April 17, 2008

There is growing belief among some Malaysians that our country is ready for non racial politics.

It seems to me that they also believe that they represent the majority in this country.

I hate to burst the bubble, but realistically, this issue will require a debate and an honest self-examination on the rakyat’s part considering the historical and cultural framework of the country to achieve an acceptable formula.

And the majority of the Malaysian electorate must be ready to give to the proposing political party the following mandate:

1. A two-thirds majority in parliament, because any party which intends to change the constitution must have this
2. The Elimination of Article 153 which defines the Malay Rights in the Constitution, and with the two-thirds majority, it gives the proposing party local standi
3. Ban all race based political parties and enshrine it in the Constitution
4. To close all the ethnic base school as non-malays accept national schools as the sole school system

But let’s be realistic. What are we going to do if we ban all race based political parties? The elimination of race based parties would create a vacuum when there will be a need for institutions will be there to cater for each races’ needs in terms of culture, religion and education.

As a mandatory precondition to achieve the above objective, we must step forward and volunteer our time and money to create more NGOs to cater for the social needs of the individual races. This model has proven somewhat successful in the United States where various Asian, Black or Latino NGOs have taken steps to address issues local to their own communities.

And let’s not start about how we need to first improve the quality of our education system.

A quick think of the situation will tell us that all this will take a lot of hard work, painful sacrifices and therefore take time to implement.

Do not get me wrong. I am all for a non racial Malaysia. And this must be the long-term target for the nation.

But we must admit that It is not possible to implement a non racial Malaysian society without equalizing the economic and social welfare of all the races in Malaysia first.

And now, to add to our woes, we are faced with the negative impact of a slowing global economy, rising prices of commodities and declining standard of living for Malaysians in general, the economic welfare of the rakyat becomes more important than the ideal of a non racial Malaysia.

It is difficult to narrow the gap in the well being of different races if the economy does not generate new wealth to be fairly distributed among the races.

So these are the medium term targets that we need to achieve:

1. New wealth in the economy that is fairly distributed among the races,
2. a world class education system that is both colour blind and economically efficient, and
3. new NGOs as institutions that will fill the vacuum when race based political parties are gone.

Only when Malaysia is in such a position we can truly consider to further dismantle the racial shackles that bind us.

But for the mean time, let us concentrate on pressing matters.

By Jazlan

Posted in: ISLAM, Malaysia GE 2008, Malaysia Politics, Malaysian Government | Comments(0)

April 16, 2008

This article first appeared in the Malaysian Insider

Let’s face it. The honeymoon is over. Barisan Nasional under Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi won 91 per cent of the parliamentary seats in the 2004 elections but only 63 per cent this year.

I thanked Pak Lah last Friday for the opportunity to contest in the last and this elections when nobody else gave me the chance. But I had to say what I had to say when no one else wanted. Just like when he gave me the opportunity.

I was polite. I asked Pak Lah to consider stepping down earlier as prime minister to stop Dr Mahathir Mohamad and Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah from disturbing the party and our efforts to rebuild the party after our considerable losses in the 2008 elections.

In my mind, only a smooth transition will stop the party from splitting up. And that has to be done sooner than later. Now. Not tomorrow. Not next month. Not December.

The 2008 elections have thrown up one fact. The young voters had determined the results. They are impatient and demand quick results.

In 2004 the young voters were attracted by Pak Lah’s promise to be more transparent, eliminate corruption and nepotism and gave Pak Lah a resounding mandate to carry his reforms and to me this was Pak Lah’s victory rather than BN. But unfortunately in 2008 the voters thought that Pak Lah fell short on his promises and voted otherwise.

But we cannot blame the voters. They are young and idealistic and we must accept their decision. The young are more attracted to join the other side because they can achieve their objectives faster than in Umno where the institution slows them down. As a result we have young MPs in their 20s representing them and carry the potential of changing the political environment forever.

I do not believe that Umno can recover its historical position in the country and must learn to behave like Golkar in Indonesia where the party is still influential despite a shrinking base of support and no longer politically dominant. Therefore, Umno cannot afford to change gradually when the Opposition has undergone a radical change.

Umno failed to see the ground shift and as a result, BN lost five states, the Federal Territory of Kuala Lumpur, and even had problems with the royalty as they did not agree with the Prime Minister’s choice of Menteris Besar in two states.

The PM has been weakened by the rejection of the young voters in the recent elections and a weak PM is not good for Umno.

And Umno is stuck in the old way of solving problems where we believe we Umno is the epicentre of the Malaysian political universe and Malaysia’s problems can be simplistically resolved by solving Umno’s internal problems first and then only later to solve national issues and the public would obediently submit to our will.

The situation now requires Pak Lah to separate the position of the prime minister and president of the party.

The voters have decided that they do not want Pak Lah as PM by voting against him in the recent general elections. And they do not care about who becomes the president of Umno because they are trying to replace Umno with a new political institution.

The honeymoon is over. There is nagging in the house. We have to solve that. Now.

By Jazlan

Posted in: Malaysia GE 2008, Malaysia Politics, Malaysian Government | Comments(0)

Posted in: Malaysia GE 2008, Malaysia Politics, Malaysian Government | Comments(0)

March 25, 2008

Full house: Audience members applauding during the forum titled ‘New Politics in Post-Election Malaysia’ held at Menara Star Monday.

From the Star: By Jazlan

PETALING JAYA: The five opposition-held state governments must compete among themselves as well as with the Federal Government to prove to the electorate they are viable, a public forum was told yesterday

DAP Petaling Jaya Utara MP Tony Pua said the competition was actually extremely healthy for the country.

