Baby Factories.. a noble cause???

There was an article in The Star on the busting of the syndicate which practically deals with babies!* One will inevitably ponder on how it is actually done! for the unitiated, baby 'factories' are just that: syndicates that actually produce and harvest babies for sale to parents in need of babies!

How this is done is rather simple. The syndicate itself is a family-run business, and couples desperate to have children but are somehow unable to will seek their help. the business will then have groups of employees, usually immigrants from indonesia or some other country, lured by the prospects of cash, and will therefore allow the husbands of the families to consummate with the employees, who will then bear the babies which shall therefore be sold to the parents. the employees will also get commission for their work done in bearing the babies.

Yes, on first glance i agree with almost anyone out there that this is such a despicable act that would rile up anyone who reads it. Especially since the parents are charged rather exorbitant rates, and the employees were lied to and given extremely low rates for the services offered. It somehow defiles the sacred act of childbearing and is a wanton disregard for the services offered by the employees, who risk their life bearing a baby they will most probably never see anymore in their lives.

But i implore all of you to open your minds and broaden your views on this matter. Sure i agree that the involvement and abuse of money in the process is what taints this 'business', but in truth, it does seem like a noble cause, doesnt it? (i am strictly speaking on the basis of the essence of what they do, not how they do it)

Firstly, they are actually offering an alternative to laboratory means of procreation. What i mean is that it is still somewhat similar to In-Vitro Fertilization, or test-tube babies, whereby a third party helps in the creation of the baby, but you will not have to deal with the stigma that the baby you have with you was actually created by doctors or some rather artificial means; it is all natural!

Secondly, instead of adoption, which is still something that goes on till this very day, parents who resort to this method might have the view that it is done so that the child will still have an inkling of the parents blood, albeit only one of the supposed two of them. So there would still be a bloodline to carry on and pass down, even though it is not perfect per se, as compared to an adopted child, who usually has no blood ties to the parents at all (unless they adopt a child of a relative, that is).

Thirdly, it would most probably still be cheaper and more confidential than resorting to hospitals like the private sector, might cost an arm and leg, whilst in the public sector, it has its own flaws. With this business, the cost of the baby is around RM 10,000 to RM 20,000, and there are no questions asked or no forms to fill at all, which would most probably help them with their confidentiality. This is opposed to hospitals, with the endless form-filling and procedures that have to be followed. In short, it is a no-frills procedure of getting a child!

So all in all, on a basic level, if we were to take out the whole cost and financial factor, i actually opine that it is a rather noble thing to do. But yes, if we put in the element of religion, we know that it is still something that is looked down upon, especially since the husband has to physically perform the sexual act with the employee to conceive the baby. This, in a way, is akin to zina, and one would just have said that the husband should have just married another.

But in the end, i do agree that it is still a very tightly wound issue, and these are merely opinions of my own. It would be great to hear opinions from all of you who read this post. What say you? Do you agree with me/disagree/agree to disagree? Bring forth some points of your own to broaden the whole view of this matter, so we might come to a conclusive opinion together :)


Happy reading and pondering!
EzzE

*Actual article can be read here - http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2009/12/16/nation/5311476&sec=nation

Ethnic Cleansing

As far as we're all concerned, Ethnic Cleansing is banned. Period.
But I can't help but ponder the reasons behind it being banned. Well, IIU does produce critical minded graduates no?
First of all, what do I mean by ethnic cleansing?
Basically, ethnic cleansing is the elimination of an unwanted group from a society, as by genocide or forced migration.
The phrase "ethnic cleansing" may embody just the opposite. Ethnic cleansing has been defined as "the elimination of an unwanted group from society, as by genocide or forced migration." This definition is inherently broader than that of genocide alone, and thereby encompasses mass killings and forced removals in far greater number and scope. The U.S. State Department, in a recent report on Kosovo, concluded that ethnic cleansing "generally entails the systematic and forced removal of members of an ethnic group from their communities to change the ethnic composition of a region." The latter definition, while accurate for that particular situation, is seemingly too narrow to be a useful descriptor of a majority of situations which are encompassed in the broader definition. Ethnic cleansing, then, may involve death or displacement, or any combination thereof, where a population is identified for removal from an area.
Determining what constitutes ethnic cleansing isn't really a problem.
The fact that it's a war crime and it goes against Chapter 7 of the UN Charter is no issue either. Every one is clear on that.
What really had me going was, HOW DO YOU DETERMINE WHICH GROUP TO BE ELIMINATED?
Is it because of the religion that particular race practices? Then which religion should be allowed to live? Is it because of skin color? Is the world really "spoilt" and "ruined" by any other shade of colour apart from WHITE? Is it because one particular group prefers same sex relationships? Who knew homosexuals can taint a society. Not that I'm saying the Quran allows it, I'm just saying, there are better tacts to dealing and helping homosexuals than to strictly condemn them.
Think of it this way, when one looks at those of a different group than they are but are good people, one is forced to question ethnic cleansing. Just because of a few bad apples, it doesn't mean the whole religion/race/etnicity/group is bad. Just because one Muslim believes jeans are illegal doesn't mean all Muslims are terrorists.
I see why ethnic cleansing is not allowed. If it were, we'd put an end to everyone, even the cherished gem kind of people, just because of their stereotyped group.

