Title of Article: A Call to Prayer
Source: Time issue- 5th March 2007 (Pg 16-20)
My Response:
Indonesia faces an unprecedented societal problem: the Islamisation of the nation and the administering of Shari’a, or Islam-inspired laws, a manifestation of the puritanical interpretations of Islam’s role in society. Proponents of conservative Islam contend that Shari’a laws are perfect systems and God’s will, and therefore are superior to secular laws. By being stricter, these laws could promote morality by punishing even the smallest of immorality or indulgence: drinking and gambling. The proponents could well be right that these laws could lead to a better society. These laws could well be deterrence; a criminal would most likely think twice before committing an offense.
On the flip side, however, such puritanical forms of piety have undermined the Indonesian secular government by restricting freedom of expression and rights to religion. By coercing non-Muslims or other Muslim sects to obey their laws, they are ultimately imposing their strong beliefs on people who do not believe in them. The Muslims can continue applying their Shari’a laws to daily life, but why make it a compulsory for everyone? By doing so, they suppress Indonesia’s vibrant and diverse culture by forcing a uniform code of conduct and dressing through Shari’a laws.
I am not familiar with local conditions, thus I am in no position to evaluate which side is more correct. Practically speaking however, these conservative Islam ideologies dampen foreign investors’ interest in Indonesia, sending direct investments plummeting, posing disadvantages to the Indonesian economy. But it’s easy to see the allure for people to choose to believe in such ideologies. Ever since the fall of the “dictator” Suharto who suppressed any power that could oppose him, Islam communities and leaders have proliferated, these being conservative as is the global trend of conservatism in Islam. The new government’s incompetence in eradicating poverty and solving problems sparked people to believe that these conservative groups are a panache for their problems or an alternative to the government. As conservatives believe strongly, it is easier to brainwash or influence them as compared to moderates, whose belief is subtle but complex.
How can this be solved? Because of the conservative nature of Islam, questions or doubts cannot be freely raised without a conferment of punishment. The tides of time wait for no man; the trend of conservatism cannot change, and the proliferation cannot be reversed. I think that the solution lies with the government. By upping its competence and minimising its corruption, people will on the whole be wealthier and move away from conservative Islam. It should also highlight the incommensurability between Islam and violence; Islam in the purest form does not promote violence.
Islam and secularism can co-exist. The less strict secular laws must be obeyed by everyone while the Shari’a laws are obeyed by its believers. As long as the Islamic leaders and Indonesia’s leaders do not struggle for dominance, both will survive. This applies to the much debated issues of race in Indonesia. Indonesians and other races can live in harmony, and tolerance is the key.
(498 words)
Sunday, March 4, 2007
Environmental Responsibilities
Title of Article: UN chief warns on climate change
Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/6410305.stm
Date of Article: 2nd March 2007
The Response:
Although Mr. Ban’s first address on the issue of climate change was clichéd, the focus on climate was timely, if not late, in the face of recent observance of erratic weather on a global scale. Hopefully through this, and future talks on climate, we can expect more emphasis and rigour in deriving a solution on the current problem.
Mr. Ban has presented a very fresh perspective, stating that climatic change could spark war or conflict. This claim is fairly doubtful as this phenomenon is caused by many factors over many countries, and thus difficult to pin the blame on anybody. But Ban worries are justified because his target audience was none other than the US.
The US produces a quarter of global greenhouse gas emissions and refuses to sign the Kyoto protocol. If a sudden wave of climate change occurs, the blame will be pushed towards the US. The US reasons that it does not want to be hindered by such restrictions by Kyoto and that it has no one to answer to. But ultimately it should be less obstinate and take some responsibility in clearing up the debris it generated from its developments. Since the US comes in tops for harming the environment, the onus is on her to take the lead in undoing its wrongs and offsetting the global trend of widespread pollution.
Mr. Ban warned that less developed countries in Africa and small island states would suffer most from global warming, although they were least responsible. But look at Nigeria, whose corrupted administration led to an inefficient system of the extraction of crude oil, resulting in pollution being released in uncontrolled amounts, ultimately resulting in contributions to global warming. What about Singapore, equally contributing to global warming through industrialization? Nowadays, it seems that no one can declare to be innocent or blameless in causing global warming.
But a hard fact to swallow is that we will suffer greatly the ramifications of global warming. With a double impact- that we are both at the tropics and an island state- we will be hit doubly hard by global warming. Before I go on to yet another clichéd ending on conservation, I would like to highlight an irony: that while many other sources regard human’s hand in climate change a self-evident truth, the truth is that this is only a likelihood and not an established truth, as shown in this article. In the past, scientists project habitat loss and animal extinction as consequences of human activities. Now they project climate change. What next? This goes to show how we lack an intrinsic understanding in this whole spectrum of knowledge. But do we need to understand how we cause climate change to act on it? Isn’t the loss of species enough to deter us from polluting the environment? Must it have a true impact on our livelihood that we start thinking about how to save the environment? Mr. Ban expresses hope for the future, and I hope it is so.
(499 words)
Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/6410305.stm
Date of Article: 2nd March 2007
The Response:
Although Mr. Ban’s first address on the issue of climate change was clichéd, the focus on climate was timely, if not late, in the face of recent observance of erratic weather on a global scale. Hopefully through this, and future talks on climate, we can expect more emphasis and rigour in deriving a solution on the current problem.
Mr. Ban has presented a very fresh perspective, stating that climatic change could spark war or conflict. This claim is fairly doubtful as this phenomenon is caused by many factors over many countries, and thus difficult to pin the blame on anybody. But Ban worries are justified because his target audience was none other than the US.
The US produces a quarter of global greenhouse gas emissions and refuses to sign the Kyoto protocol. If a sudden wave of climate change occurs, the blame will be pushed towards the US. The US reasons that it does not want to be hindered by such restrictions by Kyoto and that it has no one to answer to. But ultimately it should be less obstinate and take some responsibility in clearing up the debris it generated from its developments. Since the US comes in tops for harming the environment, the onus is on her to take the lead in undoing its wrongs and offsetting the global trend of widespread pollution.
Mr. Ban warned that less developed countries in Africa and small island states would suffer most from global warming, although they were least responsible. But look at Nigeria, whose corrupted administration led to an inefficient system of the extraction of crude oil, resulting in pollution being released in uncontrolled amounts, ultimately resulting in contributions to global warming. What about Singapore, equally contributing to global warming through industrialization? Nowadays, it seems that no one can declare to be innocent or blameless in causing global warming.
But a hard fact to swallow is that we will suffer greatly the ramifications of global warming. With a double impact- that we are both at the tropics and an island state- we will be hit doubly hard by global warming. Before I go on to yet another clichéd ending on conservation, I would like to highlight an irony: that while many other sources regard human’s hand in climate change a self-evident truth, the truth is that this is only a likelihood and not an established truth, as shown in this article. In the past, scientists project habitat loss and animal extinction as consequences of human activities. Now they project climate change. What next? This goes to show how we lack an intrinsic understanding in this whole spectrum of knowledge. But do we need to understand how we cause climate change to act on it? Isn’t the loss of species enough to deter us from polluting the environment? Must it have a true impact on our livelihood that we start thinking about how to save the environment? Mr. Ban expresses hope for the future, and I hope it is so.
(499 words)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)