13
Dec
09

 

LANGUAGE AND CULTURE

To liken the dirty Malaysian taxies to the nation’s dirty public toilets may be accepted as an exaggerated comparison! But to say that  the attitude of Malaysian taxi drivers is worse than the dirty toilets is unfair and unacceptable - as Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz has found out!

Twice in a row within the space of a week, the Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department has created a controversy because of  his  language use. The first episode was when he called Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad a “racist” for defending  the National Civics Bureau training modules. 

In both instances there  have been adverse reactions to Nazri’s rather presumptuous  use of language, leading to calls for him to apologise and resign.While Nazri may be able to get away with his ”loose talk”  in comparing the behaviour  of “unscrupulous and dishonest” taxi drivers to dirty toilets in the context of  the most frequent complaints of tourists ( last year it was the dirty toilets and this year it is the errant taxi drivers),  his use of the semantically-loaded word “racist” cannot be so easily dismissed.

Idioms and metaphors exist in every language and are very much culture bound. They arise out of the customs and traditions of the people and the context and environment of their lives. There are many types of figurative language - similes (comparisons), euphemisms (understatements) and hyperboles (exaggerations) and they vary in form and structure as they do in their meanings and implications across languages and cultures. Translating  figures of speech and idiomatic language can lead to gross inaccuracies in meaning and use.

The cleanliness of Malaysian public toilets leaves much to be desired and it may be creative to exaggerate and compare the dirty taxis to them. Language is a living entity and grows with the creativity of its community of users. If Malaysians are happy to accept and use a modern simile “as dirty as Malaysian public toilets” then the idiom will eventually become entrenched in Malaysian culture. In English culture it is customary to compare an untidy or dirty room to a pigsty. This would be highly offensive in Malay culture where you would choose other animal metaphors like macam tempat kucing beranak or macam reban ayam. One can just imagine a Malaysian in the UK saying – “this room is so dirty like a Malaysian toilet!” When you translate it into Malay, it sounds even cruder “bilik ini kotor macam jamban/ tandas Malaysia!”

But  regardless of which culture or ethnic group you belong to, it would be unacceptable to compare the behaviour of a group of people to dirty toilets. Not only is comparing human behaviour to something static and lifeless semantically incorrect, it is also not proper for a Minister to degrade the behaviour of the errant taxi drivers in such harsh terms.

As a responsible Minister, Nazri must choose his words wisely and be constructive in pointing out the failings or shortcomings of a particular individual or target group. Instead of antagonising the taxi drivers with insulting remarks, Nazri should himself be a model of  courteous behaviour, and provide information on excellence in taxi service in a nation-wide campaign or competition for taxi drivers and taxi companies. Educating the taxi drivers would be more effective than chiding them!   

Nazri’s use of the word “racist”, however, may not be so easily forgiven. Literal language has a direct, referential meaning defined in the dictionary and thesaurus. “racist”  refers to a person who discriminates against or is antagonistic towards other races. For Nazri to call Mahathir a racist is a serious matter indeed as the term has far-ranging implications in the politics of multiracial Malaysia. He would have to furnish evidence of  the anti-racial discrimination and antagonism that he is ascribing to the former Prime Minister. He would have to show more than his usual bravado of words and take heed of the Malay saying sebab mulut badan binasa!

10
Dec
09

 

UNPARLIAMENTARY LANGUAGE

Although members of the British Parliament have immunity from prosecution, protecting their right to make statements and bring charges that may be in the national interest, there are necessary restraints preventing attacks on the character and dignity of individuals. The basic characterization of unparliamentary language is that in the view of the Speaker of the House of Commons or equivalent chamber, it breaks the rules of respect. The convention of politeness whereby British Members of Parliament refer to each other as “the honourable” and use other artificial formulas of respect extends to not accusing each other of lying, being drunk, misrepresenting, or insulting each other. This last category is, of course, less easy to define. The specific terms to which the Speaker has objected over the years include blackguard, coward, git, guttersnipe, hooligan, rat, stoolpigeon, swine , and traitor . These vary from the most serious moral condemnations to vulgar abuse. The usual procedure is for the Speaker to demand that the offensive terms be withdrawn, failing which the Member of Parliament will be disciplined or dismissed from the Chamber.

Although unparliamentary has been used in a generalized sense from the early seventeenth century, the first record in the Oxford English Dictionary of the phrase “unparliamentary language” dates only from 1810: “The Speaker stated that … a member had used unparliamentary language” ( Sporting Magazine , XXXV, 302). However, there have been some spectacular earlier breaches. When Oliver Cromwell dissolved Parliament on April 20, 1653, he launched a damning verbal broadside at the incumbents: “Ye are a factious crew, and enemies to all good government. Ye are a pack of mercenary wretches and would like Esau sell your country for a mess of pottage.” He pointed at individuals, and called them “whoremasters, drunkards, corrupt and unjust men,” adding: “Ye have no more religion than my horse…. Perhaps ye think this is not parliamentary language. I confess it is not, neither are you to expect any such from me.” Some members protested, more at his language than his unconstitutional action in closing Parliament. (S.R. Gardiner 1903, 262-63).

In spite of the conventional prohibitions, the House of Commons has witnessed some extraordinarily savage insults inflicted in the course of debates. The contests between Charles James Fox and William Pitt in the late eighteenth century were legendary. The debate on the Irish Home Rule Bill (July 27, 1893) degenerated into a fracas and a fight lasting twenty minutes. On May 15, 1846, Benjamin Disraeli attacked Sir Robert Peel in the following terms: “I find that for between thirty and forty years the right honourable gentleman has traded on the ideas and intelligence of others. (Loud cheering.) His life has been a great appropriation clause. (Shouts of laughter and cheers.) He is a burglar of others’ intellect … there is no statesman who has committed political petty larceny on so great a scale. (Re- newed laughter.)” (W.F. Monypenny 1912, Vol. II, 353). Disraeli’s rhetorical cunning is to avoid the “unparliamentary” words thief and theft , using more polite, high-register but equally damaging equivalents. Disraeli used the same rhetorical technique in publicly dismissing his great enemy and rival William Gladstone with withering sarcasm as “a sophistical rhetorician inebriated with exuberance of his own verbosity” ( Times , July 29, 1878). Perhaps the most famous and witty of these technical evasions was Sir Winston Churchill’s use of the phrase “terminological inexactitude” as a substitute for “lie” (February 22, 1906).