Kartika..

This is an article written by Hafiz Nassir, a law student at aikol. I think it's quite good. Oh I think it's important to note at this juncture that all articles written are the views of the authors themselves and do not necessarily reflect the view of the society.


Some background info, Kartika is a muslim woman who was caught drinking beer in Malaysia. As this is an offence for muslims, she was sentence to 6 times canning. the issue arises is that it is her first offence and that it is the first time a woman is subjected to canning for that offence. What is interesting is that she herself has agreed to be canned and wants to serve as an example for other muslims. The reasons for this is partially explained in the article below. What has made this even more controversial is the fact that a lot of foreign groups have pressured the Malaysian Government to intervene.

enjoy. oh btw, silver = amir isyam. =p



Article 3 (1) of the Federal Constitution declares Islam as the religion of the federation. Over the years the provisions has given rise to multiple interpretations and endless argument strewn over judicial decisions, political discussion and so-on. As to the problematic question given, we need to discuss on the issues of objectives of punishment in islam and the effect of repentance in the enforcement in the criminal punishment in islam.
What is Khamr? The Arabic word khamr signifies any alcoholic drink which causes intoxication. We would be stating the obvious if we were to discuss the harmful effects of drinking on the individual's mind, his health, his religion, and his work; or if we discussed the disasters which he brings upon his family by neglecting their needs and by not fulfilling his obligations, as the head of the family, toward his wife and children; or if we elaborated on the spiritual, material, and moral evils which proliferate in societies and nations due to the widespread consumption of alcohol.
In the eyes of Islamic laws, drinking liquor or alcohol or khamr is clearly stated in Al-Quran as Haram. Even taken in small quantity, or when taken in great quantity is prohibited in Islam. The first declaration made by the Prophet (peace be him) concerning this matter was that not only is wine prohibited but that the definition of khamr extends to any substance which intoxicates, in whatever form or under whatever name it may appear. Thus, example, beer and similar drinks are haram.
The Prophet was once asked about certain drinks made from honey, corn, or barley by the process of fermenting them until they became alcoholic. The Messenger of Allah (peace be on him), blessed as he was with the best of speech' replied succinctly, "Every intoxicant is khamr, and every khamr is haram." Reported by Muslim). And 'Umar declared from the pulpit of the Prophet, "Khamr is that which befogs the mind." (Reported by al-Bukhari and Muslim).



Islam takes an uncompromising stand in prohibiting intoxicants, regardless of whether the amount is little or much. If an individual is permitted to take but a single step along this road, other steps follow; he starts walking and then running, and does not stop at any stage. This is why the Prophet (peace be on him) said, "Of that which intoxicates in a large amount, a small amount is haram." (Reported by Ahmad Abu Daoud, and al-Tirmidhi. ) And again, "If a bucketful intoxicates, a sip of it is haram." (Reported by Ahmad Abu Daoud, and al-Tirmidhi.)


