Power and Immunity

It has been reported that Hyundai Motor's Chairman, Mr Chung Mong-Koo, will not be doing jail time even though he was convicted by the 3-judge Seoul High Court for embezzlement because he was deemed too important to the Korean economy. Apparently, Mr Chung is a very hands-on CEO at Hyundai Motor, reputedly the world's 6th largest, in more ways than one (wink-wink). The court reckoned his doing time in jail (he was sentenced to 3 years) would do more harm to the economy and that therefore, he shouldn't be kept in the slammer.

I have never heard a more ridiculous argument from the bench. The less-than-learned judge said, "I am also a citizen of the Republic of Korea...I was unwilling to engage in a gamble that would put the (nation's economy) at risk." Did Judge Lee Jae-hong just deify Mr Chung? In the days when Korea had emperors, this statement, if it referred to the emperor, would have been accepted without question. But in democratic Korea where even its Presidents have been sued and thrown out ever so often?

There is a lesson to be learnt here. If you want to succeed in life and gain immunity from the law, don't do politics. Instead, set up a business and gain influence as much as possible. As far as South Korea goes, that's your ticket to doing whatever you want. The law will always stand on your side, never mind if you are crooked and rotten to the core.

The law in South Korea has sunk to a new low.

The Great Al Qaeda Bluff

It would appear that Osama bin Laden is either too dead or too tired to make a new video. Al Qaeda just pushed out a Osama video to remind the whole that the dead and tired old man is still very much alive. If he were alive, he would have made a new video. In this day and age, it isn't difficult nor expensive to make a video at all, unless the subject of the video wants to pretend he is alive on video when he is actually dead. Now that's a miracle that Osama has yet to perform.

Al Qaeda should stop doing this because its credibility - i.e. its inability - in making a video of a really live and kicking Osama is rapidly receding. While the US and probably Britain take these videos seriously, for the rest of the whole, it is one old tired bluff.

Bug off, Al Qaeda.

Truth be told

Japan's just-resigned Defence Minister may have committed a gaffe in Japan, but in the rest of Asia, we cannot agree more with him. He said that the US could not be blamed for dropping the Atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki towards the end of World War II.

Whatever the Japanese's feelings about the massive destruction and deaths on and in these two cities, there was greater grief and suffering by the people in rest of Asia in those war years. My parents lost the best years of their lives running away from the Japan Imperial Army and living in the countryside planting and eating tapioca. What Mr Kyuma said may or may not be correct. But he is not far from the truth that the war in the Far East and the Pacific would have gone on for much longer had it not been for the fortuitous dropping of those bombs on the two cities. Correspondingly, my parents would have had to endure much longer the oppression of the Japanese regime in this part of the world. The bombs immediately deflated the arrogance and ruthlessness of the Japanese war regime then and inadvertently led to Japan instituting and maintaining a pacifist stance ever since.

Were it not for this pacifist stance and the strong but benign support of the US after the war, Japan would not have recovered so fast and become so successful in leading the industrial world today.

The US celebrates its Independence Day today. Let Asia, including Japan, be reminded once again of VJ day and the probable role that the two bombs that the US unleashed had in it.

Mr Kyuma, thank you for reminding the world about the truth.

Legend of the undead

No, I am not referring to vampires. But it does seem like Osama bin Laden is becoming an undead species - though perhaps not a vampire.

More than 5 years have passed since the world saw credible pictures/videos of him alive. Since then, all claims of his still being alive have been backed by Al Qaeda who claim that they have had communications with him. These 'evidence' have turned out to be fiction at best, deception at worst. Now, a chief of Afghanistan's ousted Taliban militia, Mr Mansoor Dadullahsaid, has said that he received a letter of condolence from OBL over his brother, Mullah Dadullah's martyrdoom at the hands of US-led forces recently.

