Right. Sunday morning.
I was thinking of things to write about, but then I stumbled onto this quite funny comic strip discussing religion, religious stereotypes and the cause & consequence of religion.
For people who are quite sensitive about portraying Muhammad, then you're not gonna be happy.
If you see it for what it is, a satire about religion, then here it is:
Jesus and Mo
Sunday 7 December 2008
Tuesday 25 November 2008
The Sex-Disease Pie Chart
Hahaha. No, there's no pie chart.
Refer to previous post.
I'm really sorry, Guest4. I think the chatbox is way too small to actually convey accurately what anyone is trying to say.
STDs are diseases. STIs, infections.
To stop anyone from having sex because of the avoidable possibility of contracting an STD is like stopping your kid from riding the bicycle because he might get bruises.
Obviously STDs are much worse than a bruise. And losing your virginity is a much bigger step than your first bicycle ride. Though a bruise is actually more likely, provided people are more educated about sex.
The naturality (I'm making this term up) of STDs is irrelevant to whether you should have sex or not, because STDs are diseases, i.e. the consequences if you do it unhygienically/carelessly/recklessly and are avoidable/preventable. It's hard to illustrate this point because of the severity of STDs.
Let us contrast sex with smoking.
Smoking directly damages your lung. It's the act of smoking itself. It doesn't matter if you smoke carefully or safely, you're still damaging your lungs. Smoking by definition is harmful to the body.
Sex on the other hand, does not directly damage anything. The act of having sex does not automatically transmit STDs if you don't have one or if you're careful. There is no reputable health organisation that would make posters that would say sex=STDs. Instead they say unsafe sex leads to STDs.
*
From a philosophical view of whether STDs are natural or not, it's quite hard to answer. This section discusses STDs as a disease separately from sex.
A disease by definition is: an abnormal condition of an organism that impairs bodily functions and can be deadly.
So it's abnormal. Automatically we think this means unnatural.
But then do we think of the flu as unnatural? Do we think a fever is unnatural? Abnormal just means out of the norm, not necessarily unnatural.
Diseases are abnormal to the body but are natural in its conception. It's a product of nature. Cells mutate all the time. And from so many of these mutations we get cancer and HIV. But also from these mutations we get diversity. We don't look exactly like our parents because of gene mutation.
*
I can only spend a certain amount of time before I get bored writing an entry in my blog. I wonder why that is. The excitement just fades as I get into this tedious construction and deconstruction.
Refer to previous post.
I'm really sorry, Guest4. I think the chatbox is way too small to actually convey accurately what anyone is trying to say.
STDs are diseases. STIs, infections.
To stop anyone from having sex because of the avoidable possibility of contracting an STD is like stopping your kid from riding the bicycle because he might get bruises.
Obviously STDs are much worse than a bruise. And losing your virginity is a much bigger step than your first bicycle ride. Though a bruise is actually more likely, provided people are more educated about sex.
The naturality (I'm making this term up) of STDs is irrelevant to whether you should have sex or not, because STDs are diseases, i.e. the consequences if you do it unhygienically/carelessly/recklessly and are avoidable/preventable. It's hard to illustrate this point because of the severity of STDs.
Let us contrast sex with smoking.
Smoking directly damages your lung. It's the act of smoking itself. It doesn't matter if you smoke carefully or safely, you're still damaging your lungs. Smoking by definition is harmful to the body.
Sex on the other hand, does not directly damage anything. The act of having sex does not automatically transmit STDs if you don't have one or if you're careful. There is no reputable health organisation that would make posters that would say sex=STDs. Instead they say unsafe sex leads to STDs.
*
From a philosophical view of whether STDs are natural or not, it's quite hard to answer. This section discusses STDs as a disease separately from sex.
A disease by definition is: an abnormal condition of an organism that impairs bodily functions and can be deadly.
So it's abnormal. Automatically we think this means unnatural.
But then do we think of the flu as unnatural? Do we think a fever is unnatural? Abnormal just means out of the norm, not necessarily unnatural.
Diseases are abnormal to the body but are natural in its conception. It's a product of nature. Cells mutate all the time. And from so many of these mutations we get cancer and HIV. But also from these mutations we get diversity. We don't look exactly like our parents because of gene mutation.
*
I can only spend a certain amount of time before I get bored writing an entry in my blog. I wonder why that is. The excitement just fades as I get into this tedious construction and deconstruction.
The Sex-Love Venn Diagram
Guest4: So you're saying it's natural if our kids got infected with STDs and we should simply accept that?
Guest4: Hahah.Right, sex education.Both sex and violence project a similar effect to the public
--------------
I was wondering if you intentionally missed the point in brackets:
"To be honest, I'd rather my children be having sex than killing people (when they're properly sexually educated and mature, of course)."
I'll take it out of the brackets, just to make it clearer:
"when they're properly sexually educated and mature, of course"
Having sex does not equal STDs. Making sweet love to your girlfriend/boyfriend/wife/husband/neighbour's wife or husband/Angelina Jolie does not automatically give you crabs/herpes/AIDS/hepatitis/celebrity status.
I've always supported safe, educated sex. Condoms, sex education, the likes.
You're assuming I let my (imaginary) kids run wild and have sex with anyone and everyone without protection and education. That's stupid. For you to assume that. And for me if I actually did that.
The problem is the lack of sex education. I know, you would've read this argument a million times. I really don't want to repeat anything. The basic thing is that without proper sex education people will practice unsafe sex and teenagers/youths/adults/oldies will have sex outside marriage with or without sexual education. Better safe than sorry (pun very much intended).
Marriage isn't actually a magic STD-blocker, by the way. Of course monogamy will reduce your chances of getting an STD, but then monogamy can apply outside marriage. This also assumes the one you're actually marrying is STD-free.
So marriage reduces the chance of contracting STD.
So does a piece of Durex rubber.
By a bigger margin.
Love versus Lust. That was a point brought up by Md. Yes, I do read the Chatbox. Yay.
Yes, inspite of my lack of faith in marriage (or perhaps because of it), I do personally relate sex with love. When I talk about love here, I mean romantic love. I don't mean platonic love or family love or brotherly love. That's a whole completely different venn diagram.
This is my personal venn diagram. That does that not mean that I fall in love or with anyone I lust for, neither do I confuse that lust with love. It's in fact the opposite. I lust for the one I fall in love with. The lusting comes after the falling in love. I do lust for people I don't love, but then other than in my own personal fantasy world (very few virgins, I prefer experience. Hahaha), I'm not planning or hoping to have sex with them any time soon. Example, in my fantasy world, I'd love to make sweet love with Angelina, but then in real life, fuck no. I don't love her in a romantic way, so in terms of reality, I don't therefore 'lust' for her.
That small exclusive to sex part is when I watched Angelina Jolie in 'Wanted' and 'Gia.'
Some might have it like this:
To them, sex is an almost or fully separate entity from love. And I totally understand this view.
This is also another view:
I just put that in for laughs. People who love p0rn sex but know nothing about love or actual sex (i.e. inconsiderate, selfish partners or horny, preteen virgins).
My attention tank just ran out.
Guest4: Hahah.Right, sex education.Both sex and violence project a similar effect to the public
--------------
I was wondering if you intentionally missed the point in brackets:
"To be honest, I'd rather my children be having sex than killing people (when they're properly sexually educated and mature, of course)."
I'll take it out of the brackets, just to make it clearer:
"when they're properly sexually educated and mature, of course"
Having sex does not equal STDs. Making sweet love to your girlfriend/boyfriend/wife/husband/neighbour's wife or husband/Angelina Jolie does not automatically give you crabs/herpes/AIDS/hepatitis/celebrity status.
I've always supported safe, educated sex. Condoms, sex education, the likes.
You're assuming I let my (imaginary) kids run wild and have sex with anyone and everyone without protection and education. That's stupid. For you to assume that. And for me if I actually did that.
The problem is the lack of sex education. I know, you would've read this argument a million times. I really don't want to repeat anything. The basic thing is that without proper sex education people will practice unsafe sex and teenagers/youths/adults/oldies will have sex outside marriage with or without sexual education. Better safe than sorry (pun very much intended).
Marriage isn't actually a magic STD-blocker, by the way. Of course monogamy will reduce your chances of getting an STD, but then monogamy can apply outside marriage. This also assumes the one you're actually marrying is STD-free.
So marriage reduces the chance of contracting STD.
So does a piece of Durex rubber.
By a bigger margin.
Love versus Lust. That was a point brought up by Md. Yes, I do read the Chatbox. Yay.
Yes, inspite of my lack of faith in marriage (or perhaps because of it), I do personally relate sex with love. When I talk about love here, I mean romantic love. I don't mean platonic love or family love or brotherly love. That's a whole completely different venn diagram.
This is my personal venn diagram. That does that not mean that I fall in love or with anyone I lust for, neither do I confuse that lust with love. It's in fact the opposite. I lust for the one I fall in love with. The lusting comes after the falling in love. I do lust for people I don't love, but then other than in my own personal fantasy world (very few virgins, I prefer experience. Hahaha), I'm not planning or hoping to have sex with them any time soon. Example, in my fantasy world, I'd love to make sweet love with Angelina, but then in real life, fuck no. I don't love her in a romantic way, so in terms of reality, I don't therefore 'lust' for her.That small exclusive to sex part is when I watched Angelina Jolie in 'Wanted' and 'Gia.'
Some might have it like this:
To them, sex is an almost or fully separate entity from love. And I totally understand this view.This is also another view:
I just put that in for laughs. People who love p0rn sex but know nothing about love or actual sex (i.e. inconsiderate, selfish partners or horny, preteen virgins).My attention tank just ran out.
Thursday 20 November 2008
Chocolate-Coated Marijuana
I'm going to talk about sex again, after I've left this topic alone for quite a while.
Really, it's to do with how out of perspective we are about the dangers of sex when compared to say, the dangers of violence. Here are two situations that are almost identical yet produce very different reactions:
A boy caught watching Titanic (yes, I know it's old):
A boy caught watching Rambo IV:
To be honest, I'd rather my children be having sex than killing people (when they're properly sexually educated and mature, of course). I'd rather have my kids influenced by something rather natural than something that is violent and insensitive to the concept of human life.
People mistrust sex. People mistrust something that they are told is wrong and yet feel so good. The thing is, sex is like chocolate. The more people say it's wrong, the more they want it. Coincidentally chocolate makes women release the same hormones that are produced during orgasm. Yes, I had to fit that fact in somewhere.
Violence is like marijuana. It's not socially acceptable to talk about it, never mind practice it. But then people gather around and have a go at it from time to time.
Funnily enough, people would rather be tagged as sexy than violent. Hahaha.
So yes, I'd rather my children eat chocolate than smoke pot.
Just something I had to say to clear my mind.
Really, it's to do with how out of perspective we are about the dangers of sex when compared to say, the dangers of violence. Here are two situations that are almost identical yet produce very different reactions:
A boy caught watching Titanic (yes, I know it's old):
A boy caught watching Rambo IV:
To be honest, I'd rather my children be having sex than killing people (when they're properly sexually educated and mature, of course). I'd rather have my kids influenced by something rather natural than something that is violent and insensitive to the concept of human life.People mistrust sex. People mistrust something that they are told is wrong and yet feel so good. The thing is, sex is like chocolate. The more people say it's wrong, the more they want it. Coincidentally chocolate makes women release the same hormones that are produced during orgasm. Yes, I had to fit that fact in somewhere.
Violence is like marijuana. It's not socially acceptable to talk about it, never mind practice it. But then people gather around and have a go at it from time to time.
Funnily enough, people would rather be tagged as sexy than violent. Hahaha.
So yes, I'd rather my children eat chocolate than smoke pot.
Just something I had to say to clear my mind.
Friday 14 November 2008
Obscene Amounts
I'm gonna post some links. Just further reading, until I update properly:
The Sultan has a world record number of Rolls-Royces.
Royals' Spending Habits
The Unpaid-for $8m Quran
Prince Jefri
Another article on Prince Jefri
Trying Economic Discipline in Brunei
How To Lose $30 Billion
Do request if you want some more.
The Sultan has a world record number of Rolls-Royces.
Royals' Spending Habits
The Unpaid-for $8m Quran
Prince Jefri
Another article on Prince Jefri
Trying Economic Discipline in Brunei
How To Lose $30 Billion
Do request if you want some more.
Saturday 8 November 2008
To Hire A Private Jet
Damn it. I'm fucking bored.
I've realised, that the link to the article on my blog has been e-mailed to some people. Yeah, it's obvious.
It's either people are promoting it, or people are pissed off about it. Either way, it's all good.
Hey, give it up for Guest4:
Guest4: Hmm, nice one. I would like to add that the government officials are taking advantages out of this
I need a clarification. What does this mean? It's so damn ambiguous. Advantages, as in, "yes, we are listening to you, oh Jason Biggs. You've got a point there," or "how dare you, Jason Biggs, we will fucking hunt you down like a rabid dog."
I sure hope it's not the second one. If it is, it just shows how close minded and unaccepting people are of criticism. It's all immediately categorised into one big, sweeping category, called S-L-A-N-D-E-R. Or treason. Or bullshit like that.
I'm not saying all the facts in there are true. But a lot in that article is. Most of us even know which. I mean, a few wrong facts shouldn't overshadow some of the more horrific, true points.
On a funnier note, that post attracted two spam comments. A bit annoying, but hey, unavoidable, I guess:
We shouldn't kill the messenger. Kill the message. Oh, that doesn't really work, does it? I'm a messenger. Some would say a messenger of hate and blasphemy. But others, a messenger of openness and constructive critical discussion. For those who haven't decided, well. I feel sorry for you.
I've realised, that the link to the article on my blog has been e-mailed to some people. Yeah, it's obvious.
It's either people are promoting it, or people are pissed off about it. Either way, it's all good.
Hey, give it up for Guest4:
Guest4: Hmm, nice one. I would like to add that the government officials are taking advantages out of this
I need a clarification. What does this mean? It's so damn ambiguous. Advantages, as in, "yes, we are listening to you, oh Jason Biggs. You've got a point there," or "how dare you, Jason Biggs, we will fucking hunt you down like a rabid dog."
I sure hope it's not the second one. If it is, it just shows how close minded and unaccepting people are of criticism. It's all immediately categorised into one big, sweeping category, called S-L-A-N-D-E-R. Or treason. Or bullshit like that.
I'm not saying all the facts in there are true. But a lot in that article is. Most of us even know which. I mean, a few wrong facts shouldn't overshadow some of the more horrific, true points.
On a funnier note, that post attracted two spam comments. A bit annoying, but hey, unavoidable, I guess:
We shouldn't kill the messenger. Kill the message. Oh, that doesn't really work, does it? I'm a messenger. Some would say a messenger of hate and blasphemy. But others, a messenger of openness and constructive critical discussion. For those who haven't decided, well. I feel sorry for you.
Wednesday 5 November 2008
A Royal Spree
Reading 'Giving My Two Cents Worth,' I disagree with Md with the Royals being free from scrutiny.
The truth is, their money is what the government gives them, and in a potentially catastrophic circle, the government is the Royals. I don't mind them spending some money here and there. But when it's becoming wasteful then they are essentially wasting the government's money. If it was from their own business I don't care.
In fact I don't care about their personal lives. I don't care if they're gay, if they're polygamous, or if they're all assholes. As long as the nation's money is not all wasted on Rolls Royces and Mariah Carey then what they do with their personal lives is up to them.
