerges in two decisions of the Federal Court - Soon Singh in 1999 and the case of Shaik Zolkaffily [in 2003] where what the judges embarked upon was nothing short of judicial legislation. Judges were making law in the conferment of jurisdiction to the syariah courts.

What were those two cases about, briefly?

Soon Singh pertained to the conversion of a minor Punjabi boy who, on majority, wished to revert to his original faith. And he had made [an] application for declaration to the civil court that he was no longer a Muslim.

The High Court took a jurisdictional point that that question had to be answered by the syariah court. It went up on appeal to the Federal Court, and the Federal Court went on this basis that although jurisdiction had not been placed with the syariah court to deal with conversions out of [Islam], you could imply jurisdiction from jurisdiction conferred on the syariah court to deal with conversion into [Islam]. If you embrace Islam, that jurisdiction is with the syariah courts. Therefore, you can imply jurisdiction to deal with conversion out of.

There was a fundamental flaw. Jurisdiction to deal with conversion into Islam was never placed with the syariah courts! It was with the Majlis Agama. Again, what one witnesses is a breakdown in the separation of powers. Legislation is for Parliament and State Legislature. The Federal Court saw it fit to imply a jurisdiction which really is the function of the legislature.


[The case of] Shaik Zolkafilly took it one step further. The Federal Court in Shaik Zolkafilly endorsed Soon Singh and then also endorsed a previous High Court ruling which went so far as to say that jurisdiction, although not expressly conferred on the syariah court, could be inferred from the 9th Schedule of the Federal Constitution.

Now, the 9th Schedule actually confers legislative powers on the various state legislative assemblies. If the state legislative assemblies have chosen not to exercise the powers, they haven't legislated. But the Federal Court is now saying, 'Right, you haven't legislated to confer jurisdiction, we can infer!' That is an usurpation of [the] role of the state legislature.

When one looks at these two decisions, one begins to wonder whether it's just plain abdication of duty due to lack of courage, or whether we have a situation of real concern that the judiciary may also be taking us to a position where the [way of] life guaranteed under the Federal Constitution is no longer open to us. In short, are they taking us to an Islamic state?

If the Federal Court is the highest court of the land, what happens then?

Well, let's take Moorthy's case. You can't contest it [because it's the highest court].And Moorthy's case, to me, is a glaring example. In Shaik Zolkafilly 2003, [the] Federal Court said, 'Well, if you don't have a remedy, that's not for us to address.' Ignoring that some 15 years before that, [the] Federal Court in New Zealand Insurance had asserted that in our jurisdiction, you cannot separate the right from the remedy. Where you have a right, the system must afford a remedy.

That point was taken up by senior federal counsel [Mohd Nasir Isa] in the Moorthy case and was asserted emphatically again and again as the foundation for essentially telling the civil High Court, 'It's not your business to look into Kaliammal's complaint.'Now, where do we go from there? The senior federal counsel has amply demonstrated it. The Attorney General's office doesn't appear to be perturbed that in the light of the Shaik Zolkafilly decision, we may have reached a point where the citizen may have no remedy whilst she may have a right. Shamala faced the same predicament. Her right under Article 12(4) under the Federal Constitution to partake in the decision-making as to the minor children's faith was taken away because the High Court says it cannot help her.

Kaliammal in the Moorthy case, my reading of it, was this: The right to bury your dead is part and parcel of the right of life guaranteed under Article 5.

If you read some of the pronouncements, 'right to life' is all- encompassing. The Federal Constitution cannot spell out the nitty- gritty details of what 'right to life' envisages. But surely, the right of a grieving family to perform the final rites of a recently deceased family member must be part and parcel of that. They were denied that.

The only premise of the civil High Court was, well, 'There was a syariah court order here, we cannot look behind it.'We've come a long way. Civil society has to ask why and if we are prepared to put up with this, and if we are not, then what must we do. If we want the way of life that was guaranteed to us back, what must we do? I think these are the core issues that really emerged from these cases.

Again, look at the context. We have an MP saying, 'If you are not happy that this is an Islamic country, get out!' That's an indication as to the mindset in Parliament. You have the Attorney-General in the case of the four apostates in the Federal Court in 2004 arguing and suggesting that Article 3 of the Federal Constitution exalts Islam, to a state that was never intended. And that [the Federal Constitution never intended to raise Islamic law above civil law] is borne out by the Federal Court decision of 1988 where they said, notwithstanding all of that - [i.e.] Article 3 - [that] this is a secular state.


