MASS hypocrisy season comes and goes in Malaysia with the regularity of the monsoon or the haze. While we entertain the polite fiction of being a semi-civilised nation with a few shopping malls, we conveniently forget that ours is a political culture mired in the mores and norms of hypocrisy.
The public display of normative religiosity on the part of our politicians is pedestrian at best. Often this gets reduced to the level of amateur theatrics, where dressing up in the role of a person of God is good enough to get you elected.
Yet, look at how we deal with the issues that touch upon the most intimate and private aspects of our lives, and we will see this hypocrisy laid bare.
Despite the efforts of the country’s liberal intellectuals, activists and non-governmental organisations, it cannot be denied that the private sphere is slowly but surely shrinking. Issues that should otherwise remain private — be they citizens’ dietary habits or their private sex lives — have been brought into the public domain to be discussed, monitored and ultimately policed.
As we all know, we are about to witness a second round of sordid revelations, speculation, gossip and disinformation about one particular politician, Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim. Thanks to the allegations of sodomy that have been made against him yet again, we need to brace ourselves for the tide of unsolicited information and private details that would otherwise be dismissed as trivia and nonsense in many other countries.
It has been argued by some that the Malaysian public ought to be spared yet another spectacle of public enquiry and tabloid humiliation that would further compromise the standards of public decency in the country. (To which I would add, what standards of public decency do we have left?)
AnwarThose of us who remember the details of Anwar’s first sodomy-related trial may recall the embarrassing and lurid details. It was also a case of unsolicited sexual education for many young Malaysians then who perhaps learnt of words like “liwat” and “sodomy” for the first time. Those who have since forgotten what sodomy is will soon be given a refresher course. No doubt by the end of this second spectacle, our public knowledge of the details of anal intercourse would have improved tremendously.
What irks me, though, is that in the midst of this hullabaloo, the very subject that is to be discussed in excruciating detail remains stigmatised and cast in terms of liminality. It is as if it is so repulsive that it can only be referred to in the most oblique of terms.
The real problem
The politicians have, understandably, their own stated ambitions and agendas, and that is clear for all to see. A man has been accused (maliciously, some maintain) of committing an act that is deemed unnatural and illegal, for the sake of crippling his political career and removing him from the political landscape. The aim, therefore, is to save him from these accusations and rescue his political career.
Whatever the outcome of the trial that is now set to be heard in the High Court, it would seem that most parties involved are primarily concerned about Anwar’s political fate, rather than the act itself and its standing vis-à-vis the law.
Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that Anwar will be found innocent and let off the hook, however likely or unlikely that may be. What would happen immediately after the final judgment has been passed? A victory celebration and a sigh of collective relief? By whom and on what grounds?
Political necessity dictates that a politician who has been framed must be helped, and given all the support he or she needs to extricate himself or herself from such a situation. But ethical consistency also dictates that we look beyond the particularities of such a singular case, and understand the full impact of a law that affects the lives and loves of thousands of other citizens, too.
Contest the law
Apart from civil society groups that have struggled for gender equality, hardly any of the country’s mainstream political parties have ever bothered to highlight that some laws in Malaysia governing sexual difference and activities are antiquated. They do not, and perhaps never did, reflect the reality of sexual life in Malaysia.
(Pic by hisks / sxc.hu) It was not too long ago that another politician — this time from the Barisan Nasional — was not only scandalised through videos of his private sex life, but also threatened with laws and regulations that see oral sex as being unnatural.
Then again, the politicians among us were more inclined to help their friend get off the hook rather than to state the obvious: that the laws against oral sex date back to the British colonial era. Similar laws have been discarded in many of the former colonies. And where they are still kept, they are used only when it serves the interests of certain political party groups.
So, while Anwar supporters come to his defence, no politician of note has had the courage to state bluntly that Malaysia has outdated laws in a country where a healthy degree of oral and anal sex is taking place, and has always taken place.
Are we to accept this prevalent attitude among our politicians who can cry “sodomy!” only when it suits their interests, but who would otherwise be quite content to allow the prevailing status quo to remain unchallenged?
And if the thrust of the campaign in Anwar’s second sodomy trial is merely to save the reputation of one politician, then what of the thousands of gays and other sexual minorities? Will our fellow citizens have to forever live with the constant threat of such laws being brought to bear upon them in their private lives?