Yes, I think HM is a good ruler. I honestly do. But I don't think we'll be lucky next time. A lot of sources say our oil will run out very quickly, and most estimates put it at 50 years.
This is an article someone sent me via e-mail a few years back, and I checked the magazine (it's banned because it's an adult magazine) by asking a friend to bring it over, and yeah, it was there. A lot of it makes sense, and a lot of it is true. But to be put so harshly, or without bias, or without the "our Sultan is richer than yours" pride, it was eye-opening. After that I've researched a bit more, and this is not the only article chronicling the Royals' epic spendings.
--------------------------
Taken from: FHM (UK), December 2006, Issue 204, The Ultimate Edition, page 128-134
By: Christian Koch
IS THE PARTY OVER FOR THE KING OF BLING?
How do you blow £30 billion in less than 20 years? Ask the Sultan of Brunei: a wayward brother, a randy son and worryingly dry oil wells have shrunk his stash by 75%...
By all accounts, Hassanal Bolkiah was just your average pop music-loving student who was always up for a kick-around. It was 1964 and he made a point of mingling with his fellow classmates in his Singapore secondary school and even went on to enjoy a relatively anonymous stint at Britain’s exclusive military academy, Sandhurst. But then one day his ploddingly average life was turned upside down when his father called him back to his troubled homeland of Brunei. He was the heir to a £40 billion fortune and was charged with cleaning up a country in disarray. Just one problem: he was 21. At an age when most are contemplating gap years and sponging off their folks, he was set to become the world’s richest man.
Born Keebawah* Duli Yang Maha Mulia Paduka Seri Baginda Sultan Haji Hassanal Bolkiah (it goes on for another equally ridiculous 12 names so we’ll spare you) in 1946, Brunei’s 29th Sultan has always been known as the planet’s most extravagant ruler. He lives in a 1,700-room mansion and has squandered squillions on custom Rolls-Royces and gold-plated loo seats. He was the richest man in the world until Bill Gates came along and seems to be Islam’s official ambassador for parties.
Bolkiah inherited his title at a time when his country was making the transformation from puny British protectorate on the north coast of Borneo to one of the world’s richest nations. Oilfields were discovered in Brunei way back in the 1920s but it took a good 50 years before foreign investors made the Norfolk-sized nation ker-ching with oil dollars. The people of Brunei got rich and the Sultan and his Royal Family got even richer.
Beer might be banned in Brunei, and the only fodder served in the Bandar Seri Begawan branch of McDonalds’s are Muslim-friendly egg sandwiches, but compared to other Southeast Asian countries, life in Brunei is pretty cushy. The Sultan’s biggest fault could well be his generosity. Education and health care are free, there’s no income tax and 94% of the population can read or write. The Sultan has built them a £1 billion Disneyland-gone-daft theme park and he coughs up for every citizen to make pilgrimages to Mecca. If you’re a Bruneian bright young thing, he’ll even pay for you to study abroad. Best of all, every July 15, the Sultan gives every citizen a free present to celebrate his birthday – this year it was a pay rise.
Citizens of Brunei do pay a price for their leader’s share-the-wealth policy – there are no elections, political parties or a free press – but such details are readily overlooked by happy constituents. Earlier this year, he even managed to change the constitution to declare, “His Majesty the Sultan can do no wrong in either his personal or any official capacity”.
BOY’S TOYS
While Brunei and its politics remain relatively anonymous to the rest of the world, the opulence of its leader has given him surprising notoriety over the years. He gave his daughter an Airbus 340 painted in her favourite colours for her 18th birthday, while he himself whizzes around in two Boeing 747-300s, both kitted out in enough glittery stuff to give P Diddy bling blindness. But the Sultan’s real soft spot is for cars. The petrol-headed billionaire is one of Rolls-Royce’s best customers, splurging on 50 limos every year, often with bespoke engines, which he’s named the “Sultan’s Special”. During the 1990s his family accounted for almost half of all Rolls-Royce purchases in the world, and his 200-strong stockpile is so huge, it takes an entire team of mechanics from the UK to service them. His collection was augmented last January, when he bought 12 Phantoms for £5 million each, with each one boasting bulletproof glass, body armour and widescreen TVs. And just to let everyone know who’s boss, he tootles around town with a number plate bearing the title “K1 NGS”.
Have a look around the Sultan’s garage and hidden among his 5,000 strong hoard, which includes a Porsche 959 (only 200 ever made) and 300 Aston Martins, you’ll find such motoring rarities as the Ferrari Mythos concept car of which only a few were ever made, as well as the world’s only right-hand drive Mercedes-Benz CLK-GTR Le Mans. The Sultan also owns one car for every Formula 1 World Champion since the 1980 season.
And then there’s the palace: Istana Nurul Iman is a gold-domed shrine to grandiosity, boasting a gargantuan 1,788 rooms, five swimming pools, air-conditioned stables for his 200 polo ponies and a £37 million painting by Renoir. Fifty-one thousand light bulbs power 567 chandeliers. Meanwhile, his Kensington pad here in the UK is rumoured to have two silver tissue dispensers that cost £250,000 a pop.
Whenever the monarch leaves the country, he takes a 500-strong army of butlers, cooks and playmates with him. He’s known to hire entire floors of hotels, and he often doesn’t venture downstairs until check-out day. He’s also visited by fashion-houses such as Versace and Armani, who set out their entire stock in front of him. “If he liked one particular suit,” remembers one Armani aide, “he’d buy 100 at a clip, all in the same colour. I could outfit entire countries with the clothing bought by the family.”
BROTHERS IN ARMS
The only curious blip in the Sultan of Brunei’s fantastically over-the-top lifestyle was his unwillingness to capitalise on his right to four wives, as dictated by Bruneian Islamic law. Every good Sultan should have a Harem, but rubbishly, Hassanal Bolkiah’s wife-turnover is relatively rare. He got hitched to his first cousin, Saleha, in 1967, then made space for his triple bed for a stewardess from his own airline in 1981. Divorcing her three years ago, he set eyes upon a 26-year-old Malaysian TV presenter while on a state visit, became glued to her channel and finally made the diva an offer she couldn’t refuse by getting spliced to her in August last year.
News of the palace’s revolving door of global beauties continued to make headlines nonetheless – thanks to the reckless lady-chasing of his brother, Prince Jefri, which would later cast serious doubts on the stability of Brunei’s Royal Family. Such was playboy Jefri’s fondness for the female form, he christened his own 152ft yacht the SS Tits, and named its two speedboats Nipple I and Nipple II. He was known to pack agents off around the world to cherry-pick models, who he’d then jet into Brunei to “entertain” him and his cronies. Ex-Playboy model Rebecca Ferratti spent two months in the Sultan’s pleasure palace in the 1990s and loved her lobster-and-champers lifestyle. “If a girl becomes a favourite at the palace she can easily come back with more than £2 million after just one year,” she said. “And she could probably make another £1 million selling all the jewellery she is given. There was no way I was going to have sex, and Prince Jefri never touched me. Any girl in LA would have jumped at the chance to go – you get tons of money and are treated like a princess.”
Then the inevitable happened. In 1998 he was sued for £47 million by former Miss USA, Shannon Marketic, who claimed that she and six other women were held captive in the Sultan’ palace for use as sex slaves for over a month. A US District Judge eventually found that the Sultan’s status as a head of state entitled his brother to “sovereign immunity” and the case was thrown out.
During his tenure as Brunei’s finance minister, Jefri had managed to embezzle £8 billion. He used this to purchase 30 mansions around the world, a jewellery collection (including a £210 million diamond) and a battalion of cars, leading the Brunei Investment Agency into bankruptcy. This, along with accusations of masterminding high-class prostitution rings, resulted in a severe falling out with his older brother. The Sultan sued him in 2000 and boldly banished him from Brunei for five years, forcing him to live on a paltry £30,000 a month. But more problems were brewing even closer to home.
The Sultan’s son, a 24-year-old Prince Azim, shows every sign in following in his uncle’s spendthrifty
footsteps. Last August he stunned Mariah Carey by flying a £3 million diamond necklace via private jet to her gig in New York. But it was Prince Azim himself who had his sights set on a pop career and was quoted as saying “I can sing (Everything I Do) I Do It For You better than Bryan Adams and would love a career in music. Sadly, I don’t have the face to be a singer – I’m 21, but people always think I’m 14.” Latter, in a bid to catch the eye of Sienna Miller, he picked up her £14,000 bar tab after a big night out at a London nightclub.
LAST ORDERS
Amid public spats with his looting sibling and trying to keep an eye on a boyband wannabe son who’s keen to live the high life, the Sultan has also been beleaguered with financial problems of his own. Geologists are predicting that by the time the Sultan’s 70th birthday comes around 2016, Brunei’s oil and gas reserves (which accounts for 93% of national exports) will be nearing an end. Moreover, having frittered away £30 billion in the last 20 years, the coffers of the ex-richest bloke in the world are now thought to be running dry. It is believed the Sultan is living on a quarter of the wealth he once enjoyed.
Stroll around Brunei these days and you’ll find the ostentatious hotels he built are empty and half the rides at the Jerudong theme park are shut. Most recently, the Sultan even faces a lawsuit over his refusal to pay a weding gift (a 400-year old handwritten Koran in a bejewelled box, valued over £5 million) for his second wife.
Could the Sultan be taking financial advice from his pal Michael Jackson and gliding towards bankruptcy? With oil reserves running out quicker than booze at a Charlotte Church party, it mighn’t be long before the Sultan’s gilded palaces are melted down to make crown fillinfs and Brunei is forced to revert back to the malaria-ridden tropical cesspit it once was. If you were ever planning a visit, now’s the time to do it.
The legacy now rests in the hands of the Sultan’s heir, Crown Prince Al-Muhtadee. The product of first cousins, the Prince is regarded to be a bit dimwitted, with Jefri’s old advisors claiming he’s so doofus-like he “can’t walk and chew gum at the same time”. He’s also plagued by diabetes, poor eyesight and, you guessed it, sex allegations – a Slovenian woman accused the Prince of cajoling her to have sex with him after meeting on the internet in 2003. Brunei may be on the verge of financial collapse but, with him in charge, at least life in the tiny Southeast Asian kingdom will never be dull.
THE FIVE MOST RIDICULOUS SPENDS
1.The Sultan is known to leave £20,000 tips while touring around the world.
2.His brother bought the Beverley Hotels for £100 million and lost a further £70 million on duff property deals.
3.Not content with a single necklace, Prince Jefri bought an entire Bond Street jewellery shop for £200 million – he was its best customer anyway.
4.The Sultan’s London home is said to have £250,000 tissue-holders.
5.He once paid Michael Jackson £10 million to play at his 50th birthday party.
--------------------------
There's a lot here.
I doubt every one of you will trust the source. But before you dismiss it as "poisonous western media propaganda," do think. Before it's too late.
The truth is, their money is what the government gives them, and in a potentially catastrophic circle, the government is the Royals. I don't mind them spending some money here and there. But when it's becoming wasteful then they are essentially wasting the government's money. If it was from their own business I don't care.
In fact I don't care about their personal lives. I don't care if they're gay, if they're polygamous, or if they're all assholes. As long as the nation's money is not all wasted on Rolls Royces and Mariah Carey then what they do with their personal lives is up to them.
Yes, I think HM is a good ruler. I honestly do. But I don't think we'll be lucky next time. A lot of sources say our oil will run out very quickly, and most estimates put it at 50 years.
This is an article someone sent me via e-mail a few years back, and I checked the magazine (it's banned because it's an adult magazine) by asking a friend to bring it over, and yeah, it was there. A lot of it makes sense, and a lot of it is true. But to be put so harshly, or without bias, or without the "our Sultan is richer than yours" pride, it was eye-opening. After that I've researched a bit more, and this is not the only article chronicling the Royals' epic spendings.
--------------------------
Taken from: FHM (UK), December 2006, Issue 204, The Ultimate Edition, page 128-134
By: Christian Koch
IS THE PARTY OVER FOR THE KING OF BLING?
How do you blow £30 billion in less than 20 years? Ask the Sultan of Brunei: a wayward brother, a randy son and worryingly dry oil wells have shrunk his stash by 75%...
By all accounts, Hassanal Bolkiah was just your average pop music-loving student who was always up for a kick-around. It was 1964 and he made a point of mingling with his fellow classmates in his Singapore secondary school and even went on to enjoy a relatively anonymous stint at Britain’s exclusive military academy, Sandhurst. But then one day his ploddingly average life was turned upside down when his father called him back to his troubled homeland of Brunei. He was the heir to a £40 billion fortune and was charged with cleaning up a country in disarray. Just one problem: he was 21. At an age when most are contemplating gap years and sponging off their folks, he was set to become the world’s richest man.
Born Keebawah* Duli Yang Maha Mulia Paduka Seri Baginda Sultan Haji Hassanal Bolkiah (it goes on for another equally ridiculous 12 names so we’ll spare you) in 1946, Brunei’s 29th Sultan has always been known as the planet’s most extravagant ruler. He lives in a 1,700-room mansion and has squandered squillions on custom Rolls-Royces and gold-plated loo seats. He was the richest man in the world until Bill Gates came along and seems to be Islam’s official ambassador for parties.
Bolkiah inherited his title at a time when his country was making the transformation from puny British protectorate on the north coast of Borneo to one of the world’s richest nations. Oilfields were discovered in Brunei way back in the 1920s but it took a good 50 years before foreign investors made the Norfolk-sized nation ker-ching with oil dollars. The people of Brunei got rich and the Sultan and his Royal Family got even richer.
Beer might be banned in Brunei, and the only fodder served in the Bandar Seri Begawan branch of McDonalds’s are Muslim-friendly egg sandwiches, but compared to other Southeast Asian countries, life in Brunei is pretty cushy. The Sultan’s biggest fault could well be his generosity. Education and health care are free, there’s no income tax and 94% of the population can read or write. The Sultan has built them a £1 billion Disneyland-gone-daft theme park and he coughs up for every citizen to make pilgrimages to Mecca. If you’re a Bruneian bright young thing, he’ll even pay for you to study abroad. Best of all, every July 15, the Sultan gives every citizen a free present to celebrate his birthday – this year it was a pay rise.
Citizens of Brunei do pay a price for their leader’s share-the-wealth policy – there are no elections, political parties or a free press – but such details are readily overlooked by happy constituents. Earlier this year, he even managed to change the constitution to declare, “His Majesty the Sultan can do no wrong in either his personal or any official capacity”.
BOY’S TOYS
While Brunei and its politics remain relatively anonymous to the rest of the world, the opulence of its leader has given him surprising notoriety over the years. He gave his daughter an Airbus 340 painted in her favourite colours for her 18th birthday, while he himself whizzes around in two Boeing 747-300s, both kitted out in enough glittery stuff to give P Diddy bling blindness. But the Sultan’s real soft spot is for cars. The petrol-headed billionaire is one of Rolls-Royce’s best customers, splurging on 50 limos every year, often with bespoke engines, which he’s named the “Sultan’s Special”. During the 1990s his family accounted for almost half of all Rolls-Royce purchases in the world, and his 200-strong stockpile is so huge, it takes an entire team of mechanics from the UK to service them. His collection was augmented last January, when he bought 12 Phantoms for £5 million each, with each one boasting bulletproof glass, body armour and widescreen TVs. And just to let everyone know who’s boss, he tootles around town with a number plate bearing the title “K1 NGS”.