“In these states, the competition will be immense in bringing the country forward in terms of economic policies and politics,” he said.

“The Barisan will have to face the pressure of Penang becoming a fantastic success compared to the previous government.

“Will it lose more states in the peninsula if Penang becomes a model state for investment and economic administration?” he asked at The Star-ACMS public forum titled New Politics in Post-Election Malaysia.

Pua added that in Parliament, there would be competition between a possibly viable two-party system.

Among the Opposition parties, there would also be competition in the states they ruled. He said the DAP would set the pace to show that it could do the job better.

“If we do well, other states will also have to do well to prove to the people that their choices were not wrong.

“Before this, there was no competition to show that one could do better but more of a competition of who could make more money as an Adun (assemblyman),” he said.

On cooperation, Pua said in the past it was easy for Barisan to alienate the Opposition-led Kelantan as its economic contribution was minimal. However, in the current scenario, the Opposition rules the rich states of Penang, Perak and Selangor.

Pua said the reality was that there had to be politics of cooperation for Malaysia to move forward and for the Barisan to prove itself competent to win back the people’s trust.

He said the likelihood was that both parties would try to continue improving the economy and political affairs in the states but both would take credit for it.

“The strategy will not be to sabotage. You cannot do that anymore as too many states are involved and the stakes are too high for Barisan,” he said.

Former Health Minister Datuk Seri Dr Chua Soi Lek said the political landscape had now changed completely and it could not be business as usual for Barisan nor the Opposition now.

He pointed out that the governments in the five states were under the microscope and faced many challenges as well as opportunities.

“But don’t forget that a new broom always sweeps clean, anywhere in the world,” he said, adding that other than PAS, none of the other parties had experience in administering states.

“If your learning curve is slow, you will be shown the door by voters in the next election the same way Barisan was shown the door on March 8.”

Dr Chua said people should be concerned about whether the new coalition partners could sit down together and administer the states or whether they would bicker among each other on who should call the shots.

He also questioned whether the Federal and state relationship would be one of confrontation or cooperation.

He added that even if there was cooperation, he wondered if it was because of political convenience or a genuine deal on a win-win basis.

Contending that it would likely not be all smooth sailing, he said the Opposition also faced tremendous challenges such as getting cooperation from the civil servants.

“If they succeed in overcoming the problems then it would present a challenge to Barisan as the people will then have a real alternative for Government.”

Pointing out that the people had voted for change, he said the Barisan component parties must change and the MCA should re-brand and re-strategise itself to regain the people’s support.

“We can no longer sing the same old tune of development, peace and stability as promises to the people as these are what the people expect from their Government,” he said.

He added that the party could no longer talk about new villages and its success in setting up TAR College and Utar as the Chinese now demanded more from the MCA and the young were alienated from issues like new villages.

MCA, he said, should feel the pulse of the Chinese community to enable it to articulate their fears, resentment and frustrations.

“However, Umno too, must accept the fact that the component parties must be more vocal and seen as championing the cause of the people they represent.

“Umno has to see that championing ethnic causes will not cause instability,” he said, adding that the MCA leadership must be interactive to reach out to the people.

Umno’s Pulai MP Datuk Nur Jazlan Mohamed agreed with Dr Chua that Umno needed to change.

He was concerned with the present situation in the country and for Umno.

He added that Umno had been rejuvenating itself over the years and the problem was how it should communicate the message that it had changed.

“We have rejuvenated the party but it’s just that we have been attacked from all sides and maybe we have a problem trying to respond in a way people want to hear,” he said.

He said many of the old parties in the region had gone through this painful process.

Giving an example of Indonesia, he said after the fall of Suharto many competing interests claiming to be forces of democracy stymied the political system and stunted the economic development of the country.

“Until today, Indonesia is struggling to find a clear cause in the absence of a shared vision in its direction because of the lack of leadership but Golkar, which is closely aligned to Suharto, defied its critics and still plays a major role in the political scene and has significant grassroots support,” he said.

He also pointed out the recent election victory of the Kuomintang presidential candidate despite the party being thrown out in 2000 when it was seen as promoting a concept of guided democracy despite developing Taiwan as an Asian economic tiger.

“The voters’ experiment with unbridled democracy was costly to the economy of Taiwan,” he said, adding that they now apparently were willing to sacrifice some independence and democracy in return for economic well-being and development by accepting the return of Kuomintang.

Nur Jazlan said there was a need to keep a balance between democracy and economic development by limiting and keeping check of the competing interests to have a clear and firm long-term direction for Malaysia’s development.

“My hope is the new non-Barisan governments, Barisan state governments and Federal Government act responsibly and find a shared goal as our forefathers did and continue their dream,” he said

However, DAP’s Klang MP Charles Santiago said that the election was about “reining in Umno”.

The Malays and Indians voted against Barisan because they felt their lives, families and jobs were not protected, he said.

He listed job security, intake of foreign workers and privatisation that caused higher cost of living as among the reasons for the discontentment among the lower-income Malays and Indians.

Santiago added that it was only fair to allow the Opposition governments to make some mistakes but it must be responsible to the people.

Gerakan secretary-general Datuk Seri Chia Kwang Chye said he would like to believe that there were positive changes, based on the election results, and that the people had done away with race-based politics.

By Jazlan

Posted in: Education, Human Rights, Malaysia Politics, Malaysian Government | Comments(0)

March 25, 2008

Wong (fourth from left) moderating the forum in Petaling Jaya Monday. The panellists were (from left) Pua, Nur Jazlan, Dr Chua, Chia and Santiago.