In the House of Commons of Commonwealth countries, the definition of “unparliamentary language” is broader. Thus in the Canadian it is interpreted as “any language which leads to disorder in the House.” In February 1971 the Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau caused a minor scandal when he allegedly told opposition M.P.s to “fuck off.” This was a unique occurrence. In the Australian House of Representatives there is still more latitude, shown in a number of colorful instances, such as this from 1970: “I never use the word ‘bloody’ because it is unparliamentary. It is a word I never bloody well use” (Hornadge 1980, 145). Some exchanges involve extremely insulting language, such as this in 1975:

Dr. R.T. Gun (Labour):    “Why don’t you shut up, you great poofter?”

Mr. J.W. Bourchier (Liberal): “Come round here, you little wop, and I’ll fix you up.”

(Cited in Hornadge 1980, 166)

The South African Parliament has stricter definitions and rulings over “offensive and unbecoming language.” From 1994 (the year of the first democratic election) to 2001, the number of expressions ruled by the Speaker to be “unparliamentary” rose annually from five to thirty. The most common expressions were lie/liar/lying, shut up , and racist , the last category generating many specific terms commonly heard in the past, such as boy, monkey, golliwog, ape, baboon , and other local insulting words for blacks, such as coconut, hotnot (a corruption of Hottentot ), and one newcomer, token black .

Rule 19 of the United States Senate prohibits “language unbecoming a senator.” Although breaches are not common, according to the Washington Post (June 25, 2004), Vice President Dick Cheney, then president of the Senate, told Senator Patrick J. Leahy (Democrat, Vermont) to “fuck yourself” in the course of a widely publicized exchange on the floor of the Senate. However, the Senate was not in session at the time, and Cheney did not apologize.

The term unparliamentary has had a minor general currency, being included in Farmer and Henley’s dictionary Slang and Its Analogues (1890–1904) in the slightly euphemistic senses of “abusive, obscene, unfit for ordinary conversation.”

<a href=”http://encyclopedia.jrank.org/articles/pages/833/Unparliamentary-Language.html”>Unparliamentary Language</a>

08
Dec
09

 

OF MPs AND MINISTERS

The call by the Speaker of the Dewan Rakyat, Tan Sri Pandikar Amin Mulia, for the country’s elected representatives to observe the highest standards of parliamentary behaviour and decorum is long overdue. The decision to conduct a series of seminars and workshops to empower the Yang Berhormat with the appropriate skills and know-how to conduct themselves in the best interest of the rakyat  is timely indeed!

For too long Malaysians have been observing the shameful behaviour of  some of the country’s MPs as they verbally abuse each other in the august house of parliament. While most MPs are serious and decorous in their debates and argumentations, there are some who are persistently abusive and rude. Not only are they clownish in their gestures and mannerisms, they also resort to name-calling and the use of curse words. Instead of upholding  their stature as honourable MPs who articulate their views convincingly, they display unruly behaviour, not unlike that of  the street hooligans that they want to reform.

A  key area in parliamentary behaviour that needs immediate reform is the use of appropriate language and discourse. It must be understood that the language of parliament is formal and its register (tone, style , vocabulary and grammar) must observe acceptable patterns and structures. The colloquial street and  home language varieties that Malaysians use contain words and expressions that are not suitable at the higher level of discourse required at office meetings, media interviews and political platforms. Certainly, name calling (monkey and monyet) and the use of curse words (celaka and gangster) should not feature as part of parliamentary verbal behaviour inside or outside the building.  Instead of being provocative and  calling Tun Mahathir a ”racist”, a Minister of Dato’ Seri Nazri’s experience should know better than to stoke destructive sentiments by his choice of words!  

Before Malaysian parliamentarians can rise to the occasion and exhibit great eloquence and logical argumentation, they should undergo a rigorous linguistic training which many of them have not had the opportunity to experience. Much research has been done at the Faculty of Languages and Linguistics of the major public universities on language registers, discourse analyses and strategies. Many Language for Special Purposes programmes are conducted to raise the level of proficiency in selected linguistic skills. If the linguistic skills of the Malaysian MPs and Ministers are properly developed and they learn effective discourse strategies, they will become better representatives of the rakyat and will be able to articulate their concerns more convincingly.

Then Malaysia can boast of having MPs and Ministers who are serious about upholding the honour and dignity of the House of Parliament and their own privileged positions.

06
Dec
09

 

OF TIGERS AND BIRDS

What a shame! 

Tiger Woods’ unrivalled domination of the golf circuit for more than ten years with the young man emerging as a disciplined and skilled golfer and a doting family man has taken a hit! Not by a rival’s round of eagles and birdies but, most  ironically, by Tiger’s own hole in one! The man is no mean tiger after all but just a bird-chasing one! It turns out that he’s had liaisons with not one woman but three, four, five… leaving a trail of voice and SMS messages  for his wife and the whole world to discover.  

What a sham!

The cool, principled and unwavering player on the golf course turns out to be another furtive,  fumbling and cheating  husband caught in the rounds of marital indiscretions in a spectacular play-off  between him and his wife. The invincible Tiger could not see the woods for the tree as he tried to avert her drives and crashed into one.

The  Tiger Woods’ debacle may or may not affect his exceptional golfing skills and his cool in executing them. The multi million dollar endorsements by sporting companies and organisations may or may not be withdrawn. The millions of golfing fans around the world may or may not care about their champion’s personal problems. But like it or not, this episode will long remain a lesson for celebrities and public figures who lose themselves (and their integrity) in the glamour of their lives; who are stupid enough not to cover their tracks!  

In the end, what started as a sexual attraction, an endearing relationship and perhaps even love turns out to be no more than an opportunity to exploit a business potential and to wrest millions from a rich partner. Pre and post nuptial contracts, book deals, exclusive disclosures, media publicity, the prospects of a Hollywood debut will drive the birds as they fly high over the tigers and rampage through the woods! 