As a political historian, I understand the vicissitudes of politics and why politicians behave the way they do out of necessity and survival. But let us not forget that saving the career of one politician should not distract us from the equally pressing need to highlight the weakness and redundancy of laws that have rendered the lives of others miserable, too. And that includes the closet gay members of Umno, PAS, Parti Keadilan Rakyat et. al. who should know better than to keep silent now.
The two struggles are not mutually exclusive, but instead complementary. Saving someone from an accusation of sodomy should never mean relegating the act of sodomy to a negative register. 
Dr Farish A Noor is a school teacher who realises that reason has its limits in Malaysia.
Azmi says
I doubt there would be anyone from any side of the political spectrum who would be brave enough to stand up for the minority. They would either be for or against that one person only, content to allow the current status quo.
SpeakUp says
Farish … let them prosecute DSAI. There is a medical report that says the victim has not been penetrated. So be it. Let BN end up a huge fool.
I have to disagree about your views on changing certain laws on sex matters. It stays because the public wants it that way, however hypocritical as it may be. Also, if you wish to push homosexuality to be legalised then let’s also legalise incest amongst consenting adults. Since, animals are not really humans then why not [bestiality] too? That should be fine right? Oh let’s not forget, prostitution ought to be allowed to reduce rape …
I think as a Muslim you should be ashamed to say that homosexuality should be allowed. I am not [a] saint but then how far do you want to push the limits?
Goldee says
The court can’t even prove that the act of sodomy took place in the first case. Instead the court amended the charge to corruption. Even then there was no money involved, but for abusing his position to influence the police in their investigation.
To charge Anwar Ibrahim for the second time for the same reason is beyond anyone’s comprehension. No one would believe the court even if it’s true.
It is the easiest and fastest means to fix Anwar by charging him for sodomy. The whole world knows this is a political assassination and to finish off Anwar who is a threat to BN and Umno.
Let’s pray and wish him the best of luck that he will come out a winner in this second onslaught.
Karcy says
Hey, who drew the cartoon? It is cute!
[Editor’s note: The illustration is by Shieko who bio can be found here: https://www.thenutgraph.com/our-contributors
We really like her work, too.
Jacqueline.]
Ritchie says
I am not a Muslim and do agree with SpeakUp. Homosexuality or the gay lobby is an attempt to paralyse society from within. History reveals that every civilisation that sanctioned or made it legal ended up extinct. Ethical, moral and legal discussion on homosexuality have often been more volatile than productive.
Nevertheless, I do believe that Malaysians must rise up to examine and evaluate why homosexuality and incest have reached alarming proportions among certain communities.
It would take more than fatwas on tomboys and selective arrests for khalwat and gambling if there is to be change. Hypocrisy is alive and flying in the wind like a national flag over Malaysia’s political castles.
FairMinded says
To SpeakUp: Grow up! I sense some rational thought in you first para, so why not let that flourish instead of your [views] about homosexuality? I am not [a homosexual], but take a walk in their shoes first before you comment willy-nilly (pun intended).
And at no time did the writer allude support for those other “voluntary” acts you mentioned. Salam.
P.S. And enough of that “… as a Muslim…” nonsense. The writer has a right to his own views, as you do π Peace.
Shudder says
SpeakUp has really made me shudder. Is this the state of affairs, in a developing country and the outcome of schooling?
How can anyone fail to perceive and draw a proper line between homosexuality, incest and bestiality? Not to forget rape!
The MoE urgently needs to look into the syllabus of some subjects, and make sure that school leavers have a grasp on the differences between one and another in our country.
SpeakUp says
@FairMinded … all civilisations in the past that allowed debauchery failed. Also, I stated that homosexuality cannot be legalised and if so, will Farish support INCEST and [BESTIALITY]?
I have MANY gay friends, I do not pass judgment. I have frequented gay clubs a lot (it’s not smoky, people are nice and the girls I take there think I am such a sensitive guy to be so open-minded … hehehehee … ) BUT let’s not be so fast to open our mouths to LEGALISE it.
I am not keen to persecute the gay boys and they can do what they want and then deal with God on their own later but to legalise it, sorry la. So stop being so opinionated but read what is written, read it PROPERLY.
SpeakUp says
Shudder … rape will be rape, will never be legalised ….
Now what about statutory rape? [Today’s] youngsters know what they want and will be willing to have sex even when they are under 16. So if a 15-year-old girl dates a 19-year-old guy and she really seduces him. Should it be ok?
At the moment no one cares if she is a loose woman or not. If she is underaged and [they have sex, he will be incarcerated].
Where is the line? Interesting right?