Neither the Quran nor the Hadith invokes a penalty for alcohol consumption. The sin of consuming alcohol is described in the Quran in the mildest language of prohibition. When it comes to dietary laws, the Quran commands the believers in Surah 5:3: “forbidden (hurrimat) to you is the dead animal, loose blood, and the flesh of the pig.” Some legal scholars suggest that the divine command ijtinab, to avoid something, is milder language than tahrim, prohibition. A Muslim consuming a glass of wine with a pork chop commits a more serious offence in eating pork; yet as there is no Quran or Hadith penalty for consuming pork, there is also none for alcohol consumption.”
How did the punishment come about then? It occurred during the time of the second Caliph Umar b. al-Khattab. There was a companion of the Prophet (sahabi) who had fought on the Prophet’s side in his battles. A heavy drinker, he would walk the streets of Madina drunk at night and loudly shout scandalous things about people. The inhabitants of Madina complained, and Umar formed a committee to decide what to do.
“Imam Ali, based on the man having committed slander, suggested the penalty for slander, whose maximum penalty is 80 lashes. Since that time, this has been considered the maximum penalty for alcohol consumption, based on utilising the Syariah concept of ta`zir (deterrence).


All these clarify how weight the punishment to the person drinking liquor. Same goes to the Kartika problem, She was arrested and sentenced to a fine amounting to rm5000 and 6 lashes. She already paid out the sum. The issue here is the whipping sentence, which has been put to the limelight by the media. This issue is even famous rather than vogue September issue!.
First things first: there is a marked difference between caning under Syariah law and our Civil law. Under Civil law, women cannot be subjected to caning as a punishment for any offence. The position under Syariah Law is, however, different as women may be subjected to the punishment of caning. There is, however, a loophole or a lacuna here. This is because there has been no procedural guideline as to how a caning ought to be carried out under Syariah Law.
As such, when Kartika was sentenced to be caned, she had to be caned in accordance with our Civil Law. Whipping under civil law is, however, different from the Syariah concept of whipping for the consumption of alcohol (on the assumption that Syariah did in fact prescribe caning for this offence). Under Syariah, precedents have shown that the wrongdoer was hit with a slipper or a date palm branch. The punishment is designed to humiliate rather than to inflict untold pain. Under civil law, caning is done so harshly that even fearsome gangsters are known to plead not to be caned! The question is, are we going to impose on Kartika a punishment which is way heavier than that which was prescribed by Syariah Law. Again the issue arise, It has been published neither in international nor local newspapers that kartika has been remorseful and repented for her act she has done. However, it still open into debate and interpretation how far Kartika repented and will not do the act in future? And how far the Islamic principal application is accepted? And how far public will educate with this punishment.
Then we go back to the objective of punishment. It seems to be detrimental but it is intended to prevent harm based on legal maxim, “daf’u al-mafsadah muqaddamun ‘ala jalb al-maslahah. Firstly is retribution. Punishment is a general retaliation of society to maintain peace and social order. Under this objective, even though she was repented, the punishment of whipping is to maintain peace and harmony, whereby in my perspective , this punishment will reduce public to easily drinking alcohols in public area, and yet maintain peace and harmony to our country.

Secondly is Al-Zajr which is prevention and deterrence whereby to prevent the offender from the re-commission of further offences, which I guess similar to this case was to prevent Kartika to do this act again in future and remind all of public to do the same and to deter the members of society from initiating the offences. Moreover, Under Islamic Law, punishment is to rehab the offender from committing the sin which clearly obtained principle of tawbah. Last but not least is to expiation, which the purpose to clear the person’s account (sin) with allah. It was stated in one of the Hadith “whoever commits a crime deserving of hadd and receives its punishment in this world, this will be expiation”. I do believe this is the approach taken by Kartika where she herself accept and prepare for the punishment.
Secondly, under Civil Law she must go to prison to be caned but the Syariah court did not impose custodial sentence on her. Based on the reality, Syariah prosecutor went to Syariah court and asked for her to be “remanded” in prison for a week to facilitate the caning. The Syariah Judge granted the order.
This was illegal because a person can only be punished once. The punishment meted to Kartika was RM5,000 fine and six lashes; they instead obtained an additional sentence. Furthermore, how could they obtain a remand order? A remand is for the authority to put someone in a lock-up to complete investigation. She has already been found guilty and sentenced. The Syariah court had made a grave error, and caused an injustice. “What guideline are we going to use here? Do we want to punish her even worse than Syariah permits?