For years to come, the sexual indiscretions of this cheating husband will serve to reinforce the belief of  the women out there that the price to pay for treating them as trophies or toys is high indeed! As men remain convinced that they are God’s gift to women especially when they are endowed with $$$$$; as they exert their brute strength and power; as they sink more comfortably into their chauvinistic cocoon, the women are getting wiser and more wily! Women are calculating their worth in a dynamic way where “adoration and fertile tears” no longer deceive them; where sex is not sacred or secret; where love is a commodity you pay for; where partners and husbands must know the hellish fury of a woman scorned!

It’s a mad, mad, mad world indeed when you can no longer see the woods for the birds in the trees! And it’s a scary world when tigers can no longer roar because they are toothless!

04
Dec
09

 

BROKEN HEARTS

Nothing is more devastating than a broken heart!

The end of a love affair, a failed marriage, betrayal by a friend, a family rift , a departure and a death – all deeply human tragedies which the frail human heart finds difficult to bear!

Unbearable, devastating, heart wrenching!  Patah hati, putus asa, makan hati berulam jantung! At the time it happens and in the  years, months, weeks , days leading to it and after it happens, it  seems as though nothing else matters. The human heart has the tendency to take over the human brain as they wrestle with our destiny! It weeps and bleeds as it grieves. And if allowed,  it envelops our whole being making us emotional, irrational, unreasonable, cynical, negative and worst of all – destructive! 

But soft and vulnerable as it is, the human heart is also versatile and resilient! It is capable of expanding or contracting as our brain crosswires with it and our reason guides it. When the grieving is over, it can be imbued with a renewed strength and vigour, with fresh hopes and dreams.

Sometimes the decision to end a relationship is thrust upon you  by well-meaning family and friends who are able to take a step back or forward to see the futility of hanging on.  That love or infatuation is blind is no mean truism especially when you are young and gullible. Your elders and those who makan garam dulu ( tasted salt before you) are able to see beyond the pretty face or the smooth talker. Experience and exposure makes one more aware of personality and character, ambition and endeavour – elements often camouflaged by the  multitude of facades that humans are capable of  wearing! It is again no mean truism that books and their covers are not always in harmony!

When you part early in a relationship it is no big deal for the heart to bounce back to reality! It is sad but you move on with the memories to play back if they are good ones. But the grief is greatest when you have endured a long relationship with a string of attachments, the most important being the children you share. Again and again those pairs of eyes looking  at you stop you from making the rash, selfish decisions. You think of them and their well-being and their future and the God-ordained bonds you bear for bringing them into this world. Divorce is not easy unless you feel totally betrayed!

The heart again comes into play at moments of great decision making – perhaps not in the boardroom but definitely in the bedroom! Tak sampai hati (don’t have the heart to) envelops your being when it comes to the crunch! As weak and as repulsive as your longstanding partners/ spouses are, you must have been as weak and as repulsive to them all these years! As strong and as dedicated as they are , you must have been as strong and as dedicated to have endured the trials and tribulations of the life together. 

Of course there are marriages which were never meant to be from the start or midway through! There are people who are basically incompatible despite the romance of courtship which blurs many things. They persevere despite the warning signs. And when it happens they blame!

In spite of the greater powers of the human brain hearts still get broken! Because let’s face it – if you don’t have the heart to, others do!

29
Nov
09

 

MALAYSIAN MEN

What a whopper of  a front page report in today’s NST! Malaysian men have a lot to be proud of!  Not only do they top the world list in having sex most frequently, they also like doing it with prostitutes!

The reasons proferred for the sexual preferences of Malaysian men is that the Malaysian women are too “career-obsessed” and do not communicate well sexually! Prostitutes treat them “like kings, thus restoring their pride and ego”.

The underlying reason for marital infidelity and men ”visiting prostitutes to live out their sexual fantasies” is a basic one viz the lack of  a “solid religious education”. What this really means is that morality is at its ebb among Malaysian men, and visiting prostitutes shows this sorry state of emotional and spiritual depravation! What this shows is an utter disregard for the family values of  responsibility, steadfastness and fidelity!

Yes – blame it on the women rather than look within yourselves!    

What a revelation!

While acknowledging that prostitution is an age-old activity that fulfils the abundant and varied sexual desires of men with women who are willing to sell themselves,  it’s still a shocker to learn that it is rampant in modern Malaysia, in 1 Malaysia!

It is commonsensical to relate the practice of prostitution with the availibility of prostitutes. The corrollary to this argument is that if prostitutes are not so readily availible and cheap, the practice would not be so widespread!

It is also commonsensical to link the inflow and influx of foreign prostitutes of all colours, shapes and sizes with the country’s immigration rules and regulations. With the national tourism drive it has become so easy and so cheap for foreigners to appear at our doorstep with attractive business  and leisure and pleasure packages. We invite foreign workers and students freely into our land of plenty. This of course includes the female sex workers who provide their services to the multitude of “bachelor” foreign workers and students that are flooding the country.

It’s no wonder that the sex trade is so lucrative!

But the real wonder is that the Malaysian men are so spiritually weak that they are ready to succumb to these sexual temptations! The real wonder is that they are blaming it on their wives and partners!

Prostitution

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

The Procuress by Dirck van Baburen (1622)

Prostitute in Tijuana, Mexico.

“Whore” and “Whores” redirect here. For other uses, see Whore (disambiguation).
“Prostitute” redirects here. For other uses, see Prostitute (disambiguation).
This article is semi-protected.

Prostitution is the act or practice of engaging in sex acts for hire.[1]

While prostitution is legal or tolerated in some cultures, it is illegal or socially discouraged in others. Motivations for suppression can vary significantly, from basic moral repugnance to concerns about the effects on society and on those who practice it, as well as whether it is an exploitative practice.[2] In most cultures the prostitutes (the persons who sell sexual servicies) are socially stigmatized; their customers less so.

The word “prostitution” can also be used metaphorically to mean debasement or working towards an unworthy cause.[1]

//

Etymology

Prostitute c.1890

‘To prostitute’ is derived from a composition of two Latin words: (preposition) pro and (verb) statuere. A literal translation therefore would be: ‘to expose’, ‘to place up front’.