One has to look at all these and ask ourselves, 'Why? Why are we witnessing these various phenomena?' And if you are not happy, then [pauses] speak up, or forever hold your peace-lah.

Do you think a lot of it was due to our former prime minister saying that this is an Islamic state?

I don't think so. I think the former prime minister's declaration was pure political rhetoric to deal with a problem that he faced then. But, he's left us with that problem. And, there are parties who have seized on that rhetoric and are bent on making capital out of it. And, I suppose if you keep repeating if often enough, then people tend to forget.

What are some of the cases you've taken on that have the same core issues?

Well, all of the cases you've mentioned except for Shaik Zolkafilly and Soon Singh, I've been involved in one way or the other.Lina Joy at the Court of Appeal, co-watching brief counsel. For the four apostates, at every stage, I've been solicitor and counsel. The Moorthy case, I was holding watching brief for the Bar Council. Shamala's case, I was holding watching brief for the women NGOs [non- governmental organisations]. So, yes, I've been involved in all of them in one way or the other. I'm presently also involved with cases filed last year in the High Court of KL or Shah Alam where the respondent is the director of the I.C. [identity card] Department. This is for change of I.C. particulars to delete Islam for individuals who have, of their own free will, renounced [Islam] and embraced other faiths, and who now face difficulty in getting on with their lives simply because the details in the I.C. do not conform with their current state. These are cases which are pending.

These cases have all come up in the past few years. Is there a reason for that?

Well, there may be another reason for this [apart from the earlier mentioned ones]. I know of cases before 1995 where individuals who had renounced Islam, embraced a new faith, who had become born-again Christians, who were allowed to have their particulars changed. They had to go through a certain procedure but at the end of the day, they successfully got their particulars changed. The refusal to allow this now appears to be fairly recent.

Fairly recent would be ... ?

Post-1995. Whether this coincidentally occurred when there appears to be this renewed Islamisation is speculation. But one must ask whether this may be another factor why previously, you didn't have to go to court. Today, you are being refused what was allowed previously. So, you see more of these cases in court today.

The Moorthy problem may not be a new problem. But it was resolved previously taking into consideration the plight of a grieving family. But not this time round. Hence, it was in court. Shamala's case [too] may not be in effect something new.

But, it's only recently that you run up against Islamic bureaucracy and the assertion that the syariah court must be the final arbiter in these issues. That could be another reason why we are seeing more and more of these cases.

What do you say to Muslims who may accuse you as being somebody who's helping the ummah convert out of their religion?

My answer to them is read Surah Nisa verse 75, that's Chapter 4 verse 75 [flips through a translated copy of the Quran]. Yes, this is how it reads: 'How should you not fight for the cause of God and of the feeble among men and of the women and the children who are crying: Lord! Bring us forth from out of this town of which the people are oppressors! Oh, give us from Thy presence some protecting friend! Oh, give us from Thy presence some defender!'

I don't think [the] Lord God was saying, 'Only defend Muslims.' [But] defend anyone who faces oppression.

The Quran also says in Baqarah:256, which is Chapter 2, verse 256, 'Let there be no compulsion in ad-deen' which is 'way of life'. Most translators translate it as 'religion'. I can live with that translation but it means then, 'Let there be no compulsion in religion.'

In Surah 10 verse 99, God says if He wanted to, He would have compelled everyone to the way that He desired. Will you then compel men against their wishes?I'm no scholar of Islam, but in my humble understanding of these verses, we are not to stand by and ignore anyone, Muslim or non- Muslim, who's oppressed. I, therefore, think the cases that I handle are perfectly in conformity with my obligation as one who tries to be Muslim. I do not claim to be Muslim, I try to be Muslim.

As a Muslim and a lawyer, what do you think the state needs to do to ensure that this right of freedom of religion is upheld?

As a Muslim, I would urge our Muslim leaders to look again into the Quran. There is a verse where Moses was dispatched to [the] Pharaoh and the message was very clear: 'Free the people. Free the people.'

As a lawyer, I've got to say that Quranic message can be achieved if our leaders would keep to their oath of office and uphold the Constitution. Uphold the Constitution to the letter and the spirit.Some of these cases have come about because of conversions to Islam by one party in a relationship. What needs to be done to ensure that these conversions to Islam don't lead to the negation of rights for the non-Muslim party?

Let's be honest about this. Conversions have taken place because somebody wants to take a second spouse and they see it as a means to achieve that end. That means that conversion is not real.