Civil law prohibits the caning of women, probably because criminal caning is considerably harsher than syariah caning. Some argue that the Syariah Law, which allows for a woman to be caned, runs counter to the Federal Law that does not allow a woman to be caned. But again, back to basic. Since amendment made in Federal Constitutional, in Islamic Matter, Shariah Law is prevail.
Some also argue that the whipping cannot be executed because prison regulations only allow the whipping of prisoners, and Kartika was not given a jail sentence. And Section 125 (4) of the Pahang Syariah Criminal Procedure Act 2002, which gives the court the right to detain her for caning, cannot be applied since it refers to offenders who have been sentenced to caning only. Kartika was given a fine in addition to the caning. And she has paid the fine. Many argue that, being a first-time offender, Kartika should not have received the maximum sentence. Yet others argue that a woman should be spared the cane. The last argument is weak. The amended Article 8 of the Federal Constitution says no one should be discriminated against on the basis of gender.
So, if the court honestly believes she deserves to be caned, then the woman should be caned. But here's the question: does Kartika deserve to be caned?
This is her first offence. By right, on the scale of penalties, she should have got the lowest punishment - a fine. Yet, why was she also given the maximum number of strokes of the rotan? Is the situation of Muslims publicly imbibing in alcohol at such a dire level that it warrants Kartika being made an example? At the eleventh hour, the Pahang syariah appellate court is wading into the issue and might revise the sentence. If they are set on caning her, they will either have to drop the fine (which has been paid) or add a jail sentence.But, there is another option: they could just drop the caning altogether and make her punishment just a fine. If this happens, then justice would not be served and Kartika would not have learned her lesson.



The option most loved by God is forgiveness. Of the 99 known names and attributes of Allah, six directly relate to compassion and mercy: Ar-Rahman (the mostcompassionate, the beneficient and the gracious), Ar-Rahim (the merciful), Al-Gaffar (the forgiver), Al-Gafur (the forgiving), Ar-Ra'uf (the most kind and the clement) and Al-'Afuww (the pardoner). Another, At-Tawwab (the granter and accepter of repentance). However, Islamic law is still Islamic Law which will be hold forever as a Muslim. Islamic Law is Allah’s right, which need to be taken seriously. Yes, Kartika may not be punished in Civil Law, but In Islamic Law, She have to accept what she did and yet, back to basic, where I do believe this is the approach taken by Kartika where she herself accept and prepare for the punishment which the purpose to clear the person’s account (sin) with allah. It was stated in one of the Hadith “whoever commits a crime deserving of hadd and receives its punishment in this world, this will be expiation”.
Allah's Rights upon His creation are the rights that must be kept the most. Allah is the sole Creator and Sustainer of the universe. He is the Almighty who created everything with absolute wisdom. Allah is the One who initiated every being from nothing. He is the One who protects humans in their mothers' wombs, as infants, as children and as adults. He, alone, sustains all humans and provides them with food and every aspect of life. Allah said, what translated means, "And Allah has brought you out from the wombs of your mothers while you know nothing. And He gave you hearing, sight and hearts that you might give thanks (to Allah)." [16:78]
If Allah refuses sustenance to anyone he will be instantly destroyed. Allah's mercy is what keeps humans and everything else alive. Allah's control over his slaves is perfect. His bounties are countless. If this is His role in the life of humans, then His rights are what one must keep the most. Allah does not need sustenance from His slaves. He said, what translated means: "We ask not of you a provision. We provide it for you. And the good end is for the Muttaqeen (the ones who fear Allah)." [20:132]


Allah only wants one thing from His slaves. "And I (Allah) created not the Jinn and mankind except they should worship Me (alone). I seek not any provision from them nor do I ask that they should feed Me. Verily, Allah is the All-Provider, Owner of Power, the Most Strong." [51:56-58]. The reward is "And whoever is removed away from the Fire and admitted to Paradise, he indeed is successful. The life of this world is only the enjoyment of deception." [3:185].

Does Sexy Clothing = Rape?

There is a discussion between me and A.J. as to whether sexy clothing gets women sexually harrased in the comments section of her post if anyone bother to notice =p
so here is an old opinion of mine i wrote when the issue was a hot topic in Malaysia:

Do sexy clothes land women in trouble?


http://203.115.192.124/thursday/thu_page21.html

(the Sun - 21 Dec 2006)

THE Kota Baru Municipal Council’s (MPKB) move to impose a RM500 fine on retail workers who are “dressed indecently” drew a lot of attention lately.

At the heart of the issue is the debate about whether indecent attire actually invites undesirable behaviour from men, especially sexual crimes. From women’s rights activists to government officials and the retail workers themselves, people from every corner of Malaysia are seemingly opposed to the idea, at least that is what the mainstream media want us to believe.

