Tag: democracy

  • Brunei Officially Bans Public Christmas Celebrations

    Brunei Officially Bans Public Christmas Celebrations

    KUALA LUMPUR (AFP) – Oil-rich Brunei has banned public celebrations of Christmas for fear of Muslims being led astray, its religious affairs ministry said on Thursday, in a country that last year controversially instituted tough Islamic syariah penalties.

    The ban, instituted after Christmas last month when local children and adults were seen wearing clothes “that resemble Santa Claus”, raises fresh concerns of religious restrictions after last April’s announcement of the introduction of a penal code that will eventually include penalties such as the severing of limbs and death by stoning.

    A spokesman declined to comment directly on the ban, but referred to a Dec 27 statement in which the ministry said the act of publicly marking non-Islamic rituals or festivities “can be seen as propagations of religions other than Islam”.

    It noted in particular: “For example, in conjunction with Christmas celebrations, Muslim children, teenagers and adults can be seen wearing hats or clothes that resemble Santa Claus.

    “Believers of other religions that live under the rule of an Islamic country – according to Islam – may practise their religion or celebrate their religious festivities among their community, with the condition that the celebrations are not disclosed or displayed publicly to Muslims,” the statement said.

    “Muslims should be careful not to follow celebrations such as these that are not in any way related to Islam… and could unknowingly damage the faith of Muslims.”

    The statement also said that businesses that publicly displayed Christmas decorations were asked to take them down and had given their “full cooperation”.

    The latest move comes after Brunei’s Sultan Hassanal Bolkiah announced in April that he would push ahead with the introduction of a new criminal code which sparked rare domestic criticism of the fabulously wealthy ruler as well as international condemnation.

     

    Source: www.straitstimes.com

  • Ten Challenges PAP Will Face In The Next General Elections

    Ten Challenges PAP Will Face In The Next General Elections

    1. Resurgent Workers’ Party – the resurgence of Workers’ Party continued even after the GE 2011 as they recaptured Hougang SMC in a by-election contest and even took over Punggol East SMC when Speaker of Parliament Mr Michael Palmer was caught in a extra-marital affair.and subsequently sacked triggering a by-election election.

    Two days after the loss of Punggol East the PAP announced the 6.9 million population white paper in a desperate bid to arrest the free-fall popularity slide of the ruling party.

    Workers’ Party remains the number one choice of most Singaporeans when they vote for the opposition and in GE 2011, the average vote for most of their contested wards was at a high 45%.

    The ruling party knew that WP will feature strongly in the next election and has targetted them for negative propaganda by giving them black marks for the way they run the Aljunied town council.

    However, this may backfire on the ruling party as many voters believe that the government is fixing the opposition party and continue to vote for them out of sympathetic anger.

    WP is expected to retain all their seats and win over East Coast GRC and one more single seat in the next election.

    2. Lack of good on-the-ground candidates – the ruling party is having a hard time convincing credible candidates to stand for election.

    During the last election, one could not really spot anyone who is very good on the ground and is seen as credible. Candidates such as the controversial Tin Pei Lin was put up for candidacy and this truly reinforced the belief of many people that the PAP is having difficulty attracting real talents.

    Most candidates have excellent educational qualifications and solid work experience but many lack the ground feel to be connected with the common people. They seem aloof and distanced when they spoke in poorly-attended PAP election rallies.

    Most new MPs who were voted in also contested together with heavyweight ministers in GRC and have little experience on the ground except for the parachuted-in feeling.

    Because of their prestigious academic background and gleaming work experience, many MPs could not really identify with the hardship of the common people.

    Voters in Punggol East also voted in a commoner from WP and a distinguished doctor from the ruling party was given the boot.

    Unless the PAP could get candidates who have work the ground for a long period, it is my fear that more upsets are on the card for the next election.

    3. Maturing of social media platform – the ruling party lost heavily on the social media platform as they underestimated its inpact.

    Political websites like TOC, TRE and TRS all reported alternative news regularly and attracted close to 200,000 readers daily together.