We've heard of conversions simply because individuals want to acquire bumiputra status to advance themselves in their own business. Again, conversion is not real. I truly believe that if someone has come to Islam because they have seen the beauty of Islam, they will not lose sight of the responsibilities that remain with them for their non- Muslim family. You don't love your non-Muslim wife any the less simply because you have seen the truth in Islam. Your non-Muslim children do not mean any less to you today simply because you are a Muslim today while you were a Buddhist yesterday.

So, number one, I think the authorities involved with conversions must not pretend that these pseudo-converts or pseudo-Muslims are not a reality. They must confront this.And, maybe to avoid the calamity that often befalls the non-Muslim family, there must be prescription in the law that places the duty on these converting authorities to ensure that the non-Muslim family is fully apprised [of the conversion] so that they are not confronted only when they are about to bury [the deceased], that perhaps the family home which the wife rather naively left in the husband's name, is now the property of the Baitulmal [a state agency which is responsible for disbursing monies to Muslims who need financial support].

We've seen the case in Malacca where the fireman died and the property then falls to [the] Baitulmal. No family should be left to the mercy of strangers, who now, out of their good hearts, return the family home to them.

A bit like Moorthy's brother [who gave up his right under Islamic law to lay claim to his brother's assets]?

Yes, yes!This posthumous conferment or promotion [for Moorthy] with the enlarged pension, you know, and gratuity, is no substitute for the family being able to part with their loved one in peace.

So, you're saying that whichever the religious authority is, should make it clear to the family that this conversion is happening before the conversion actually takes place?

There is nothing in the law that makes it part of their duty. To that extent, I think the law must be changed. We must recognise the reality of what goes on. That, sometimes, there are conversions, and those conversions are kept from family members for one reason or the other. It has ramifications. We've seen it. The law must be changed to avert these tragedies.

Do you think we are facing a constitutional crisis with regards to these contentious cases?

Yes. If you look at the Constitution, the whole idea of it is to level the playing field as best you can. And then the Constitution also provides for arbiters in the game. That arbiter is the judge. You've got a goalkeeper to make sure - and again the judge is calling the shots here - that the state doesn't take potshots at fundamental liberties. It appears to me that the referee has disappeared to the terrace, nowhere to be seen. The linesman is not observing the off- side goals, and the state is just picking away at the fundamental liberties that we have willy-nilly! That's a constitutional crisis!

And there doesn't seem to be anything to stop this from happening?

I think there's one thing that can. The public. Up till now, there's been apathy. 'If it hasn't inflicted my family, I don't care.' All right. Look at what happened in Terengganu, Kampung Batu 13 [Ayah Pin's commune]. An entire kampung decimated whilst [there was] a High Court order [for a stay]. To me, that day, the state authorities took the law into their own hands. But, gauge the public reaction to that! And then, fault me for saying apathy prevails in this country.

[Apathy is] tantamount to giving the authorities a blank cheque. 'Do what you will. Doesn't affect my family. I don't care.' If Moorthy's case doesn't wake the public up to what's happening, God help this country.

[But] I don't see why God will bother if we ourselves won't bother.

But, yes, we do have a [constitutional] crisis. Unfortunately, we only react openly when it's an economic crisis.

There have been some calls by certain parties including the Deputy Prime Minister and the Senators Club that there's been enough talk about [Moorthy's] issue and it's time to move on. Would you agree?Well, we saw how some of the senators reacted to the [Islamic] Family Law Bill [which was recently amended to make it easier for Muslim men to practise polygamy and to lay claim on their wives' assets]. They were very strong in their objections. [But] what did they do finally? They approved the Bill without any dissent. One has to really ask, what is their real concern finally at the end of the day?

I don't think they should suppress public dissent and on the odd occasion when the press carries that dissent, I don't think it is the business of our lawmakers to silence that criticism. It is bad enough that they don't pay heed to it, now they would silence it.

Well, there's all that about how this is a multi-racial country and it's a sensitive issue.

It's a sensitive issue which was addressed with much thought and reflection by the Reid Commission when they framed the Federal Constitution. I think if we kept to the Federal Constitution without tinkering with it, these issues wouldn't arise at all.You know, this notion of 'sensitive' and therefore 'don't touch on it', is an overused tactic. Every time some issue becomes too hot to handle, we are reminded of May 13. 'Sensitive. Inter-racial relations.' I posed the question after the Moorthy decision, and I said, go and ask the Prime Minister [Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi] how this decision fosters our Malaysian identity.