From the Star: By Jazlan

PETALING JAYA: Amending the constitution is a sensitive issue and it must not be treated like a small matter, said a speaker at The Star-ACMS Public Forum: New Politics in Post Election Malaysia.

Touching on the situation in Perak where the state constitution requires the Mentri Besar to be a Malay and Muslim, former Health Minister Datuk Seri Dr Chua Soi Lek said changing the constitution that infringed on the rights of the Sultan was not a small matter.

“I must say that this is a very sensitive question. Please don’t treat changing the constitution like a joke.

“It is a big thing to a lot of people,” he said in replying to a question by a participant at the forum at Menara Star here yesterday.

He said the people must understand how the country achieved its independence and the spirit behind the constitution.

“During independence, in order to placate the feelings of the Sultan, Muslims and Malay community, it was enshrined in the state constitution that a Mentri Besar must be a Muslim. The Sultan has the power to give exemption, but none of the Sultans has exercised it.”

Dr Chua said he doubted that anybody would have the courage to change the state constitution and challenged the current Perak Government to convince the Sultan on the need to change it.

The public forum is the latest in a series organised by The Star and the Asian Centre for Media Studies.

Yesterday’s forum, moderated by The Star Group Chief Editor Datuk Wong Chun Wai, was to analyse the new political landscape in the country post-election.

Besides Dr Chua, the other speakers were Pulai MP Datuk Nur Jazlan Mohamed from Umno, newly elected DAP MPs Tony Pua and Charles Santiago, and Gerakan’s secretary-general Datuk Seri Chia Kwang Chye.

Pua concurred that some of the proposed constitutional changes demanded by the opposition were very sensitive but they could be worked out for the interests of the people.

“They are very sensitive. They touch on race and religion. I think everyone is nervy about this issue but that doesn’t mean that we can’t work towards something that applies to all Malaysians.”

He pointed out that the Barisan Nasional Government had amended the Federal Constitution many times over the last 50 years but the changes were to protect the rights of the Sultan, uphold Islam and interests of the ruling coalition to consolidate its position.

Santiago, however, pointed out that former premier Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad had, in the 1980s, successfully amended the constitution limiting the powers of the Sultans.

“Nobody could have realised the outcome of the March 8 polls. There’s always a new beginning, shared hopes and collective aspiration,” he said.

Nur Jazlan said any amendment to the constitution would require the agreement of parties concerned including the Sultan.

“Our country is the product of history. If you want to change the constitution you’ve got to deal with the conflicting interests that created the constitution.

“It is not easy for us as the people just demand things. Under the law, you must get the agreement of parties involved including the Sultan.”

Nur Jazlan also called for an institution to control the conflicting interests compared to when the country gained independence 50 years ago.

“The problem is the interest groups are not unified and are pulling Malaysians in different directions. This is the biggest threat to the legacy left to us by our founding fathers,” he said.

By Jazlan

Posted in: Christian, Malaysia Politics, Malaysian Government, Those Blogs | Comments(0)

 http://inpursuitofhappiness.wordpress.com/2008/03/22/tibet-myth-reality/

Tibet’s isolation and unique religious practices
have made it the focus of many Western myths.

by Foster Stockwell
22nd March 2008

Western concepts of Tibet embrace more myth than reality. The idea that Tibet is an oppressed nation composed of peaceful Buddhists who never did anyone any harm distorts history. In fact the belief that the Dalai Lama is the leader of world Buddhism rather than being just the leader of one sect among more than 1,700 “Living Buddhas” of this unique Tibetan form of the faith displays a parochial view of world religions.The myth, of course, is an outgrowth of Tibet’s former inaccessibility, which has fostered illusions about this mysterious land in the midst of the Himalayan Mountains — illusions that have been skillfully promoted for political purposes by the Dalai Lama’s advocates. The myth will inevitably die, as all myths do, but until this happens, it would be wise to learn a few useful facts about this area of China.

First, Tibet has been a part of China ever since it was merged into that country in 1239, when the Mongols began creating the Yuan Dynasty (1271-1368). This was before Marco Polo reached China from Europe and more than two centuries before Columbus sailed to the New World. True, China’s hold on this area sometimes appeared somewhat loose, but neither the Chinese nor many Tibetans have ever denied that Tibet has been a part of China from the Yuan Dynasty to this very day.

The early Tibetans evolved into a number of competing nomadic tribes and developed a religion known as Bon that was led by shamans who conducted rituals that involved the sacrifice of many animals and some humans. These tribes fought battles with each other for better grazing lands, battles in which they killed or made slaves of those they conquered. They roamed far beyond the borders of Tibet into areas of China’s Sichuan and Yunnan provinces, Xinjiang, Gansu, and Qinghai. Eventually one of these tribes, the Tubo, became the most powerful and took control of all Tibet. (The name Tibet comes from Tubo.) During China’s Tang Dynasty (618-907), Emperor Taizong improved relations with the Tubo king, Songtsen Gampo, by giving him one of his daughters, Princess Wenzheng, in marriage. The Tubos, in response to this cementing of relations, developed close fraternal ties with the Tang court, and the two ruling powers regularly exchanged gifts.

The princess arrived in Tibet with an entourage of hundreds of servants, skilled craftspeople, and scribes. She was a Buddhist, as were all of the Tang emperors, and so Buddhism entered Tibet mainly through her influence, only to be suppressed later by resentful Bon shamans. Some years later another Tang princess was married to another Tubo king, again to cement relations between the two rulers.

