Passing any laws does not require two-third majority

Who says we need two-third majority to pass Hudud law? Passing any laws requires only a simple majority (1/2), this includes Hudud law.

What needs 2/3 majority is only for the amendment to the federal constitution (eg. Declaring Malaysia as an Islamic country). Not being Islamic country does not mean we cannot enforce Hudud law.

Lets look can MP candidates who contest under GE13:
PAKATAN RAKYAT------>142 muslim, non muslim 80 (63.96% muslims)
BARISAN NASIONAL---> 130 muslim, non muslim 92 (58.56% muslims)

Of course, not all PR's muslim MP candidates advocate for Hudud, many are still left-thinking PKR candidates, and there're also PR's MP candidates who is representing the liberal DAP.

PAS has sets its tone very clear that they're fighting for making Malaysia an Islamic country, but they promise that nothing will affect non-muslims.

But how can someone (a non-muslim) believes that their lives won't be affected, if our rest day changed to Friday and Saturday? We're competing in a globalization era and our operating workday is out of sync with the world and it doesn't affect our lives (and our stakeholders abroad?)

How can our lives and emotions not affected when we see our muslim brothers being punished under Hudud?

Human have emotions, human empathizes.

If one can feel envious of certain privilege other tribes of the society enjoys, how can't one (same human with emotion) feel sympathy for legal consequences other tribes of the society has to bear?

Pakatan Rakyat's supporter,namely the non-bumis criticize BN to create double standard for the privilege by ethics, but now PR itself advocates for another double standard for the legal treatment, this time, by religions.

Sensitive issue in Malaysia

Sensitive issue is also an issue, Malaysian leaders should not divert attention or avoid answering question on their political stance. Avoiding answering question on your political stance doesn't make that issue disappear, it just advertises your indecisiveness.

When MCA and Gerakan question Pakatan's leader on their stance on Hudud and Islamic country, only Karpal Singh a firm assertion of NO! to this political standing. DSAI, Lim Kit Siang and Lim Guan Eng remain silent on this matter. Karpal Singh contests under my district, and he'd definitely earned my vote for his assertiveness.

I'm sure Lim Guan Eng doesn't mind Malaysia being Islamic country and Hudud applying in Malaysia as long as he is in power. After all, being a Catholic, he doesn't mind taking praying incense on Penang Hokkien's "Pai Ti Kong" night, how would he care about his political stance when he can't even stick to his own (Catholic) religious standing? He's just a FCUKING Machiavellian!

Meanwhile, I saw ads in Sin Chew (MCA-owned Chinese daily) which is trying to earn some votes by spreading Islamophobic messages (ie. voting PR = voting for Hudud, no concerts, no pork, no parties). I fail to understand how can UMNO remain silent when their ally(MCA) is trying to earn votes by promoting Islamophobia.

Last few years, when Najib was trying to invite PAS to join BN, I also failed to understand how can MCA remain silence when they are so Islamophobic.

It seems that Malaysian political leaders have developed a skill, to remain silent when the people question what their ally advocates (which contradicts their own political stance), and that's very uncool.

現實和膚淺是兩個境界

最近的一項關照：

現實的人不會把“我很現實”挂在口中，而膚淺的人則喜歡把“我很現實”挂在口中。

我喜歡跟現實的朋友聊，他們都是有故事的人，和他們通常都可以學到很多，至少可以增加我的見聞。短短的一次閒聊裏很容易看到他們冰山的構造(行爲、感受、價值觀、期待、渴望等。欲了解冰山理論可搜尋 Satir Model)。他們很少會把“我很現實”挂在口中，在分享他們的故事時很乾脆的直接分享他們的感受、出發點、他們要的是什麽、爲什麽他們會做出他們的決定和做了決定過後的發生。我想他們在分享故事分享的題材已經夠多了，根本就沒有時間去想“我很現實”的這種概念，所以自然不會把“我很現實”挂在口中。

反而常把“我很現實”挂在口中的，往往不是現實的人，也不是踏實的人，而是膚淺的人。他們有沒有故事我完全沒興趣，即使有故事也不是有啟發性的故事，跟他們聊天沒有任何意義。在冰山架構上除了看到他們的行爲和聼他們說出的價值觀（“這個cheap!”、“那個cheap!”）。往往膚淺的人的Defense mechanism本身也很強，根本不會給你機會深入冰山去認識真正的他，讓你看到那價值觀冰底下的東西。這對我也無所謂，反正我根本不會有想進而破冰的衝動。