Terminology

Synonyms

A variety of terms are used for those who engage in prostitution, some of which distinguish between different kinds, or imply a value judgment about them. Common alternatives for prostitute include escort and whore, although not all professional escorts are prostitutes.

The English word whore derives from the Old English word hōra, from the Indo-European root kā meaning “desire”.

Use of the word whore is widely considered pejorative, especially in its modern slang form of ho’. In Germany most prostitutes’ organizations deliberately use the word Hure (whore) since they feel that prostitute is a bureaucratic term. Those seeking to remove the social stigma associated with prostitution often promote terminology such as sex worker, commercial sex worker (CSW), “tantric engineer” (coined by author Robert Anton Wilson), or sex trade worker. A hooker or streetwalker solicits customers in public places; a call girl makes appointments by phone.

Male prostitution

Main article: Male prostitution

Correctly or not, prostitute without specifying a gender is commonly assumed to be female; compound terms such as male prostitute or male escort are therefore used to identify males. Those offering services to female customers are commonly known as gigolos; those offering services to male customers are hustlers or rent boys.

Economic and social stratification

Organisers of prostitution are typically known as pimps (if male) and madams (if female). More formally, they practice procuring, and are procurers, or procuresses.

The customers of prostitutes are known as johns or tricks in North America and punters in the British Isles. These slang terms are used among both prostitutes and law enforcement for persons who solicit prostitutes[3] . The term john may have originated from the customer practice of giving their name as “John”, a common name in English-speaking countries, in an effort to maintain anonymity. In some places, men who drive around red-light districts for the purpose of soliciting prostitutes are also known as kerb crawlers.

27
Nov
09

 

MARUAH WANITA

Seringkali rujukan dibuat kepada ayah/ surah  Al Quran yang maha suci:

Dan jika kamu takut tidak akan berlaku adil terhadap (hak-hak) perempuan yatim (bilamana kamu mengahwininya, maka kahwinilah wanita-wanita (lain) yang kamu senangi: dua, tiga atau empat. Kemudian jika kamu takut tidak akan dapat berlaku adil, maka (kahwinilah) seorang saja, atau budak-budak yang kamu miliki. Yang demikian itu adalah lebih dekat kepada tidak berbuat aniaya.

AN NISAA’ (WANITA)  Terjemahan Kerajaan Saudi Arabia

And if you have reason to fear that you might not act equitably towards orphans, then marry from among [other] women such as are lawful to you – [even] two, three, or four: but if you have reason to fear that you might not be able to treat them with equal fairness, then [only] one – or [from among] those whom you rightfully possess. This will make it more likely that you will not deviate from the right course.

AN-NISA Translated and Explained by Muhammad Asad

Seringkali rujukan dibuat bagi menjelas dan mempertahankan amalan poligami dalam agama Islam. Seringkali ia ditafsirkan sebagai peruntukan yang mengizinkan lelaki Islam berkahwin lebih daripada satu (isteri). Seringkali ia dianggap sebagai hak  lelaki Islam yang memberi mereka kelebihan menentukan soal rumah tangga sebagai ketua dan pemimpin keluarga dalam segala aspek hidup dan mati.

Amat besar tanggungjawab dan kewajipan seorang suami dan bapa yang mendidik isteri dan anak-anak mengikut jalan yang benar! Amat besar juga dosanya jika mana mana aspek kewajipan ini diabaikan!

Dalam keluarga berpoligami, yang sering diutamakan ialah nafkah zahir batin. Suami bertanggungjawab menampung gaya dan cara hidup isteri dan anak-anak dari dua atau lebih keluarga dengan seadil-adilnya. Kesaksamaan menjadi prinsip dan pegangan suami yang soleh kepada isteri-isteri soleha yang dikahwininya – kesaksamaan yang mudah dihitung dengan kiraan RM. Dari aspek kasih sayang dan nafkah batin kiraan ini mungkin sukar dibuat!

Malangnya bukan semua  suami Islam soleh dan bukan semua isteri Islam soleha! Yang sering berlaku ialah ketidaksamaan dalam menunaikan tanggungjawab zahir dan ketidakselesaan dalam menunaikan kewajipan batin! 

Rambut sama hitam; hati lain-lain!

Bukan mudah bagi seorang isteri menerima hakikat bahawa suaminya mengahwini satu, dua atau tiga isteri lagi! Sekuat-kuat imannya, setabah-tabah jiwanya, sebijak-bijak mindanya, setinggi-tinggi pendidikannya, seluas-luas pendedahannya, hati manusia amat kecil dan kerdil.

Seringkali berlaku patah hati, putus hati, hati yang hancur berderai disebabkan suami yang memungkarinya, yang tidak setia, tidak adil, tidak bertanggungjawab dan tidak berperasaan belas kasihan!

Terlalu ramai isteri dalam keluarga berpoligami yang dianiaya secara tersirat. Maruah dan keyakinan diri mereka sering dipermain-mainkan oleh suami yang terjerumus dalam kancah kesulitan yang dibina oleh mereka sendiri. Sesuatu (kahwin dua atau tiga atau empat) yang dianggap macho dan mempamirkan kejantanan suami pada satu ketika, menimbulkan masalah hidup yang berterusan, lebih lebih lagi jika mempunyai ramai anak. Karenah isteri-isteri pula macam macam! 

Yang penting isteri dalam keluarga berpoligami mesti berpegang teguh kepada tanggunjawab dan hak mereka sebagai wanita Islam yang bermaruah dan berintegriti. Mereka tidak harus menikus jika hak mereka dan anak-anak mereka dicabuli. Adalah menjadi tanggungjawab isteri soleha menegur dan membaiki sikap buruk suami; adalah menjadi kewajipannya sebagai ibu yang setia membina rumahtangga aman dan saksama; adalah menjadi perjuangan hidupnya untuk menjadi seorang wanita yang dihormati dan dipandang tinggi oleh komuniti dan masyarakat di sekelilingnya.

Maruah wanita mesti dipelihara dengan sebaik-baiknya oleh wanita sendiri dan lelaki yang mendekati mereka!        