Steve McCoy says
SpeakUp and Ritchie: this section of the Penal Code is NOT about homosexuality… it includes oral and anal sex both within and outside heterosexual marriage. Read it carefully: Section 377B. “Whoever voluntarily commits carnal intercourse (by “the introduction of the penis into the anus or mouth of the other person” Section 377A) against the order of nature shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to twenty years, and shall also be liable to whipping.Γ’β¬Β
You would not want this law applied across the board, neither should you delight in its selective application, whatever your views on sexuality.
Ritchie: your statement “History reveals that every civilisation that sanctioned or made it legal ended up extinct” is a bit puzzling. In England under the Sexual Offences Act of 1967, [anal intercourse] is no longer an offence if committed in private between two consenting adults of and above the age of 21. Is the Wimbledon we are enjoying at the moment a figment of our imagination or the extinction event a figment of yours?
amir says
It would be great if a book about the Malaysian gay experience(s) is published, maybe even this year!
H Too says
I read that a court in India had recently ruled that sodomy between consenting adults is okay.
SpeakUp says
SteveMcCoy, you missed the point. Read this again:
“And if the thrust of the campaign in Anwar’s second sodomy trial is merely to save the reputation of one politician, then what of the thousands of gays and other sexual minorities? Will our fellow citizens have to forever live with the constant threat of such laws being brought to bear upon them in their private lives?
“As a political historian, I understand the vicissitudes of politics and why politicians behave the way they do out of necessity and survival. But let us not forget that saving the career of one politician should not distract us from the equally pressing need to highlight the weakness and redundancy of laws that have rendered the lives of others miserable, too. And that includes the closet gay members of Umno, PAS, Parti Keadilan Rakyat et. al. who should know better than to keep silent now.”
Hence, I question Farish’s article. He is saying, let’s not be hypocrites la … let the adults play whatever they want. It’s clear as daylight what Farish is saying. So what I have written is MOST correct.
Anyways, there are no laws against being gay – the gay act of anal intercourse or oral sex is the issue. Mutual masturbation is also NOT against the law. Cross dressing is in certain places because of the by-laws, for example in Penang. So please don’t quote legislation if you missed the point.
OrangRojak says
Julie Andrews wasn’t. Didn’t she [or he – saved you an edit!] sing a song about it once? So-do-mi-fe-lei-ti-oh or something like that?
Well done for writing this Farish. It needs to be said. What adult celebrities (are non-celebs also prosecuted for this in Malaysia?) consent to in their private lives is as interesting as what shoes they wear to movie premieres, and has roughly the same effect on any 3rd party they haven’t actually slipped a portion of their person into – no effect at all. The law is pointlessly intrusive and must go, if only to remove a tool from the arsenal of despotic politicians.
My highway says
I don’t care what [anyone wishes] to insert into their favorite orifices. Just keep it in the privacy of your rooms and stop the public displays.
Keep it in the closet. It’s your own business and not anyone else’s.
Ying says
FairMinded: Please state your sources as to where “history reveals that every civilisation that sanctioned or made it [homosexuality] legal ended up extinct.” Pretend I’m your college lecturer, lah, k?
SpeakUp: I don’t get it, you enjoy the company of your gay friends. Frequent establishments that profit from the gay dollar and accept that girls love that you are a sensitive, open-minded sort of chap to have gay friends.
But you don’t want homosexuality to be legalised Γ’β¬β meaning, it’s okay to see your gay friends that you hang out with on Saturdays shamed and imprisoned simply for being who they are? I doubt you [really] have gay friends.
Bestiality and homosexuality have nothing in common except that they both end in ‘ality’. Rape is an act of violence, and sex without consent. Therefore NOT akin to homosexuality either.
Homosexuality is seeing that cute boy in the LRT who’s breaking your heart when he smiles back at you. And all you want to do is ask him out on a date. It’s like love, lah. Simple.
How can you not see this? Let me tell you one thing. Malaysians need to get off their moral high ground and stop saying, “my religion says I should”. Because it turns out that morality is innate in all human beings. Religion doesn’t have to tell you that murder and rape are evil deeds, you know it yourself. (Although the religious do sometimes commit acts of evil.)
Stop relying on religious authorities (ironic) to tell you what’s good or evil.
Humans have natural empathy. And if you stop dehumanising people with different sexual orientations, perhaps you’ll see that they are just people who Γ’β¬β just like you Γ’β¬β want to live without fear or fervour of being persecuted.
FairMinded says
@ SpeakUp:
“Dr Farish A Noor is a school teacher who realises that reason has its limits in Malaysia.”