The fact that the Tibetans and the Chinese had united royal families and engaged actively in trade (Tibetan horses for tea of the Central Plain) didn’t mean an absence of conflict between them. Battles occasionally occurred between Tang and Tubo troops, mostly over territorial issues. At one point in the 750s, the Tubos, taking advantage of a rebellion against the Tangs by other armed groups in China, raced on horseback across China to enter the Tang capital of Chang’an. But, they couldn’t hold the city.

In 838, the Tubo king was assassinated by two pro-Bon ministers, and the Bon religion was re-established as the only acceptable religion in Tibet. Buddhists were widely persecuted and forced into hiding.

Trade between Tibet and the interior areas continued during the Five Dynasties (907-960) and the Song Dynasty (960-1279) that followed the collapse of the Tang, although relations between the two ruling powers were limited. During this time Buddhism revived in Tibet as a result of the Buddhists’ willingness to accommodate some Bon practices. The form of Buddhism that resulted from this merging of the two religions was quite different from that of China and other countries in Southeast Asia, as well as from the form that had been practiced previously in Tibet.

Tibetan Buddhism, often called Lamaism, appealed to the Mongols, who conquered most of Russia, parts of Europe, and all of China under the leadership of Genghis Khan. The Mongols, like the Tibetans, were tribal herders who had a religion of animism similar to Bon.

When Kublai Khan, the first Yuan emperor, appointed administrators to Tibet, he elevated the head of the Tibetan Buddhist Sakya sect to the post of leader of all Buddhists in China, thus giving this monk greater power than any Buddhist had ever held before - and probably since. Needless to say, the appointment irritated the leaders of the other Buddhist sects in Tibet and the much larger group of non-Tibetan Buddhists in China. But, they couldn’t do anything to counter the wishes of the emperor.

The Yuan Dynasty divided Tibet into a series of administrative areas and put these areas under the charge of an imperial preceptor. Furthermore, the Yuan court encouraged the growth of feudal estates in Tibet as a way to maintain control there.

When the Yuan Dynasty collapsed, it was replaced by the Ming Dynasty (1368-1644), which wasn’t composed of persons of Mongolian heritage. Tibet then became splintered because the Ming court adopted a policy of granting hereditary titles to many nobles and a policy of divide and rule.

Although the Ming court conferred the honorific title of Desi (ruling lama) to the head of one of Tibet’s most powerful families, the Rinpung family, they also bestowed enough official titles to his subordinates to encourage separatist trends within the local Tibetan society. One of these titles was given to the head of the newly founded Gelugpa sect, better known as the Yellow sect. He later took on the title “Dalai Lama.”

Tibet During the Qing Dynasty
The next and last dynasty, the Qing, came to power in 1644 and lasted until 1911. At the time of its founding, the most prominent Tibetan religious and secular leaders were the fifth Dalai Lama, the fourth Panchen Lama, and Gushri Khan. They formed a delegation that arrived at the Chinese capital, Beijing, in 1652.Before they returned to Tibet the following year, the emperor officially conferred upon Lozang Gyatso (the then Dalai Lama), the honorific title “The Dalai Lama, Buddha of Great Compassion in the West, Leader of the Buddhist Faith Beneath the Sky, Holder of the Vajra.” (Dalai is Mongolian for “ocean”; lama is a Tibetan word that means “guru.”)

The fifth Dalai Lama pledged his allegiance to the Qing government and in return, received enough gold and silver to build 13 new monasteries of the Yellow sect in Tibet. All successive reincarnations of the Dalai Lama have been confirmed by the central government in China, and this has become a historical convention practiced to this very day.

A later Qing emperor suspected the intentions of the seventh Dalai Lama, so he increased the power of the Panchen Lama (also of the Yellow sect). In 1713 the Qing court granted the title “Panchen Erdeni” to the fifth Panchen Lama, thus elevating him to a status similar to that given to the Dalai Lama (Panchen means “great scholar” in Sanskrit, and Erdeni means “treasure” in Manchu.)

The largest part of the Tibetan population (more than 90 percent) at that time was composed of serfs, who were treated harshly by the landlords and ruling monks. All monasteries had large tracts of land as well as a great number of serfs under their control. The ruling monks’ exploitation of these serfs was just as severe as that of the aristocratic landlords.

Serfs had no personal freedom from birth to death. They and their children were given freely as gifts or donations, sold or bartered for goods. They were, in fact, viewed by landlords as “livestock that can speak.” As late as 1943, a high-ranking aristocrat named Tsemon Norbu Wangyal sold 100 serfs to a monk in the Drigung area for only four silver dollars per serf.

If serfs lost their ability to work, the lord confiscated all their property, including livestock and farm tools. If they ran away and subsequently were captured, half their personal belongings were given to the captors while the other half went to the lords for whom they worked. The runaways then were flogged or even condemned to death.

The lords used such inhuman tortures as gouging out eyes, cutting off feet or hands, pushing the condemned person over a cliff, drowning and beheading.Numerous rebellions occurred over the years against this harsh treatment, and in 1347 alone (the seventh year of Yuan Emperor Shundi’s reign), more than 200 serf rebellions occurred in Tibet.

Foreign Aggression
Foreign nations made numerous attempts to invade Tibet and take it away from China. These were repulsed by Chinese troops and Tibetan fighters. The first such invasion took place in 1337 when Mohammed Tugluk of Delhi (in what is now India) sent 100,000 troops into the Himalayan area.During the second half of the 18th century, troops from the Kingdom of Nepal invaded Tibet twice in an attempt to expand Nepal’s territory.