Have a look around the Sultan’s garage and hidden among his 5,000 strong hoard, which includes a Porsche 959 (only 200 ever made) and 300 Aston Martins, you’ll find such motoring rarities as the Ferrari Mythos concept car of which only a few were ever made, as well as the world’s only right-hand drive Mercedes-Benz CLK-GTR Le Mans. The Sultan also owns one car for every Formula 1 World Champion since the 1980 season.
And then there’s the palace: Istana Nurul Iman is a gold-domed shrine to grandiosity, boasting a gargantuan 1,788 rooms, five swimming pools, air-conditioned stables for his 200 polo ponies and a £37 million painting by Renoir. Fifty-one thousand light bulbs power 567 chandeliers. Meanwhile, his Kensington pad here in the UK is rumoured to have two silver tissue dispensers that cost £250,000 a pop.
Whenever the monarch leaves the country, he takes a 500-strong army of butlers, cooks and playmates with him. He’s known to hire entire floors of hotels, and he often doesn’t venture downstairs until check-out day. He’s also visited by fashion-houses such as Versace and Armani, who set out their entire stock in front of him. “If he liked one particular suit,” remembers one Armani aide, “he’d buy 100 at a clip, all in the same colour. I could outfit entire countries with the clothing bought by the family.”
BROTHERS IN ARMS
The only curious blip in the Sultan of Brunei’s fantastically over-the-top lifestyle was his unwillingness to capitalise on his right to four wives, as dictated by Bruneian Islamic law. Every good Sultan should have a Harem, but rubbishly, Hassanal Bolkiah’s wife-turnover is relatively rare. He got hitched to his first cousin, Saleha, in 1967, then made space for his triple bed for a stewardess from his own airline in 1981. Divorcing her three years ago, he set eyes upon a 26-year-old Malaysian TV presenter while on a state visit, became glued to her channel and finally made the diva an offer she couldn’t refuse by getting spliced to her in August last year.
News of the palace’s revolving door of global beauties continued to make headlines nonetheless – thanks to the reckless lady-chasing of his brother, Prince Jefri, which would later cast serious doubts on the stability of Brunei’s Royal Family. Such was playboy Jefri’s fondness for the female form, he christened his own 152ft yacht the SS Tits, and named its two speedboats Nipple I and Nipple II. He was known to pack agents off around the world to cherry-pick models, who he’d then jet into Brunei to “entertain” him and his cronies. Ex-Playboy model Rebecca Ferratti spent two months in the Sultan’s pleasure palace in the 1990s and loved her lobster-and-champers lifestyle. “If a girl becomes a favourite at the palace she can easily come back with more than £2 million after just one year,” she said. “And she could probably make another £1 million selling all the jewellery she is given. There was no way I was going to have sex, and Prince Jefri never touched me. Any girl in LA would have jumped at the chance to go – you get tons of money and are treated like a princess.”
Then the inevitable happened. In 1998 he was sued for £47 million by former Miss USA, Shannon Marketic, who claimed that she and six other women were held captive in the Sultan’ palace for use as sex slaves for over a month. A US District Judge eventually found that the Sultan’s status as a head of state entitled his brother to “sovereign immunity” and the case was thrown out.
During his tenure as Brunei’s finance minister, Jefri had managed to embezzle £8 billion. He used this to purchase 30 mansions around the world, a jewellery collection (including a £210 million diamond) and a battalion of cars, leading the Brunei Investment Agency into bankruptcy. This, along with accusations of masterminding high-class prostitution rings, resulted in a severe falling out with his older brother. The Sultan sued him in 2000 and boldly banished him from Brunei for five years, forcing him to live on a paltry £30,000 a month. But more problems were brewing even closer to home.
The Sultan’s son, a 24-year-old Prince Azim, shows every sign in following in his uncle’s spendthrifty
footsteps. Last August he stunned Mariah Carey by flying a £3 million diamond necklace via private jet to her gig in New York. But it was Prince Azim himself who had his sights set on a pop career and was quoted as saying “I can sing (Everything I Do) I Do It For You better than Bryan Adams and would love a career in music. Sadly, I don’t have the face to be a singer – I’m 21, but people always think I’m 14.” Latter, in a bid to catch the eye of Sienna Miller, he picked up her £14,000 bar tab after a big night out at a London nightclub.
LAST ORDERS
Amid public spats with his looting sibling and trying to keep an eye on a boyband wannabe son who’s keen to live the high life, the Sultan has also been beleaguered with financial problems of his own. Geologists are predicting that by the time the Sultan’s 70th birthday comes around 2016, Brunei’s oil and gas reserves (which accounts for 93% of national exports) will be nearing an end. Moreover, having frittered away £30 billion in the last 20 years, the coffers of the ex-richest bloke in the world are now thought to be running dry. It is believed the Sultan is living on a quarter of the wealth he once enjoyed.
Stroll around Brunei these days and you’ll find the ostentatious hotels he built are empty and half the rides at the Jerudong theme park are shut. Most recently, the Sultan even faces a lawsuit over his refusal to pay a weding gift (a 400-year old handwritten Koran in a bejewelled box, valued over £5 million) for his second wife.
Could the Sultan be taking financial advice from his pal Michael Jackson and gliding towards bankruptcy? With oil reserves running out quicker than booze at a Charlotte Church party, it mighn’t be long before the Sultan’s gilded palaces are melted down to make crown fillinfs and Brunei is forced to revert back to the malaria-ridden tropical cesspit it once was. If you were ever planning a visit, now’s the time to do it.
The legacy now rests in the hands of the Sultan’s heir, Crown Prince Al-Muhtadee. The product of first cousins, the Prince is regarded to be a bit dimwitted, with Jefri’s old advisors claiming he’s so doofus-like he “can’t walk and chew gum at the same time”. He’s also plagued by diabetes, poor eyesight and, you guessed it, sex allegations – a Slovenian woman accused the Prince of cajoling her to have sex with him after meeting on the internet in 2003. Brunei may be on the verge of financial collapse but, with him in charge, at least life in the tiny Southeast Asian kingdom will never be dull.
THE FIVE MOST RIDICULOUS SPENDS
1.The Sultan is known to leave £20,000 tips while touring around the world.
2.His brother bought the Beverley Hotels for £100 million and lost a further £70 million on duff property deals.
3.Not content with a single necklace, Prince Jefri bought an entire Bond Street jewellery shop for £200 million – he was its best customer anyway.
4.The Sultan’s London home is said to have £250,000 tissue-holders.
5.He once paid Michael Jackson £10 million to play at his 50th birthday party.
--------------------------
There's a lot here.
I doubt every one of you will trust the source. But before you dismiss it as "poisonous western media propaganda," do think. Before it's too late.
Thursday 23 October 2008
Poisonous Western Media Propaganda
Don't you notice, that any really big news about the royal family that doesn't involve either a wedding or a surprise visit to a primary school never, ever turns up on the local newspapers? Oh, you've more than noticed. Either that, or you treat Pelita Brunei as the be-all end-all source of news, with Borneo Bulletin just a minor source for comic relief. Garfield, anyone? I don't like the new strip. I can't remember what it's called. The name escapes me. Of course everyone likes Garfield, the inoffensive, obese, lethargic cat who hates Mondays and dogs, much like the typical Bruneian. Obviously if you treat PB as the encyclopedia of all knowledge (which I know most of you don't), you won't be reading this at all.It's freedom of speech we're talking about here. It's censorship. It's journalistic censorship.
I know that for a lot of people, the royals are untouchable. To be honest, I don't think they should be. They should be subject to scrutiny as much as everyone else, if not more. I mean, if one of the princes decides to have a massive party with generous amounts of alcohol and the Pussycat Dolls dancing gleefully somewhere (just an example, people. Hahaha), then I think I should be able to say something against that openly without fear of a KDN official jumping out of the bushes with a potato sack and a horse tranquiliser.
I know people do talk a lot about these things, but only through word of mouth. It's never in writing. Maybe people have complained. Maybe people have written. But there's no evidence of it. They're never gonna publish a letter saying that though our princes have a tendency to be madly in love with celebrities, that doesn't mean millions should be spent for the expression of that particular sentiment. I mean, I'm in love with Angelina Jolie myself (girlfriend's not here... safe), but I don't go out of my way to send her a diamond-studded baby from a third-world country.
I wanna watch Beowulf all over again. Thanks for reminding me. Virtual Angie nakedness. The next best thing to the real thing.
Monday 20 October 2008
A Weak Update
I have to admit, I am sometimes perplexed at some of the replies I got. Some of them don't make sense, some of them are pretentious. Some of them are way off the point. A minority covers those three pillars. I'm not gonna say who.
I know, the activity in this blog is waning day by day, and it's mostly my fault. I used to update once every couple of days, at least. Now it's once a week. As I have recently discovered, I also have a life to live. My real life, not being Jason Biggs.
It's weird nobody pointed out who the real Jason Biggs is. It's the actor from American Pie. Yeah, that's the one. I don't know why I chose a virgin high-school loser to be my pseudonym. Maybe I relate to that somehow. Hahahahaha.
I need to find back that anger, that surge of rebelliousness, recklessness yet in no way thoughtless.
I need an injection of revolution into my veins, then I'll be up and running.
I will return. For real.
I know, the activity in this blog is waning day by day, and it's mostly my fault. I used to update once every couple of days, at least. Now it's once a week. As I have recently discovered, I also have a life to live. My real life, not being Jason Biggs.
It's weird nobody pointed out who the real Jason Biggs is. It's the actor from American Pie. Yeah, that's the one. I don't know why I chose a virgin high-school loser to be my pseudonym. Maybe I relate to that somehow. Hahahahaha.
I need to find back that anger, that surge of rebelliousness, recklessness yet in no way thoughtless.
I need an injection of revolution into my veins, then I'll be up and running.
I will return. For real.
Friday 10 October 2008
Oblivious Beings
Fuck it, it's not right. The oblivious overrides the obvious. The ignorant collaborates with the arrogant. The state of the state was and is in dire need for change. Revolution and evolution are the vehicles for change. The revolution of ideas and the evolution of ethics. And vice versa. The ageing wolves are in it for the long haul, they will not let go that easily. They will do everything in their power to keep the status quo, which favours them.
The preachers preach of righteousness and morality, yet in the same message they preach an embracing of hate, prejudice, oppression and intolerance. The poisonous propaganda is ingrained, and the effects are long-lasting. It's in the blood and flows through your brains and hearts. It becomes a part of your subconscious. You accept the message of hate, prejudice, oppression and intolerance because it is diluted with ideas of hope, purpose and luxury.
Apathy and complacency become obedience and submission. Ignoramuses.
The search for answers should not end at the first answer we get, because when it comes to questions that matter, it is not enough. Questions are more important than answers. False answers make for false epiphanies. False epiphanies lead to unalterable fallacies, embedded into a society reluctant to change the status quo. Questions on the other hand, can never be false. Irrelevant, maybe. But never false.
We are the generation that can initiate change. As more of us become better educated than our forefathers, then we will see beyond our comfort zone and dare to question the status quo.
The preachers preach of righteousness and morality, yet in the same message they preach an embracing of hate, prejudice, oppression and intolerance. The poisonous propaganda is ingrained, and the effects are long-lasting. It's in the blood and flows through your brains and hearts. It becomes a part of your subconscious. You accept the message of hate, prejudice, oppression and intolerance because it is diluted with ideas of hope, purpose and luxury.
Apathy and complacency become obedience and submission. Ignoramuses.
The search for answers should not end at the first answer we get, because when it comes to questions that matter, it is not enough. Questions are more important than answers. False answers make for false epiphanies. False epiphanies lead to unalterable fallacies, embedded into a society reluctant to change the status quo. Questions on the other hand, can never be false. Irrelevant, maybe. But never false.
We are the generation that can initiate change. As more of us become better educated than our forefathers, then we will see beyond our comfort zone and dare to question the status quo.
Thursday 9 October 2008
The Optimistic Nihilist
When I say I'm an optimistic nihilist, I didn't think it'd be a hard idea to grasp. But when I think about it now, I can see why people do get confused.
When I say life is meaningless, that doesn't mean I don't have a purpose in life, or that I'm constantly on suicide watch. What I mean here is that the meaning of life is only asked by us because we exist and we are intelligent enough to acknowledge we exist. To me any any kind of life was never meant for anything. We exist only because we exist. Nothing else. It's the product of millions of years of evolution. If we didn't evolve into the thinking beings we are, we would never contemplate the purposes of our own existence.
Again, I'm a non-believer in God, so I don't believe that we were created, less so that we were created with a purpose. In Islam that purpose is to serve under God. If that is indeed our purpose, I think that's infinitely more depressing than having no pre-set purpose in the first place. I'm a person who holds close to his heart the phrase 'carpe diem.'
I do have thoughts for the future, but most of my life is concentrated in the here and now. And most of us is like that, but to a different degree.
When I say I'm an optimist, it's because I do approach life cheerfully and do believe that for happiness to come you don't need a specific pre-set purpose that was set for you before you even existed. I don't believe in the question 'what is the meaning of life?' because with all the time you spend trying to find an answer, you've missed just living your life.
I love my life. I know a few nihilists, and some of them would rather not exist. Me, well. I don't think I mind either way. It's not really a choice, is it? Unless you think suicide is a choice.
It is, sort of. For people who feel too powerless to control anything, they must feel their own mortality are the only things they are left in control with. Which is why I find it extremely harsh that anyone would condemn someone who committed suicide to hell. The concept of heaven and hell is a very black and white process when it comes to suicide (and with a lot of other things). Kill yourself, you go straight to hell.
What kind of god would condemn a vulnerable, helpless human to hell for eternity? We know better than to ostracise any suicidal person. I mean, a vulnerable, depressed and unstable person is hardly the ideal candidate for eternal torture. This God, if He put himself in human form and spoke about suicide in that harsh manner, He would be considered insensitive at the least. Ironically it would make him a Darwinist. The weak and helpless are thrown into hell without any chance for parole. The surreally virtuous and sinless go straight to heaven. If you're inbetween, you go to hell for a few million years, then you can go to heaven, albeit naked and marked.
It took me another week to update. I think that'll be the normal interval from now for updates.
When I say life is meaningless, that doesn't mean I don't have a purpose in life, or that I'm constantly on suicide watch. What I mean here is that the meaning of life is only asked by us because we exist and we are intelligent enough to acknowledge we exist. To me any any kind of life was never meant for anything. We exist only because we exist. Nothing else. It's the product of millions of years of evolution. If we didn't evolve into the thinking beings we are, we would never contemplate the purposes of our own existence.
Again, I'm a non-believer in God, so I don't believe that we were created, less so that we were created with a purpose. In Islam that purpose is to serve under God. If that is indeed our purpose, I think that's infinitely more depressing than having no pre-set purpose in the first place. I'm a person who holds close to his heart the phrase 'carpe diem.'
I do have thoughts for the future, but most of my life is concentrated in the here and now. And most of us is like that, but to a different degree.
When I say I'm an optimist, it's because I do approach life cheerfully and do believe that for happiness to come you don't need a specific pre-set purpose that was set for you before you even existed. I don't believe in the question 'what is the meaning of life?' because with all the time you spend trying to find an answer, you've missed just living your life.