 

22
Nov
09

 

The Rubáiyát of Omar Khayyám

by

Edward Fitzgerald

Translated into English in 1859 by Edward FitzGerald



I.

AWAKE! for Morning in the Bowl of Night
 Has flung the Stone that puts the Stars to Flight:
And Lo! the Hunter of the East has caught
 The Sultan’s Turret in a Noose of Light.

II.

Dreaming when Dawn’s Left Hand was in the Sky
 I heard a voice within the Tavern cry,
“Awake, my Little ones, and fill the Cup
 Before Life’s Liquor in its Cup be dry.”

III.

And, as the Cock crew, those who stood before
 The Tavern shouted — “Open then the Door!
You know how little while we have to stay,
 And, once departed, may return no more.”

IV.

Now the New Year reviving old Desires,
 The thoughtful Soul to Solitude retires,
Where the White Hand of Moses on the Bough
 Puts out, and Jesus from the Ground suspires.

V.

Iram indeed is gone with all its Rose,
 And Jamshyd’s Sev’n-ring’d Cup where no one Knows;
But still the Vine her ancient ruby yields,
 And still a Garden by the Water blows.

VI.

And David’s Lips are lock’t; but in divine
    High piping Pehlevi, with “Wine! Wine! Wine!
Red Wine!” — the Nightingale cries to the Rose
 That yellow Cheek of hers to incarnadine.

VII.

Come, fill the Cup, and in the Fire of Spring
 The Winter Garment of Repentance fling:
The Bird of Time has but a little way
 To fly — and Lo! the Bird is on the Wing.

VIII.

Whether at Naishapur or Babylon,
 Whether the Cup with sweet or bitter run,
The Wine of Life keeps oozing drop by drop,
 The Leaves of Life kep falling one by one.

IX.

Morning a thousand Roses brings, you say;
 Yes, but where leaves the Rose of Yesterday?
And this first Summer month that brings the Rose
 Shall take Jamshyd and Kaikobad away.

X.

But come with old Khayyam, and leave the Lot
 Of Kaikobad and Kaikhosru forgot:
Let Rustum lay about him as he will,
 Or Hatim Tai cry Supper — heed them not.

XI.

With me along the strip of Herbage strown
 That just divides the desert from the sown,
Where name of Slave and Sultan is forgot —
 And Peace is Mahmud on his Golden Throne!

XII.

A Book of Verses underneath the Bough,
 A Jug of Wine, a Loaf of Bread, — and Thou
Beside me singing in the Wilderness —
 Oh, Wilderness were Paradise enow!

XIII.

Some for the Glories of This World; and some
 Sigh for the Prophet’s Paradise to come;
Ah, take the Cash, and let the Promise go,
 Nor heed the rumble of a distant Drum!

XIV.

Were it not Folly, Spider-like to spin
 The Thread of present Life away to win —
What? for ourselves, who know not if we shall
 Breathe out the very Breath we now breathe in!

XV.

Look to the Rose that blows about us — “Lo,
    Laughing,” she says, “into the World I blow:
At once the silken Tassel of my Purse
 Tear, and its Treasure on the Garden throw.”

XVI.

The Worldly Hope men set their Hearts upon
 Turns Ashes — or it prospers; and anon,
Like Snow upon the Desert’s dusty Face
 Lighting a little Hour or two — is gone.

XVII.

And those who husbanded the Golden Grain,
 And those who flung it to the Winds like Rain,
Alike to no such aureate Earth are turn’d
 As, buried once, Men want dug up again.

XVIII.

Think, in this batter’d Caravanserai
 Whose Doorways are alternate Night and Day,
How Sultan after Sultan with his Pomp
 Abode his Hour or two and went his way.

XIX.

They say the Lion and the Lizard keep
 The Courts where Jamshyd gloried and drank deep:
And Bahram, that great Hunter — the Wild Ass
    Stamps o’er his Head, but cannot break his Sleep.

XX.

I sometimes think that never blows so red
 The Rose as where some buried Caesar bled;
That every Hyacinth the Garden wears
 Dropt in its Lap from some once lovely Head.

XXI.

And this delightful Herb whose tender Green
 Fledges the River’s Lip on which we lean —
Ah, lean upon it lightly! for who knows
 From what once lovely Lip it springs unseen!

XXII.

Ah, my Beloved, fill the Cup that clears
 To-day of past Regrets and future Fears —
To-morrow? — Why, To-morrow I may be
    Myself with Yesterday’s Sev’n Thousand Years.

XXIII.

Lo! some we loved, the loveliest and best
 That Time and Fate of all their Vintage prest,
Have drunk their Cup a Round or two before,
 And one by one crept silently to Rest.

XXIV.

And we, that now make merry in the Room
 They left, and Summer dresses in new Bloom,
Ourselves must we beneath the Couch of Earth
 Descend, ourselves to make a Couch — for whom?

XXV.

Ah, make the most of what we may yet spend,
 Before we too into the Dust descend;
Dust into Dust, and under Dust, to lie;
    Sans Wine, sans Song, sans Singer, and — sans End!

XXVI.

Alike for those who for To-day prepare,
 And those that after some To-morrow stare,
A Muezzin from the Tower of Darkness cries
    “Fools! Your Reward is neither Here nor There!”

XXVII.

Why, all the Saints and Sages who discuss’d
 Of the Two Worlds so learnedly, are thrust
Like foolish Prophets forth; their Works to Scorn
    Are scatter’d, and their Mouths are stopt with Dust.

XXVIII.

Oh, come with old Khayyam, and leave the Wise
 To talk; one thing is certain, that Life flies;
One thing is certain, and the Rest is Lies;
 The Flower that once has blown forever dies.

XXIX.

Myself when young did eagerly frequent
 Doctor and Saint, and heard great Argument
About it and about; but evermore
 Came out by the same Door as in I went.

XXX.

With them the Seed of Wisdom did I sow,
 And with my own hand labour’d it to grow:
And this was all the Harvest that I reap’d —
 “I came like Water and like Wind I go.”

XXXI.

Into this Universe, and Why not knowing,
 Nor Whence, like Water willy-nilly flowing:
And out of it, as Wind along the Waste,
 I know not Whither, willy-nilly blowing.