One thing Al Qaeda seem to be doing well is to perpetuate the myth that OBL is still alive. Given his penchant for showmanship (while he was alive), OBL seems to be uncharacteristically quiet for more than 5 years now. He can't speak for himself anymore - he appears in worn videos and he sends greeting cards and furtive messages from time to time. But he doesn't appear in person.

Conclusion: OBL is as dead as the stone in the mountains of Afghanistan. His memory, though, still lives strongly, continuing to bring a threat over mankind.

Oppression of the law

This is a sad day for justice. First, we learn that the highest Civil Court in Thailand today - the 9-member Constitutional Tribunal - has ruled that the political party set up by Thaksin Shinawatra - Thai Rak Thai (TRT) - has violated election laws and henceforth will be de-registered. On the other hand, Thailand's oldest political party, the Democrat Party has been absolved of any wrong doing although it was implicated in a case for which the TRT was found guilty.

Go figure.

Second, Malaysia's highest Civilian Court just ruled that they do not have jurisdiction over the case of a Christian convert (from Islam), one Lina Joy, who petitioned the same court to have the religion recorded on her Indentity Card to be amended to Christian from its current Islam. Why is this important? Well, if the record on her IC is not changed, she cannot marry a non-Muslim. She is in effect bound never to be married, and never be able to bear a child, so long as she remains under the jurisdiction of the Malaysian Courts, where the Shariah reigns supreme. The land's highest Civil Court has just abdicated its responsibility to uphold justice and freedom for all Malaysians, whether Muslim, Christian, Hindu, Buddhist, Sikhs, etc. by refusing to be drawn into any matter that has anything to do with the state religion, Islam. It is basically saying that it is incompetent of dealing with any matters that involves Islam, even when that matter involves people who are not Muslims.

Malaysian Muslims and Thailand's current political masters may feel vindicated, but they have merely made use of the highest Court in the land to rubber-stamp their oppressive behaviour. Truly, there is no justice, but only power. Power to oppress, power to sway, power to corrupt, power to silence, This is because the law has abdicated its responsibility to right wrongs.

This is a sad day in Thailand and Malaysia. The Law should hang its head in shame.

See:
Straits Times - Thai Security Clampdown
France 24 - Thaksin's party to be disbanded

VT

VT
Letters that spell
Doom
Grief
Pain
Anger
Loss
Madness
Taken ahead of time
In their prime
Promises lost
Forever
Never to be realized
Questions unanswered
Unanswerable
Pain excruciating
Anger unbridled
Will Madness never cease
In this mad mad mad world?
It won't be the last
Though the grief
and the loss
will last
an eternity

Expletive as language

The other day, a student used the 'shit' word on stage in front of over 200 parents and teachers. She didn't mean to offend anymore, nor was she berating at anyone. She was relating a conversation that she had had with her friends who were studying in another school. It was a paraphrase of this conversation and the 'shit' word seem to come out naturally. I don't know what the parents thought as this came out of the mouth of one of the school's top students. The teachers must have squirmed in their seats, feeling uncomfortable, not knowing what the parents thought of the way that they nurtured their best students. President George W Bush, a fervent Christian, was himself caught uttering this word unwares when referring to the conflict in the Middle East some months ago.

The 'shit' word is becoming rather common, much as the f**k word has in movies. But in movies, and elsewhere, the f**k word remains an expletive whereas the 'shit' word is increasingly used as a word to express emphasis, sometimes frustration and often almost as a sort of exclamation that the word 'damn' is used. This is not my opinion only. Wynrub wrote a book analysing expletives and the way and purpose expletives are used in society today. She concluded that some expletives are no longer used in the derogatory / foul connotation, but more to express valid emotions in conversations. Going by this recent experience of mine, I cannot agree more with her. Language evolves over time. This has been true from time inmemorial. So therefore, language standards shift, albeit inperceptibly. The next wave of change will surely come from the almost universal use of SMS language. In this case, the change might take on a leap instead of a quiet shift. Therefore those who still clinge on to a standard will be fighting a losing battle.