I would say that this would be succint enough to describe your views.
Peace.
Skeptic says
Consensual sex between consenting adults in private is nobody’s business. Homosexuality destroys society? Tell that to the Greeks in the time of Socrates, the most astonishing period of intellectual productivity in history, when homosexuality did not upset anyone. How many of you who have insomnia worrying about gay people corrupting society have gay friends? I am not gay but have gay friends and they tend to be more charitable and compassionate than straight people. Get real.
CloseMinded says
As a Muslim nation (and I say this lightly), our laws will undeniably be reflective of the Islamic view on sodomy. It’ll be even more hypocritical to go out “legalizing” sodomy when at the same time we preach about different virtues of Islam. True, alcohol and out of marriage sex are “legal” in a sense, but the disapproving slant of sodomy in other Muslim countires does not warrant it to be legalized.
From a personal point of view, I agree that there’s a line when it comes to homosexuality, incest and bestiality. But they all lie on the same side of it. Let’s throw pedophilia in there too. If being gay is being true to yourself, so are the rest of the repulsive acts mentioned above.
Being gay is a disease. A curable one at that. A worldwide social acceptance to this disease should not make it tolerable. A sexual inclination to the same sex is no more involuntary than that of kids and animals. No way God created anal sex to be accepted, let alone revered.
Chen says
SpeakUp: Excuse me, but I had no idea homosexuality was illegal in the first place. I know same-sex marriage is illegal in many countries (including our own, if you’re Msian), but please tell me how to do you ‘legalise’ who people fall in love with/are attracted to. The ‘act’ of oral and anal sex are penalised, yes, but let’s not pretend the heteros don’t do it. Also, it’s absolutely insulting to your intelligence and mine to use bestiality and incest as a yardstick. Incest is a possible cause of biological defects; bestiality is NOT consensual. This argument’s been tossed around so long it’s overdone. Adding ‘among consenting adults’ was a nice touch to covering your tracks, though. π
lezzo says
SpeakUp, next time you go to a gay club to impress your girl friends, why don’t you go up to the gay boys and tell them to their face that you think who they are is illegal, and that anyone fighting for their rights should also condone incest and bestiality.
Noel says
The comments I see from the likes of Speak Up and Ritchie are not the least bit surprising, though undeinably appalling and narrow-minded, no doubt influenced by certain narrow interpretations of religion.
I wonder if Ritche and others who are convinced that civilisations that have legalised homosexuality that have subsequently gone extinct, would care to provide examples? And also if they have done complete and legitimate research on the factors that contributed to their demise?
Main says
To speculate will spell something negative – just let the law reveal what is the truth and see what will happen.
Anybody game for England? I am not!
Gopal Raj Kumar says
The fact remains that sodomy is an offence and prohibited as an act and to a large majority morally objectionable as well.
As a child I was reprimanded for playing with my poo like you and many others till it was ingrained in us that poo was not something to be celebrated. That’s at the crassest and most basic level should you decide to legitimise this argument or topic with intellectual hypocrisy.
Homosexuals, like heterosexuals of any decent kind, keep their private parts and their private preferences in sex to themselves.
Those that overtly display it, heterosexual or homosexual, more often than not are ridiculed and despised. That’s nature and that’s life.
Hafidz Baharom says
Such a shameless plug from amir. π
Right now I argue the right to be homosexual is a private matter that should be guaranteed in a person’s right to privacy. As such, why should there be laws governing a person’s actions in private that do not harm another party, in this case, consensual same sex relations?
To argue in terms of religion is in itself an irrelevant clause because different people have different beliefs, and who are we to impose our way unto others?
I put the call for equality in regards to sexual orientation in the same category as gender and race. There should be no discrimination in any field based on these three.
Kunyit says
Evidence and witnesses could help win court cases. Hope that justice will prevail. Even in US the most liberal of all countries (ye ke?) have not as a majority passed the same sex marriage law, only certain states allows for same sex marriage and civil union. They have 50 states and only five allows gay couples to get married. If your opinion is to change antiquated laws (as you put it) then one day Malaysia will be headed that way, to allow same sex marriage, after that then we have issues of child adoption will you allow a child be adopted in a gay family? I am not saying that gay people have no rights but you as a learned man should understand that what you write have all kinds of effects on the people who read them. And laws that are antiquated will sometimes have relevance to current conditions. Even new laws are sometimes tyrannical like the Akta Patriot. But US is not Malaysia and sometimes we need to think more like Malaysians in this situation.