    Many also ditched the pro-government media for good and rely on social media for their regular news feed.

    The goverment has tried to curb its influence by asking the site editors to register with MDA but it will not be easy to totally eradicate its impact especially for those who belong to the younger electorade.

    This lot relies heavily on social media for any mews update and they will be probably following our alternative news coverage for the forthcoming election campaign.

    It is envisaged that more sites such as TRE will be hauled up next year for registration by the government in an attempt to try and curb its influence on alternative news reporting online.

    4. Population white paper – the hugely-unpopular population white paper (PWP) was passed two years ago and Singaporeans face its onslaught soon after when many were displaced at the workplaces and travel on public transport becomes a daily nightmare.

    Wages are also been depressed as incoming foreigners settled for lesser wages in order to gain a foothold here further aggravating the misery of many Singaporeans.

    Many Singoreans also find themselves reporting to foreign managers at the workplaces and are often bullied by certain groups if they happen to be in the minority.

    It is envisaged that the negative impact of the PWP will weigh heavily on the mind of many voters as they contemplate their future with the ruling party.

    More than 80% of Singaporeans are estimated to have gone against the PWP and the government is expected to try and build up positive propaganda for the population growth emigration policy during the election rallies but it will be a tall order.

    5. Another five more years of suffering – Singaporeans must have gone through its worst five years under the ruling party since independence with recent run-away cost of living prices and depressed wages.

    Many displaced older PMETs also have no choice but to take up taxi driving in order to survive further adding on to their misery.

    Under-employment Is a national problem now and many experienced PMETs work on short-term contract which often expires within a year or two.

    Their anger is exaceberated when they see their foreign counterparts taking on permanent roles with better perks.

    None wants to experience another five more years of misery under the ruling party and decides to wager on the alternative as there is nothing to lose anymore.

    6. More outspoken electorade – the past two years saw the resurgence of people’s power and thousands turned up at the PWP and Return-My-CPF protests.

    It is envisaged that many will turn up at opposition election rallies lending unity and credibility to those who will speak up for the voice of the masses.

    Many people have felt that Singaporeans have finally unite themselves together recently because of several unpopular government policies and this common bond may spell disaster for the ruling party which has all along adopt the divide-and-rule method.

    A united common people may eventually topple the current regime.

    7. Better candidates from opposition party – against all odds, the opposition parties finally got its act together and contested all the seats less one Tg Pagar GRC during the last election.

    We also saw better well-qualified candidates offering themselves for election in 2011 and many are expected to return for the next one.

    Top ex-civil servants like Mr Tan Jee Say, Dr Ang Yong Guan, the scholar couple Tony and Hazel Tan all contested previously and are expected to contest once more in the next election.

    Many analysts have commented that if there are better-qualified credible opposition candidates, many voters will not mind voting for them especially for those fence sitters. Some Singaporeans somehow still believe in minted degrees and high-powered work experience.

    8. Overseas voters – voters from abroad voted for the first time in embassies during the last election and many will likely vote again.

    However, less than 15% of overseas Singaporeans vote abroad in GE 2011 and currently about 300,000 Singaporeans work and live abroad so their vote count is significant if everyone seriously consider voting in the next election.

    Opposition parties should consider venturing abroad where there is a large concentration of overseas Singaporeans and encourage them to vote in the next election. Australia alone has 30,000 Singaporeans living and working there.

    A large percentage of overseas Singaporeans is seen as anti-establishment and that’s why they have pack and go.

    Many however find voting abroad inconvenient and the ruling party is not making things easy for them.

    Its still too soon to predict how many will find their way to embassies or return home to vote in the next election but their strength is huge and growing.

    9. Lack of solid reason – there is also this lack of a solid reason to vote for the ruling party wholeheartedly especially when WP and other opposition parties could provide a good alternative.

    In the past, many Singaporeans either could not vote because of a walk-over or the alternative wore sleeper to the polling station but with better choices now, the ruling party candidates has no certainty that they will be voted in. Even the popular George Yeo was ousted from his seat as foreign minister when he lost in Aljunied.