In any case, a person can speak and use the language's 'standard', but will switch to a more informal version in informal settings. The fact that a person speaks a non-standard form does not necessarily mean that he/she doesn't know the standard form and use it in an appropriate setting. One of the most unnatural and difficult things about carrying on in a standardised language is the frustration of getting your ideas across in quicker. So it is natural and necessary to revert to a local form. That way, people tend to identify with you more easily because they speak the same dialect as you, including using newly non-expletives expletives.

Toothless Nark Puggsin

I pity Thailand nowadays. Its military leaders do not seem to be able to get anything right. I do not doubt their sincerity in getting Thailand back on track, economically and socially. Only, there are 'professional protesters' standing by, ready to stage protests once an unpopular decision is made, like that of the appointment of Mr Somkid, once the No. 2 in the Thaksin government, to a senior government position.

The threat of protest forced the government and Mr Somkid to back down. Now I wonder why these protesters (read: PAD) are not the government instead? They seem to wield veto power over government decisions. But of course we know that there are talkers and there are doers. Unfortunately, in Thailand today, the talkers hold sway. And so long as this is so, the government, military or otherwise, cannot expect to do much. The No. 1 task is to keep these people's mouth shut. In fact, if not for these protesters, Thailand wouldn't be in the state it is in today. OK, so the Thaksin government is seen to be corrupt, but the situation hadn't degenerated to one of dictatorship. The constitutional process of government change through elections should have been taken instead of mass protests. You say that Thaksin's control is so strong that it is impossible to unseat him through the polls? But is a military coup an appropriate answer? I doubt many will say it is. Mass protests only presents half the answer, it is silent on the other half when the doing needs to be done.

My only regret over the entire episode is that I cannot visit Thailand nowadays without thinking twice. Vietnam looks to be a more attractive destination, business and holiday-wise. Heck, even Burma seem more peaceful.

Image source: http://www.chiangmai-chiangrai.com/

Decaffeinated

I was very frustrated yesterday morning when I tried to go to my normal 'haunts' on the net for my shot of caffeine. Yahoo.com just wasn't responding and I thought my 5-year-old Notebook PC was ready to give up the ghost. I thought I'd jog its heart a bit by shutting down the bugger and restarting it. You see, I am used to sending it into hibernation from day to day, because it takes sooo long to startup otherwise. The age is showing. Nope, it didn't work. I tried live.com, almost always reliable and quick. But this time around, it was more dead than alive. Something must really be wrong. Maybe my Internet Service provider screwed up this time, although it has been very reliable so far.

It was the same on my office computer, which boasts more muscle and a thicker pipe. Yahoo just took ages to get to, although I did get to it - eventually. Only it was sooo slow, and my Yahoo Messenger just didn't want to wake up. But almost every other site was jammed - including live.com. Well, when the darn thing won't work, it won't work. The office eventually informed everyone that the internet access was down and very likely due to something on a national scale. I didn't realise how 'national' it was until I got home yesterday evening and found out how the undersea fibre optic cable carrying the bulk of internet traffic in and around Asia was damaged by the 7.1 Richter scale earthquake off southern Taiwan.

Ah well, there was a silver lining in this. I started on and almost completed something that I had put off for ages yesterday. Yes, you guessed it, the internet wasn't necessary for it. How often our time is frittered away by our incessant surfing nowadays.

Today, I am back at broadband speeds again, as if nothing had happened. The good people must have diverted the internet traffic overnight and so we can get our daily shot of caffeine again.

There must be a lesson somewhere in all of this.

Image source: http://www.csh.rit.edu/~cyke/pics/no_to_decaf.gif

A cry of wolf

One of the saddest thing between the Palestinians and the Israelis is their seeming inability to broker a lasting peace. A while ago, there had been hope that one could be reached - and from a surprising quarter. Ariel Sharon, erstwhile hawk, who now lies on the brink of death due to a massive stroke, quit some of the occupied lands in favour of the fledgeling Palestian state in exchange for peace. But it would seem that not all in Palestine wants peace. This was demonstrated by the Hamas, an erstwhile terrorist organisation, coming to power. But this is, after all, politics.