XXXII.

Up from Earth’s Centre through the Seventh Gate
    I rose, and on the Throne of Saturn sate,
And many Knots unravel’d by the Road;
 But not the Master-Knot of Human Fate.

XXXIII.

There was the Door to which I found no Key:
 There was the Veil through which I could not see:
Some little talk awhile of Me and Thee
 There was — and then no more of Thee and Me.

XXXIV.

Then to the rolling Heav’n itself I cried,
 Asking, “What Lamp had Destiny to guide
Her little Children stumbling in the Dark?”
    And — “A blind Understanding!” Heav’n replied.

XXXV.

Then to the Lip of this poor earthen Urn
 I lean’d, the secret Well of Life to learn:
And Lip to Lip it murmur’d — “While you live,
    Drink! — for, once dead, you never shall return.”

XXXVI.

I think the Vessel, that with fugitive
 Articulation answer’d, once did live,
And merry-make, and the cold Lip I kiss’d,
 How many Kisses might it take — and give!

XXXVII.

For in the Market-place, one Dusk of Day,
 I watch’d the Potter thumping his wet Clay:
And with its all obliterated Tongue
    It murmur’d — “Gently, Brother, gently, pray!”

XXXVIII.

And has not such a Story from of Old
 Down Man’s successive generations roll’d
Of such a clod of saturated Earth
 Cast by the Maker into Human mould?

XXXIX.

Ah, fill the Cup: — what boots it to repeat
 How Time is slipping underneath our Feet:
Unborn To-morrow, and dead Yesterday,
 Why fret about them if To-day be sweet!

XL.

A Moment’s Halt — a momentary taste
 Of Being from the Well amid the Waste —
And Lo! the phantom Caravan has reach’d
 The Nothing it set out from — Oh, make haste!

XLI.

Oh, plagued no more with Human or Divine,
 To-morrow’s tangle to itself resign,
And lose your fingers in the tresses of
 The Cypress-slender Minister of Wine.

XLII.

Waste not your Hour, nor in the vain pursuit
 Of This and That endeavor and dispute;
Better be merry with the fruitful Grape
 Than sadden after none, or bitter, fruit.

XLIII.

You know, my Friends, with what a brave Carouse
 I made a Second Marriage in my house;
Divorced old barren Reason from my Bed,
 And took the Daughter of the Vine to Spouse.

XLIV.

And lately, by the Tavern Door agape,
 Came stealing through the Dusk an Angel Shape
Bearing a Vessel on his Shoulder; and
    He bid me taste of it; and ’twas — the Grape!

XLV.

The Grape that can with Logic absolute
 The Two-and-Seventy jarring Sects confute:
The subtle Alchemest that in a Trice
 Life’s leaden Metal into Gold transmute.

XLVI.

Why, be this Juice the growth of God, who dare
 Blaspheme the twisted tendril as Snare?
A Blessing, we should use it, should we not?
 And if a Curse — why, then, Who set it there?

XLVII.

But leave the Wise to wrangle, and with me
 The Quarrel of the Universe let be:
And, in some corner of the Hubbub couch’d,
 Make Game of that which makes as much of Thee.

XLVIII.

For in and out, above, about, below,
 ’Tis nothing but a Magic Shadow-show,
Play’d in a Box whose Candle is the Sun,
 Round which we Phantom Figures come and go.

XLIX.

Strange, is it not? that of the myriads who
 Before us pass’d the door of Darkness through
Not one returns to tell us of the Road,
 Which to discover we must travel too.

L.

The Revelations of Devout and Learn’d
 Who rose before us, and as Prophets burn’d,
Are all but Stories, which, awoke from Sleep,
 They told their fellows, and to Sleep return’d.

LI.

Why, if the Soul can fling the Dust aside,
 And naked on the Air of Heaven ride,
Is’t not a shame — Is’t not a shame for him
 So long in this Clay suburb to abide?

LII.

But that is but a Tent wherein may rest
 A Sultan to the realm of Death addrest;
The Sultan rises, and the dark Ferrash
 Strikes, and prepares it for another guest.

LIII.

I sent my Soul through the Invisible,
 Some letter of that After-life to spell:
And after many days my Soul return’d
    And said, “Behold, Myself am Heav’n and Hell.”

LIV.

Heav’n but the Vision of fulfill’d Desire,
    And Hell the Shadow of a Soul on fire,
Cast on the Darkness into which Ourselves,
 So late emerg’d from, shall so soon expire.

LV.

While the Rose blows along the River Brink,
 With old Khayyam and ruby vintage drink:
And when the Angel with his darker Draught
    Draws up to Thee — take that, and do not shrink.

LVI.

And fear not lest Existence closing your
 Account, should lose, or know the type no more;
The Eternal Saki from the Bowl has pour’d
 Millions of Bubbls like us, and will pour.

LVII.

When You and I behind the Veil are past,
 Oh but the long long while the World shall last,
Which of our Coming and Departure heeds
 As much as Ocean of a pebble-cast.

LVIII.

’Tis all a Chequer-board of Nights and Days
 Where Destiny with Men for Pieces plays:
Hither and thither moves, and mates, and slays,
 And one by one back in the Closet lays.

LIX.

The Ball no Question makes of Ayes and Noes,
 But Right or Left, as strikes the Player goes;
And he that toss’d Thee down into the Field,
    He knows about it all — He knows — HE knows!

LX.

The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ,
 Moves on: nor all thy Piety nor Wit
Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line,
 Nor all thy Tears wash out a Word of it.

LXI.

For let Philosopher and Doctor preach
 Of what they will, and what they will not — each
Is but one Link in an eternal Chain
 That none can slip, nor break, nor over-reach.

LXII.

And that inverted Bowl we call The Sky,
 Whereunder crawling coop’t we live and die,
Lift not thy hands to it for help — for It
 Rolls impotently on as Thou or I.

LXIII.

With Earth’s first Clay They did the Last Man knead,
    And then of the Last Harvest sow’d the Seed:
Yea, the first Morning of Creation wrote
 What the Last Dawn of Reckoning shall read.

LXIV.