After all, they say that it is utterly preposterous to link sexy attire with incidents of rape and that women should completely absolve themselves if they fall victim to it. In my humble opinion, these so-called popular opinions are based mainly on irrational emotions, strong personal biases and delusions of gender inequality. There are no statistics or empirical evidence provided, no research studies or scientific papers quoted, and no formal reasoning applied whatsoever. But that is exactly what I will attempt to achieve here. In this age of science and reason, random baseless comments do not quite cut it anymore:

» Most rape cases are male-female where 1 in 6 women versus 1 in 33 men are victims of rape (US National Crime Victimisation Survey 2005)

» 80% of the victims are women under the age of 30 (Tjaden and Thoennes 2000)

» Women aged 16-25 are three times more likely to be raped than other women (Bureau of Justice Statistics. Criminal Victimisation in the United States. US Department of Justice,Washington, DC 1991)

» In descending order: In South Africa, a woman is raped every 20 seconds. In America, a woman is raped every two minutes. In Europe, a woman is raped every 10 minutes. In India, a woman is raped every 34 minutes. In Pakistan, a woman is raped every two hours. In Iraq, a woman is raped every 22 hours. In Teheran, Iran, a woman is raped every six days. (BBC, US Department of Justice, Council of Europe, Human Rights Commission of Pakistan, UN-OCHA)

» Rape statistics show young and sexually attractive females are raped far more often than older, less sexually attractive females (Warren Farrell, The Myth of Male Power)

» A 1995 survey of almost 2,000 American teenagers found that: (a) almost half felt that rape was sometimes the victim’s fault and (b) 40% agreed that girls who wear sexy clothes are asking to be raped (American Medical Association. Facts About Sexual Assault. Chicago, IL: American Medical Association, 1997)

» There is a strong correlation between wearing revealing clothes and rape cases (Thornhill and Palmer, A Natural History of Rape)

As you may have gathered from the above facts, what this basically boils down to is the following:

» Most rape victims are young women who fell prey to men. Exceptional cases involving children and elderly are relatively very rare.

» Rape cases are more common in Western and non-Muslim countries, and these do not include unreported cases.

» Many youngsters, even in more liberal societies, believe that sometimes women are partly to blame for falling prey to sexual predators due to their provocative behaviour.

» While it is impossible to prove the causal relationship between wearing revealing clothes and rape, there is a strong likelihood that it is one of the contributing factors.

» The facts are figures that merely represent the tip of the iceberg. Feel free to conduct your own research and prove me wrong.

The facts pretty much speak for themselves. Even though the factors that contribute to sexual assault vary greatly (society, upbringing, psychological state, socio-biology, etc), there is very little doubt that donning an indecent attire is one of them. While it is virtually impossible to determine exactly why people perpetrate these heinous crimes, we should stop engaging ourselves in the constant denial that sexy clothes do not contribute to the rise of sexual crimes at all.

Surely the point that no woman’s conduct grants a man the right to sexually assault her can be made without encouraging women to overlook the role they themselves may be playing in compromising their safety. This is not to say that provocatively-clothed women should be totally blamed, rather they should share part of the blame for enticing “high-risk” potential perpetrators, and they should start admitting this fact.

And just because there are elder women and children involved does not mean that we should ignore the much bigger picture. It is like saying that carrying a lot of money on the city streets in plain sight does not at all entice potential criminals to commit robbery, since there are people who keep their money in the bank that are nevertheless robbed. The former can even be committed by an average junkie craving for the next “fix”, while the latter is usually perpetrated by professional robbers who plan for days on end before executing it. Likewise, there are different types of rapists with different fetishes and target victims. So why confuse the two?

Another fallacy is the notion that being able to wear sexy clothes liberates women from the shackles of gender inequality and the delusions under which they operate. Conservative Islamic societies are often blamed for “subjugating women” and denying them of their basic human rights. I cannot help but wonder whether the gender equality issues often cited by some parties include the freedom to compromise their safety by putting on an indecent attire and behaving provocatively, and later on absolving themselves completely and unconditionally after they are sexually assaulted?

Does it also include being able to do all the things that men usually do, like playing physically aggressive contact sports, putting on a male attire and sporting a masculine hairstyle? Well then, if they really insist on having “true gender equality”, why is it that divorced women paying for their ex-husbands’alimony stays a rarity? Why are men still expected to pay thousands of ringgit in dowry on their wedding day, when some wealthy women are more than capable of doing the same thing? Why then do women feel completely fine with men paying for dowry and alimony, and not so fine anymore when other things seem to side with men?