But the landscape has recently been covered in blood again when the Israelis retaliated againsts terrorists both in Gaza and Lebanon, who, without provocation, killed and kidnapped some Israeli soldiers at the borders. Some may say that Israel's reaction was disproportionate to the crime, but that is for history to decide. What I find ludicrous is that the Palestinian Hamas is now calling for the elimination of Israel ('erase Israel') after 18 of its people were killed by the Israelis. I will not go into the details of this except to say that this situation has been stoked by the Hamas' decision to kidnap the Israeli soldiers in the first place. Now if the Palestinians and Hamas in particular are not willing to reflect on its actions but can only think, like Ahmadinejab of Iran, to wipe Israel off the map, then there is no hope.

Only shallow, naive people and people with an agenda that does not include peace with Israel in the first place will believe in the Hamas' latest cry of wolf. And all this time, they place the blame squarely on Israel's shoulders.

Mothers will continue to weep for their slain sons, brothers and husbands, sons will lose their fathers and mothers on BOTH sides.

Image source: http://www2.aya.yale.edu/

Veil of separation

I am reminded of the cowboys and indian movies that I used to watch on Saturday afternoons way back in the 1970s. Besides the Red Indians, a town was often terrorised by 'Cowboy' robbers who almost always masked their faces using a handkerchief or something similiar. They looked sinister and everyone except the town sherriff was afraid of them. The Red Indians never did rob banks. Instead, they tend to go for the throat.

Well, ok, much of this is fantasy and a slur and typecasting of certain types of people. If was unfair to cast Red Indians as always the evil aggressors and the 'white men' as whiter than angels. But the men and women with the covered faces robbing banks and shooting indiscriminately in the air and at people stuck. Which is why when I see people with covered faces, that sinister imagery comes to mind.

Some Muslim women veil themselves in public today. The veil hides everything except the eyes. Like the masked cowboys, they look sinister. I know that putting a veil over oneself is a very personal and religious thing, but when one lives in a community consisting of different people with different faiths and beliefs, you cannot blame anyone for saying that he wishes these women would lose their veils. That is what Jack Straw, Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and Salman Rushdie wished. I support them. If I read it correctly, even the Koran does not insist on the veil. So people who veil themselves are not so much following a religious injunction as much as they are submitting to an arbitrary human craving or rule imposed by certain people. At its worst, this is akin to slavery. Now, is such slavish behaviour something to be proud of, even in religious context?

It is sad that in the modern world today, in an age of universal suffrage where men and women have equal rights, duties and responsibilities, there are women who still go around publicly asserting their submissiveness. Now I am not saying that this is wrong per se, but that if you want to indulge in submissive behaviour, then do it at home and not on the streets and certainly not when you need to see your MP.

Otherwise, what message are they sending to the rest of the community? That they are separate, holier than thou, mightier in spirituality, or what? All of which reminds me that some time ago, the Singapore Education Ministry disallowed all Primary school students, particularly those from Muslim families, from wearing the tudung or headscarf within school compounds. The government's justification then was that it doesn't want a separate identity to be established within the school system, which might become divisive over time. What Mr Straw, Mr Blair, Mr Rushdie and Mr Brown have said echo this same position espoused by the Government in Singapore as early as 2002.

Orphans forever

Among the entertainment fraternity, Angelina Jolie did it first. Now Madonna is doing a me-too. Angelina has two adopted orphaned children - one a Cambodian and another an Ethiopian. She subsequently gave birth to a daughter with Brad Pitt, her current husband. So her family is now a veritable United Nations of sorts. Angelina is herself of Czech and English descent. Will blood become thicker than water in the years to come? Only time will tell.