    The previous election also saw the final break-through with the fall of Aljunied GRC and this must have sent a nightmarish chill through the tired back of the ruling party.

    10. Fall of a GRC – PAP finally lost its first ever GRC to WP during the last election and this is considered a major setback to the party.

    There is this fear that other GRCs may give way to the opposition in the next election as the yoke has been broken thus triggering the eventual collapse of the ruling party.

    However, this sudden collapse is unrealistic though it is probable that East Coast GRC may be the next to go for the next election.

    The loss of a first-ever GRC plus the shocking heavy loss of Punggol East by-election last year have shook the confidence of the ruling party immensely and it is still reeling from the two setback.

    By announcing the hugely-unpopular PWP two days after the historic heavy loss of Punggol East SMC, the ruling party is desperately trying to tell the people that it is still calling the shots.

    It is envisaged however that PAP will see its majority votes sliding away for the next election probably down to the mid 50 percent mark and they may lose East Coast GRC too.

    Only the tricky foreign new citizen votes will provide a ray of hope for them.

     

    Source: www.therealsingapore.com

  • Malaysians Leaving the Country Due to Growing Islamic Fundamentalism

    Malaysians Leaving the Country Due to Growing Islamic Fundamentalism

    KUALA LUMPUR, Oct 30 — Malays could be next in line after the Chinese to leave the country, in a bid to escape the growing religious fundamentalism and authoritarianism that leaves little room for free thought and dissent, according to activists and observers.

    While Malaysia bills itself as a moderate Muslim nation, recent developments have demonstrated an increasingly conservative and hard-line approach to Islam here that is intolerant of cultures and practices not sanctioned by religious groups and authorities.

    Malaysians for Malaysia convener Azrul Mohd Khalib said the Friday sermons prepared by the religious authorities that paint non-Muslims as enemies of Islam, as well as the use of labels such as liberalism, pluralism and humanism to vilify fellow believers, have dismayed and scared Muslims.

    “Thinking Muslims are being marginalised and persecuted,” Azrul told Malay Mail Online yesterday.

    “It is creating a climate of fear, suspicion and prejudice. Because of that, Muslims who do not prescribe to that belief system do not see themselves as being welcomed or even tolerated in this country,” the social activist added.

    Azrul said many Muslims have started emigrating in the past 15 years based on anecdotal evidence, noting that Islamic authorities prohibit dissent and discussions of the country’s predominant religion.

    “You are told ‘you cannot use logic and rationale to understand and practise Islam. ‘You must only refer to the Quran and hadith and nothing else’,” he said.

    Hadith are “traditions” from the time of Prophet Muhammad that are not contained in the Quran.

    Former de facto law minister Datuk Zaid Ibrahim said on Tuesday that more Malay-Muslims could be expected to leave the country if local religious authorities continue to pursue and prosecute those whose opinions they deem “deviant”.

    Over the years, Islamic authorities have gradually become more rigid in their interpretation and application of the Shariah code in Islam.

    They vilified and attacked a recent dog-petting event in which some Muslims touched dogs, which are considered unclean here in Malaysia. The programme triggered such outrage that its organiser received death threats.

    On Tuesday, the National Fatwa Council issued an edict banning Muslims from “celebrating” Halloween, which it categorised as a Christian celebration of the dead.

    Kelantan this month began enforcing a by-law that empowers state authorities to fine Muslim men up to RM1,000 or jail them for up to a year, or both, for failing to attend Friday prayers thrice in a row.

    An Oktoberfest-themed beer festival in Selangor also drew the ire of Muslim groups earlier this month, despite the promotional event being targeted at and restricted to non-Muslims.

    Muslim intellectual Kassim Ahmad is also being prosecuted by Islamic authorities for allegedly suggesting that Muslims need only follow the Quran, and not the accompanying Hadith. The view differs from that which is officially approved.

    Malaysia has also outlawed the Shiah denomination of Islam, which it considers deviant from the Sunni school that is officially sanctioned here.