Men and women have different roles to play, and they are both equally vital to the development of a society. God created the gender differences so that we can complement and learn from each other, not to divide us and render one gender superior to the other. We should value and celebrate the differences between us and not create unnecessary and counter-productive issues out of them.

While some issues often cited by women’s rights activists have their merits, others are pure misconceptions about practices that are thought to be Islamic. Problems like honour killings and prohibiting women from furthering their studies or voting in elections essentially run counter to what Islam actually promotes. These are nothing but deviations from the true Islamic path. On the other hand, if we go back 1,400 years to the advent of Islam, we can see that it brought an ocean of change to women. Karen Armstrong, an eminent Western expert on Islam, makes the following comment:

“We must remember what life had been like for women in the pre-Islamic period when female infanticide was the norm and when women had no rights at all. Like slaves, women were treated as an inferior species, who had no legal existence. In such a primitive world, what Muhammad achieved for women was extraordinary. The very idea that a woman could be witness or could inherit anything at all in her own right was astonishing. In fact, during the Crusades some 1,000 years ago, the Roman Catholic Church was totally appalled to witness how Muslims granted women (what seemed to the former as) too much power and too many rights. Women were free to gain knowledge, trade, own businesses, and even engage themselves in politics. Some of these basic rights were not granted to women of the Western hemisphere until relatively recently. If anything, Islam was women’s first liberator and protector.

As shown by the data cited earlier, Western nations, the so-called champions of women’s rights, suffer the most from sexual crimes against women. You cannot help but wonder why their policy of “equality” and “transparency” results in a more dismal situation for women. You also cannot help but wonder why the Islamic policy of “subjugation” has resulted in much lower numbers of rape cases in Muslim countries. In an ideal society where every individual is capable of self-discipline, it makes sense not to impose too many restrictions. But as the statistics show, it is the young, bubbly and attractive women who are at much greater risk of falling prey to sexual predators, and Islamic laws may have just the answer to the problem.

Safwan Kamarrudin

Subang Jaya




so the above is an email i received from an old friend, not the writer of the article though. this was just a forwarded email to me. it has to be said that a lot of noise has been made recently in malaysia and the world about sexy clothing being the cause of rape. personally, i can't guarantee if the statistics quote by our dear mister safwan here is correct. but i however, kinda agree that sexy clothing is a factor of rape. lol, before i'm label as a sexist, please let me explain. i'm not saying guys can't control themselves and that everytime they see some skin that they go "OH MY GOD!!! LET'S RAPE!!! XD

but it is a fact however that seeing sexily dressed women stirs a reaction in them. Come on guys, be frankly honest, just what sort of thoughts enter your mind when u see a really scantily-clad woman? i hardly doubt that your thinking, "oh wow, that SO makes me wanna read a book?"

the difference is, guys like you and me have self control, we don't go act out what we are thinking cause we understand that it's wrong; either that or we haven't got the guts, lol i of course am going with the latter =P

but of course what is sexy is up for debate. take the CCTV incident in Penang i think? they showed what the girl was wearing in the paper.... lol, if thats sexy to those people, then i seriously think they need to get out more. XD

but whatever it is, these are my views only. i won't force them on to anyone cause hey, people will do what they will. (that and the fact i like to "cuci mata" too =p)
but girls, if you would allow me to said just this one thing, please take care of yourselves, the world is getting more and more.... dangerous? be mindful of what signals you are sending when you chose your clothes...

i'm talking about extreme cases of clothing yah, but get me wrong, if it's just something like tight jeans, please la, i'm a K.L boy, that doesn't rattle me XD
but then again it might rattle someone else...

P.S: OMFG! I'm blind! thinking of a Sexy spongebob.... now that I know sends the wrong signals....

i'll stop yakking now XD

-Isyam out-

Anti-Bumming Laws

There have been blaring of trumpets by the authorities regarding the number of degree holders who are jobless. And they point out that it is not because there are not many jobs, but it's just that the graduates tend to be picky with what they want to work as. Therefore, in my constant state of thought through hibernation, i reached upon an epiphany (usually done by filling up my stomach): Why not start a written law against bummers?