Madonna has only just started the adoption circus. Her attempt to adopt a hardly orphaned child - the child's father is still very alive and kicking but who practically gave his child away - had faced difficulties but the Malawi High Court, in a travesty of common sense, has granted adoption custody to the singer. One wonders if there is not some under-the-table shananigan going on here. Well, lets be frank about this and call a spade a spade. This has been a highly sophisticated and legalised kid-napping.

Madonna's natural children are said to have taken to their new step brother. For now, that is. Will they grow up to love their coloured step brother and will the mother love all of them equally? Again, only time will tell. Then we will know if blood does not count.

Suffice to say that this type of 'doing good' is highly selective and benefits only a few - one to be exact. Can't these incredibly rich people see beyond one child to help more? They don't have to adopt everyone, just give them the wherewithal to grow up in a peaceful environment where they can be educated to lift themselves out of the vicious cycle of poverty - on their own and among their own peoples and within their own country. For after all, when a person grows up, they would want to know where they came from, and who their own people are. I would hate to think that 'orphans' transplanted out of their natural homes will remain orphans from their own people, culture and history - all the rest of their lives.

Image Source: http://www.cbc.ca/

Walking the talk

Mr Irfan Husain, a columnist for the Pakistani English-language Dawn newspaper, has written a well-considered, honest and balanced piece on the age-old conflict between the Muslims and Christians (read Western civilisation), the Pope and Rushdie, that I feel compelled to reproduce this in full here, with due acknowledgement to Dawn.

Irfan Husain
- News Comment

I HAVE a theory about riots: Those out on the streets often don't have a clear idea what they're rioting about. And invariably, they have a lot of time on their hands.

After all, how often do you find an employed person asking for leave to join the demo of the day? But when you have time to kill, you'll join any crowd that's out to protest, no matter what the cause.

When Salman Rushdie's Satanic Verses inflamed parts of the Muslim world, how many people demonstrating had actually read the book?

I didn't either, but it wasn't for lack of trying: Struggling manfully, I ploughed through the first hundred pages before admitting defeat.

So, I never actually read the passages that gave rise to the famous fatwa. But I doubt very much if the people who rioted even saw the book.

The same is true for those now up in arms about the Pope's address at the University of Regensburg.

I have printed out the speech, and must confess that it's heavy going. The offending section is a tiny part of the paper, and it remains a mystery why Pope Benedict needed such an obscure quotation in his discussion of faith and reason.

Having said that, he has addressed an issue that needs to be debated: How should believers reconcile their faith with the dictates of reason? According to him, modern Christianity has bridged the gap, while Islam has not.

We can debate his conclusion, and criticise his choice of supporting material, but we can hardly deny his right to hold an opinion.

When some Muslims demonstrated their opposition to his views, many carried placards threatening the Pope with death. It seems that some Muslims' stock response to the slightest provocation consists of death threats and violent demonstrations.

These undignified protests reinforce the worst prejudices others have about some Muslims. After all, why should some cartoons in an obscure Danish newspaper, or a papal address at an unknown German university, send hundreds of thousands pouring into streets around the world?

When we were children, when somebody said anything offensive, we would chant: "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never harm me."

As we grew older, we learned that some words are deadlier than any stick or stone, festering long after bruises and wounds have healed. But, we were also taught to be stoical, and not to complain.

In a letter to the Guardian of Sept 20, San Cassimally of Edinburgh wrote: "As a Muslim, I am much more saddened and shocked by the murder of the Somali nun than by what the Pope said in Regensburg ... even if he knew exactly what he was doing."

I would add that I am far more horrified by the endless Muslim-on-Muslim killing going on in Iraq than by anything the pontiff could possibly say.

According to United Nations estimates, an average of a hundred Iraqis are being killed every day, almost invariably by other Iraqis. And all too often, many of the victims are tortured to death.