I love my life. I know a few nihilists, and some of them would rather not exist. Me, well. I don't think I mind either way. It's not really a choice, is it? Unless you think suicide is a choice.
It is, sort of. For people who feel too powerless to control anything, they must feel their own mortality are the only things they are left in control with. Which is why I find it extremely harsh that anyone would condemn someone who committed suicide to hell. The concept of heaven and hell is a very black and white process when it comes to suicide (and with a lot of other things). Kill yourself, you go straight to hell.
What kind of god would condemn a vulnerable, helpless human to hell for eternity? We know better than to ostracise any suicidal person. I mean, a vulnerable, depressed and unstable person is hardly the ideal candidate for eternal torture. This God, if He put himself in human form and spoke about suicide in that harsh manner, He would be considered insensitive at the least. Ironically it would make him a Darwinist. The weak and helpless are thrown into hell without any chance for parole. The surreally virtuous and sinless go straight to heaven. If you're inbetween, you go to hell for a few million years, then you can go to heaven, albeit naked and marked.
It took me another week to update. I think that'll be the normal interval from now for updates.
Friday 3 October 2008
Road Trip To Fill The Void
Hey guys (and girls. And hermaphrodites). I'm back.
I apologise for the indefinite, unplanned hiatus that I had to take. It was unforeseen, necessary and now, it's all over. So. After about two weeks of no posts, here I am. I checked my jasonbiggskills e-mail account and in those two weeks I get a meager 6 e-mails, all but one from Gabrielle Moore, a sex specialist (it's spam, unfortunately, but she's got good tips), and the other from cBox asking me if I want to upgrade to premium. Hell no. I'm thinking of opening a Facebook account for Jason Biggs. Who thinks it's a good idea? I'm not sure what it would achiece, but hey, I think it'd be nice.
I've mellowed down a bit in the last two weeks, so right now I don't feel like talking about anything in particular. Sorry to disappoint you. I'll discuss about something soon though. I promise.
Oh. What about Raya?
I quite like the whole thing. I mean, sure, we go completely over the top when it comes to Raya, but it's still fun. A road trip to KB with friends to meet friends. You can not not like a road trip. Albeit in our case a very short one.
I mean, it's become a thing of culture, Raya. It's not really religious anymore. It's more of a national ceremony. You spend a thousand on new sofas, hundreds on green packets of ang pow, a hundred thousand on a new Mercedes, three hundred thousand for your wife's breast enlargement surgery, a thousand for two extra maids just for the month, and four thousand on a new television. Obviously this is an exaggeration, but hey, the whole Raya thing is an exaggeration anyway.
You know what freaks me out? Kids going to strangers' houses for money. I mean, sure, it looks innocent. And most of the time, it is. But in these paranoid times, surely some people would think that there might just be a paedophile or two drooling at such opportunities. I wonder if there are any paedophiles in Brunei. There must be. I mean, seriously, when we were kids, some of us would've met the uncle who likes being with children just a bit too much and can be a bit touchy. Most of the time we ignore it and dismiss it as nothing but a playful pinch or pat on the stomach. Sure, not all of these uncles are paedophiles, but hey, we got to be careful.
I don't have a specific agenda here. It's like a stream-of-consciousness thing. I might've got the term wrong. I'm just writing what comes into my head right now. So I apologise if it comes out as nonsense.
I'll try harder next time. I'm just filling a void.
I apologise for the indefinite, unplanned hiatus that I had to take. It was unforeseen, necessary and now, it's all over. So. After about two weeks of no posts, here I am. I checked my jasonbiggskills e-mail account and in those two weeks I get a meager 6 e-mails, all but one from Gabrielle Moore, a sex specialist (it's spam, unfortunately, but she's got good tips), and the other from cBox asking me if I want to upgrade to premium. Hell no. I'm thinking of opening a Facebook account for Jason Biggs. Who thinks it's a good idea? I'm not sure what it would achiece, but hey, I think it'd be nice.
I've mellowed down a bit in the last two weeks, so right now I don't feel like talking about anything in particular. Sorry to disappoint you. I'll discuss about something soon though. I promise.
Oh. What about Raya?
I quite like the whole thing. I mean, sure, we go completely over the top when it comes to Raya, but it's still fun. A road trip to KB with friends to meet friends. You can not not like a road trip. Albeit in our case a very short one.
I mean, it's become a thing of culture, Raya. It's not really religious anymore. It's more of a national ceremony. You spend a thousand on new sofas, hundreds on green packets of ang pow, a hundred thousand on a new Mercedes, three hundred thousand for your wife's breast enlargement surgery, a thousand for two extra maids just for the month, and four thousand on a new television. Obviously this is an exaggeration, but hey, the whole Raya thing is an exaggeration anyway.
You know what freaks me out? Kids going to strangers' houses for money. I mean, sure, it looks innocent. And most of the time, it is. But in these paranoid times, surely some people would think that there might just be a paedophile or two drooling at such opportunities. I wonder if there are any paedophiles in Brunei. There must be. I mean, seriously, when we were kids, some of us would've met the uncle who likes being with children just a bit too much and can be a bit touchy. Most of the time we ignore it and dismiss it as nothing but a playful pinch or pat on the stomach. Sure, not all of these uncles are paedophiles, but hey, we got to be careful.
I don't have a specific agenda here. It's like a stream-of-consciousness thing. I might've got the term wrong. I'm just writing what comes into my head right now. So I apologise if it comes out as nonsense.
I'll try harder next time. I'm just filling a void.
Thursday 18 September 2008
Sex, Drugs & Religion
-
bantal said... My guess is you're
- non-muslim to begin with
- a Brunei ethnic minority
- secretly gay
- with ego the size of Australia
interesting combination.
Yeah take a break, go get a facial.- -------------------
- non-muslim to begin with
: Well, both my parents are religious, but were not super strict zealots. I was brought up in a Muslim community. I went through the six-year compulsory Ugama education that most Bruneian muslims went through.
He must've skipped the lessons and gone smoking in the girls' toilet, while doing syabu. (I was actually a good boy. Attended all my classes, and never took to drugs.)
- a Brunei ethnic minority
I'm Malay. I go to over-the-top weddings and eat Ambuyat, which I actually like. I have a slightly Kedayan accent, which narrows the list down for you people wanting to hunt me down. C'mon.
An atheist that likes Ambuyat?!! That's got to be fucking impossible! This guy hates Brunei (I don't hate Brunei by the way) and he's fucking eating our favourite food!?
- secretly gay
I wish. Hahaha. I'm a guy, who has a girlfriend, and I think the sex is very hetero. I have thought about that. If I was indeed gay. But I still enjoy normal, full-frontal sex. So I doubt I'm gay. But hey, I may just be bi. Who knows. Safe sex for everyone.
SEX??? Jason Biggs is talking about sex??!!! Noooo. Taboo! Bad JB.
- with the ego the size of Australia
I have an ego. I don't doubt that at all. Though Australia is an exaggeration. Maybe a small nation, like the Vatican City. Thought that'd be ironic, wouldn't it? Maybe just the size of Jong Batu. That would fit it, in a twisted sort of way.
Fucking right you are, you traitor!!
And funnily enough, I was thinking of doing a facial. Everyone's going metrosexual now. Anyone know a good place to do a facial for men?
---------------
Enough of my self-indulgent, self-deprecating answers to Bantal's deductions. And no, the red commentary isn't aimed at Bantal. It's just merely for my pleasure.
I've noticed that Blabness and Md have been talking about animal rights, and coincidentally it's a topic I feel quite strongly about.
I'll discuss this soon.
Wednesday 17 September 2008
Reason: I'm Back
As I said, I was taking a break. And it's been about 5 days since I last posted.
There's a thing called Pascal's Wager. Basically this is the argument. It's better to be a believer than an atheist because if you're a believer and you're right, you go to heaven. If you're wrong, you don't lose anything. If you're an atheist and you're right, when you die you don't get anything. However if you're wrong, you're going to hell. Seems convincing, but this argument has some major flaws.
This argument assumes that the God you believe in, and the religion you adhere to is the right one out of the hundreds of religions out there. When you realise how many 'gods' and religions are out there being worshipped, then you see how improbable it is for your religion to be the correct one.
The other argument assumes that God (or Goddess), if you've somehow managed to choose the right one, be it Yahweh, Allah, Jesus Christ, The Mighty Eagle Ukhtar, Gaia, Ganesh, Buddha, The Invisible Pink Unicorn, The Flying Spaghetti Monster, Nkosi Yezulu, Shangdi, Brahman, Ahura Mazda, Deus, Zeus, Ra, Thor or Nike, prefers blind faith to reason. I don't think a God that puts reason, intellect and curiosity into humanity would then make these features irrelevant and force humankind to blindly believe in him without any reasoning.
If there was a God that was intelligent, understanding and reasonable, then I would think He/She would prefer a reasoning mankind. So I don't think a reasoning God would punish His/Her creations for doubting His/Her own existence. I mean, why would an omnipotent, omniscient being be pissed about some insignificant person not believing in its existence? Self-esteem problems, maybe?
If God was to exist, I think he would prefer the reasoning intellect of an atheist than the blind faith of some blithering idiot (this is an extreme. I'm not saying all religious people are blithering idiots) who never question anything and follows every single command to its exact wording.
So if your God is the type to damn people to hell forever for not believing in him, it wouldn't be much different to a dictator who sends people to prison for not agreeing with his views.
By the way, on Md's point about reason. I have something I want to say about that. And yes, it concerns God. So all you sensitive religious types, you might wanna just fix your gaze at this photo and count to ten, and then go away:
Okay, about reason.
Okay, about reason.There's a thing called Pascal's Wager. Basically this is the argument. It's better to be a believer than an atheist because if you're a believer and you're right, you go to heaven. If you're wrong, you don't lose anything. If you're an atheist and you're right, when you die you don't get anything. However if you're wrong, you're going to hell. Seems convincing, but this argument has some major flaws.
This argument assumes that the God you believe in, and the religion you adhere to is the right one out of the hundreds of religions out there. When you realise how many 'gods' and religions are out there being worshipped, then you see how improbable it is for your religion to be the correct one.
The other argument assumes that God (or Goddess), if you've somehow managed to choose the right one, be it Yahweh, Allah, Jesus Christ, The Mighty Eagle Ukhtar, Gaia, Ganesh, Buddha, The Invisible Pink Unicorn, The Flying Spaghetti Monster, Nkosi Yezulu, Shangdi, Brahman, Ahura Mazda, Deus, Zeus, Ra, Thor or Nike, prefers blind faith to reason. I don't think a God that puts reason, intellect and curiosity into humanity would then make these features irrelevant and force humankind to blindly believe in him without any reasoning.
If there was a God that was intelligent, understanding and reasonable, then I would think He/She would prefer a reasoning mankind. So I don't think a reasoning God would punish His/Her creations for doubting His/Her own existence. I mean, why would an omnipotent, omniscient being be pissed about some insignificant person not believing in its existence? Self-esteem problems, maybe?
If God was to exist, I think he would prefer the reasoning intellect of an atheist than the blind faith of some blithering idiot (this is an extreme. I'm not saying all religious people are blithering idiots) who never question anything and follows every single command to its exact wording.
So if your God is the type to damn people to hell forever for not believing in him, it wouldn't be much different to a dictator who sends people to prison for not agreeing with his views.
Saturday 13 September 2008
Taking A Break
I'll be taking a break for a few days, I think. Things have come up, and I'll be extremely busy. If I have time to update, I will. But I doubt it.
After I've started this blog, the reaction so far, has been somewhat predictable. But I didn't realise it would spread like wildfire. It's got so much attention from other bloggers. I think I've managed to make people talk and think. And I'm proud of that.
There's a few things that still leaves a bad taste in the mouth though.
A friend of mine remarked on the mediocrity of arguments made by some of the readers. Or rather the absence of any actual valid points in their arguments. I also was aggrieved that some people didn't bother to read my blog properly before deciding what kind of person I am or how they should approach my arguments.
But then as time went on, those mediocre, pointless, inept threat-makers disappeared slowly (though there are still a minority) and the type of Bruneians that I hoped is the majority, slowly came forth. These are the people who aren't afraid to argue their points articulately. These are people who know where I was coming from, even though they didn't necessarily agree with me. These are the people who can think for themselves, whatever they believe or don't believe in.
I'll be back, fairly soon.
I've just realised I've got a life to live.
After I've started this blog, the reaction so far, has been somewhat predictable. But I didn't realise it would spread like wildfire. It's got so much attention from other bloggers. I think I've managed to make people talk and think. And I'm proud of that.
There's a few things that still leaves a bad taste in the mouth though.
A friend of mine remarked on the mediocrity of arguments made by some of the readers. Or rather the absence of any actual valid points in their arguments. I also was aggrieved that some people didn't bother to read my blog properly before deciding what kind of person I am or how they should approach my arguments.
But then as time went on, those mediocre, pointless, inept threat-makers disappeared slowly (though there are still a minority) and the type of Bruneians that I hoped is the majority, slowly came forth. These are the people who aren't afraid to argue their points articulately. These are people who know where I was coming from, even though they didn't necessarily agree with me. These are the people who can think for themselves, whatever they believe or don't believe in.
I'll be back, fairly soon.
I've just realised I've got a life to live.
Thursday 11 September 2008
Racism II
bantalburuk, it's not the point that no offence was intended. The point is, the term is offensive in itself. Try calling a black man "orang hitam." See what reaction you get. Calling a white man white has never been offensive. Try calling a black man "nigger," and try to argue that you didn't intend for it to be offensive. I bet if you say that in Harlem or Hackney, you'd get into a lot of unwanted trouble.
Trial, here I've only listed racial problems concerning derogatory terms and prejudice. I haven't even begun to explore systematic racial discrimination. I didn't say Bruneians have an agenda to degrade non-Malays. What I'm saying is that in some people the racism is more deep-rooted, and sometimes even subsconscious. It may be not as bad as Malaysia, whose government system favours Malays much more than the other ethnicities.
And if you only hear people even use the word 'kedai kaling,' then I guess I must know more racist people than you, sadly. Even the term 'kedai kaling' is still offensive. Yes, 'a little racism is still racism.'
Yes, most of the racism in Brunei is verbal. But then that shows that racism is indeed a trait in some. If we let it be and don't do anything about it, then this racism will evolve into something worse. Physical, systematical abuse even. It'd be extreme to say we'll have a Malay KKK. I don't think it'll come to that. But it can come to the point where someone can be - say - overlooked for a promotion because he's not Malay. I know, it's not as bad as some countries. But it's still bad.
And the difference is in UK, even though a minority do that, it's a shocking thing for them. When they hear someone is being abused racially, there's a national outcry. People condemn it publicly. It's unacceptable. A few years back in the news, someone said the word 'nigger' on live television in the UK. It caused nationwide condemnation. A teacher says racist things to a student, and it will get on the news.
In Brunei, such things don't even get a mention. If someone in a group is being racist, the most typical reaction will be to dismiss it as funny or intended to be inoffensive. Any racism is in nature offensive.
CORRECTION FOR GHAZ:
After a bit of researching, I found the word ghaz in the time of the Quran was written did not refer to gas. Ghaz was derived from the word gas. It was an arabicised word. The word gas itself came from a Dutch (?) scientist.
I am sensible enough to point out when one fact is wrong.