    Malaysia’s religious authorities also frequently warns against liberalism, with the federal government’s Islamic Development Department (Jakim) reminding Muslims last week in its Friday sermon that this concept, along with pluralism, was a threat to Malay-Muslim unity as it could weaken their faith.

    Jakim also said the National Fatwa Council had in its 74th meeting in 2006 declared liberal thinking as heretical.

    “The very same liberal ideas, which are condemned and persecuted, are actually what made Islam a great humanist religion. Look back at history. Our religious authorities have lost their way and like the Pied Piper of Hamelin, are leading others astray,” Azrul said.

    Social activist Datin Paduka Marina Mahathir said she knows of several Malays who say they do not want to return to their homeland.

    “It’s not for economic reasons, but simply because they feel that the environment here has become so negative and oppressive that it’s impossible to be able to live as peaceful, productive citizens any more,” Marina told Malay Mail Online.

    “You just never know when something that is perfectly acceptable one day becomes ‘haram’ the next day,” she added, using the Malay word for “forbidden”.

    The daughter of former prime minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad also noted the discomfort with the authorities’ continuous intrusion into people’s private lives at the expense of more important things such as injustice against women.

    Global Movement of Moderates (GMM) CEO Datuk Saifuddin Abdullah said most of the leaders and intellectuals of “kaum muda” (young moderates) used to seek refuge in Penang and Singapore during the 1930s.

    “Because in Penang and Singapore, they are more free to share their thoughts. Because there is less institutionalised religious authorities that would go after them,” Saifuddin told Malay Mail Online.

    “The kaum muda were simply practising their intellectual freedom to interpret Islam in a more progressive way. And Islam allows that. You can have different interpretations. And Islam encourages dialogues among those with different opinions, not to prosecute, unless of course, if your opinion is tantamount to treason or glaringly unlawful,” the former deputy minister added.

    Centre for Policy Initiatives director Dr Lim Teck Ghee said Malays in Malaysia are following the trend of Muslims in other Muslim countries who flee to Western nations, such as Australia, the US and European Union countries, to escape religious fundamentalism and political authoritarianism at home.

    But he acknowledged that Malaysia has no statistics on the racial and religious breakdown of the country’s migrant outflow.

    “I expect younger educated Malays to be concerned with the growing religious extremism and intolerance and to have this as the major factor in making them leave,” Lim told Malay Mail Online.

    “Out-migration for Malaysians has never been solely about making a better living abroad. It has been the combination of socio-economic and political factors. Non-Malays have felt the pain of religious and racial discrimination. Now it is the turn of many Malays to feel a similar sense of deprivation and injustice,” the political analyst added.

    According to a World Bank report in 2011, an estimated one million Malaysians are residing overseas.

    More than two million Malaysians have emigrated since Merdeka.

    Last year, a total 308,834 high-skilled Malaysians moved overseas, with 47.2 per cent going to Singapore, 18.2 per cent to Australia, 12.2 per cent to US and the rest to other countries like UK and Canada.

    According to the same report, the number of skilled Malaysians living abroad rose 300 per cent in the last two decades, with two out of every 10 Malaysians with tertiary education opting to leave for either Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries or Singapore.

    Source: themalaymailonline.com/malaysia/article

  • LGBT Issue: Obama Declaring War on Religion, Bullying People of Faith

    LGBT Issue: Obama Declaring War on Religion, Bullying People of Faith

    OBAMA LGBT

    Dear Mr. President, I write to you today as a concerned citizen of our great nation, standing as a witness against your historic actions on the morning of July 21, 2014, actions which I hope you will one day repudiate with deep remorse and regret.

    I am referring, of course, to your signing an executive order Monday banning “discrimination” by federal contractors against LGBT people, allowing for no religious exemptions of any kind.

    This was an outrageous act of discrimination against religion in the name of anti-discrimination—an act of bullying people of faith in the name of the prevention of bullying.

    How can you, as a man who professes to be a person of faith and a follower of Jesus, throw religious Americans—in particular Christians—under the bus?