Steve McCoy, if there is no complaint between two consenting adults then the issue will be moot. So if there is a police report then the act is relevant and investigation would continue.
SpeakUp says
I said clearly, what they do is none of my business, I am not here to judge them.
All I am against is legalising it. What they wanna do I don’t wanna know or care, hence, the ability to sit with them. I do not judge them and I do not impose my views on them.
Also, those of you who are so ardent that I am wrong, please for goodness sake say at the dinner table when the whole family is gathering that you support the fact that two guys can have sex in private and that it’s nothing wrong. Please do that before you come out flaming me.
Of course for those of you who have kids you need to teach them that it is okay for two consenting male adults to be homosexual, the kids need to learn to be open minded about life right? They must not grow up to be like me!
For some who say I am so wrong but do go to church or temple or the mosque please go and tell the religious leader of yours what you feel about my comment. Tell them you are so shocked and disdained by my comments. Tell them it has stressed you out because you really believe that it is okay for two consenting adults to have anal sex.
Let’s not be hypocrites … wanna hammer me, profess it out and live it. Teach your kids, educate your family and enlighten your religious leaders!
Noel says
Speak Up: What makes you so sure that those of sound mind aren’t already doing what you’ve suggested on advocating for sexual rights?
You claim that you are not judging homosexuals, but your adamant refusal to allow homosexuals, transsexuals and also heterosexuals their respective sexual rights is in itself casting judgment!
And for those who think that gay people cannot raise children, you cannot be more wrong. If heterosexual couples alone are only capable of raising children, explain to me the alarming rates of child abuse etc?
Everyone has their right to believe what they want and practise what they want, but the minute you start imposing your judgment on others by refusing someone else their rights, then it becomes a problem.
Ida Bakar says
From the discussions above I see that we are a LONG WAY from being able to accept a gay PM or a bisexual one.
lezzo says
Why is it that debates on homosexuality always have to center around this whole anal sex issue?? You wouldn’t say that being straight is just about sex (though some might disagree). It’s a private issue between consenting adults, and should be kept at that. And anyways, straight people are just as capable of having anal sex! On that fact alone, this shouldn’t be an issue. Or do we judge all couples by what they do in the bedroom?
Also, people seem to forget that the homosexuality sphere also includes girls. Lesbians aren’t known to have anal sex, so do you judge them equally for being gay? Or do you only condemn those who take it up the bum? If so, then you really have no argument.
The way I see it, there’s absolutely no difference between being gay or straight. You don’t judge someone for being straight, so why should you judge people for being gay? Being gay does not define a person and it certainly isn’t just about anal sex.
Noel says
At the risk of digressing from the topic, I should also like to ask one question to those who vehemently argue against allowing gay couples to adopt children based on narrowly-interpreted religous dogma.
Do you think an orphaned child with no parents, family or next of kin would rather have two fathers or two mothers who love them unconditionally, OR continue to grow up ALONE, without any structure whatsoever, save for what an orphanage might provide!?
Farish A Noor says
Lezzo, your point that being gay isn’t just about anal sex and should not be cast as such is valid and important. However, we also need to understand why it is that historically gay/bisexual men have been targetted and why so much emphasis has been placed on anal penetration.
Apart from traditional religious injunctions against anal intercourse which is deemed as unnatural (and a waste of the male seed so to speak), there is also the undercurrent of patriachal bias in the unstated assumption that gay/bi men are somehow “letting other men down”. Gay/bi men are therefore seen as not only an anomaly, but crucially they are seen as the “enemy within” who threaten the basis of heterosexist patriachy and its structures of power. That’s why anal sex is constantly being condemned by those who wish to perpetuate these patriachal structures of power.
Kunyit says
Noel, I think that a child would be happier in a normal heterosexual family than in a same sex couple family, but that is my personal opinion. Studies (in US and Europe mostly) have both supported and denied both arguments, but the data for same sex couple is less than hetero couples.
Let me say to you we are not imposing our own judgements but we are arguing merit.
For me, the law needs to be obeyed because it protects and governs society. Whoever you are in a society, the law is obeyed. And everyone has a right to act, believe and do as they want BUT within the boundary of the law. A lot of bad people in the world vehemently believe [that] what they do is right but actually, [their actions] are harmful.
Ying says
SpeakUp Γ’β¬β If you were to describe the details of your “hetero” sex life (say plain, ol boring military style lah for argument’s sake) in the presence of your family at the dinner table, do you think they would stand up and clap and pat you on the back? No, because chances [are] most of your dinner guests would find you a bit crude for revealing a little bit too much information over their chicken dinner. So to argue that you can’t talk about anal sex at the dinner table is moot.