Don't celebrate yet though. I've still got the other ones right:
[1] the fact that earth and smoke (or heavens) was never together at the beginning, since Earth existed only millions of years after the Big Bang. Even earth to mean soil is inaccurate, because there were no rocks, no ground. Not even matter.
[2] the abundant use of that imagery even before the Quran was written. The Quran could've gotten this imagery from a variety of sources
[3] the wrong assumption that there are only two entities, the earth and the universe
Trial, here I've only listed racial problems concerning derogatory terms and prejudice. I haven't even begun to explore systematic racial discrimination. I didn't say Bruneians have an agenda to degrade non-Malays. What I'm saying is that in some people the racism is more deep-rooted, and sometimes even subsconscious. It may be not as bad as Malaysia, whose government system favours Malays much more than the other ethnicities.
And if you only hear people even use the word 'kedai kaling,' then I guess I must know more racist people than you, sadly. Even the term 'kedai kaling' is still offensive. Yes, 'a little racism is still racism.'
Yes, most of the racism in Brunei is verbal. But then that shows that racism is indeed a trait in some. If we let it be and don't do anything about it, then this racism will evolve into something worse. Physical, systematical abuse even. It'd be extreme to say we'll have a Malay KKK. I don't think it'll come to that. But it can come to the point where someone can be - say - overlooked for a promotion because he's not Malay. I know, it's not as bad as some countries. But it's still bad.
And the difference is in UK, even though a minority do that, it's a shocking thing for them. When they hear someone is being abused racially, there's a national outcry. People condemn it publicly. It's unacceptable. A few years back in the news, someone said the word 'nigger' on live television in the UK. It caused nationwide condemnation. A teacher says racist things to a student, and it will get on the news.
In Brunei, such things don't even get a mention. If someone in a group is being racist, the most typical reaction will be to dismiss it as funny or intended to be inoffensive. Any racism is in nature offensive.
CORRECTION FOR GHAZ:
After a bit of researching, I found the word ghaz in the time of the Quran was written did not refer to gas. Ghaz was derived from the word gas. It was an arabicised word. The word gas itself came from a Dutch (?) scientist.
I am sensible enough to point out when one fact is wrong.
Don't celebrate yet though. I've still got the other ones right:
[1] the fact that earth and smoke (or heavens) was never together at the beginning, since Earth existed only millions of years after the Big Bang. Even earth to mean soil is inaccurate, because there were no rocks, no ground. Not even matter.
[2] the abundant use of that imagery even before the Quran was written. The Quran could've gotten this imagery from a variety of sources
[3] the wrong assumption that there are only two entities, the earth and the universe
Double Topic: Discussion & Racism
Okay. myreligiousislam thinks by going to MORA officers will give me the answer I'm looking for. The truth is, in fact, I have talked to them. I didn't go directly to the MORA, but I know some of them personally. And I did talk to them for quite a bit. I mentioned that in the cBox.
And for the most part, I found it to be quite unsatisfying. Many of the arguments I've read and discussed before. A few even cursed at me. No one's actually come up with anything new. myreligionislam and guest1 (there are so many guests. Haha. I think all the guests should find pseudonyms so it's less confusing) argues I should find better informed officers.
So when is this cycle going to end? I didn't find the answer because I didn't try hard enough? It's a very convenient thing to say. It's like me saying that you didn't become an atheist because you didn't try hard enough at talking with the atheists who really know their stuff. Compared to them, I'm merely just trying to catch up. But then even so, I still argue my points, and I believe I've argued very well.
I don't blindly put my faith in the reasoning in scientists blindly thinking that because they know the answer, I don't need to know the answer. It's not like that. I'm not blinded by faith. I need to find out for myself. I need to understand for myself.
I constantly read about religion, the different religions, their histories, their claims for truth, their discrepancies, and the effect they have on the people believing these religions. I'm bothered to actually research what I'm talking about. I also read about other topics that interests me even in the slightest bit, be it economics, linguistics, psychology, physics, chemistry, existentialism or sociology. I don't claim to be an expert in any of these things. But that's the point. That's why I'm reading up on them. That's why I discuss things.
Md is right. I'm here to discuss things. To debate. To have an intellectual discussion.
Oh, by the way, the experiment some of you are talking about. Incidentally the experiment is starting today, or more correctly, yesterday 9th September. It's the Large Hadron Collider in Switzerland, being conducted by CERN. It's an attempt to understand the universe by attempting to recreate the Big Bang.
And I don't agree with people who want to stop anything that is said to recreate 'God's supposed ways.' To me, this basically reads like "Don't do it, because we're afraid it will prove even people are capable of doing what we believe God did." So this outcry for the people at CERN to stop what they're doing is basically an attempt to oppress doubt and questioning, rather than anything else.
COMPLETELY DIFFERENT TOPIC: RACISM
Yes, some people have requested I talk about this. And I have, to an extent.
Some time in the last couple of months, there was news of a Malay teacher being sued for making racially insulting comments to Indian students. This was in Malaysia. The Malay teacher blamed Indians for stealing jobs, and for the decline of the importance of Malays in the economic sector, and horribly called the students "black monkeys".
Here is an article on it:
http://news.aol.com/story/_a/indian-students-sue-malaysian-teacher/n20080814040309990017
Now the sensible thing to do was to fire the teacher, so that it is made clear that racial intolerance is not tolerable within society. But what do they do?
The Ministry transferred the teacher to a smart school, located closer to her home. So for being racist she actually got a better job. Which is not as ludicrous as the government's explanation for the transfer. They stated that it was for security concerns on behalf of the teacher, not because she committed an offence. No further disciplinary actions were taken.
Mahathir was known to be very anti-Semitic. And it is obvious the economic and social laws in Malaysia favoured Bumiputras, who in definition are the Malaysian Malays.
Why am I talking about Malaysia instead of Brunei? Because it's close to home.
A lot of Bruneian Malays have very racist views on anything not Malay.
For instance, the word 'kaling.' This is a very disgustingly derogatory term to describe Indians. It is similar to when a white guy describes a black person as a 'nigger.' It is simply unacceptable. The fact that its etymological history shows it to be not an offensive word by meaning, when it is used to describe an entire race or nationality, it becomes a very offensive word.
Let me refer back to the word 'nigger.' This originally came from the word 'negro' - which sadly some Bruneians still use to describe a black person - which was a Spanish/Portuguese word for 'black.' Now the word is not offensive on its own. But after it has been used as a collective word for black people, the word carries on a negative, racist tone.
This is similar to 'kaling.' The word 'kaling,' a variation of 'keling' frequently used in Malaysia and Singapore, originated from the word 'Kalinga,' referring to the Kalinga kingdom. In those days, it was not used in a derogatory tone. But just like the word 'nigger,' the word 'kaling' obtained a racist tone to it as time went on.
Most people argue that they don't know about it, that's why they use it. The thing is, ignorance is not an excuse. Especially not these days. Most Bruneians know its racial connotations anyway. But they then argue it's all in the intentions, and they feel they don't intend for it to be racist. This is really just being severely insensitive. For an Indian person to hear the word 'kaling,' it's very offending to him, no matter how pure the intentions.
Bruneians also view Indians as low-lifes. The ones who do the dirty work. The ones who clean the toilets and serve the murtabak. For a Bruneian, to be called an Indian feels like an insult. In a football game I attended in the national stadium several years back, one of the linesmen was an Indian. A Sikh to be exact. Now whenever the audience felt they were being wronged (the Bruneians are famed for their feeling of being persecuted in football), they shouted racially horrific things. These are some of the more milder ones:
"balik semula jual murtabak tah ko eh"
"oh kaling. buta kah? Buka tah serban ah. Bebau kari kah rambut atu?"
Now racism in Brunei isn't just limited to Indians. Malays also direct their racism towards the Chinese. The phrases 'cinababi' and 'cinabota' are sadly some of the derogatory terms being used by Malays behind their backs (or even in front) to describe the Chinese.
Racism is even pointed between Malays themselves. I'm talking of course about the Indonesians. Bruneians consistently regard the Indonesians as thieving, deceptive, low-lifes deserving only to clean dishes and drive their cars. If there is something missing in the house, the first suspect will be the Indonesian maid. This is partly fuelled by the Bruneians' regarding Indonesia as a supernatural haven, after watching so many of those Indonesian horror films. They accuse maids of putting curses on them. Cheating husbands conveniently use this excuse as an escape clause, saying that the maids used voodoo to seduce them.
Radio DJs and TV personalities often mock Indonesians and Indians by putting on fake Indonesian and Indian accents to evoke laughter. That's really just in bad taste and further racial degradation.
A lot of this comes also from an insecurity, a fear of loss of one's racial identity and religion. They are insecure and afraid that if they accept the Chinese, Indians and other foreigners with open arms, then they will lose what makes them Malay. The truth is, racial identity is an evolving concept. Things will change, inevitably. Some parts of our racial identity will be lost, regardless of whether other races integrate themselves into the Bruneian society or not. But the core of it will not.
Another reason is that the Malays fear that the other races are better in many respects. They stereotype the Chinese as amazing at business or mathematics, and being insecure of their own abilities, they subconsciously - some even willingly - hate the Chinese for being better. Malays are also so used to seeing Indians in restaurants serving murtabak and on the streets cutting grass, that when they see the potential - some of this potential has already been realised - of Bruneian Indians to flourish, they want to limit the Indians' opportunities, and dismiss them as nothing other than cooks and grasscutters. They are afraid the status quo will change. This also applies to Indonesians, Filipinos and other nationalities, especially those from Southeast Asian countries.
Any of you sociologists or anthropologists care to either correct me, add any information, please do so. I'm not totally familiar with any racial discrimination in the government itself. I don't want to make assumptions. I will dig up, read up and discuss this in the near future.
If you've got any personal experiences with racism in Brunei that you'd like to share, please feel free to comment.
And for the most part, I found it to be quite unsatisfying. Many of the arguments I've read and discussed before. A few even cursed at me. No one's actually come up with anything new. myreligionislam and guest1 (there are so many guests. Haha. I think all the guests should find pseudonyms so it's less confusing) argues I should find better informed officers.
So when is this cycle going to end? I didn't find the answer because I didn't try hard enough? It's a very convenient thing to say. It's like me saying that you didn't become an atheist because you didn't try hard enough at talking with the atheists who really know their stuff. Compared to them, I'm merely just trying to catch up. But then even so, I still argue my points, and I believe I've argued very well.
I don't blindly put my faith in the reasoning in scientists blindly thinking that because they know the answer, I don't need to know the answer. It's not like that. I'm not blinded by faith. I need to find out for myself. I need to understand for myself.
I constantly read about religion, the different religions, their histories, their claims for truth, their discrepancies, and the effect they have on the people believing these religions. I'm bothered to actually research what I'm talking about. I also read about other topics that interests me even in the slightest bit, be it economics, linguistics, psychology, physics, chemistry, existentialism or sociology. I don't claim to be an expert in any of these things. But that's the point. That's why I'm reading up on them. That's why I discuss things.
Md is right. I'm here to discuss things. To debate. To have an intellectual discussion.
Oh, by the way, the experiment some of you are talking about. Incidentally the experiment is starting today, or more correctly, yesterday 9th September. It's the Large Hadron Collider in Switzerland, being conducted by CERN. It's an attempt to understand the universe by attempting to recreate the Big Bang.
And I don't agree with people who want to stop anything that is said to recreate 'God's supposed ways.' To me, this basically reads like "Don't do it, because we're afraid it will prove even people are capable of doing what we believe God did." So this outcry for the people at CERN to stop what they're doing is basically an attempt to oppress doubt and questioning, rather than anything else.
COMPLETELY DIFFERENT TOPIC: RACISM
Yes, some people have requested I talk about this. And I have, to an extent.
Some time in the last couple of months, there was news of a Malay teacher being sued for making racially insulting comments to Indian students. This was in Malaysia. The Malay teacher blamed Indians for stealing jobs, and for the decline of the importance of Malays in the economic sector, and horribly called the students "black monkeys".
Here is an article on it:
http://news.aol.com/story/_a/indian-students-sue-malaysian-teacher/n20080814040309990017
Now the sensible thing to do was to fire the teacher, so that it is made clear that racial intolerance is not tolerable within society. But what do they do?
The Ministry transferred the teacher to a smart school, located closer to her home. So for being racist she actually got a better job. Which is not as ludicrous as the government's explanation for the transfer. They stated that it was for security concerns on behalf of the teacher, not because she committed an offence. No further disciplinary actions were taken.
Mahathir was known to be very anti-Semitic. And it is obvious the economic and social laws in Malaysia favoured Bumiputras, who in definition are the Malaysian Malays.
Why am I talking about Malaysia instead of Brunei? Because it's close to home.
A lot of Bruneian Malays have very racist views on anything not Malay.
For instance, the word 'kaling.' This is a very disgustingly derogatory term to describe Indians. It is similar to when a white guy describes a black person as a 'nigger.' It is simply unacceptable. The fact that its etymological history shows it to be not an offensive word by meaning, when it is used to describe an entire race or nationality, it becomes a very offensive word.
Let me refer back to the word 'nigger.' This originally came from the word 'negro' - which sadly some Bruneians still use to describe a black person - which was a Spanish/Portuguese word for 'black.' Now the word is not offensive on its own. But after it has been used as a collective word for black people, the word carries on a negative, racist tone.
This is similar to 'kaling.' The word 'kaling,' a variation of 'keling' frequently used in Malaysia and Singapore, originated from the word 'Kalinga,' referring to the Kalinga kingdom. In those days, it was not used in a derogatory tone. But just like the word 'nigger,' the word 'kaling' obtained a racist tone to it as time went on.
Most people argue that they don't know about it, that's why they use it. The thing is, ignorance is not an excuse. Especially not these days. Most Bruneians know its racial connotations anyway. But they then argue it's all in the intentions, and they feel they don't intend for it to be racist. This is really just being severely insensitive. For an Indian person to hear the word 'kaling,' it's very offending to him, no matter how pure the intentions.
Bruneians also view Indians as low-lifes. The ones who do the dirty work. The ones who clean the toilets and serve the murtabak. For a Bruneian, to be called an Indian feels like an insult. In a football game I attended in the national stadium several years back, one of the linesmen was an Indian. A Sikh to be exact. Now whenever the audience felt they were being wronged (the Bruneians are famed for their feeling of being persecuted in football), they shouted racially horrific things. These are some of the more milder ones:
"balik semula jual murtabak tah ko eh"
"oh kaling. buta kah? Buka tah serban ah. Bebau kari kah rambut atu?"
Now racism in Brunei isn't just limited to Indians. Malays also direct their racism towards the Chinese. The phrases 'cinababi' and 'cinabota' are sadly some of the derogatory terms being used by Malays behind their backs (or even in front) to describe the Chinese.
Racism is even pointed between Malays themselves. I'm talking of course about the Indonesians. Bruneians consistently regard the Indonesians as thieving, deceptive, low-lifes deserving only to clean dishes and drive their cars. If there is something missing in the house, the first suspect will be the Indonesian maid. This is partly fuelled by the Bruneians' regarding Indonesia as a supernatural haven, after watching so many of those Indonesian horror films. They accuse maids of putting curses on them. Cheating husbands conveniently use this excuse as an escape clause, saying that the maids used voodoo to seduce them.
Radio DJs and TV personalities often mock Indonesians and Indians by putting on fake Indonesian and Indian accents to evoke laughter. That's really just in bad taste and further racial degradation.