During the 19th century, Britain competed with Russia in pouring large sums of money and many spies into a struggle to see which of the two might eventually occupy and control Tibet. When the British finally invaded Tibet, first in 1888 and again in 1903, the Russians were so involved in conflicts at home that they couldn’t stop the British troops from pushing all the way to Lhasa. And the Qing government, having recently lost the Opium War to the British, did nothing either.

The Tibetans, using spears, arrows, catapults and homemade guns, fought valiantly but to no avail against the invading British army and its big cannons and machine guns. The British withdrew after imposing “peace” terms and before the harsh winter began because they feared the Tibetan resistance would prevent supplies from getting through to the occupying troops, thereby causing them to starve to death.

The British signed a Convention with China in 1906, the second article of which stipulated that the British would no longer interfere with the administration of Tibet and that China had sovereignty over Tibet. But, they conveniently forgot the terms of this agreement when, the very next year, they signed a Convention with Russia that specified British “special interests” in Tibet. It would probably fill a book to detail the many ways the British from that point on tried to take over Tibet and make it a part of their colony of India.

Yet, something needs to be said about the conference held at Simla, India, in 1914. Conference participants included representatives of the new Nationalist government of China that had overthrown the Qing Dynasty just two years before, plus Tibetans, and British-Indians. The British had blackmailed the Chinese into attending by threatening to withdraw their recognition of the new nationalist government and by saying they would work out an agreement with the Tibetans alone if the Chinese didn’t participate.

The Simla Conference failed because the Chinese and the 13th Dalai Lama both opposed the British plan to divide Tibet into two parts (Inner and Outer Tibet). The conference, however, did produce one document that since has caused dissension — a map drawn by the British representative Arthur H. McMahon that never was shown to the Chinese, although it was revealed secretly to the Tibetan delegates.

McMahon’s map showed a new boundary line that included three districts of Tibet — Monyul, Loyul, and Lower Zayul — within the territory of British- India. This so-called “McMahon Line” first became public 23 years later when it appeared in a printed set of British documents related to the conference and other diplomatic matters. The McMahon Line became the basis for India’s failed attempt to take over this part of Tibet in 1962. The British, who made a great show of their desire to have “independence for Tibet” at the Simla Conference, in drawing this map were adding 90,000 square kilometers  (an area three times the size of Belgium) from Tibet’s natural territory to their own Indian colony.

During and after World War II and shortly before Britain’s departure from India, the American Office of Strategic Services (O.S.S., the forerunner of the C.I.A.), operating under Cold War guidelines, joined the British Foreign Office as the instigator of the Tibetan “freedom movement.”

Much of what the O.S.S. did in Tibet remains hidden in secret files at C.I.A headquarters near Washington, D.C., but one of their plots has been widely reported. It involved a smear campaign launched against the regent who had been appointed to act for the young 14th Dalai Lama after the 13th Dalai died in 1933. The regent was hostile to U.S.-British intrigues in Tibet, so the O.S.S. spread rumors about his alleged incompetence and criminal activities. Eventually these charges led to the regent’s arrest and murder in a Tibetan prison. The 14th Dalai Lama’s father subsequently was poisoned because he was a friend and supporter of the regent.

Tibetan Buddhism
Before considering Tibet today, some words should be said about Tibetan Buddhism as a religion. The accommodations it made with Bon resulted in its becoming very different from other forms of Buddhism, particularly from the more common and much larger Chan Buddhism of China (called Zen in Japan). Images found in Tibetan Buddhist temples are much fiercer than those found in other Buddhist temples, and some Tibetan ceremonies that once used human skulls, human skin, and fresh human intestines clearly reflect the animistic elements of Bon.Also, Tibetan Buddhists rely a great deal on prayer wheels, which most other Buddhists scorn. These are mechanical devices with prayers written on them that are constantly turned by water or wind so the forces of nature do the work of sending prayers to heaven.

The reincarnation of Living Buddhas, which is unique to this form of Buddhism, began as early as 1294 with the Karma Kagyu sect, a sub-sect of the Kagyu sect (known as the black hats). It then spread to all of Tibetan Buddhism’s other sects and monasteries, but it didn’t reach the Gelugpa sect (the one that includes the Dalai and Panchen Lama lines) until after 1419.

From the beginning, the system of selecting Living Buddhas was open to abuse because it was easy for clever members of the monk selection committee to manipulate the objects presented to potential child candidates in order to make sure a particular child was chosen. In the case of the fourth Dalai Lama, the child selected was the great-grandson of the Mongolian chief Altan Khan. He was chosen at a time when the Gelugpa sect badly needed the protection of the Altan Khan’s followers because the Gelugpa were being persecuted by the older Tibetan sects, who were jealous of the Yellow sect’s rapid growth.