The answer is never to sweep the problem under the carpet, to pretend it's not there. We've got to address the problem. Otherwise, it continues to fester.Since Kaliammal was told there was no judicial remedy for her to contest her husband's conversion and for her to claim his body, there have been calls for an amendment or repeal of Article 121 (1A) in the Constitution which states that the civil courts have no jurisdiction over matters within the syariah courts' jurisdiction. What do you think of this proposal?

I think they are wrong. I think [Article] 121(1A), if given an honest rendition, would still leave our civil courts as the final arbiters of the law. That Article 121(1A) as it stands now does not, in any way, change the fact that the syariah court is an inferior tribunal.[Article] 121(1A) as it stands was never intended to remove the powers of the civil High Court to determine if an inferior tribunal has acted ultra vires. It is still open to the civil High Court.

The clamour to amend, my concern is, lends credence to the interpretation given now to [Article] 121(1A). It justifies the interpretation placed on it. And, if in the final analysis, it is never amended, we are then left with our own acknowledgement that this is what it means. Very dangerous.

So, what should be done then about 121(1A)?

What we need is a final determination by a full panel of the Federal Court who are fully cognisant of their oath of office, and nothing else. No other agendas. And that exercise should not be seen as a means to further that other agenda, whatever it is. It will then give us that final determination.

And what if they rule that the current interpretation is correct?

Well, then I suppose, the process of taking us to an Islamic state has been completed. But, there is also a suggestion of a constitutional court [by Kota Baru MP Datuk Zaid Ibrahim]. You can create a hundred more constitutional courts but if they are not manned by officers who are at all times beholden to their oath of office, and their oath only, what difference does it make, right?

We have today a body called Suhakam. What has it done? My honest opinion is, it has accorded to the government the opportunity to proclaim that, 'See! We are concerned about human rights.'

Now, you create the constitutional court. The government [can say], 'See! We are concerned that the Constitution is properly construed.'

We have a Federal Court. There are sufficient decisions that bear testimony that they are capable of the most sound interpretations of the law. [In] the case of Che Omar Che Soh [in 1988, heard by former Lord President], Tun Salleh Abbas very categorically said, [this is a] secular state.

Notwithstanding his personal inclinations, and that's even touched on in the judgment, yet his final conclusion was, notwithstanding Article 3 [which states Islam is the religion of the Federation], this is a secular nation.So, Article 121(1A), if you read it carefully, all it says is, the civil courts shall have no jurisdiction on any matter which is placed within the jurisdiction of the syariah court. Very clear. So, for instance, inheritance law between Muslims, that's placed with the syariah court. The civil court won't interfere with that exercise of jurisdiction. But it must always still be open to the civil court to look into the decision to see if they acted ultra vires.

There have been some calls for non-Muslims to seek redress through the syariah courts since Kaliammal's case. Is this one way to resolve the issue?

This call read in conjunction with the submission by the senior federal counsel in Moorthy's case that even if the widow was left without a remedy, the civil court must refrain from entering upon the dispute as it lacked jurisdiction, is firstly, in my view, untenable in law and secondly and more importantly, a very dangerous suggestion which must be resisted at all costs.

It is legally untenable for non-Muslims to seek redress through the syariah courts because the 9th Schedule of the Federal Constitution confines the jurisdiction of the syariah courts to 'only over persons professing the religion of Islam'. This jurisdiction cannot be enlarged by submission.

It is also very dangerous because non-Muslim litigants confronted with issues as in the Moorthy case may, out of frustration with the self-inflicted impotence of the civil courts, go to the syariah court for relief. The syariah court may give the relief sought in some cases, and may refuse in others. It is unlikely that jurisdiction is going to be challenged. Any orders obtained in the syariah court, if challenged in the civil court, will probably meet the same fate as in Moorthy's.

In time, it will be argued that by the doctrine of custom and usage, as Prof De Smith puts it 'the ultimate grundnorm' has shifted.[Editor's note: 'Grundnorm' is a German word that means 'fundamental norm', and is used to denote the fundamental order that forms a legal system's underlying basis]. The push to make this an Islamic state may [then] have been achieved.

How about the proposed Interfaith Commission which was stalled because of opposition from some Muslim groups? Would that mechanism help deal with matters of conversions in a multi-racial society?