Yesterday This Day’s Madness did prepare;
 To-morrow’s Silence, Triumph, or Despair:
Drink! for you know not whence you came, nor why:
 Drink! for you know not why you go, nor where.

LXV.

I tell You this — When, starting from the Goal,
    Over the shoulders of the flaming Foal
Of Heav’n Parwin and Mushtari they flung,
 In my predestin’d Plot of Dust and Soul.

LXVI.

The Vine has struck a fiber: which about
 If clings my Being — let the Dervish flout;
Of my Base metal may be filed a Key,
 That shall unlock the Door he howls without.

LXVII.

And this I know: whether the one True Light,
 Kindle to Love, or Wrath — consume me quite,
One Glimpse of It within the Tavern caught
 Better than in the Temple lost outright.

LXVIII.

What! out of senseless Nothing to provoke
 A conscious Something to resent the yoke
Of unpermitted Pleasure, under pain
 Of Everlasting Penalties, if broke!

LXIX.

What! from his helpless Creature be repaid
 Pure Gold for what he lent us dross-allay’d —
Sue for a Debt we never did contract,
 And cannot answer — Oh the sorry trade!

LXX.

Nay, but for terror of his wrathful Face,
 I swear I will not call Injustice Grace;
Not one Good Fellow of the Tavern but
 Would kick so poor a Coward from the place.

LXXI.

Oh Thou, who didst with pitfall and with gin
 Beset the Road I was to wander in,
Thou will not with Predestin’d Evil round
 Enmesh me, and impute my Fall to Sin?

LXXII.

Oh, Thou, who Man of baser Earth didst make,
 And who with Eden didst devise the Snake;
For all the Sin wherewith the Face of Man
    Is blacken’d, Man’s Forgiveness give — and take!

LXXIII.

Listen again. One Evening at the Close
 Of Ramazan, ere the better Moon arose,
In that old Potter’s Shop I stood alone
 With the clay Population round in Rows.

LXXIV.

And, strange to tell, among that Earthen Lot
 Some could articulate, while others not:
And suddenly one more impatient cried —
    “Who is the Potter, pray, and who the Pot?”

LXXV.

Then said another — “Surely not in vain
 My Substance from the common Earth was ta’en,
That He who subtly wrought me into Shape
 Should stamp me back to common Earth again.”

LXXVI.

Another said — “Why, ne’er a peevish Boy,
    Would break the Bowl from which he drank in Joy;
Shall He that made the vessel in pure Love
 And Fancy, in an after Rage destroy?”

LXXVII.

None answer’d this; but after Silence spake
  A Vessel of a more ungainly Make:
“They sneer at me for leaning all awry;
     What! did the Hand then of the Potter shake?”

LXXVIII:
“Why,” said another, “Some there are who tell
     Of one who threatens he will toss to Hell
The luckless Pots he marred in making — Pish!
     He’s a Good Fellow, and ’twill all be well.”

LXXIX.

Then said another with a long-drawn Sigh,
 “My Clay with long oblivion is gone dry:
But, fill me with the old familiar Juice,
 Methinks I might recover by-and-by!”

LXXX.

So while the Vessels one by one were speaking,
 The Little Moon look’d in that all were seeking:
And then they jogg’d each other, “Brother! Brother!
    Now for the Porter’s shoulder-knot a-creaking!”

LXXXI.

Ah, with the Grape my fading Life provide,
 And wash my Body whence the Life has died,
And in a Windingsheet of Vine-leaf wrapt,
 So bury me by some sweet Garden-side.

LXXXII.

That ev’n my buried Ashes such a Snare
 Of Perfume shall fling up into the Air,
As not a True Believer passing by
 But shall be overtaken unaware.

LXXXIII.

Indeed the Idols I have loved so long
 Have done my Credit in Men’s Eye much wrong:
Have drown’d my Honour in a shallow Cup,
 And sold my Reputation for a Song.

LXXXIV.

Indeed, indeed, Repentance oft before
 I swore — but was I sober when I swore?
And then, and then came Spring, and Rose-in-hand
 My thread-bare Penitence apieces tore.

LXXXV.

And much as Wine has play’d the Infidel,
 And robb’d me of my Robe of Honor — well,
I often wonder what the Vintners buy
 One half so precious as the Goods they sell.

LXXXVI.

Alas, that Spring should vanish with the Rose!
 That Youth’s sweet-scented Manuscript should close!
The Nightingale that in the Branches sang,
 Ah, whence, and whither flown again, who knows!

LXXXVII.

Would but the Desert of the Fountain yield
 One glimpse — If dimly, yet indeed, reveal’d
To which the fainting Traveller might spring,
 As springs the trampled herbage of the field!

LXXXVIII.

Ah Love! could thou and I with Fate conspire
 To grasp this sorry Scheme of Things entire,
Would not we shatter it to bits — and then
 Re-mould it nearer to the Heart’s Desire!

LXXXIX.

Ah, Moon of my Delight who know’st no wane,
 The Moon of Heav’n is rising once again:
How oft hereafter rising shall she look
 Through this same Garden after me — in vain!

XC.

And when like her, oh Saki, you shall pass
 Among the Guests star-scatter’d on the Grass,
And in your joyous errand reach the spot
 Where I made one — turn down an empty Glass!

TAMAM SHUD


17
Nov
09

 

DIFFERENT WORLDS

Last evening I had a most interesting SMS banter with a Professor of Islam at ISTAC through an intermediary! I was chided for chiding Nik Aziz  and spiritual leaders like him who are considered ”men of the cloth”  “who r (are) close to God” and “inheritors of the Prophets”.

I was cautioned not to be “trigger happy” in attacking and preparing them for ”the gallows”. Implicit in the warning is that people like you and me who don’t know enough about Islam should not be commenting on matters involving these individuals. The fear is that  we may incur their wrath and indeed the wrath of the Almighty!

My friendly invitation to the learned Professor to rebut my arguments in The Sun or  ninitalk was turned down – the reason being he is committed to an academic endeavour which leaves him little time for other causes.

Well Professor – I can’t say I’m not disappointed! First of all, as a citizen journalist,  to be chided for expressing a point of view, an argument against the alleged bribery and corruption by the head of a state government; and second of all, as a fellow Muslim, to be told  that being close to God is the prerogative of some people!