Tibet Since 1949
In 1949, the Chinese Communists won the revolution and overthrew the Nationalist government. But they didn’t send their army into Tibet until October 1951, after they and Tibetan representatives of the 14th Dalai Lama and 10th Panchen Lama had signed an agreement to liberate Tibet peacefully. The Dalai Lama expressed his support for this 17-point agreement in a telegraphed message to Chairman Mao on October 24, 1951. Three years later the Dalai and Panchen Lamas went together to Beijing to attend the first National People’s Congress at which the Dalai Lama was elected vice-chairman of the Standing Committee and the Panchen Lama was elected a member of that committee. After the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) entered Tibet, they took steps to protect the rights of the serfs but didn’t, at first, try to reorganize Tibetan society along socialist or democratic lines. Yet, the landlords and ruling monks knew that in time, their land would be redistributed, just as the landlords’ property in the rest of China had been confiscated and divided among the peasants.The Tibetan landlords did all they could to frighten the serfs away from associating with the PLA. But, as the serfs increasingly ignored their landlords’ wishes and called on the Communists to eliminate the oppressive system of serfdom, some leaders of the “three great monasteries” (Ganden, Sera, and Drepung) issued a statement, in the latter half of 1956, demanding the feudal system be maintained. At this point, the PLA decided the time had come to confiscate the landlords’ property and redistribute it among the serfs. The landlords and top-level monks retaliated by announcing, in March 1959, the founding of a “Tibet Independent State,” and about 7,000 of them assembled in Lhasa to stage a revolt. Included were more than 170 “Khampa guerrillas” who had been trained overseas by the O.S.S. and air-dropped into Tibet, according to a former C.I.A. agent. The O.S.S. also gave them machine guns, mortars, rifles and ammunition.

The PLA put down the revolt in Lhasa within two days, capturing some 4,000 rebels. The rebellion had the support of the Dalai Lama, but not of the Panchen Lama. After it failed, the Dalai Lama, along with a group of rebel leaders, fled to India.

The most disruptive event of recent years was the “cultural revolution,” which lasted from 1966 to 1976. It turned most of Tibet’s farm and herding areas into giant communes and closed or destroyed many monasteries and temples, just as it did elsewhere in China. At its end, the communes were disbanded and the temples and monasteries were repaired and reopened at government expense.

The idea that most Tibetans are unhappy about what has happened in Tibet and want independence from China is a product manufactured in the West and promoted by the dispossessed landlords who fled to India. Indeed, to believe it is true stretches logic to its breaking point. Who really can believe that a million former serfs - more than 90% of the population - are unhappy about having the shackles of serfdom removed? They now care for their own herds and farmland, marry whomever they wish without first getting their landlord’s permission, aren’t punished for disrespecting these same landlords, own their own homes, attend school, and have relatively modern hospitals, paved roads, airports and modern industries.

An objective measure of this progress is found in the population statistics. The Tibetan population has doubled since 1950, and the average Tibetan’s life span has risen from 36 years at that time to 65 years at present.

Of course some Tibetans are unhappy with their lot, but a little investigation soon shows that they are, for the most part, people from families who lost their landlord privileges. There is plenty of evidence that the former serfs tell a quite different story.

You will find some Tibetans who hate the Hans (the majority nationality of China) and some Hans who hate the Tibetans, a matter of ordinary ethnic prejudice ­ something any American should be able to understand. But, this doesn’t represent a desire for an independent Tibet any more than black- white hostilities in Washington, D.C., Detroit, or Boston represent a desire on the part of most African-Americans to form a separate nation.

Tibetan Culture Today
The final part of the Tibetan myth has to do with Tibetan culture, which the Dalai Lama’s supporters say has been crushed by “the Chinese takeover of Tibet.” Culture is an area that requires great care because it is fraught with biases and self-fulfilling judgments. The growth of television in America, for example, is cited as killing American culture by some and as enhancing it by others.Regarding the field of literature, prior to 1950 Tibetans could point with pride to only a few fine epics that had been passed down through the centuries. Now that serfs can become authors, many new writers are producing works of great quality; persons such as the poet Yedam Tsering and the fiction writers Jampel Gyatso, Tashi Dawa, and Dondru Wangbum.

As for art, Tibet for centuries had produced nothing but repetitious religious designs for temples. Now there are many fine artists, such as Bama Tashi, who has been hailed in both France and Canada as a great modern artist who combines Tibetan religious themes with modern pastoral images.

Tibet now has more than 30 professional song and dance ensembles, Tibetan opera groups, and other theatrical troupes where none existed before 1950.

No, Tibetan culture is not dead; it is flourishing as never before.

Foster Stockwell is an American writer who grew up as the son of missionaries in southwestern China (Chengdu) near Tibet, and has visited China many times in recent years. His several books include Religion in China Today (New World Press) and Mount Huashan (Foreign Languages Press)

http://members.tripod.com/~journeyeast/myth_and_reality.html

Posted in: Human Rights, Tibet, World News | Comments(0)

YOUR Prime Minister (mine is coming soon) said: I do not see why we should apologise (to Tun Salleh Abas. Tan Sri Wan Sulaiman Pawanteh and Datuk George Seah), but let us decide when a cabinet paper on the matter is presented.

He used the majestic WE, which according to adat is reserved for royalty. He should have said, “My government…..”. A royal rap on the knuckles is appropriate. No?

Is it so difficult to just say, “Sorry, we have messed up your life and put your reputation and that of the judiciary into disrepute.”

He could even have said (and maybe gain some credit points that he very much must accumulate, if he intends to hang on before MY PM announces his imminent advent.): “I will say it for Tun Mahatir, because it is only the right thing to do: Sorry SIRS”


Say it lah, with truthfulness and humility and in the true spirit of Islam Hadhari. That could gain you some time and maybe forestall the impending entry of my next PM.

