Illegal to be poor

In Malaysia recently, Federal Territories Minister Datuk Seri Tengku Adnan Mansor tried to clean up the city of Kuala Lumpur by banning soup kitchens.  He also forbade people to give alms to city's beggars.  His rationale seems to be that the presence of the poor and homeless makes the city look bad.

However, his words have been receiving a lot of negative backlash.  Doesn't Islam encourage giving alms to the poor?  Shouldn't the city be looking after these unfortunate ones, instead of making their lives more miserable?  What is the government doing to aid such people?

Isn't the cost of bureaucracy and corruption higher than the cost of feeding the poor?  Why can't rich bureaucrats open their homes to the poor to get them off the streets?  Is it a crime to be poor?

What do you think the solution of the problem is?

It seems to me that this is not just a Malaysian problem, but quite a universal one.  Countries like to look good by hiding away the fact that there are people among us who are less well off.  Social welfare schemes try to skimp on providing for these as they manage their budgets, as they try to entice the richer with tax cuts.  However, the poor will always be among us, and they need assistance.

In what way can we assist?  We say that "if we give a man a fish, we feed him for a day, but if we teach him to fish, we can feed him for a lifetime".  Is it possible to educate the poor and send them on the way to self-sufficiency?  Would that work for everybody?

How can we care for these people who need help?  Is it fair to give them money for not doing anything, at the expense of those who work hard for what they have?

What can nations do, as they struggle with their national budgets?

What would Jesus do?

Christian Muslim Friendships

Dr Asri Zainul Abidin believes that Christians are not really a threat.  He said that "he closest people to the Muslims are Christians. The Quran‎ says you will find that the people who love Muslims the most are Christians."

He thinks that:

• It is normal for religious leaders to invite their friends to join in what they believe to be "the true religion".  Muslims, or anybody else for that matter, should not not feel threatened to receive such invitations, regardless of whether they are in Malaysia, England, or anywhere else.  It is just friendship.
• Muslims should feel afraid of militant Christians.  Not in Malaysia, anyway.  Christians have never instigated any attacks on Muslims.
• NGOs naturally want to promote themselves.  So if they are connected with the Christian faith, they will promote that as well.  As they have not been "over the top" about it, Muslims should tolerate rather than feel threatened.
• As Islam is the true religion, Muslims should be worried that they are not doing their work properly rather than to be worried that they would be crushed by the outsiders.
• It will be good for people to live harmoniously rather than to start a civil war in Malaysia, especially when there is no real threat towards the Muslims. 

 Contrast these thoughts to those of Ridhuan Tee Abdullah.  Abdullah thinks that:

• Churches are saying threatening things about Muslims.  Muslims should disguise themselves to infiltrate the churches to hear these things for themselves.
• The New Testament stories of Jesus are based on hearsay, and Christians have been misled.

What do you think?  Are Christians threatening?  Do Muslims in Malaysia really have a threat to deal with from the Christians?

What if the Muslims who disguise and infiltrate the churches hear something that they like?  Will they be allowed to convert to Christianity if they do?

I once read a hypothetical scenario.  Not in its exact words, the story went something like this.  Suppose your car broke down in a dangerous part of town, at night time.  You come out of the car, but you cannot fix the problem straight away.  You see a group of rough-looking youth walking towards you.  Would it make a difference if you realise that they were carrying Bibles?

Would it?  What do you believe about Christians and their faith?

How did we lose something so big?

Possibly, the biggest news item that has grabbed the attention of the world and has everybody thinking, is the disappearance of Malaysia Airlines, flight MH370, just over a week ago.  The plane left Kuala Lumpur, was on its way to China, when it fell out of radar detection and radio communication.

How can we lose something that big?  In this day and age?

Sure, several aircrafts have been lost in the Bermuda Triangle.  Amelia Earhart was not found also.  But in this day and age where we have satellites, radar, military surveillance, Google Earth and internet communication, we do not expect to lose something like a Boeing 777.

Somebody has mocked the process, saying that "MH370 so big cannot find, Anwar sperm so small but cannot find".  The mishandling has been so embarrassing that somebody feels that he does not want to embrace Islam.