I was part of that effort from 2001 when we were at pro-tem stage just looking at the possibility at that time of having a workshop, to see if there was a need for it. And I was involved at the steering committee stage to get the conference that was held in February last year off the ground. And I'm still part of the working group that has been entrusted by the steering committee to try to bring this to fruition. So, my views on the Interfaith Commission may be biased in that I've been, since 2001, in favour of it.

Looking at the scheme that was envisaged in the draft [Interfaith Commission] Bill that was prepared, it was certainly with regards to problems like Moorthy's case, Shamala's case. That we thought the Interfaith Commission may have a role to play. And to work in tandem with the government.

We honestly felt that the Interfaith Commission would have a real role to play in addressing issues like this, and also in educating the public in coming to terms that this is a secular nation, that rights entail choice.

Let's put it this way. For Christians, if you look at the book of Matthew, I think it's [in] Chapter 28. There's a command to Christians to take the Gospel to all nations. It's the duty of every Christian to evangelise.But in this country, we have to tell the Christians, 'I'm sorry, the Federal Constitution, which is supreme law, in Article 11(4) allows for laws to be promulgated which would prohibit this.' And we tell the Christians, 'We know that that is your faith, but this law is supreme law and it must override.'

In the same way, we must tell the Muslims, 'Regardless of your views of apostasy, Article 11(1) guarantees the right to practise and to profess to every person, including the Muslim.' And this is supreme law. It will override any notion you have of what is syariah.

Now, this process of educating people to think this way, we thought the Interfaith Commission could play a vital role. Unfortunately, intentions were misconstrued [pauses] and, well, efforts still continue. It's a slow process.

Is the Interfaith Commission also a softer, maybe gentler way to deal with contentious issues than say, going to the courts?

That was one of the other considerations at steering committee stage. We felt that all these controversial cases going to court places a heavy burden on the judiciary. And that perhaps the commission could assist. One example would be, say for instance, the Shamala case. The court could have had the advantage of say, the commission appointing a watching brief amicus curaie [friend of the court] to then apprise the court of how this approach has been taken from a fundamental human rights issue in other jurisdictions. Pakistan, for example. That would certainly take the weight off the courts.

So then, it would play an advisory role to the courts?

Only advisory. We've said it again and again. The function and the role was purely advisory. Never was it ever suggested that the commission would play an adjudicatory function.

What would you like to see happen in order for these issues to be addressed fairly in the spirit of justice for all?

Again, I go back to this. Our leaders, the government which is in fact three arms [legislative, executive and judiciary] not lose sight of their oath of office [to] uphold the Constitution. The Prime Minister has said he is the Prime Minister of all Malaysians. I would like to see him live up to that. And that the government earnestly backs its promise to work towards a Malaysian identity.

Where it begins....where it ends..

May peace be upon ye..


Wanna see my examination hall?? After we dismissed for LME paper, I snapped some shots.. (hehe..sempat lagi!!) Its The Grand Whithworth Hall..the ancient exam chamber ever.. I still remember, dis is da very first place in my uni lifetime as i first stepped into the university (REGISTRATION AND INDUCTION) and its gonna be my final destination.... Guess wat??? Its my CONVOCATION CEREMMONY PRESENTATIONS...huhuhuhu (so sad thinking of dat day)

GEEEEEEEE..... Rite now I'm physically unstabled. My hands are gigling...my eyes are in pain... and I think my whole body's shaking. I didnt sleep for the past 48 hours...Hushhhhhhhhh..(never did dat b4)..
I better got to bed now or I'll faint somewhere!!


Bye for now!!
ZackIdris@AJA AJA AFIGHTING

It means no worries.......

HAKUNA MATATA!!!


Exams have just started!! 1 down 2 more to go..
Dis section is specially dedicated to those who are having finals around dis month.. I know the stress are mounting up, but please take things easily and calmly,,, After all, it isnt the first and yet to be da last one..!! huhuhu


I got dis song from ZaidHakim. It recalls me to my joyous days of childhood where I used to sing it. The words are encouraging and relaxing.. it means no worries for the rest of your day.
So. those who find yourself in "mentally incapacitated" like me (",) due to exams and stuffs, sing along and ye'll find no worries in ur daily life.... but dat doesnt mean u shouldnt concern n do nothing.. but be moderate.
Thanks to ZaidHakim for letting me to re-publish dis song.. I wish u a very best of luck in ur series of finals ahead...