We are used to deriding the Australians every time they make a misstep towards us. We call them children of ex-convicts. etc, However, there is still honor amongst them. John Howard was arrogant and he paid for it. Bush was arrogant and he is the most abhorred US President and he is lucky not to be impeached for lying about the WMD. Blair was arrogant and he got dumped. BN was arrogant and they got snuffed and now possibly dysfunctional. WE JUST NEED TWO GUYS TO SAY SORRY. If they continue to be recalcitrant, I hope this clip can do some good. In the name of the Almighty, be humble. BOTH OUR RELIGIONS ASK US TO BE HUMBLE and it was Thomas a Kempis who said: HUMILITY IS TRUTH. Allow me to say it for Barisan Rakyat (I am not comfortable with Pakatan…..as it has connotations with pakat): WE THE RAKYAT ARE SORRY FOR THE MISDEMEANORS INFLICTED ON YOU AND YOUR FAMILIES ALL THESE YEARS. FORGIVE US FOR TAKING SO LONG TO APOLOGISE TO YOU AND YOUR FAMILIES.

CURRENT AUSTRALIAN PREMIER KEVIN RUDD APOLOGISED TO THE WHOLE NATION AND WE ARE ASKING OUR GOVERNMENT TO APOLOGISE TO THREE AND THEIR FAMILIES AND TO THE FAMILIES OF TWO WHO HAVE PASSED ON.
WE STILL CANNOT AND WILL NOT SAY “SORRY”?

JUST REFLECT ON THIS CLIP. IT CLEANSED A WHOLE NATION.

Posted in: Malaysia Politics, Malaysian Government | Comments(0)

By VICTOR L. SIMPSON, Associated Press Writer Tue Apr 15, 9:25 PM ET

ANDREWS AIR FORCE BASE, Md. - Pope Benedict XVI stepped onto U.S. soil for the time as pontiff Tuesday, arriving to a presidential handshake and wild cheering only hours after he admitted that he is “deeply ashamed” of the clergy sex abuse scandal that has devastated the American church.

Reuters Photo:
U.S. President George W. Bush (R) walks as
Pope Benedict XVI acknowledges the crowd upon
arriving in the US 

Benedict gave hundreds of spectators a two-handed wave as he stepped off a special Alitalia airliner that brought him from Rome. Students from a local Catholic school screamed ecstatically when they saw the pope, who shook hands warmly with President Bush, first lady Laura Bush and their daughter Jenna on the tarmac.

Hundreds of onlookers, some from local Roman Catholic parishes, clapped and shouted as they watched the scene from nearby bleachers.

Benedict tackled the most painful issue facing the U.S. Catholic Church — clergy sex abuse — on his flight to America. The U.S. church has paid out $2 billion in abuse costs since 1950, most of that in just the last six years.

Seemingly in a nod to his American flock, the pope spoke in English as he answered questions submitted in advance by reporters.

“It is a great suffering for the church in the United States and for the church in general and for me personally that this could happen,” Benedict said. “It is difficult for me to understand how it was possible that priests betray in this way their mission … to these children.”

“I am deeply ashamed, and we will do what is possible so this cannot happen again in the future,” the pope said.

Benedict pledged that pedophiles would not be priests in the Catholic Church.

“I do not wish to talk at this moment about homosexuality, but about pedophilia, which is another thing,” he said.

“We will absolutely exclude pedophiles from the sacred ministry. It is more important to have good priests than many priests. We will do everything possible to heal this wound.”

Gary Bergeron, who was molested by a priest in the 1970s in Lowell, Mass., called the comments a “step I’ve been looking for.” Bergeron said he was disappointed that Benedict did not plan to visit the Archdiocese of Boston, the scene of a case that sparked the greater scandal, but urged the pontiff to meet with victims this week.

The pope’s promise failed to mollify other advocates for abuse victims, however. They said the problem is not just molester priests, but bishops and other church authorities who have let errant clergymen continue to serve even after repeated allegations.

“It’s easy and tempting to continually focus on the pedophile priests themselves,” said Peter Isely, a board member of the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests. “It’s harder but crucial to focus on the broader problem — complicity in the rest of the church hierarchy.”

Benedict’s pilgrimage is the first trip by a pontiff to the United States since the Boston case in 2002 triggered a crisis that spread throughout the United States and beyond. Hundreds of new charges — many dating back decades — have surfaced each year since. There were 691 new accusations in 2007 alone, according to an annual report from the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.

As head of the Vatican agency that enforces adherence to Catholic doctrine, then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger was heavily involved in gaining Vatican approval for the reforms U.S. bishops proposed for the American church. The bishops have since released several reports analyzing the scandal and have pledged that all credibly accused priests will be pulled from public ministry.

Benedict described his pilgrimage as a journey to meet a “great people and a great church.” He spoke about the American model of religious values within a system of separation of church and state.

President Bush made the unusual gesture of greeting Benedict at Andrews Air Force Base — the first time he has welcomed a foreign leader there. The two will meet again Wednesday, when a crowd of 9,000 or more is expected at the White House to greet Benedict on his 81st birthday.

Aides say he is in good health and the pope seemed spry as he stepped energetically off the plane Tuesday.

Benedict said he will discuss immigration with Bush, including the difficulties of families who are separated by immigration.

While the pope and Bush differ on such major issues on the Iraq war, capital punishment and the U.S. embargo against Cuba, they do find common ground in opposing abortion, gay marriage and embryonic stem cell research.

White House press secretary Dana Perino said she wouldn’t rule out the sex abuse being discussed between the pope and the president, but added that it’s not necessarily one of Bush’s top priorities in his meeting with Benedict.

Perino said the two leaders would likely discuss human rights, religious tolerance and the fight against violent extremism. She downplayed their differences over Iraq.

Benedict “will hear from the president that America and the world need to hear his message, that God is love, that human life is sacred, that we all must be guided by common moral law, and that we have responsibilities to care for our brothers and sisters in need, at home and across the world,” Perino said.