You have NO argument, dude. But luckily, being able to see where you’ve erred is a sign of maturity and intelligence. You have options, my friend.
M.K. says
If there was an international organisation to rate hypocrisy just like Transparency International, I am sure Malaysia would measure 9 on a scale of 10!
SpeakUp says
Noel: this is what I will say to you:
i. stop making assumptions [that] people here are teaching their kids [that] homosexuality is okay or [that] they are openly saying it’s right [to talk about it] at family gatherings.
ii. if I was ADAMANTLY against gays having sexual romps I would have said that they all should be quartered for doing so. I said, and I shall repeat it, they can do what they want and it’s none of my concern nor for me to judge, to change the laws. Clear now?
Lezzo … Farish says this:
“And if the thrust of the campaign in Anwar’s second sodomy trial is merely to save the reputation of one politician, then what of the thousands of gays and other sexual minorities? Will our fellow citizens have to forever live with the constant threat of such laws being brought to bear upon them in their private lives?”
Lesbians would run foul of the law if they engaged in ORAL SEX. It’s still illegal in Malaysia but the same law is interpreted differently in Singapore, as a prelude to sex it’s ok. Guess the judges did not want to be jailed π
Alan says
We should allow prostitution, oral sex and sodomy, and be done with it. Oh.. and maybe Muslims should not be allowed to partake of these.
Just like 4D, alcohol, gambling, ….. ……. cheating, lying, pride, et. al.
Or the Chinese and Indian [Malaysians] should be allowed to take multiple wives, too. I fail to see how only a Muslim can be a good husband to multiple partners.
Dr Farish Noor is correct…reason has its limits in Malaysia. Stupidity, unlike genius, is not shackled by limits.
Why is it that Muslim values have to be pushed upon other religions and faiths? Keep it in the syariah court. Does anyone here actually think highly of the Muslim clerics and administration in Malaysia?
I will share this much. I have an Indonesian friend. When my house was in trouble, some suggested the bomoh. This friend came over to my house to pray for my family. He flew over from Medan. And then he said, “Pray with me.” It’s the same God. It’s [humans] who start to create differences. Our differences are only on paper.
Now.. .that was a Muslim. Full of care, charity and sanctuary. So tell me. Do you have a Muslim friend?
Kunyit says
Alan. I think you excel at sarcasm. But your comment does not help. It’s clear that you don’t think much of Muslims by your comments (Malaysian Muslims).
I would like to say that it is clear in Malaysia that it works (being multi-racial and ethnic). Muslims are banned from their major sins to partake in alcohol, gambling and others. But gambling and alcohol consumption is also limited by age for the non-Muslims right? And when you mentioned pride, cheating and lying in your comments, these are things we could not control and monitor. They are feelings, actions and reactions prevalent in all societies.
The sarcastic way you mentioned it suggests that Muslims preach this to others while at the same time are guilty of such sins. What values do we push to other religion? Non-Muslims still can consume anything that they could in any normal environment. And polygamy is within the rights of Islam and despite what you think both the male and female in the marriage have their rights in Islam. Besides, I heard that some rich guys (non-Muslim) also have mistresses (I don’t know if it is true) and what not and claim that it is normal and within their culture.
SpeakUp says
Ying 9 […]… I spoke about those who ardently say I am not liberal in my ways. I challenge them to speak openly about their liberal thoughts with family and religious leaders. Who says it’s about talking about our sex life over a family dinner?
[…]
That is why I say, let them do what they want to do and let God deal with it. Let’s not judge anyone. If there is a God and if it’s wrong then they go to hell la, if there is no God and it’s not wrong, then they really had tons of fun whilst on earth!
Kunyit says
Heard of the ying and yang symbol? it symbolises that in every evil there is a dot of good and in every good there is a dot of badness and as whole we are both light and dark. The thing I would like to relate in what we are looking at here is that no one is 100% liberal in the way that liberal thinking is defined. There is always a boundary that we will have to put on any liberal issue (which liberalisation requires it to be boundless). Malaysia is already very liberal in a majority of the issues. You can argue that we could be more liberal but that argument could also go – we could be less liberal, Malaysia could have easily have censored internet but in Malaysia I think 90% – 98% of traffic is still allowed (that’s good considering content like that of child pornography is blocked or censored) – total liberalisation does not allow that.