Da rest, lets sing ------------------------------------ >

Hakuna Matata

Hakuna Matata! What a wonderful phrase
Hakuna Matata! Ain’t no passing craze
It means no worries for the rest of your days
It’s our problem-free philosophy

Hakuna Matata!
Hakuna Matata?

Yeah. It’s our motto!
What’s a motto?
Nothing. What’s a-motto with you?


Those two words will solve all your problems
That’s right. Take Pumbaa hereWhy, when he was a young warthog…
When I was a young wart hog

Very nice

Thanks
He found his
aroma lacked a certain appeal
He could clear the savannah after every meal
I’m a sensitive soul though I seem thick-skinned
And it hurt that my friends never stood downwind
And oh, the shame
He was ashamed
Thought of changin’ my name
What’s in a name?
And I got downhearted
How did ya feel?Everytime that I…


Hey! Pumbaa! Not in front of the kids!
Oh. Sorry
Hakuna Matata!
What a wonderful phrase
Hakuna Matata! Ain’t no passing craze


It means no worries for the rest of your days
It’s our problem-free philosophy
Hakuna Matata!
Hakuna Matata!
Hakuna matata!
Hakuna Matata!
Hakuna matata!
Hakuna Matata!

Hakuna matata!
Hakuna Matata! Hakuna–

It means no worries for the rest of your days
It’s our problem-free philosophy
Hakuna Matata!(Repeats)

I say “Hakuna”
I say “Matata”





No worries,
ZackIdris@AJA AJA FIGHTING

"BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN": Forbidden Love On The Range...

Dear readers,

May peace be upon ye...

I know dis mite be late, but i juz cant stop myself from from commenting on sumting which I feel interesting and worth sharing. Huhuhu.. Now peeps out dere, LISTEN!!! Dis mite be controversial to U and U wont like it as such,,, but as this blog strictly upholds freedom of speech, thoughts and expression, every single voice shud be entertained and be given a fair, equal opportunity. To all ma Malaysian buddies, I dun think U can find this film elsewhere in the cinemas, as it will lead to a big public outcry. (controversial, huh??!!)

Wats up, Zack?????

Yeah, its the "Brokeback Mountain" Movie...released on Jan 6 all around the UK. I've seen the trailer since last year.. and I found it was s_ _ _ _ _ and really touching. (",) Althought to be honest, I havent seen the movie due to time constraint (Guess wat? My exams are coming up!!! ....Geeeeeeee..... why exams have always to be a good "defence" for not not doing sumting!! unfair in it??) But some mates told me that the film is damn really brilliant - magnificient - excellent - fabulous - fantastic bla bla bla bla bla (and it goes on)..

"Zack, I've to admit my tears raining down my face towards the end". "Ya ampunnnnnn..abg wann best bangat sih" "wann... i nak tgk lagi film tue...kiter gi scully ek". "Brokeback Mountain, thumbs up, Zachary!!! Its the best film of the year..." huhuhu.. wat shall I say?? After all, the credits shall go to Ang Lee for a marvellous piece of work.. "U've made it done Mr Lee!!!!"

These are amongst the feedbacks I've received. Hence, they really burn me into a high level of "mouth watering" to watch it.. UWUAAAAAAAAAAAAAA....for goodness sake, I HATE EXAMS!!!
But patience pays, isnt it? Its worth sacrificing now for a better enjoyment..

Alrite guys!!! Dats it... Time to study now!!

p/s: I've enclosed an academic review by one of the best critics, Rogert Ebert from Canada. He gives (I think) a very thruthful comment and its worth reading it - at least u know wats da film is all about. (especially to ma Mesian fwens who cud never had da chance to see it in cinemas...pity u guys!! hehehe)


Regards with love,
ZackIdris@AJA AJA FIGHTING
1428 hours - Jan 14 2006
(2 more days to da battlefield....)


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

Ennis tells Jack about something he saw as a boy. “There were two old guys shacked up together. They were the talk of the town, even though they were pretty tough old birds.” One day they were found beaten to death. Ennis says: “My dad, he made sure me and my brother saw it. For all I know, he did it.”


This childhood memory is always there, the ghost in the room, in Ang Lee’s “Brokeback Mountain.” When he was taught by his father to hate homosexuals, Ennis was taught to hate his own feelings. Years after he first makes love with Jack on a Wyoming mountainside, after his marriage has failed, after his world has compressed to a mobile home, the laundromat, the TV, he still feels the same pain: “Why don’t you let me be? It’s because of you, Jack, that I’m like this — nothing, and nobody.”