After making little headway in his efforts to rekindle the faith in his native Europe, the German-born Benedict is visiting a country where many of the 65 million Catholics are eager to hear what he says and get to know him. A poll released Sunday by the Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate at Georgetown University found eight in 10 Catholics are somewhat or very satisfied with his leadership.

Benedict is scheduled to visit U.N. headquarters on Friday to meet with Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and to address the General Assembly.

Ban said he is looking forward to a wide-ranging discussion with the pontiff on issues ranging from climate change and fighting poverty to disarmament and promoting cultural dialogue.

“We are now facing many challenges these days,” Ban told reporters. “We need really strong spiritual support from the pope.”

The pope’s visit will be the fourth by a leader of the Roman Catholic church to the United Nations: Paul VI came in 1965 when the U.N. celebrated its 20th anniversary; John Paul II came in 1979 at the start of his pontificate and again in 1995 for the U.N.’s 50th anniversary.

___

Associated Press writer Edith M. Lederer at the United Nations contributed to this report.

Posted in: Catholic, Religion | Comments(0)

Published: April 15, 2008 at 4:25 PM

WASHINGTON, April 15 (UPI) — Shepherd One, the airplane carrying Pope Benedict XVI and his entourage, landed at Andrews Air Force Base near Washington, Tuesday under sunny skies.

Waiting to greet him at the base of the stairs on the tarmac was President George Bush and his wife, Laura, and their daughter, Jenna. It was the first time any president greeted a dignitary or head of state at Andrews, CNN reported.

The pope, dressed in white robes, smiled and waved to the cheering crowd as he descended from the plane. He and Bush clasped hands, and Bush bowed, before introducing the pope to Laura and Jena Bush. The Bushes and Pope Benedict went into a VIP area at Andrews.

Papal and American flags flew above the cockpit of the Alitalia jetliner.

Pope Benedict XVI will participate in an official welcoming ceremony Wednesday on the White House’s South Lawn. Crowds are expected to be between 9,000 and 12,000. The pope also celebrates his 81st birthday Wednesday.

The White House will be the site of a dinner in honor of the pope’s visit, although the pontiff will not attend.

The pope will address the United Nations later this week.

© 2008 United Press International. All Rights Reserved.
This material may not be reproduced, redistributed, or manipulated in any form.

Posted in: Catholic | Comments(0)

Posted in: Catholic, Religion | Comments(0)

The Tampa Tribune

A LOOK BACK

April 19, 2005: Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger is elected. He will be known as Pope Benedict XVI.

June 10, 2005: The pope criticizes the use of condoms and says the church is leading the battle against HIV/AIDS by teaching chastity.

Nov. 29, 2005: In his first major ruling, Benedict and the Vatican impose restrictions on homosexuals becoming priests.

Jan. 25, 2006: Benedict releases his first encyclical, “Deus Caritas Est” (God is Love).

Sept. 12, 2006: Benedict quotes a Byzantine emperor to criticize fanaticism in Islam, sparking protests from Muslims.

Sept. 17, 2006: The pope apologizes and says the medieval quotes did not reflect his personal views.

Oct. 11, 2006: Benedict eases restrictions on the Latin Mass.

April 11, 2007: Benedict publishes a new book, “Creation and Evolution,” in which he claims Darwin’s theory of evolution cannot be proved.

May 13, 2007: In Brazil, Benedict says that colonial-era evangelization in the New World did not represent “the imposition of a foreign culture.”

May 23, 2007: Although he does not apologize, Benedict says it is impossible to ignore the “unjustified crimes” that accompanied evangelization in the New World.

Nov. 6, 2007: Benedict becomes the first pope to meet with a reigning Saudi king.

March 22, 2008: Italy’s most prominent Muslim commentator converts to Catholicism and is baptized by Benedict.

Research by MICHAEL

Posted in: Catholic, Religion, Vatican, World News | Comments(0)

From : Malaysian Minorities’ Human Rights Blogspot

Mahathir is the true enemy of Rakyat. He destroyed all key civil society institutions, destroyed social institutions, jailed human right champions, jailed elected representatives of the people especially the opposition members of parliament, allowed fascism to permeate into his political party (UMNO).

In that process he had his own political party de-registered and opened a fake UMNO in which he had total and absolute control to the extent he rule unopposed and unchallenged without internal party elections for years.

On the commercial front he squandered billions on Putrajaya and Cyberjaya, two towns (that’s what they are, not cities) that are not functional, effective and useful to the citizens.

When his poor financial management of the country collapsed under the 1997 financial contagion, he conveniently blamed the Jews. In his own country he called the Chinese people “Communists” in one of their own party conference -they kept quiet.

Now he is in a hurry to kill off Badawi politically so as to avoid a situation where Anwar may come to power and unravel Mahathir’s sins. If only he can get Najib into power, he may be able to direct a “Operasi Lalang” II which may see Anwar going into ISA detention thus preventing him from being an effective threat to Mahathir.

Who and what can be done about this? Nobody and Nothing. All powers rest in the hands of the future PM who will replace Badawi.

Mahathir is returning to power, only this time via someone else. Anwar is going back to jail. The rakyat will continue to be “occupied” by these rapacious colonist.

Posted in: Human Rights, Malaysia Politics, Malaysian Government, Those Blogs | Comments(0)

 In matters of conscience, the law of the majority has no place-Mahatma

Posted in: Malaysia GE 2008, Malaysia Politics | Comments(0)

From:

“piinang kl” <piinang@yahoo.co.uk>

Add sender to Contacts

To:

malaysiafm@yahoogroups.co.uk