A lot of this comes also from an insecurity, a fear of loss of one's racial identity and religion. They are insecure and afraid that if they accept the Chinese, Indians and other foreigners with open arms, then they will lose what makes them Malay. The truth is, racial identity is an evolving concept. Things will change, inevitably. Some parts of our racial identity will be lost, regardless of whether other races integrate themselves into the Bruneian society or not. But the core of it will not.
Another reason is that the Malays fear that the other races are better in many respects. They stereotype the Chinese as amazing at business or mathematics, and being insecure of their own abilities, they subconsciously - some even willingly - hate the Chinese for being better. Malays are also so used to seeing Indians in restaurants serving murtabak and on the streets cutting grass, that when they see the potential - some of this potential has already been realised - of Bruneian Indians to flourish, they want to limit the Indians' opportunities, and dismiss them as nothing other than cooks and grasscutters. They are afraid the status quo will change. This also applies to Indonesians, Filipinos and other nationalities, especially those from Southeast Asian countries.
Any of you sociologists or anthropologists care to either correct me, add any information, please do so. I'm not totally familiar with any racial discrimination in the government itself. I don't want to make assumptions. I will dig up, read up and discuss this in the near future.
If you've got any personal experiences with racism in Brunei that you'd like to share, please feel free to comment.
Wednesday 10 September 2008
I'm Going To Hell, And I'm Taking My TV With Me
Do you really think saying that I'll go to hell would change my mind? Do you think that's gonna affect my reasoning? I don't even believe in hell to begin with. I mean, try and listen to a Christian evangelist telling you you're all going to hell because you don't love Jesus. Would you change your mind and convert to Christianity at that very moment? I doubt it. Because just by threatening me with your visions of hell, you sound much like the Christian evangelist.
And you say I'm not fully informed about the Quran? I studied the Quran. In fact, because of my skepticism, I studied it and tried to understand it more than actual Muslims. And I gave the translation on thet entry word for word, using the translator's own words (who is a devout Muslim). Heck, I even know a little Arabic, though not enough to actually translate it by myself. Admittedly, I'm not a Quran scholar, but I'm certain the one who presented the verse on the cBox certainly wasn't either.
And I'm not twisting it. I'm revealing the actual Muslims themselves who twisted the meaning of the Quran so they could claim the Big Bang Theory was in the Quran. Tell me exactly what I've twisted, and what relevant information have I left out.
I don't really see what I could've possibly twisted. In fact, I didn't even portray the Quran negatively (though I would've liked to). All I was saying is that it's not the Big Bang Theory that's in the Quran. Just simply that. The Quran didn't even make that claim. A Muslim with no real knowledge of physics, astronomy and the Big Bang theory attempted to.
And yes, Md is right. For god's sake (literally), defend yourself. Don't stumble and stutter stuff like "oooh, stop criticising us. Stop talking about our beliefs. It's not right. You're going to hell." If you think I'm wrong, tell me why you think I'm fucking wrong. Don't just tell me and not give me a proper reason. So far it's a bit like this.
"I think Islam is like this because of this"
"You're wrong."
"Why am I wrong?"
"Well, you just are. And you're going to hell."
"Can you at least tell me why I'm wrong?"
"Urm... You shouldn't question things. That's how they are. You are wrong. And you're going to hell."
"You said that before."
"You're wrong."
"Oh, okay. Whatever you say. I'm totally convinced by your argument. I will now perform the five prayers, and fast this month. Thank you for the enlightenment."
You hear the sarcasm there? You see how unlikely a non-believer would change his mind just because you told him he was wrong without actually telling him why?
Defend yourself. I'm giving you a chance here. Take it.
And besides, why can't I talk satirically? It's a critical device. It's pointing out what's wrong, in a more entertaining way. At least to me. And I'm sure some others, even believers, would be too.
Guset, I'm saying everything should be discussed. Religion, law of the country. And I haven't even talked about the law of the country yet. I guess if you think the two are mutual, I guess you're partly right. In fact, law of the country should be discussed more. I've just thought of that. Any lawyers or would-be-lawyers interested to take the challenge?
And you think I only follow my animal instincts? That's the most laughable statement I've heard all that. Well, right behind when you said I'm going to hell.
I'm actually reasoning here. I'm justifying why I don't believe in religion. I'm making my point, why I don't believe in Islam, why I say what I say. I'm actually being rational. The complete opposite of acting on pure animal instinct.
You, Guset, on the other hand, has immediately accused me of deception and personally threatening me with hell. You've acted on your instinct to damn any person who doesn't agree with your beliefs and try to dissect them accordingly.
There's a few who gets what I'm trying to say. I'm criticising religion, and I still believe in what I believe (or rather, I still don't believe in what I don't believe) but at the same time, I want to see Bruneians standing up for what they believe in. I want them to intellectually converse in a civilised manner (yes, satire is most welcome, but not meaningless insults), and make their point articulately.
Blabness is right. If you only resort to 'puny threats and lame arguments,' it's really quite hard to for people to take you seriously.
And you say I'm not fully informed about the Quran? I studied the Quran. In fact, because of my skepticism, I studied it and tried to understand it more than actual Muslims. And I gave the translation on thet entry word for word, using the translator's own words (who is a devout Muslim). Heck, I even know a little Arabic, though not enough to actually translate it by myself. Admittedly, I'm not a Quran scholar, but I'm certain the one who presented the verse on the cBox certainly wasn't either.
And I'm not twisting it. I'm revealing the actual Muslims themselves who twisted the meaning of the Quran so they could claim the Big Bang Theory was in the Quran. Tell me exactly what I've twisted, and what relevant information have I left out.
I don't really see what I could've possibly twisted. In fact, I didn't even portray the Quran negatively (though I would've liked to). All I was saying is that it's not the Big Bang Theory that's in the Quran. Just simply that. The Quran didn't even make that claim. A Muslim with no real knowledge of physics, astronomy and the Big Bang theory attempted to.
And yes, Md is right. For god's sake (literally), defend yourself. Don't stumble and stutter stuff like "oooh, stop criticising us. Stop talking about our beliefs. It's not right. You're going to hell." If you think I'm wrong, tell me why you think I'm fucking wrong. Don't just tell me and not give me a proper reason. So far it's a bit like this.
"I think Islam is like this because of this"
"You're wrong."
"Why am I wrong?"
"Well, you just are. And you're going to hell."
"Can you at least tell me why I'm wrong?"
"Urm... You shouldn't question things. That's how they are. You are wrong. And you're going to hell."
"You said that before."
"You're wrong."
"Oh, okay. Whatever you say. I'm totally convinced by your argument. I will now perform the five prayers, and fast this month. Thank you for the enlightenment."
You hear the sarcasm there? You see how unlikely a non-believer would change his mind just because you told him he was wrong without actually telling him why?
Defend yourself. I'm giving you a chance here. Take it.
And besides, why can't I talk satirically? It's a critical device. It's pointing out what's wrong, in a more entertaining way. At least to me. And I'm sure some others, even believers, would be too.
Guset, I'm saying everything should be discussed. Religion, law of the country. And I haven't even talked about the law of the country yet. I guess if you think the two are mutual, I guess you're partly right. In fact, law of the country should be discussed more. I've just thought of that. Any lawyers or would-be-lawyers interested to take the challenge?
And you think I only follow my animal instincts? That's the most laughable statement I've heard all that. Well, right behind when you said I'm going to hell.
I'm actually reasoning here. I'm justifying why I don't believe in religion. I'm making my point, why I don't believe in Islam, why I say what I say. I'm actually being rational. The complete opposite of acting on pure animal instinct.
You, Guset, on the other hand, has immediately accused me of deception and personally threatening me with hell. You've acted on your instinct to damn any person who doesn't agree with your beliefs and try to dissect them accordingly.
There's a few who gets what I'm trying to say. I'm criticising religion, and I still believe in what I believe (or rather, I still don't believe in what I don't believe) but at the same time, I want to see Bruneians standing up for what they believe in. I want them to intellectually converse in a civilised manner (yes, satire is most welcome, but not meaningless insults), and make their point articulately.
Blabness is right. If you only resort to 'puny threats and lame arguments,' it's really quite hard to for people to take you seriously.
Power Of Suggestion
------------
Guest1214: surah Al-Anbiya,ayat 21..big bang is already mentioned in the Al-Quran 1400 years ago
------------
Okay, let's look at this for a moment. Let's actually analyse this statement. And then analyse the Ayat this was taken from:
Here is the actual verse, from Surah Al-Anbiya, Ayat 31. By the way the Quran I'm using is translated by Abdullah Yusuf Ali, if you're interested, by Saba Islamic Media. So I'm taking this translation from an Islamic scholar, not from another atheist, or biased source. This is what the translation says.
Oh, and Guest1214, check your sources. It's Ayat 31, not Ayat 21. Ayat 21 says "Or have they taken (for worship) gods from the earth who can raise (the dead)?" I seriously doubt that raising anyone from the dead has anything to do with the Big Bang Theory, so I'm assuming you meant Ayat 31.
To make it easier, I'll put the translation here for you:
"Do not the Unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were joined together (as one unit of creation), before We clove them asunder? We made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe?"
And just to be nice, I'll stick another Ayat (Surah Fussilat, Ayat 11) concerning creation:
Here's the translation:
"Moreover He comprehended in His design the sky as it has been (as) smoke: He said to it and to the earth: "Come ye together, willingly or unwillingly." They said: "We do come (together), in willing obedience."
There's a lot of problems with this attempt to link the Quran with the Big Bang Theory.
Heavens in one unit with the Earth? That's simply not the Big Bang Theory. To imply that Earth, or even earth (i.e. soil) existed combined with the heavens (which Muslims interpret as gases), is untrue because in the beginning there is no soil, simply because there are no matter in the beginning. And Earth is only one small part of the Universe. This verse is implying that there is only Earth, and the Heavens, hence disregarding the future existence of other stars and planets.
Earth was never one part with the heavens or the universe. It came millions of years after the creation of the universe.
And making every living thing from water? This contradicts with the Quran's claim that man are made out of clay (or mud, or soil, whichever verse you choose to read).
To suggest that smoke, of all things, was the foundation of all things, is wrong. Smoke is itself matter, made up of particles and atoms. And the use of the word 'dukhan' (meaning smoke) is a very inaccurate way of describing gas. To the casual reader or muslim, smoke is indiscernible from gas, but really, smoke is the suspension of solid particles propelled by hot air, and therefore not gas at all. If the Quran were to be really accurate, it would use the more accurate word, 'ghaz.' Smoke implies the presence of carbon, yet the founding particles were hydrogen and helium.
And besides, to discuss the thing more carefully, the imagery of one single unit being separated to create a universe is so common, it's really unoriginal for the Quran to be using that imagery.
Sumerians believed the two founding gods, An and Ki, symbolised heaven and earth.
The Egyptians believed that Heaven and Earth, or Nut (the Sky goddess) and Geb (the Earth god), was forced to be separated by the sun god, Ra.
These two civilisations existed thousands of years before Islam.
The thing about life coming from water is also unoriginal. Water has been the source of life for people since, well, the beginning. So it is reasonable to think that people would appreciate water as an ingredient for life. The Greeks especially thought life came from water. Aristotle and Anaximander thought so. Well, I think not really Aristotle, but he remarked that it was the popular belief at the time.
And there's the power of suggestion. People see what they want to see, and over-enthusiastic Muslims eager to associate themselves with Science, and hence overall acknowledgment of their religion, see the Big Bang Theory in what on closer inspection is really just vague, unoriginal accounts of what happened.
Guest1214: surah Al-Anbiya,ayat 21..big bang is already mentioned in the Al-Quran 1400 years ago
------------
Okay, let's look at this for a moment. Let's actually analyse this statement. And then analyse the Ayat this was taken from:
Here is the actual verse, from Surah Al-Anbiya, Ayat 31. By the way the Quran I'm using is translated by Abdullah Yusuf Ali, if you're interested, by Saba Islamic Media. So I'm taking this translation from an Islamic scholar, not from another atheist, or biased source. This is what the translation says.
Oh, and Guest1214, check your sources. It's Ayat 31, not Ayat 21. Ayat 21 says "Or have they taken (for worship) gods from the earth who can raise (the dead)?" I seriously doubt that raising anyone from the dead has anything to do with the Big Bang Theory, so I'm assuming you meant Ayat 31.To make it easier, I'll put the translation here for you:
"Do not the Unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were joined together (as one unit of creation), before We clove them asunder? We made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe?"
And just to be nice, I'll stick another Ayat (Surah Fussilat, Ayat 11) concerning creation:
Here's the translation:
"Moreover He comprehended in His design the sky as it has been (as) smoke: He said to it and to the earth: "Come ye together, willingly or unwillingly." They said: "We do come (together), in willing obedience."
There's a lot of problems with this attempt to link the Quran with the Big Bang Theory.
Heavens in one unit with the Earth? That's simply not the Big Bang Theory. To imply that Earth, or even earth (i.e. soil) existed combined with the heavens (which Muslims interpret as gases), is untrue because in the beginning there is no soil, simply because there are no matter in the beginning. And Earth is only one small part of the Universe. This verse is implying that there is only Earth, and the Heavens, hence disregarding the future existence of other stars and planets.
Earth was never one part with the heavens or the universe. It came millions of years after the creation of the universe.
And making every living thing from water? This contradicts with the Quran's claim that man are made out of clay (or mud, or soil, whichever verse you choose to read).
To suggest that smoke, of all things, was the foundation of all things, is wrong. Smoke is itself matter, made up of particles and atoms. And the use of the word 'dukhan' (meaning smoke) is a very inaccurate way of describing gas. To the casual reader or muslim, smoke is indiscernible from gas, but really, smoke is the suspension of solid particles propelled by hot air, and therefore not gas at all. If the Quran were to be really accurate, it would use the more accurate word, 'ghaz.' Smoke implies the presence of carbon, yet the founding particles were hydrogen and helium.
And besides, to discuss the thing more carefully, the imagery of one single unit being separated to create a universe is so common, it's really unoriginal for the Quran to be using that imagery.
Sumerians believed the two founding gods, An and Ki, symbolised heaven and earth.
The Egyptians believed that Heaven and Earth, or Nut (the Sky goddess) and Geb (the Earth god), was forced to be separated by the sun god, Ra.
These two civilisations existed thousands of years before Islam.
The thing about life coming from water is also unoriginal. Water has been the source of life for people since, well, the beginning. So it is reasonable to think that people would appreciate water as an ingredient for life. The Greeks especially thought life came from water. Aristotle and Anaximander thought so. Well, I think not really Aristotle, but he remarked that it was the popular belief at the time.
And there's the power of suggestion. People see what they want to see, and over-enthusiastic Muslims eager to associate themselves with Science, and hence overall acknowledgment of their religion, see the Big Bang Theory in what on closer inspection is really just vague, unoriginal accounts of what happened.
Tuesday 9 September 2008
Wait A Minute
Why do people think criticising Islam and being an atheist are two mutually exclusive things? I don't get it at all. I'm criticising Islam because I'm an atheist. Isn't that so fucking obvious? Okay, not all atheists criticise religion. But a lot of them do. And stop generalising atheists. They only share one major trait, they don't believe in God. And yes, I have to keep repeating this again and again, because some ignorant people just can't seem to or don't want to get it.