下面我用“愛錢”的現象來做分析：

現實的人愛錢，往往在跟他們破冰聼他們講故事時會發現到他們價值觀的形成。也許聽見他們跟你說小時候窮怕的故事后你會發現原來冰底下他缺乏安全感，渴望經濟上的安穩，才會有現在“愛錢”的現象。

而膚淺的人愛錢，則是不會給你機會了解他價值觀是怎麽形成的，往往他們連自己也選擇性遺忘掉他們的故事，因爲沒有勇氣正視自己的過去、面對自己的陰影。

當然“愛錢”只是其中一個現象，你也一樣可以用冰山來關照“貪圖名利”、“愛美”、“愛慕虛榮”等現象。

所以說以後聽到人家說“我很現實”的時候，別急著相信他，很可能他只是不好意思說“我很膚淺”罷了。

挲婆行者

Kakyn Khok

沒手沒腳沒頭又沒身體的"上帝"

昨天上實踐家集團的“慈善大會”。在林偉賢老師上臺前大會播放了殘疾人士追夢的影片，也現場請來了一位殘疾人士分享追夢歷程，當時心想 ：“咩哇！又來激勵課程的這一套？”

當時很多人很機械式的站起來鼓掌，我在想大家都是發自内心被打動而站起來鼓掌呢？還是因爲這麽多人站了起來，覺得自己沒站起來好像很奇怪而不好意思地站起來鼓掌了。

我不是特別感性的人，相信有部分人也跟我一樣，可能開始看一個沒手的故事會被打動，過後麻木了呢？就要看一個沒手又沒腳的故事才會被打動，再之後不就要看個沒手沒腳又沒頭的故事才可能會被打動了？

如果這招對我有效的話我早就信基督教了，聽説基督教徒常被一個沒手沒腳沒頭又沒身體的東西打動，這個東西好像叫做 - "上帝"。 

裟婆行者

Kakyn Khok

講經與刷牙的思考資訊

“我講經已經講了二十多年了”是他在講經時喜歡穿插的口頭禪。

當時的第一念：

我刷牙也是刷了差不多快二十多年了（扣掉小時沒牙和不會刷牙的那幾年），都不曾拿出來講，也不覺得有講的必要，刷的時候就是活在當下地刷，從來沒有考慮過此刻是我刷了牙的第幾年。雖然我刷了快二十多年的牙，也不敢斷定我刷牙的方式是最正確最有效的，或隱喻我是刷牙的 專家。

或許你會覺得我拿刷牙來作比喻有點勉強，我就不說刷牙。

我們看看佛陀弘法的時候，也從沒說過“如來渡人渡了這麽多世”類似的廢話。

耶穌傳道時也不曾說過“我打救世人打救了那麽多年”的這種屁話。

直到近代的覺者如奧修(Osho)和克里希那穆迪(Jiddu Krishnamurti)在説法時也沒有講過“我説法說了那麽多年了”這種鳥話。

我記得在《智慧的覺醒》裏，曾經有位提問者告訴克里希那穆迪他聼克講課聼了四十年。

當時克的回應是：“你究竟為什麼要費心來聽演講？哪怕是一天，或者更糟，一聽就四十年？真是悲哀！不知道你們這些人活在哪個世界。”

這種想用歲月來暗示“我很厲害”的行爲簡直就像個生膽石的人講“我吃鹽多過你吃米”般的腦殘。

裟婆行者

Kakyn Khok

Proof that love sucks

Why Love SUCKS:

因为有爱，所以才会做爱，
因为做爱，才会有新生命，
也因为生，我们才会死亡。

Therefore, LOVE SUCKS.

Q.E.D.


P/S: but don't worry, I still ♥ you, because I suck.

I pwned them and they killed my post :(

As an enlightened being, I have the social responsibility to point the path towards enlightenment, especially when I see people still wondering around waited to endeavor sufferings.

On anywhere else in the world, most non-Buddhists (and even many Buddhists) has a general misconception about Buddhism like "Life is suffering".

On a forum of great teachings of Abraham, ABE forum, I see many people advertising their ignorance there by saying things like Buddhism is pessimistic etc.
Thus I created a thread to enlighten those who needs the pointer here

Admin from ABE forum, seeing me pwned them heavily, closed my thread. :(
As if I care...