But that is just it. That is not an Islamic law or Sharia law. That is a civil law. And while Islamic or Sharia law would only apply to Muslims, civil law applies to everyone, non-Muslims included.
NO HOLDS BARRED
Raja Petra Kamarudin
If you pick up a stone today and throw it into a crowd, chances are you will probably hit a datuk, if not two. No, I’m not suggesting violence here. My point is: Datuks are everywhere nowadays.
For the uninitiated, the title is “supposedly” equivalent to the British knighthood (which carries the title Sir) in days gone by. Unfortunately, the prestige that is supposed to come with the title is gone because as a friend of mine used to say “the title is being sold on the back of a bicycle.” Or worse, it can even be traded in a pasar malam. How many datuks are really worthy of the title?
V. Shuman, The Ant Daily
********************************************
But if Anwar makes it into the Mentri Besar’s office, he will be changing the rules of Malay politics forever. No Malay politician has ever become the Mentri Besar or Chief Minister of a state he has no ties with. That is what makes this whole thing so riveting.
The Malay political culture tends to prefer an anak jati (native son) as their wakil rakyat. Yet, Anwar who is Penang born and bred is parachuting headlong into Selangor.
Joceline Tan, The Star
********************************************
V. Shuman wrote an article in The Ant Daily vilifying the Datuk title plus those who receive them — or, as he said, bought them. Is Shuman condemning the Chinese, those most guilty of paying a quarter million Ringgit or more to buy Datukships?
And what about all those Pakatan Rakyat leaders who also have Datukships? Are you saying that these squeaky-clean opposition leaders are also guilty of bribery?
Anyway, what I want to talk about is not about that but about Shuman’s comment that Datukships are “equivalent to the British knighthood (which carries the title Sir) in days gone by”.
First of all, Datukships are not equivalent to Knighthoods. A Datukship is much lower than a Knighthood. The equivalent of ‘Sir’ is ‘Tun’. And what does Shuman mean by “in days gone by”? Knighthoods still exist until today. They are not extinct as Shuman imagines.
These people should do better research before they attempt to write about a subject they know very little about. The Malays called this tembak babi buta.
Joceline Tan made an interesting observation in The Star today, which you can read above. I have been trying to tell you the same thing since late last month — and that is by convention or tradition, the Menteri Besar of a State that has a Ruler has traditionally and by convention been an anak jati of the state.
“What about Penang?” these people who do not agree with my statement ask me. “Lim Guan Eng was not born in Penang.”
“But Penang does not have a Menteri Besar,” I replied. “Penang has a Chief Minister plus does not have a Ruler but a Governor. And that is why non-Malays/non-Muslims can become the Chief Minister while the Menteri Besar has to be Malay-Muslim.”
“What’s the difference?” They ask. “Chief Minister is the English translation of Menteri Besar. Both are the same thing. It is only semantics.”
Yes, even Joceline Tan thinks so. Actually, they are not the same and ‘Chief Minister’ is not the English translation of ‘Menteri Besar’ just like ‘King’ is not the English translation of ‘Agong’, as many people think.
I have seen many people write “Agong (the King)…….”. These people have also not done their research. ‘Agong’ does not translate to ‘King’. ‘Agong’ means ‘Paramount’ and equates to ‘First Amongst Equals’. That does not translate to King.
These people are so ignorant and yet they talk and write as if they are experts on the subject.
Then these people who disagree with my statement that by convention and tradition you must be anak jatiSelangor to become the Menteri Besar of Selangor whack me and argue that there is no such law. The law does not forbid a non-anak jati Selangor from being appointed the Menteri Besar of Selangor.
True. The law does not say this. It is only by convention and tradition (like you must wear a songkok when you have an audience with His Highness) and conventions and traditions do not make it law.
So now we are very concerned about following the law, is it? We must strictly follow the law and not follow conventions and traditions. And that is because we are law-abiding citizens.
Okay, I can agree to that. Let us follow the law then. But what about the law that forbids non-Muslims from using Allah and about two dozen other words? Since only the law matters and we must follow the law and not follow conventions and traditions, should we not follow that law as well?
“That law is only for Muslims,” you argue. “Christians are not bound by Islamic laws.”
But that is just it. That is not an Islamic law or Sharia law. That is a civil law. And while Islamic or Sharia law would only apply to Muslims, civil law applies to everyone, non-Muslims included.
Okay, okay, okay…let us blame Umno and the poor Malaysian education system for your ignorance. It is not your fault you are ignorant. It is Umno’s fault.
No comments:
Post a Comment