When Israel killed a thousand Lebanese civilians in a month of senseless bombing, Muslims (and others with a conscience) around the world were rightly incensed. But approximately the same number of Muslims are being killed by other Muslims every 10 days in Iraq, and there is no protest anywhere.

Before the invasion of Iraq, when Saddam Hussein tortured and gassed his own people with impunity, I do not recall any Muslims condemning him publicly.

Applying these same double standards, when Nato forces accidentally kill Afghans, we are furious. But when the Taliban kill innocent Afghans in suicide bombings, and assassinate teachers for teaching girls, we look the other way.

This kind of moral inconsistency is reflected in the treatment non-Muslims generally get in Muslim countries.

For instance, while the 300,000 Iraqi Christians were treated as equal citizens in Saddam's secular regime, two-thirds of them have fled the increasingly-Islamic nature of the present government.

Saudi Arabia, while funding Wahabi mosques across the West, refuses to permit non-Muslims to build their places of worship on its soil.

I am often asked why Muslims in Pakistan get so worked up about Bosnia, Chechnya and Palestine.

I try and explain in terms of the ummah, and the feeling of connectedness between, say, Indonesian Muslims and Turkish Muslims. But I fear this is only a small part of the real answer.

The truth is that the problems we face in much of the Muslim world are often so intractable that we escape reality by looking abroad.

Matters like poverty, disease, political instability and institutional meltdown are too difficult to be tackled by the inefficient and corrupt elites much of the Muslim world is cursed with. To deflect blame, they fulminate against the West for its perceived anti-Islamic attitudes.

It is this mindless, knee-jerk anti-West sentiment that sustains the jihadi groups, and is now propelling us to a very real "clash of civilisations".

As Islam becomes more heavily-politicised, it is evoking a strong reaction in the West. More and more, the Muslims who have migrated to Europe and America, as well as their children, are being seen as a fifth column.

The sight of perpetually-angry Muslims from London to Lahore, marching with placards calling for the death of somebody or the other, is moving normally liberal people to anger.

For me, the really worrying part of the Pope's address was his demand for the subordination of reason to theology: "Modern scientific reason quite simply has to accept the rational structure of matter and the correspondence between our spirit and the prevailing rational structures of nature as a given, on which its methodology has to be based. Yet the question why this has to be so is a real question, and one which has to be remanded by the natural sciences to other modes and planes of thought; to philosophy and theology."

Sorry, but I'm not buying this. This is precisely why I don't think faith and reason can ever be reconciled.

Japan's new PM

Shinzo Abe worries me.

He wants to change the Japanese Constitution, which has stood for 60 years, albeit drafted by its victors, the US. "I want to write the Constitution with my own hands", he said. Question: What is wrong with the present Constitution that has enabled Japan to recover and become an economic powerhouse second only to the US?

He does not discourage revisionist historians who play down and deny the horrors and the wrongs that the Japanese caused in Asia and Southeast Asia during WWII. He wants to encourage patriotism. I wonder if Japanese are not already patriotic? So what does Abe mean by patriotism?

He is non-committal on visiting Yasukuni. He should say 'yes' or 'no'. Anything else and he remains a suspect case.

Less than one week into the job and one of his appointed Ministers has been found out as a crook. How well does he know the people around him and how much control has he got over key appointments?

Shinzo Abe worries me.

Image source: http://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/

Osama alive or dead?

Is Osama Bin Laden dead or alive? Some French think he is dead, the Americans would not commit on it in spite of its vast intelligence operations and network, and the Muslim world are one in insisting that he is alive.

When somebody doesn't appear in public, alive, for 5 years, his living existence is suspect. In another two years, the law will consider him missing and presumed dead.

Videos and audios can all be faked.

Period.

Translation: [37:164] Except only him who shall burn in Hell. (The Holy Quran : Chapter 37: Al-Saffat) - Source: http://www3.alislam.org/showChapter.jsp?ch=37&verse=163

The Thai Dilemma

They (coup leaders) are asking people with strong democratic principles to become prime minister of a government appointed by a dictatorship. And they are asking them to accept the post without any guarantees of some democratic freedoms...

as told to Dow Jones Newswires.

