RSS Feed
  • The binding Rukunegara

    Hasbullah Pit made an interesting suggestion about outlawing sex out of wedlock at civil law level and I find the proposition workable. Some lout made the totally moronic argument that “[G]ua mau kongek, gua mia hal lah” which I find logically unsound, because if you want that so badly why not just find a wife and get married?

    But that is not the point of this post. Some commenters raised their objections based on a claim that while all religions do forbid sex out of wedlock, this is not the case for those without religion. In response, someone raised the issue of the first principle of the Rukunegara, which states:

    1. Kepercayaan Kepada Tuhan (Belief in God)

    Based on this, he says, atheists/agnostics who are without any religion certainly cannot be Malaysians if they flaunt this first principle of Rukunegara, and I agree with him. A few years ago, I raised this argument in a letter that I wrote to Malaysiakini but that particular paragraph was expunged and never published. In short, I feel that atheists/agnostics are against the Malaysian spirit if they remain in Malaysia and should be shipped out of the country.

    14 May


    1. infact, that very clause denies the very basic human right :- to believe/not believe anything and everything.

      i guess now, all the atheist in Malaysia should sue the Malaysian Government for denying the to practice freedom of not having religon!!

      Comment by jack — May 15, 2008 @ 7:11 am

    2. They believe in money god, leh? Also god what. Hahaha, but that's a wicked idea. Too bad no blog flames over here.

      Comment by lilian — May 15, 2008 @ 9:42 am

    3. My sugesttion was to bad illegal thing on civil level,

      there must be a way for atheists or person who worship money to register their marriage at civil level, in order to have legal sex.

      atheists dont believe in god, but doesnt mean dont believe in family value.

      Comment by Hasbullah Pit — May 15, 2008 @ 4:30 pm

    4. Sex out of wedlock is unlawful! I remember a friend telling me this. His girlfriend at the time was separated from her hubby, though not legally divorced. The couple had tried to make a police report against hubby for trespassing, but was instead told that their union was unlawful. Cops even showed him some statutes (?) to prove the point.

      But I have no way of verifying this. 🙂

      Comment by thatjames — May 15, 2008 @ 7:49 pm

    5. Curiously enough, there is no provision in the constitution that ties in citizenship with the Rukunegara.

      The Rukunegara is, essentially, a national philosophy and/or ideology. It has never been enforced in any way really, aside from the compulsory dreary recitations in government schools.

      Lets face it, most of us fail the fifth principle, i.e. 'kesopanan dan kesusilaan' which essentially means good manners and courtesy does it not?

      Were the rukunegara to be a binding requirement of citizenship then the 'fuck you's uttered/written by many people (including yourself occasionally from what I've seen) would automatically disqualify them too, would it not?


      ps: Yeah, I realise full well that you generally only respond discourteously too those who you deem to have insulted your religion or challenged it, but unfortunately our dear shortsighted rukunegara does not stipulate any mitigating factors that excuse it. 🙁

      Comment by Vish — May 16, 2008 @ 1:55 pm

    Leave a comment

  • Partners

    WordPress › Error

    The site is experiencing technical difficulties.