But it’s not because of Jack. It’s because Ennis and Jack love each other and can find no way to deal with that. “Brokeback Mountain” has been described as “a gay cowboy movie,” which is a cruel simplification. It is the story of a time and place where two men are forced to deny the only great passion either one will ever feel. Their tragedy is universal. It could be about two women, or lovers from different religious or ethnic groups — any “forbidden” love.


The movie wisely never steps back to look at the larger picture, or deliver the “message.” It is specifically the story of these men, this love. It stays in close-up. That’s how Jack and Ennis see it. “You know I ain’t queer,” Ennis tells Jack after their first night together. “Me neither,” says Jack.


Their story begins in Wyoming in 1963, when Ennis (Heath Ledger) and Jack (Jake Gyllenhaal) are about 19 years old and get a job tending sheep on a mountainside. Ennis is a boy of so few words he can barely open his mouth to release them; he learned to be guarded and fearful long before he knew what he feared. Jack, who has done some rodeo riding, is a little more outgoing. After some days have passed on the mountain and some whiskey has been drunk, they suddenly and almost violently have sex.


“This is a one-shot thing we got going on here,” Ennis says the next day. Jack agrees. But it’s not. When the summer is over, they part laconically: “I guess I’ll see ya around, huh?” Their boss (Randy Quaid) tells Jack he doesn’t want him back next summer: “You guys sure found a way to make the time pass up there. You weren’t getting paid to let the dogs guard the sheep while you stemmed the rose.”


Some years pass. Both men get married. Then Jack goes to visit Ennis and the undiminished urgency of their passion stuns them. Their lives settle down into a routine, punctuated less often than Jack would like by “fishing trips.” Ennis’ wife, who has seen them kissing, says nothing about it for a long time. But she notices there are never any fish.


The movie is based on a short story by E. Annie Proulx. The screenplay is by Larry McMurtry and Diana Ossana. This summer I read McMurtry’s “Lonesome Dove” trilogy, and as I saw the movie I was reminded of Gus and Woodrow, the two cowboys who spend a lifetime together. They aren’t gay; one of them is a womanizer, and the other spends his whole life regretting the loss of the one woman he loved. They’re straight, but just as crippled by a society that tells them how a man must behave and what he must feel.


“Brokeback Mountain” could tell its story and not necessarily be a great movie. It could be a melodrama. It could be a “gay cowboy movie.” But the filmmakers have focused so intently and with such feeling on Jack and Ennis that the movie is as observant as work by Bergman. Strange but true: The more specific a film is, the more universal, because the more it understands individual characters, the more it applies to everyone. I can imagine someone weeping at this film, identifying with it because he always wanted to stay in the Marines, or be an artist or a cabinetmaker.


Jack is able to accept a little more willingly that he is inescapably gay. In frustration and need he goes to Mexico one night and finds a male prostitute. Prostitution is a calling with many hazards, sadness and tragedy, but it accepts human nature. It knows what some people need, and perhaps that is why every society has found a way to accommodate it.


Jack thinks he and Ennis might someday buy themselves a ranch and settle down. Ennis, who remembers what he saw as a boy: “This thing gets hold of us at the wrong time and wrong place and we’re dead.” Well, wasn’t Matthew Shepard murdered in Wyoming in 1998? And Brandon Teena in Nebraska in 1993? Haven’t brothers killed their sisters in the Muslim world to defend “family honor"?


Ang Lee is a director whose films are set in many nations and many times. What they have in common is an instinctive sympathy for the characters. Born Chinese, he makes movies about Americans, British, Chinese, straights, gays; his sci-fi movie “Hulk” was about a misunderstood outsider. Here he respects the entire arc of his story, right down to the lonely conclusion.


A closing scene involving a visit by Ennis to Jack’s parents is heartbreaking in what is said, and not said, about their world. A look around Jack’s childhood bedroom suggests what he overcame to make room for his feelings. What we cannot be sure is this: In the flashback, are we witnessing what really happened to Jack, or how Ennis sees it in his imagination? Ennis, whose father “made sure me and my brother saw it.”

In Re M. Moorthy: When Lawyers Speak

Dear respected readers,

I'm totally pissed off by the comments put forward by these people who claim themselves as Malaysian Lawyers. They not even know how to "read" the Federal Constitution (ammendments) and speak like the country is theirs. I'll reserve my own opinion till my exam finishes. But I'm positively submit that the High Court has acted constitutionally and dere's nothing wrong about our constitution (particularly in this issue). Why bring all these havoc and create a mess on ur own face and a**... (grrrrrrrrr). My humble advice to these "lawyers" - If u aren't sure about something, make research anddddddddd shut the f*** up....!!!!!