Well said. The Generals and even the Thai King, with all due respect, are deceiving themselves. The military junta will not soon cede power. It cannot. It has trapped itself in a conflicting and contradictory situation. Any civilian government installed by them will be nothing but a dead duck, a puppet beholden to the military, who will be defacto kings of Thailand until they voluntarily give up and retreat to their barracks where they belong in the first place.

That, or they do a Pakistan or a Myanmar - both of which represent extremes of possible though no more desirable outcomes.

Image source: http://www.cbc.ca/. Image originally owned by the Thai Army.

Politics and Shrines

I cannot understand why Shinzo Abe, the front-runner to succeed Koizumi as Prime Minister of Japan, says that he will visit the Yasukuni Shrine where many of Japan's Class 1 war criminals from WWII are interred. Koizumi says he did it because of a campaign promise he made to the electorate, but Abe says he will be doing it to keep up the practice. Obviously, Abe sees these visits as advancing his political cause, if nothing else. It doesn't matter if the visit is official or unofficial, as Abe promised the latter. As far as the Chinese and Koreans are concerned, paying homage to War Criminals in any guise is criminal enough.

Well, it looks to me that Abe does not really need to keep up appearances at the cost of good relations with its neighbours, Korea and China, as well as continue to hurt the sensitivities of many in Southeast Asia. It would be an unwise, unnecessary and possibly a suicidal policy given that Korea and China are becoming major powers in their own rights and that Japan will become increasingly isolated in the process. While we do not want to forever remind Japan about its war past, we also do not want them to forget.

Image origin: http://www.journeythroughjapan.org/

Shotgun religion

Islam continues to be plagued by extremists among its midst who very loudly and insistently push their religious agenda through the barrel of a gun, or should we, in keeping with the times and reality say, 'the cannister of a bomb'? With September 11 around the corner, we can expect these religious fanatics to want to commemorate the occasion with a couple of their own bombing exploits to hasten their entry into heavenly bliss.

Besides death and destruction, some of these extremists also wish to convert people to Islam through the barrel of the same gun. American Fox News journalists, Mr Steve Centanni, 60, an American correspondent, and his freelance cameraman Olaf Wiig, 36, a New Zealander, who were later released, were reportedly at the wrong end of a gun when they 'converted' to Islam. I am not sure that both reporters have the conviction to remain Muslims, unless they are forced to look down the barrel of a gun again.

Adherents of Islam are exhibiting some rather oppressive behaviour in recent times. But since most of them are extremists to start off with, though one cannot understand their worldview, their actions are not surprising. What is surprising is that Islam can be oppressive even when it arises from the law of the land.

It was reported recently in Malaysia that a woman, aged 26, had renounced her Muslim faith to become a Christian. Nothing wrong with that in a country that professes freedom of religious beliefs. She legally changed her name to Lina Joy, but the State would not allow her to change her stated religion on its records, which remains Islam. Well, one can live with that too, I suppose. If one's faith is true, it really doesn't matter what others say, or what the National Records office states. Well, that is turning out to be a nightmare, it seems. Because her official religion is still recorded as Islam, she cannot marry a non-Muslim. Sadly, we are not talking about an extremist body anymore, but the Islamic Courts in Malaysia. What can be more legitimate than that? According to Syariah Law (Islamic Law Court), a Muslim cannot marry a non-Muslim. So we have a situation where a Christian cannot marry a non-Muslim because she is deemed still a Muslim although the law granted her a name change to reflect her new religious beliefs.

Islam is suffering from multiple identity disorder today. Do we ever wonder why Islam, both of the extremist and state-sponsored types, conjures up suspicion and distrust nowadays? It is not a Western-worldview problem anymore. Before it sets out to rule the world, it had better sort out its identity and existence in its own back yard first.