Leen, there's a difference between being apathetic and atheist. You can be both, but they're not the same thing. People who don't care about religion is being apathetic towards it. They don't think about it, they are indifferent towards it. Atheists don't believe in it, but this in no way means they don't care about it. You can be an apathetic atheist, which is what Leen is implying I should be. But I'm not. I'm an outspoken atheist.
Your notion of atheism is severely naive and misguided. Again, you know why atheists in Brunei don't bash religion publicly? I think you can work that out by yourself. It's because of the possibility of being ostracised and outcast. Outside Brunei there'a lot of atheists who bash religion publicly, because they can, even though they're still getting death-threats and criticism from the religious people. Or X, are you trying to threaten me? Because I don't actually feel threatened. I knew the risks before I started this.
And yes, I do want people to talk. And I'm talking back. If I'm so against you talking back, I wouldn't have been trying to fucking reply to almost every single question or criticism, and some of them are bordering on insult. I could even just delete the cBox if I didn't want anyone to talk back.
Z, to be honest, what I'm offended by is the stupidity and ignorance of people who think they're engaging in a discussion, but are actually churning out meaningless insults. There's a difference between criticism, satirical commentary, and insult.
I'm against Islam, and I'm an atheist. Happy? That's what I've been saying all this time. I'm against the opression of doubt, ideas and freedom. I'm against the punitive nature and damning restrictions put on by religion. I'm against the racial discrimination and sectarian violence justified so often by religion.
So far no one's actually put a point defending what they believe in. The only thing they're doing is questioning my agenda (which I've explained several times) and ask me to stop writing. So yes, so far this discussion isn't really working. But not through lack of effort from my part.
Really, I would appreciate if someone started defending Islam with more integrity, intelligence and coherence than some of the ignorant, incoherent and condescending threats and insults I've been getting. Trust me, I would respect any Muslim who can genuinely discuss and fight for what he believes in. And I know a few who can. But so far, no one in the cBox has.
Leen, there's a difference between being apathetic and atheist. You can be both, but they're not the same thing. People who don't care about religion is being apathetic towards it. They don't think about it, they are indifferent towards it. Atheists don't believe in it, but this in no way means they don't care about it. You can be an apathetic atheist, which is what Leen is implying I should be. But I'm not. I'm an outspoken atheist.
Your notion of atheism is severely naive and misguided. Again, you know why atheists in Brunei don't bash religion publicly? I think you can work that out by yourself. It's because of the possibility of being ostracised and outcast. Outside Brunei there'a lot of atheists who bash religion publicly, because they can, even though they're still getting death-threats and criticism from the religious people. Or X, are you trying to threaten me? Because I don't actually feel threatened. I knew the risks before I started this.
And yes, I do want people to talk. And I'm talking back. If I'm so against you talking back, I wouldn't have been trying to fucking reply to almost every single question or criticism, and some of them are bordering on insult. I could even just delete the cBox if I didn't want anyone to talk back.
Z, to be honest, what I'm offended by is the stupidity and ignorance of people who think they're engaging in a discussion, but are actually churning out meaningless insults. There's a difference between criticism, satirical commentary, and insult.
I'm against Islam, and I'm an atheist. Happy? That's what I've been saying all this time. I'm against the opression of doubt, ideas and freedom. I'm against the punitive nature and damning restrictions put on by religion. I'm against the racial discrimination and sectarian violence justified so often by religion.
So far no one's actually put a point defending what they believe in. The only thing they're doing is questioning my agenda (which I've explained several times) and ask me to stop writing. So yes, so far this discussion isn't really working. But not through lack of effort from my part.
Really, I would appreciate if someone started defending Islam with more integrity, intelligence and coherence than some of the ignorant, incoherent and condescending threats and insults I've been getting. Trust me, I would respect any Muslim who can genuinely discuss and fight for what he believes in. And I know a few who can. But so far, no one in the cBox has.
Attention-Seeker
Heh.
People flame me for trying to get people's attention.
Well, isn't that the whole point of a blog? I mean, if nobody is reading your blog, it'll just be a diary, isn't it? I mean, a blog is nothing without its readers. If you're that offended, then just don't read my blog. It's that fucking simple. When you keep reading my blog and giving me attention (doesn't matter if it is bloody fucking bad attention), then like you said, you're just giving me what I want.
So what if I 'promote' my blog? I want people to discuss this. If they get offended in the process, I've warned them. And besides, it's an issue we will have to talk about sooner or later. I'm just talking about it sooner.
But hey, attention is too simplistic a word. What I'm after is the courage to speak up. To not cower under your momma's skirt at the mention of sex or blasphemy. And here I feel the need to repeat this point, because I'm sure someone dumbass enough to pick me up on this (and not realise I've said this before a million times), I speak up in anonymity because of the messenger-killing thing.
The thing is, if you're attentive enough to criticise me, you should be attentive enough to read the rest of my blog. I've explained my atheism. I've explained that atheism isn't a lifestyle, it's a belief. It's like being a muslim. Some people talk about it, some people don't. Even just being a human being, some people talk about it, some people don't. Some people talk about atheism, some people don't. I do.
I mean, why the fuck do you think atheists don't speak up in Brunei. Damn god fucking think. Do you see a Brunei Atheistic Association anywhere? Do you see atheistic conventions being held at ICC? You bloody moron. They don't speak up because they don't have an outlet. They'll get fucking ostracised the minute they admit publicly they're an atheist. I mean, there's no way the Ministry of Internal Affairs would even let anything remotely atheistic to be held. Heck, even other religions don't get a say, much less atheists.
And if you're thinking outside of Brunei, then you're so damn god wrong. People talk about this all the time. They talk about it everywhere. Do you ever read newspapers, books, magazines, blogs or watch TV? There's a lot of this stuff out there. You just have to look for it.
People flame me for trying to get people's attention.
Well, isn't that the whole point of a blog? I mean, if nobody is reading your blog, it'll just be a diary, isn't it? I mean, a blog is nothing without its readers. If you're that offended, then just don't read my blog. It's that fucking simple. When you keep reading my blog and giving me attention (doesn't matter if it is bloody fucking bad attention), then like you said, you're just giving me what I want.
So what if I 'promote' my blog? I want people to discuss this. If they get offended in the process, I've warned them. And besides, it's an issue we will have to talk about sooner or later. I'm just talking about it sooner.
But hey, attention is too simplistic a word. What I'm after is the courage to speak up. To not cower under your momma's skirt at the mention of sex or blasphemy. And here I feel the need to repeat this point, because I'm sure someone dumbass enough to pick me up on this (and not realise I've said this before a million times), I speak up in anonymity because of the messenger-killing thing.
The thing is, if you're attentive enough to criticise me, you should be attentive enough to read the rest of my blog. I've explained my atheism. I've explained that atheism isn't a lifestyle, it's a belief. It's like being a muslim. Some people talk about it, some people don't. Even just being a human being, some people talk about it, some people don't. Some people talk about atheism, some people don't. I do.
I mean, why the fuck do you think atheists don't speak up in Brunei. Damn god fucking think. Do you see a Brunei Atheistic Association anywhere? Do you see atheistic conventions being held at ICC? You bloody moron. They don't speak up because they don't have an outlet. They'll get fucking ostracised the minute they admit publicly they're an atheist. I mean, there's no way the Ministry of Internal Affairs would even let anything remotely atheistic to be held. Heck, even other religions don't get a say, much less atheists.
And if you're thinking outside of Brunei, then you're so damn god wrong. People talk about this all the time. They talk about it everywhere. Do you ever read newspapers, books, magazines, blogs or watch TV? There's a lot of this stuff out there. You just have to look for it.
Bastard Of A Deranged Dog
Can you please read the whole fucking blog before you fucking ask any questions?
It's like talking to kids, patiently answering every single bloody question, most of them repeated a million times, in slightly differing forms.
"What's this for?"
"Why is it there?"
"What's it made for?"
"Can I play with it?"
"Why can't I play with it?"
"Can you fucking answer me, you fucking bastard of a deranged dog?!"
I know the risks when I put this blog out. Which is why I took some precautions. But hey, as with the internet, as we all know and is pointed out by x, we can never be fully anonymous. But we can bloody fucking try. I mean, that 16/f/bru girl you talked to yesterday on mirc (do people still use this thing? Haha), how do you know it isn't some 40-year-old horny paedophile wanting a piece of your teenage ass? You can't really know, can you now? I'm pretty sure the girl who sent you that hot picture a couple of days ago has a penis hidden somewhere under that cute mini-skirt.
And read the details. I don't want to repeat anything I've said.
What I realise is, that people read only what they want to see, and that's the offensive stuff. It's like watching Titanic and only ranting about the sex scenes. Granted, it's three stupidly long hours, and even the sex scenes aren't worth it, and Kate Winslet isn't that hot anyway, but you get my drift. What I mean here is that once they see one offensive statement, everything else fades away into sheer irrelevance.
And you know what?
I don't have to fucking justify myself to you. I can choose to, but it's not my fucking obligation.
I was spending hours yesterday trying to reply repeated questions and repeated criticisms, and the minute I took a break, people say I was a coward. Oh fuck-a-doodle-do. I have better things to do in my life than spend half my day justifying my blog to people who don't really read it anyway.
The thing is, when they see Islam, fuck and stupid in the same sentence, then they don't bother to read anything else. They start bringing out giant pitchforks and try to throw rocks at my humble abode of piss.
If you have a question you want answered directly, e-mail me. It's on my bloody fucking blogger profile. I'll answer it on a FAQ I'll do in the near future.
It's like talking to kids, patiently answering every single bloody question, most of them repeated a million times, in slightly differing forms.
"What's this for?"
"Why is it there?"
"What's it made for?"
"Can I play with it?"
"Why can't I play with it?"
"Can you fucking answer me, you fucking bastard of a deranged dog?!"
I know the risks when I put this blog out. Which is why I took some precautions. But hey, as with the internet, as we all know and is pointed out by x, we can never be fully anonymous. But we can bloody fucking try. I mean, that 16/f/bru girl you talked to yesterday on mirc (do people still use this thing? Haha), how do you know it isn't some 40-year-old horny paedophile wanting a piece of your teenage ass? You can't really know, can you now? I'm pretty sure the girl who sent you that hot picture a couple of days ago has a penis hidden somewhere under that cute mini-skirt.
And read the details. I don't want to repeat anything I've said.
What I realise is, that people read only what they want to see, and that's the offensive stuff. It's like watching Titanic and only ranting about the sex scenes. Granted, it's three stupidly long hours, and even the sex scenes aren't worth it, and Kate Winslet isn't that hot anyway, but you get my drift. What I mean here is that once they see one offensive statement, everything else fades away into sheer irrelevance.
And you know what?
I don't have to fucking justify myself to you. I can choose to, but it's not my fucking obligation.
I was spending hours yesterday trying to reply repeated questions and repeated criticisms, and the minute I took a break, people say I was a coward. Oh fuck-a-doodle-do. I have better things to do in my life than spend half my day justifying my blog to people who don't really read it anyway.
The thing is, when they see Islam, fuck and stupid in the same sentence, then they don't bother to read anything else. They start bringing out giant pitchforks and try to throw rocks at my humble abode of piss.
If you have a question you want answered directly, e-mail me. It's on my bloody fucking blogger profile. I'll answer it on a FAQ I'll do in the near future.
Monday 8 September 2008
Here's That One
I think it's cowardly to flame someone after that someone has left.
Anyways, on my atheism.
Here we go then.
My atheism is really a culmination of ideas that started with the doubt I had about the proof given to me by my Ugama teacher when I was 7-years-old. I was confused by the proof, unable to process how it would make sense. And then as I got older, I started reading books on religion. I was at first trying to understand religion. At first I though positively about it. It's claims for peace. It's looking after the poor. It's claim for eternal happiness.
But as I read more and talked with people who had the same doubts, then I started to realise the nonsense of religion. The fact is. every single argument I've read for religion, I managed to rebutt by myself. The arguments for religion were often inconsistent, illogical and contrived. The Aquinas Proofs were empty and meaningless. The morality argument was extremely flawed. The Intelligent Design argument was contrived. The ontological argument is unbelievably stupid. The Beauty Argument is again, contrived.
To dissect one by one these proofs would take a lot more space than intended. So I will discuss that sooner or later.
Contradictions in religion itself was to me a main reason. There are so many unexplained, unaddressed issues in religion that one begins to wonder why people believed it in the first place.
Atheism simply, means this: To believe in the non-existence of God.
Agnosticism on the other hand, is something different: doubting the existence of God, yet not fully believing in its non-existence.
Contrary to what people might say, atheism is not a religion, for this one major reason: it stands on reason, not on faith.
Religion on the other hand, depends so much on faith. Even in the face of contradictory evidence or doubt, one will still choose to believe in religion. Yet with atheism, if there was a conclusive proof for the existence of God, atheists will embrace it. But the belief is based on reason, that non-biased, scientific, reasonable evidence so far points to the non-existence of God.
For most parts, atheists probably only share one major trait: The rational belief in the non-existence of God.
That's where the similarity ends. I for one, am a humanist. I believe in the importance of individual relationships more than I do in world-changing ideas. But that doesn't mean I don't wanna change anything in this world.
I don't believe in the concept of fixed morality. Hence another reason why I don't believe in religion. The concept of morality has changed over the course of humanity that one wonders whether in the future religion will one day be considered as immoral as say, witch-hunting. The truth is, thousands of years ago, it was not considered immoral to maybe marry a 12-year-old, or kill someone for cheating. But times have changed. Our notion of morality has evolved.
The problem with religion is it sticks with medieval or ancient notions of morality. And even the believers subconsciously know that. How do you otherwise explain the abandonment of stoning rituals, beheadings and corporal punishment? We don't execute people who don't believe in Islam anymore, because we know it's immoral. We don't stone people in Shari'a courts, because we know the horrific nature of such an act.
Admittedly this still happens in countries like Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan. But then we know we wouldn't wanna live in such countries, where muta'ween (religious police) patrol the streets and anyone not wearing a beard is looked at with suspicion.
The Quran is very much regarded as a proof for the existence of God because of its beauty and sheer size. I think this is unreasonable. Now John Milton wrote his beautifully epic Paradise Lost while he was blind, and managed to write 10 books - each about 1,000 lines - of it, allegedly under a 'celestial muse.' Now this is a more epic effort, in my opinion. I can appreciate the poetry in both Paradise Lost and the Quran, but it doesn't mean I will worship either.
And why am I targetting Islam? Because I know this religion best, better than Christianity, Buddha, Judaism, etc. My whole life my mind has been wrestling with the illogicality of religion.
And people keep saying I shouldn't target Brunei? Why? I live here. I've lived here my whole life. And I know there are people who have similar thoughts, but might think they're alone in thinking so, as there're no proper outlets. And it's my right to talk about it. Why can't I talk about Brunei?
And why should I discuss this only with like-minded people? It wouldn't be much of a discussion if people kept agreeing on views. A good conversation, maybe. But not a proper argumentative discussion.
To leave out Brunei and Islam, would starve this blog of its original intentions, that is to discuss, to rant about the lifestyle of an atheist in a religious country, forced and pressured to act in certain ways out of a distorted sense of social obligation and personal responsibility.
And the talk about not knowing where I came from. You're not understanding the whole point here. I'm talking about Brunei because in all the cynicism and skepticism, I'm hopeful for the better. I could've just run off to another country and be living a free lifestyle, but no, I didn't. I'm not about to run away from these problems. I'm in a process of thinking of ways to address this. And one way of addressing it is to discuss it. In public. But sadly, I can only discuss it in anonymity, for reasons given in my 'Q&A' entry.