That the loss of the plane happened so soon after Malaysia's opposition leader, Anwar Ibrahim, was accused of sodomy (again), and the court convicted Karpal Singh of sedition, leaves some to think that might be some political motivation behind this national embarrassment.  However, we do not yet know if this is the case.

What do you think?  What happened to the plane?  Why?  How?  Will there ever be a believable explanation?

What can be done for Malaysia?  How can the nation handle the situation better?

National airline, national economy

Malaysia Airlines had a 9% rise in revenue, but a RM1.17M loss altogether.  Analysts attribute the problem to:

• Overstaffing;
• "lopsided procurement contracts";
• abandon from investors;
• a "share-swap" deal that was deemed unlawful by the Malaysian Competition Commission.

I also hear that the public suspect corruption in the system to be another reason for the loss.

Of course, there is also the issue of rising fuel costs, but all airlines face this problem.

Qantas is also struggling to make a profit.  It is expected to announce job cuts when it makes its profit report.  But the analysis is different.

Qantas may:

• Sell off terminals;
• Borrow money from the Australian public;
• Cut jobs;
• Allow more foreign ownership to the airline.

Australians are also seeing a change in the manufacturing industry, as car manufacturers Holden and Toyota have recently announced that they will pull out of Australia.  Australia fears that the massive shift in the economy could affect the country adversely.

Are major airlines having a problem that can be solved?  What would the solution be?  Does every nation need to have a national airline?  Why, or why not?

Is there a silver bullet solution to the world's economic problems?

The interpretation has changed

A family has recently returned from Malaysia.  There were a few reasons for this.  The most startling one related to their visas.

As this family has children attending an international school there, they were eligible for guardian's visas to live in that country.  Both parents were granted one of these visas each, in the past.  However, on their most recent application to have their visas renewed, they were told that Malaysian authorities would only renew one of their visas, but not both.

The law pertaining to these visas has not changed.  The law allows that guardians of children be granted visas.  Only the interpretation of the law has changed.  Ie. instead of granting such visas to both parents, the authorities will only approve the visa for one parent.

Does this seem silly to you?  Is this normal in your circumstance?  What do you think about such laws?

I remember similar experiences with traffic laws in the Philippines.  One issue was with "swerving".  Technically, it means changing lanes across multiple lanes without indicating and recklessly.  There are signs to tell drivers not to swerve ... especially near the exits from the South Luzon Expressway (SLEX).  Drivers are to try to be in the correct lanes to exit these expressway rather than to cause hazard or traffic jams through their ill-preparation.

However, traffic law enforcers would sometimes apprehend drivers in other locations, and accuse them of swerving.  Even when they have indicated, even when they change lanes slowly and carefully, and even when they only go across one lane.  The word "swerving" is sometimes subject to interpretation.  Some drivers would prefer to bribe the law enforcers rather than to argue or to plead their case in court, but this does not really help the situation.

Have you been caught out similarly?  Where?  How?  What was the circumstance?

What is the law and what should the interpretation be?

Are there any spiritual implications that you can see?

The name Allah

Does the word "Allah" meant to be exclusively for Muslim use?  Or is it open for anybody in the world to use?  What do you think?

Apparently, this debate has resurrected in Malaysia.  I do not understand why Malaysian Muslims which to reserve that word for themselves instead of sharing it.

Apparently, it is only in Malaysia that this debate happens.  Muslims in Saudi Arabia, Indonesia and other countries are okay for the word "Allah" to be used by non-Muslims.  And the etymology of the word shows that the word has been used for centuries even before Mohammad was born.  Historically and linguistically, it is not a word that is exclusively Islamic.

However, there are also issues like "blasphemy" - misusing the name of God, and "confusion" - people thinking that another god is being referred to when the same name is used.  I don't see a problem with these issues.  I understand that the names of Hindu gods are used by the Nepali, the names of Greek gods are used by Italians, etc, among cultures that share the same mythology.  But I appreciate that other people might.

I see the calls of the Perkasa leader to ban the Alkitab in Malaysia, and calling the Christians as ungrateful to be quite extreme, even so.  If there is freedom of belief and respect for the fact that the word is not exclusively an Islamic one, then there is no abuse and no need for "retaliation".

I think that people should be better informed and more accepting of each other than what that speech says.

What do you think?  Is this a provocative issue?  Should it be?  What does the word "Allah" mean to you?