Image origin: http://www.claybennett.com/

Hornet's nest

From the peacekeeping point of view, I cannot understand how the Malaysian and Indonesian Armed Forces can send soldiers to Lebanon. These countries, especially Indonesia, has one of the loudest supporters of the Hizbollah cause. Even though the soldiers may not be as fanatic (one assumes), there is always the perception (and a fact) that they come from a country that is against Israel. Both Malaysia and Indonesia do not have diplomatic relations with Israel. So if the UN accepts their offers of troops for the peacekeeping contingent in Lebanon, it would be nothing short of waiting for a disaster to happen.

Even on this issue, Indonesia wants to argue against Ehud Olmert's objections that the peacekeeping force not include soldiers from countries that do not have diplomatic ties with Israel. This goes to show that Indonesia is not a neutral party after all. As few weeks ago, it was reported in the press that a number of Indonesian Jihadist - extremist Muslim - were preparing to fight the 'Zionists' over the recent conflict with the Hizbollahs in Lebanon. Even if the Indonesian army and the government were to dis-associate itself from these extremists elements, prudence dictates it not send any Indonesians to Lebanon. This is after all, a peacekeeping effort, not a 'Brother for Brother' party. Lebanon and Israel have had enough of the Hizbollahs without the injection of more terrorists on their soil.

Having 'won' the peace, the UN must act with extreme caution and prudence in ensuring that the peacekeeping force can and will keep the peace.

Image origin: http://old.gulfnews.com/

War and diplomacy

At last, both sides, the Israelis and the Lebanese (or should I say, the Hizbollah?) have finally agreed to a UN brokered ceasefire, effective Monday, 14 August 2006 at 0500 GMT. Even so, it is reported that both sides are still lobbing bombs at each other even after the accepting the agreement. We now hear that there are problems in the Lebanese government cabinet, where the Hizbollah has two representatives, about the implementation of the terms of the ceasefire.

Yes, all of us want to believe that the ceasefire agreement will end the bloodshed and bring permanent respite to the innocent Lebanese citizens. But the reality is that both sides are still simmering, ready to start the war all over again at the slightest opportunity or provocation. Both sides will view the ceasefire as a chance to regroup, relocate and rearm for another day. Fundamentally, no peace agreement has been reached, only a ceasefire. And when the war starts again, as it inevitably will, the world will see that nothing has been resolved. Diplomacy has merely won a stay of execution. The final solution will only be reached until one side destroys, or at least neutralizes, the other side permanently.

So yes, Mr Kofi Annan can claim a sort of belated diplomatic victory, but the UN, being the UN, can never bring lasting peace to the two sides. What is tragic about the whole incident is that the duly constituted and elected government of Lebanon was never able to exert any meaningful influence and control over the Hizbollah faction, in spite of the fact that it has at least 15,000 troops under its command. A government that cannot, or will not, govern and control the country and the various factions among it must ultimately take responsibility for the death of its people and destruction of its property. If it still does not recognize this fact, and take action to bring the Hizbollah under its control, then it should cede control totally to the Hizbollah. It should not continue with a pretense that serves to hoodwink charitable souls of the world, including the Lebanese women and children.

The Hizbollah, by some combination of warped logic and delusion, are claiming a victory in this conflict. It has sustained 900 over deaths (probably mostly civilians - which do not matter much?) on the Lebanese side versus 150 odd deaths on Israel's side. Much of their homes are buried in rubble and it will take a lot of charity from the rest of the world to rebuild their homes and feed their people. It is a strange victory when you have to depend on charity.

Israel, on the other hand, is more subdued over this war and is certainly not over the moon regarding the achievements (or lack) of its original objectives - the return of its two soldiers.

Do we now wonder why the fight is not over yet? Dare I say that the diplomatic world is facilitating a conflict more destructive than the first?

Image origin: http://www.opceasefire.org/