This plan revolves around the fact that since the bums need some sort of motivation, usually a carrot, why not use this method as well as the known method of the stick to get them going? (for the uninitiated, the carrot and stick method involves motivation either by praise and rewards, i.e. carrots, or reprimands and punishments, i.e. sticks)

What the act (hereby called Anti-Bumming Act, or ABA. Catchy..) would do is basically reward those who find jobs by giving them a 100 ringgit bonus in monthly salary for the first 5 or 6 months of employment. To prevent job hopping, the authorities should actually allow the companies to forfeit the pay if the bums quit before the time is up, and disqualify them from ever getting anymore bonuses even if they tried working again in another company. This is, in my opinion, the carrot-stick theory.

Whereas the stick theory (which i must say is more interesting) involves the graduate's degree becoming 'frozen' upon non-employment for a maximum of 2 years after graduation. To re-activate the 'frozen' degree, they shall, perhaps, have to take a test or a semester of 'refreshment course' in their respective universities to get them back on their feet, as 2 years would most probably make their cogs in their brain rust due to the inactivity and junk they accumulate throughout the years.

Why i say that 2 years is a reasonable set time is because i reckon that it is more than enough relaxation before entering the rat race (well truth be told it is also because i feel that i would want to take a gap year and therefore it is wise to make a lacuna for myself:P). Anyway, honestly speaking, 2 years would be a reasonable time to allow graduates to find jobs, and also allow them to have fun and relax, to show that the authorities still consider the needs of graduates. Had they not felt that way, i reckon they could reduce the maximum duration of unemployment to a year.

Thus, with all this in mind, i do feel that the ABA shall be an awesome act that would really improve the productivity of our nation, as well as usher in a surge of employment! Anyone who opposes this view, all i can say is 'en garde'. But do write your views down on how to improve it! Maybe write the interpretation section down too just for the fun of it! Till next time..

Cheerio!
EzzE

Merdeka Celebrations

The eve of 31st August and there's all this hype about Merdeka celebrations. If you're not out at the main spots tonight, you are destined to be a loser for life. Right.
Anyways, what caught my attention is, the fact that everyone seems to think that they're celebrating Independence Day by going out, watching some concerts, fireworks, having "fun" and all sorts of things which shouldn't be mentioned but you know what I'm talking about.
Is that really what independence is about?
We learn history, though I must admit most of us sleep in history class, but bit by bit, there must be some sort of historical value that sticks in our brains. The struggles of our leaders just to free us from the clutches of colonialism and what do we do 52 years later?
We party it up and mess up Dataran Merdeka/KlCC/The Curve/and a bunch of other hotspots.
That's real nice. But you know what would be better?
If we could all look up our history notes and remember the hardship and tribulations.
Cause that's what Independence is about. Not who went to which party.

P/S-I know Tailerag is meant for legal articles, but this just crossed my mind. So what the heck right?

~AJ~

Harassment on the LRT- is there a solution?

It just occured to me (yes I do realize I am quite slow), that every one has been subjected to sexual harassment in some point in their life. It doesn't matter whether you are drop dead gorgeous like Jessica Michibata or a fantasy girl like Caprice raps of or as voluptuous as Kim Kardashian, it doesn't matter whether you were in a mall, work, class, a club, etc,
the main point is as long as you're a girl (or a guy), chances are, you've been a victim, but God knows to what extent.

Basically,sexual harassment refers to unwelcome sexual advances. Note, unwelcome. It doesn't matter what gender you are, it certainly doesn't matter whether it was an act of an opposite gender or of the same gender (oh come on, we live in a bisexual world) or of sexually offensive remarks or acts. Any means which will make you feel violated in any way. If you consent to it, it's not really harassment,is it?

In the past few days, a couple of my own close friends were victims of sexual harassment on the LRT.
First and far most before I continue, don't you even think of blaming it on the girls attire.
Cause these girls were decently dressed in hijab and baju kurung. And I know as a matter of fact, I've seen girls in short skirts and shorts not get an inch from these predators.
Back to the main point, imagine, public transport. Where everyone is in a hurry to get from one place to another, to even bother about the going ons of the next person. Sexual harassment predators take their chances then.

But none of them care to report or scream the matter when it happens. All of them fear that no one else sees the occurrence, thus coloring them little kids crying wolf over nothing. The fact that this happens is, these predators are smart, in crowded areas, you can't really sense whether it was done intentionally or by accident. But one thing that the victims do know is, they were violated, regardless of intention.

So what's there to do?
Is there no solution for these victimised ladies?
That's a question I throw back to you to figure out.

~AJ~