islam in malaysia

the recent tussle for the body of a hindu man who presumably converted to islam a year ago, and without the knowledge of his family, is interesting to show how far a state is prepared to go in the meddling of a private personal affair of the people. in this case, they have the clerics, religious policemen, the courts and the vehicles to judge and enforce the decision of the court. and they went to snatch the body from a widow to bury the body in accordance with muslim rites. presumably the cost is bore by the state. why would the state go that far to interfere in the burying of a dead body? why would the state deprive a widow and her family from doing their last duties to the dead man? the court or state has nothing better to do? how far could a state progress when they are so obsessed with the private personal matters of the individuals and went to wrestle for the dead body of a man from his family?

asians are disgusting!

as i read the article on racism in the sunday times today, the more i feel that asians are disgusting and deserving of all the abuses the white men thrown at them. the article spoke of the experiences of asian students overseas and all their unpleasant racist experiences. and after saying all these, the disgusting asians tried to explain to themselves why the white racists did those things to them. that tells how deserving they are to be attacked racially. for they have accepted that it is alright to be on the receiving end. and maybe explaining that the racists are suffering or feel threatened because of them will make them feel better. where is ah Q? let me just quote a few comments. 'jake feels that one reason why racist incidents occur could be due to miscommunication and a lack of understanding of both cultures. he said: "i have observed some service staff being less polite to asians. but i do believe it's because we asians are more reserved. so when we pay for our shopping, we do not smile, but just pay and go.' what an idiot! why didn't he attacked the whites as i believed he too did not understand their cultures and did not communicate well with them too? and when must a customer smile to a sales staff in order for the sales staff to be polite to them? aren't the sales staff supposed to smile to customers to get tips or at least make the customer return to patronise the shop? and he said, 'we come off as being cold and aloof.' that's it. asians, you deserved to be treated as shit. there were more silly comments from other asians to justify why they should be attacked by the white racists. so they should not complain since they are so deserving to be treated badly for being asians. another idiot said, 'if you think people are racist towards you, you should also take into account your own prejudices towards other races.' and the advice from jake, 'i would advise overseas singaporean students to not react aggresssively, be it physically or verbally. rather, understand why it happened and be cool headed about it.' for goodness sake asians, go and put your heads into the toilet bowl and flush it with shit. you are truly disgusting and pathetic. i would agree that being physically small and alone in a foreign country, if one is unable to whack the racist arsehole, it is better to walk away. but the reasons given here to walk away is really sick. you walk away because it is alright for the racists to attack you. and you must try to understand them. it is your fault that they attacked you racially. it is all your fault to born disgusting. the world needs more subservient asians to work as cooks and waiters and waitresses and to be screwed in bed for animal pleasure.

nkf, please explain

why do you need to have a reserve of 3 or 6 or 10 or 20 years. please explain your rationale to the donors. please also explain why profit making hospital can charge $180 per dialysis while nkf's cost is $162. forget about the old nkf's figure of $200. that everyone knows why.

when must charities be closely watched?

when should we be concerned or start to worry? when a charity or organisation tells us that it is ok not to disclose their financial data or reveal what they are doing. or when an organisation says transparency is not necessary. or when an organisation says they are managed professionally, so trust them. or when they say they cannot find suitable people or qualified people to join them. or when they say they cannot find any volunteers. or when they say they have powerful patrons. or when they say it will take time for them to produce the data. or when they say the data are unavailable. or when they say it is on a need to know basis. or when they refuse to let in new members into the organisation. it was reported in the straits times today and i quote, 'ms maureen sung of asian women's welfare association thought it would be tough to find donors who are also experts on charity work. "we can't just pull anyone to be a board member. whether the person donates money is irrelevant." " what is needed is not people who are expert in charity work. there are enough experts in the organisation doing charity works. but people who can be the watchdog, to keep a check on these organisations. to make sure there is not going to be another case like nkf. you do not need someone to be an expert in charity to be in a charitable organisation. you need an honest and decent man to watch out for wrong doings. and when an organisation finds all sorts of excuses not to bring in independent people, the more it is necessary to bring in independent people.

nkf: where is the moral leadership?

so far only khaw boon wan has spoken and condemned many of the misdeeds, to the extent of calling people dishonest and indecent. his seems to be a voice in the wilderness. a lone voice amidst many other voices that actually praised the wrongdoers or glorified some of the acts. with conflicting views of eminent people being articulated, the public could be confused. what is right or acceptable? some wrongs seem to be not so wrong and some rights are not so right. khaw boon wan's position cannot be seen as the only right position when opposing positions are not denounced and allowed to continue to stand. for the public to know what is the official position, more must be said to endorse what is deemed the proper and correct way. this is sorely lacking for the time being. maybe many are not saying anything to prevent influencing the court as the case is still pending. but politicians must have a way to say things in a political manner without having to corner the court's thinking or decision when the case is heard. what does the country stand for? what is morally right and acceptable must be stated clearly. these cannot be compromised. the people needs moral leadership and guidance. what they are getting is a loud silence. where is the moral leadership when it is needed in a time like this?