Do you know how many people just want to get out of Brunei? Do you not wonder why I didn't leave in the first place. And you dare say I don't 'kenang budi?'
There's a difference between criticism and utter disrespect. Okay, the way I phrase things might be offensive, I give you that. But then the underlying point is that Brunei can be open-minded. It can be nonjudgmental. But right now it isn't.
Religion was once a creature of convenience. It gave people happiness, even though it is illusory and false. Think about it. A drunk man is happy. A religious man is happy. And both delude themselves into this state of happiness.
People who think morality is THE argument for religion, I suggest you read 'Moral Tissues,' one of my previous entries.
And to be honest, I could not have foreseen how many close-minded people would read my blog. On a happy note, there are believers and non-believers that are willing to give a decent discussion.
And no, I'm not shoving anything down other people's throats here. You chose to read this. This isn't a pamphlet thrusted into your face for you to read. This isn't a compulsory lesson in your high school. And no, this isn't your parent forcing you to listen while you're in the car. You had a choice. And you made that choice, to go on reading. Sure, I publicised it. But I did say you might get offended. I did warn you.
If you're just here to bash me with incoherent and ignorant bullshit, you can leave.
If you're willing to open up your mind and bear the profanities (I'm sorry, it's a habit), then you'll know where I'm coming from.
And to be honest, I wasn't gonna make my atheism The main topic of the blog. It was really just meant to be an attack on some of the absurd cultural and social norms in Brunei, and the people shoving religion down my throats. But people focused on that, so by popular demand, here it is.
I'm off, for now. If you could, if you wanna reply to this specific entry, comment on this one. Not on the cBox. It's confusing.
I'll be back fairly soon. Count on it.
Anyways, on my atheism.
Here we go then.
My atheism is really a culmination of ideas that started with the doubt I had about the proof given to me by my Ugama teacher when I was 7-years-old. I was confused by the proof, unable to process how it would make sense. And then as I got older, I started reading books on religion. I was at first trying to understand religion. At first I though positively about it. It's claims for peace. It's looking after the poor. It's claim for eternal happiness.
But as I read more and talked with people who had the same doubts, then I started to realise the nonsense of religion. The fact is. every single argument I've read for religion, I managed to rebutt by myself. The arguments for religion were often inconsistent, illogical and contrived. The Aquinas Proofs were empty and meaningless. The morality argument was extremely flawed. The Intelligent Design argument was contrived. The ontological argument is unbelievably stupid. The Beauty Argument is again, contrived.
To dissect one by one these proofs would take a lot more space than intended. So I will discuss that sooner or later.
Contradictions in religion itself was to me a main reason. There are so many unexplained, unaddressed issues in religion that one begins to wonder why people believed it in the first place.
Atheism simply, means this: To believe in the non-existence of God.
Agnosticism on the other hand, is something different: doubting the existence of God, yet not fully believing in its non-existence.
Contrary to what people might say, atheism is not a religion, for this one major reason: it stands on reason, not on faith.
Religion on the other hand, depends so much on faith. Even in the face of contradictory evidence or doubt, one will still choose to believe in religion. Yet with atheism, if there was a conclusive proof for the existence of God, atheists will embrace it. But the belief is based on reason, that non-biased, scientific, reasonable evidence so far points to the non-existence of God.
For most parts, atheists probably only share one major trait: The rational belief in the non-existence of God.
That's where the similarity ends. I for one, am a humanist. I believe in the importance of individual relationships more than I do in world-changing ideas. But that doesn't mean I don't wanna change anything in this world.
I don't believe in the concept of fixed morality. Hence another reason why I don't believe in religion. The concept of morality has changed over the course of humanity that one wonders whether in the future religion will one day be considered as immoral as say, witch-hunting. The truth is, thousands of years ago, it was not considered immoral to maybe marry a 12-year-old, or kill someone for cheating. But times have changed. Our notion of morality has evolved.
The problem with religion is it sticks with medieval or ancient notions of morality. And even the believers subconsciously know that. How do you otherwise explain the abandonment of stoning rituals, beheadings and corporal punishment? We don't execute people who don't believe in Islam anymore, because we know it's immoral. We don't stone people in Shari'a courts, because we know the horrific nature of such an act.
Admittedly this still happens in countries like Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan. But then we know we wouldn't wanna live in such countries, where muta'ween (religious police) patrol the streets and anyone not wearing a beard is looked at with suspicion.
The Quran is very much regarded as a proof for the existence of God because of its beauty and sheer size. I think this is unreasonable. Now John Milton wrote his beautifully epic Paradise Lost while he was blind, and managed to write 10 books - each about 1,000 lines - of it, allegedly under a 'celestial muse.' Now this is a more epic effort, in my opinion. I can appreciate the poetry in both Paradise Lost and the Quran, but it doesn't mean I will worship either.
And why am I targetting Islam? Because I know this religion best, better than Christianity, Buddha, Judaism, etc. My whole life my mind has been wrestling with the illogicality of religion.
And people keep saying I shouldn't target Brunei? Why? I live here. I've lived here my whole life. And I know there are people who have similar thoughts, but might think they're alone in thinking so, as there're no proper outlets. And it's my right to talk about it. Why can't I talk about Brunei?
And why should I discuss this only with like-minded people? It wouldn't be much of a discussion if people kept agreeing on views. A good conversation, maybe. But not a proper argumentative discussion.
To leave out Brunei and Islam, would starve this blog of its original intentions, that is to discuss, to rant about the lifestyle of an atheist in a religious country, forced and pressured to act in certain ways out of a distorted sense of social obligation and personal responsibility.
And the talk about not knowing where I came from. You're not understanding the whole point here. I'm talking about Brunei because in all the cynicism and skepticism, I'm hopeful for the better. I could've just run off to another country and be living a free lifestyle, but no, I didn't. I'm not about to run away from these problems. I'm in a process of thinking of ways to address this. And one way of addressing it is to discuss it. In public. But sadly, I can only discuss it in anonymity, for reasons given in my 'Q&A' entry.
Do you know how many people just want to get out of Brunei? Do you not wonder why I didn't leave in the first place. And you dare say I don't 'kenang budi?'
There's a difference between criticism and utter disrespect. Okay, the way I phrase things might be offensive, I give you that. But then the underlying point is that Brunei can be open-minded. It can be nonjudgmental. But right now it isn't.
Religion was once a creature of convenience. It gave people happiness, even though it is illusory and false. Think about it. A drunk man is happy. A religious man is happy. And both delude themselves into this state of happiness.
People who think morality is THE argument for religion, I suggest you read 'Moral Tissues,' one of my previous entries.
And to be honest, I could not have foreseen how many close-minded people would read my blog. On a happy note, there are believers and non-believers that are willing to give a decent discussion.
And no, I'm not shoving anything down other people's throats here. You chose to read this. This isn't a pamphlet thrusted into your face for you to read. This isn't a compulsory lesson in your high school. And no, this isn't your parent forcing you to listen while you're in the car. You had a choice. And you made that choice, to go on reading. Sure, I publicised it. But I did say you might get offended. I did warn you.
If you're just here to bash me with incoherent and ignorant bullshit, you can leave.
If you're willing to open up your mind and bear the profanities (I'm sorry, it's a habit), then you'll know where I'm coming from.
And to be honest, I wasn't gonna make my atheism The main topic of the blog. It was really just meant to be an attack on some of the absurd cultural and social norms in Brunei, and the people shoving religion down my throats. But people focused on that, so by popular demand, here it is.
I'm off, for now. If you could, if you wanna reply to this specific entry, comment on this one. Not on the cBox. It's confusing.
I'll be back fairly soon. Count on it.
Correction
Can I print a correction? Hahaha
MIB means 'Melayu Islam Beraja,' which was pointed out by a Guest. Thanks so much.
I guess, like I said, I don't believe in it so much, I forgot what it meant.
MIB means 'Melayu Islam Beraja,' which was pointed out by a Guest. Thanks so much.
I guess, like I said, I don't believe in it so much, I forgot what it meant.
Question & Answer
Thanks for Guest1 (or 2 or 3) for being the first to comment on my cBox. And trying to point out a few things:
[1] What am I aiming for?
[2] Why am I staying anonymous?
[3] Do I think I'm good enough to start offending people?
So here we go.
[1] My aim
I think that's easy enough. To point out things that can be fixed. And besides, I've said this a few times, this blog is a RANT. Millions of people rant everyday. This blog isn't aimed to change the world. It's aimed to point out the things I see that's wrong in my eyes. It's constructive criticism disguised in skepticism, cynicism, sarcasm and f-words. I'm trying to make a subtle point by being very brash and harsh.
People rant about shoes, boyfriends and public transport. I just happen to rant about race, religion and sex.
[2] Why am I staying anonymous?
This is obvious. In Brunei, if they don't take well to the message, they kill the messenger. Take for instance, the UBD girl. We all know what happened. Jog your memory. And besides, in real life, I'm a pleasant, friendly person who gets along with people. This is my alter-ego. This is my alternate being, my split-identity. That's the point of making this blog. To let this part of myself loose.
If I start to reveal who I am, I won't be offending people for too long. People will force me to close this blog down. And until there's freedom of speech in Brunei, I will keep myself anonymous.
A lot of the time, people who want offensive, anonymous writers to come clean with their identity, want that to happen because they wanna report them or see them be banned or whatever.
Thanks, Guest1, for pointing this out. Because sometimes we all value real identities.
[3] Do I try to offend people because I think I'm good enough?
My side-objective is to offend people. Well, not really. I started out just trying to be honest, but then I realised that by trying to be brutally honest, I WILL offend people. So I'm embracing it.
And no, I don't offend people because I think I'm good enough.
And if you even have enough common sense you'll know you don't have to be good enough to offend people. Is there a bar you must reach to be able to offend people? Because as so far as I know, the people who offend me are so unbelievably stupid, it's their stupidity that usually offends me the most.
And again, good enough in what sense? Heck, if I'm able to articulate what I want to say, voice out my views and spell 'articulate,' then I think I'm good enough to offend people. Millions of people are articulate enough to be good enough to voice out offending views.
What offends me the most though, is when people who aren't articulate enough, or copy and paste their views from books (this includes the Quran), try and voice out their views. Okay, the fact that they're talking isn't what offends me. It's the fact that they don't think for themselves.
[1] What am I aiming for?
[2] Why am I staying anonymous?
[3] Do I think I'm good enough to start offending people?
So here we go.
[1] My aim
I think that's easy enough. To point out things that can be fixed. And besides, I've said this a few times, this blog is a RANT. Millions of people rant everyday. This blog isn't aimed to change the world. It's aimed to point out the things I see that's wrong in my eyes. It's constructive criticism disguised in skepticism, cynicism, sarcasm and f-words. I'm trying to make a subtle point by being very brash and harsh.
People rant about shoes, boyfriends and public transport. I just happen to rant about race, religion and sex.
[2] Why am I staying anonymous?
This is obvious. In Brunei, if they don't take well to the message, they kill the messenger. Take for instance, the UBD girl. We all know what happened. Jog your memory. And besides, in real life, I'm a pleasant, friendly person who gets along with people. This is my alter-ego. This is my alternate being, my split-identity. That's the point of making this blog. To let this part of myself loose.
If I start to reveal who I am, I won't be offending people for too long. People will force me to close this blog down. And until there's freedom of speech in Brunei, I will keep myself anonymous.
A lot of the time, people who want offensive, anonymous writers to come clean with their identity, want that to happen because they wanna report them or see them be banned or whatever.
Thanks, Guest1, for pointing this out. Because sometimes we all value real identities.
[3] Do I try to offend people because I think I'm good enough?
My side-objective is to offend people. Well, not really. I started out just trying to be honest, but then I realised that by trying to be brutally honest, I WILL offend people. So I'm embracing it.
And no, I don't offend people because I think I'm good enough.
And if you even have enough common sense you'll know you don't have to be good enough to offend people. Is there a bar you must reach to be able to offend people? Because as so far as I know, the people who offend me are so unbelievably stupid, it's their stupidity that usually offends me the most.
And again, good enough in what sense? Heck, if I'm able to articulate what I want to say, voice out my views and spell 'articulate,' then I think I'm good enough to offend people. Millions of people are articulate enough to be good enough to voice out offending views.
What offends me the most though, is when people who aren't articulate enough, or copy and paste their views from books (this includes the Quran), try and voice out their views. Okay, the fact that they're talking isn't what offends me. It's the fact that they don't think for themselves.
Saturday 6 September 2008
Medieval Fuckers
In Brunei, racism is so natural it's sickening.
Most people still can't stop using the K-word. Even when they already fucking know what it means.
Shut the fuck up, you motherfucking racist. What gives you the fucking right to feel all superior to another race just because of their dark skin colour? Bruneians are in denial. We still say our skin is 'kuning langsat.' The fact is, this is because Malays are descended partly from the Chinese and the Indians. Malay is not even a fucking race on its own.
You think you're better than them? Fucking prove it.
Even MIB is racist. Melayu Islam Brunei. Race, Religion, Nationalism. Three separating factors that are poisonous to obsessive minds. Why should Brunei be exclusively Malay? We're turning multi-ethnic. Face it. Soon it'll be MICBITCHB. Melayu India China Buddha Islam Thailand Christianity Hindu Brunei. Of course that isn't as complete as I would want it, but you get the point.
They say we have freedom of religion in this country. Well, maybe, as long as that religion is Islam. I mean Christianity, Buddhism or Hinduism don't even have a say in Brunei. Not at all. Okay, I may be an atheist, but opressions of ideas is something unbelievably medieval, even for the ideas I don't like.
I like ranting. Especially when I'm right.
Most people still can't stop using the K-word. Even when they already fucking know what it means.
Shut the fuck up, you motherfucking racist. What gives you the fucking right to feel all superior to another race just because of their dark skin colour? Bruneians are in denial. We still say our skin is 'kuning langsat.' The fact is, this is because Malays are descended partly from the Chinese and the Indians. Malay is not even a fucking race on its own.
You think you're better than them? Fucking prove it.
Even MIB is racist. Melayu Islam Brunei. Race, Religion, Nationalism. Three separating factors that are poisonous to obsessive minds. Why should Brunei be exclusively Malay? We're turning multi-ethnic. Face it. Soon it'll be MICBITCHB. Melayu India China Buddha Islam Thailand Christianity Hindu Brunei. Of course that isn't as complete as I would want it, but you get the point.
They say we have freedom of religion in this country. Well, maybe, as long as that religion is Islam. I mean Christianity, Buddhism or Hinduism don't even have a say in Brunei. Not at all. Okay, I may be an atheist, but opressions of ideas is something unbelievably medieval, even for the ideas I don't like.
I like ranting. Especially when I'm right.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Royal unveiled her presidential platform in a much-awaited speech on Sunday that her party hopes will inject new momentum into her flagging campaign. The rightwing Le Figaro said Royal had presented a "catch-all" programme, advancing ill-defined proposals and failing to spell out how the French state would pay for the new social benefits.
________________________
mikemathew
social marketing
06 November 2008 02:42
Hire Private Jet - Bookajet provide you best services to hire private jet at your utmost satisfaction. Check out here our business and corporate jet charters that you can hire and get for rent.
07 November 2008 22:05