Still, I'm bound to keep their exact details unveiled as a matter of one's private privacy and freedom of expression. Unless otherwise stated, the views represented by members are their personal views and not of the Moderators or owners of this Group nor of the Legal Firm the writer is practising at.


A future-would-be lawyer,
ZackIdris@AJA AJA FIGHTING
1634 hours
Jan 12 2006





xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx



On Monday, I spent a quiet and reflective 20 odd minutes, part of it in the rain, holding a candle on the street. It sounds silly, but somehow at the end of it I felt curiously fulfilled. I had made a small stand to show support for a brave lady who through no fault of her own has been made a pawn in the power politics of the State. Many passers by in cars slowed to see what was going on, a few hooted in support and at least one car seemed to spontaneously stop and join us.

The impact of the Moorthy decision has been so shocking to the comfort zone of so many that a great number of people who would never have dreamed of gathering in public in what would be construed an 'illegal' assembly nevertheless gather nightly, quietly and solemnly holding candles, and hold a peaceful vigil to show solidarity and support for the family of the late Mr Moorthy and to show our concern for the slowly eroding right to have equal access to justice for all.

The vigil has gone on every night so far (though on Dec 31 it lasted only a few minutes because of the terrible rain). I would urge all of you to drop by for the whole hour or even a few minutes and show your support. The issue is not about Muslims and non Muslims - the issue is adequate and proper access to justice for all Malaysians.
Time: 8.00 to 9.00 (approx times)
Venue: directly outside the main entrance to Bangunan JKR lama, which houses the Appellate and Special Powers Division of the KL High Court.(Candles are provided, though if you have your own bring it along.)

Kind regards,
Shanmuga


Chandra Kanagasabasai wrote;


Dear Esther
Yes I agree that we should all do something. The candlelight virgil is an excellent idea--how many days will it go on for, as I am out of the country and will come as soon as I am back. Meanwhile it would be nice if all those on Madam Kaliammal's side and those who believe we should have a Constitutional amendment could come together for the sake of unity.Remember the cause.is more important than the individuals.

There would be no more potent message for the government than to see Muslims and non-Muslims united in the cause on the right to profess faith and what better venue than the High Court which has decided it is powerless to answer our cries for justice.

I think lawyers should come dressed in jackets so that the presence of lawyers is noticable and gets across the message that even those practising law are fed up with the system. If we could synchronise and make sure that all attend on the same day our presence would be more noticable. Perhaps someone can suggest a place to meet at together before attending the virgil. Also it would be good if those who are planning to come could indicate on this website that they will be attending, so that we are sure that there will be numbers. This is the time when actions count more than words and for those young lawyers who have admired the Bar for its past achievements, this is the chance to show that you too can do the same when the occasion calls.


Esther Ong wrote;

Dear all,

Irene's right, why wait? the dead is dead, but the laws still affect the living. Let the legal fraternity do our part; we are the voice of the ppl before the law, if we do not intercede against unjust laws, who will and who can? For evil to triumph, good men and women only need to do NOTHING (Burke).

Come show your support to the cause. THe Malaysia Consultative Council on Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism and Sikhism is organizing nightly candlelight vigil in front of the High Court, Jalan Raja from 8-9pm. This is a nonpolitical and nonconfrontation, interracial, interrelgiious effort by Malaysians for a better Malaysia.

Please remember that whatever happened in Moorthy's case CAN happen to any one of us who is not a Muslim. If happened to me - let me tell you I will jump out of the coffin and protest!!! If only Moorthy can speak from the grave... If I can voice out my opinion - why wait until I am 6 feet underground!! Let's not sweep the issue under the carpet again!!



Jeya Kumar wrote,

Hussain,

Although you are right to point out that this is not the first time .Such things have happened, I must say that this is the first time this problem has been able to generate so much publicity and has created a new level of awareness amongst the citizens of this country. I feel that this is the best time to discuss this issue and this forum is as suitable as any other forum to discuss it. As we have seen in the past, this forum has generated plenty of debate on many serious issues and many have benefited from it. So please let's not hold back. I am keen to see what are the views of my Muslim brothers and sisters in the profession on this issue and whether they are in agreement with the ruling of the High Court. Happy New Year to one and all!

Jeya