I’m disappointed that discourses among Muslims about Islam and its teachings, duties and obligations; interpretations and understanding of Islamic concepts and notions especially opposing ones like – heaven/ hell, dosa/ pahala, haram/ halal - have to remain under the robes of the ulama for them to decipher at will. I’m sorry that the ordinary person is not encouraged to reason with his God-given akal sharpened no doubt by education, exposure and experience of reading for himself/ herself the holy books.

I’m surprised that people are being cautioned not to question the spiritual leaders and engage them in rational and reasoned argumentations/ discussions about their common everyday rights and responsibilities, especially those involving government and administration.

Are we to accept everything that our spiritual leaders do or say even when they appear dubious and irrational? Is the flock expected to remain within the strict confines of the religion while the shepherds are free to interpret them at will? Or are we to roam the path they tread even when our instincts and good sense tell us  it’s not right?

More and more I realise how accurate the theory of Relevance (Sperber and Wilson, 1986) is in explaining human cognition and communication. In interpreting an utterance (speech or writing), the hearer/ reader brings to bear upon it the relevant linguistic and encyclopeadic knowledge and experiences which he/she has access to.

What this means is no two persons will get the same meaning and implications out of the myriad phenomena  around him because no two persons share exactly the same education, exposure and experience. Add to this the differences in mental, emotional, psychological and intellectual perceptions and cognition between people and the chasm is huge and deep!

In human society there are systems and mechanisms that act as equalisers, that try to create homogeneity in the socio-cultural, educational, economic and political milieus so that the community is better organised and people are easier to handle.

Religious leadership is one. Political leadership is the other. When the two are combined as they are in the person of Nik Abdul Aziz, that’s when confusions arise both for himself and his followers.

As for me, I would like to think although I’m not a man or woman of the cloth I feel close to God and fervently wish to uphold the truth and justice, fairness and equality, honesty and integrity of Islam!

14
Nov
09

doa-nik-aziz

 

BRIBERY REVISITED

I shall persevere!

I would like to think that sharing one’s endowments includes sharing one’s thoughts, knowledge and experiences in the hope that they will indeed contribute to the betterment of society and mankind.

I would like to think that if one has acquired the facility of thinking and reasoning through God’s will and human endeavour, one must have the inclination and the courage to share its processes with one’s fellow men and women, not just at the level of casual chatter and gossip but in more formal settings of speech and writing. Only then can one invite rebuttals and comments that are of some substance! 

This brings me once again to one of my favourite topics – bribery and corruption. And the question of what constitutes bribery and corruption!

Having shared some definitions of corruption in an earlier posting, I’d like to discuss some notions/ types of bribery in the light of the controversy surrounding Nik Abdul Aziz the Kelantan Menteri Besar’s sponsored pilgrimage to Mecca.

The popular spiritual leader has denied that the all-paid RM 65,000 holy trip is at all unholy!

” On Tuesday Nik Aziz was quoted as saying that it was all right to accept sponsorship for the haj as it was not an act of corruption.” ( NST,  November 14)

” Nik Aziz had earlier this week deemed it all right for him to accept the sponsorship by a private individual to go for the two-week long pilgrimage, estimated to cost RM 65,000.” (The Star, 14 November)

Nik_Aziz-lingkup_PAS

The PAS strongman does not consider the haj sponsorship as bribery despite the fact that it comes from a company- Abroad Technology Sdn Bhd – that has been awarded exclusive rights to a government project viz putting up sign posts throughout the state of Kelantan. More intriguing is the fact that the Menteri Besar’s son-in-law who is the CEO of Perbadanan Menteri Besar Kelantan was to be one of the 10 people in Nik Aziz’s entourage.  

If the sponsorship does not constitute a gesture of gratitude, a post-dated inducement, a big terima kasih for the Menteri Besar’s or his son-in-law’s approval of the company’s application/ tender, what does?

The difference is that the gift is beautifully camouflaged in the guise of a religious good deed, tajaan untuk menunaikan ibadat haji which in less dubious circumstances would bring much joy to the sponsored and much pahala to the sponsor to add to the grand total of bonus points that would guarantee him a place in Heaven.

It’s shocking to Nik Aziz and his followers who consider themselves the true “believers and people of faith” that this gesture of goodwill, this generosity of spirit can be misconstrued as something wrong by the media.

“Beliau menyifatkan tindakan media terbabit bertujuan menghalangnya daripada menunaikan ibadat haji dan menyamakan kumpulan tersebut dengan kaum Quraisy yang sering menghalang Nabi Muhammad SAW melakukan ibadah” (Utusan Malaysia, 14 November).

Once again Nik Aziz has turned the tables on the ”non-believers” and accused them of committing a sin against him. By quoting from selected religious sources, Islamic leaders and ulama like him again and again justify their arguments and their decisions to the utter confusion of the Malay Muslim ummah especially those who don’t know better and  believe their every word. 

These same people should stop fooling themselves and their followers, and honestly search their minds and hearts. They must stop playing around with Islam for their own selfish political ends! They have a duty to address the relevant sections of the Holy Books which clearly forbid bribery, corruption and the abuse of power.

As I’ve asserted before, Malaysians of all religious denominations must understand and accept that bribery and corruption is a sin before they realise how serious the offence is in the eyes of God. They may not fear the government and anti-corruption agencies; their colleagues and superiors;  their family and friends; the police and the law! But if you instil in them the fear of God’s wrath in this world and the next it may work!

DSCF4959

More frightening is the fact that the givers of bribes have become more creative and ingenious in wooing their victims and hiding their deeds. As the enforcement agencies get more serious, they are employing more camouflages and indirect ways of giving inducements or currying favour. If you can’t bribe the people in authority they have wives, children and other members of the family who may not be strong enough to resist the temptation. The givers and takers are sure they will never get caught!

Holidays, house refurbishments, courses and conferences, attachments and internships, even dental and medical treatments can serve as clever substitutes for hard cash. It’s becoming more and more difficult to find the evidence to book these corruptors of ethics and morality and throw them into the prisons where they belong!