Please bring the barf bags out. The comedians are making their mid-play bows.
Question: If there are two people accusing each other of bad things, how will swearing on a holy book clear anyone of wrong doing? (It was a logical extension from the when Patau Rubis asked the Anwar and Saiful to both use a Bidayuh ceremony to decide who is lying.)
Are we to than infer if either one gets sick after swearing on the Quran or in a Bidayuh ceremony, then that person is the one lying? Is it then going to be a who has better fortune for not lying game?
History has a lengthy list of people who have died without paying for their mortal sins. Stalin butchered millions – even more than Hitler – and he never had to suffer to the day he died. Even in death the house help did not want to touch him, in case he was just sleeping and they incurred his wrath.
I suppose people are going to flung my way, the after-life argument.
I am not going to get into it, because that is not the contention. We have to make laws for the now if not we are going to be victims to a social construction that negates peoples’ wrongs here under the assumption they will pay for it later.
That is how old ladies in Tamil films and my life reasoned out injustices. He will pay to a higher power.
Again I don’t want to get into the god argument.
In Sejarah Melayu the social compact was explained in bizarre terms. If a subjects wrongs his ruler, his punishment is complete. Man and family are killed and their home cast to sea.
If the ruler wronged his subject consciously and often cruelly, his only punishment is that he is going to lose his kingdom. ( Smart observation Captain Obvious)
The focus here is, you cannot veer to the amorphous in order to resolve tricky and complex problems.
There is an inherent danger there.
The previous Works Minister when explaining a bad landslide, referred to it as the act of god.
If you proceed with that think everything horrible has been ordained by a force beyond us, this is rampant fatalism.
And fatalistic people even if they are great novelties at party and adherents of faiths, don’t make leaders.
Things have to be sorted out within the constructs available. There is no pre-crime and there is no non-humans adjudicating acts. You have to operate in that mind-frame.
Asking Saiful or Anwar to swear on a holy book is the easiest thing they could ever do.
I make the point, because it is incumbent on politicians to come up with rationale with the policies/actions they support, and for those that they oppose. And if the matter is immensely complex, then use your intellect.
If your intellect fails you, go apply for a job manning the information counter at the next Jom Heboh.
Between Saiful and Anwar, someone is lying. I’ll admit, I am more partial to Anwar. It does smell of a political conspiracy, and yes, I have never been one to praise Umno.
As in any thesis, we look for disproof. We balance the facts, impressions and testimony. Without adequate proof no case can be made. That does not automatically mean you are innocent, it just means that there is inadequate proof.
And without proof, everyone’s innocent in this world. The other world, you make your own Pascal’s wager.