    How can you attempt to force Christians, Jews, Muslims and others to violate fundamental aspects of their moral codes in order to appease a small but powerful special interest group, one that is not, in fact, suffering daily economic hardship by being fired from their jobs because of their sexual orientation or expression?

    Have you forgotten entirely that our nation was founded on the concept of religious freedom?

    It was unfortunate that you did not reflect on the recent Supreme Court decisions that made clear that you and your administration have consistently overstepped your bounds. Instead, once again, you bypassed the will of the people, as reflected in their elected officials, and simply made a decision affecting millions of Americans.

    Worse still, you ignored the appeals of trusted religious leaders, some of whom campaigned for you in the past and others of whom have been among your trusted advisors, deciding instead to side with radical LGBT activism.

    These leaders made a righteous and reasonable appeal to you, writing, “Mr. President, you have spoken eloquently of your commitment to protecting religious liberty, our nation’s first freedom. As you seek to promote the rights of LGBT persons, please also protect the rights of faith-based organizations that simply desire to utilize staffing practices consistent with their deep religious convictions as they partner with the federal government via contracting or subcontracting.”

    In response, you mocked these “deep religious convictions,” and there are no words you can say to minimize the seriousness of your actions.

    Mr. President, what was wrong with letting Congress make an informed decision on ENDA? Do you scorn the political process so much that you bypass it entirely?

    You stated that, “I’m going to do what I can, with the authority I have, to act,” but the implications of your actions are massive.

    An organization like Prison Reform, which utilizes federal funds to help transform the lives of inmates, would suffer dramatic financial setbacks should they simply refuse to hire individuals who violate their time-proven, biblically based code of conduct.

    Children supported by World Vision, with the help of federal funds, would be deprived of food and shelter unless World Vision leaders compromised their Christian convictions. (After much soul searching this year, they have made clear that they will not compromise).

    Fine Christian universities, which provide important academic and ethical training for the next generation of leaders and which are also the recipients of federal funding, could suffer a massive blow unless they forsake the faith on which their institutions were built.

    Mr. President, must you now even take the place of God and tell Christians what they can and cannot actively practice?

    I concur with Peter Sprigg who wrote that, “This level of coercion is nothing less than viewpoint blackmail that bullies into silence every contractor and subcontractor who has moral objections to homosexual behavior. This order gives activists a license to challenge their employers and, expose those employers to threats of costly legal proceedings and the potential of jeopardizing future contracts.”

    In truth, this is not a civil rights issue, as if gay were the new black. As Catholic leader Austin Ruse observed, “the LGBTs are the most powerful aggrieved minority the world has ever known,” while, in contrast, “Black Americans really were aggrieved: enslaved, not allowed to vote, discriminated against in housing, banking and much else, hunted down and lynched.”

    As our nation’s first African-American president, you must surely see the difference. Or is it true, as your critics claim, that you really intend to declare war on religion in America?

    It is one thing to treat all people fairly, be they male or female, gay or straight, young or old. It is another thing to trample religious freedoms under foot and to attempt to coerce, with the full force of the government, men and women of deep religious faith and commitment.

    Mr. President, there are millions of Americans who pray for you on a regular basis, and I have often called on my radio listeners to pray that you would be the greatest president in American history.

    Despite those prayers, you took it upon yourself to enact an order which declares that, in the workplace, sexual rights trump religious rights. What a terrible, tragic shame.

    I do pray for you, sir, as my president, that God would grant you the humility to recognize the error of your ways. At the same time, I assure you that there are countless thousands of Christian leaders and people of faith who will neither abandon their convictions nor be silenced from articulating those convictions.

    And so, perhaps, in God’s providence, what you intended as a religious restriction will become the impetus for a religious awakening.

    After all, you might well be the most powerful human being on the planet, but we will all bow down one day before the throne of God, and He will have the final say.

    Michael Brown is author of Can You Be Gay and Christian? Responding With Love and Truth to Questions About Homosexuality and host of the nationally syndicated talk radio show The Line of Fire on the Salem Radio Network. He is also president of FIRE School of Ministry and director of the Coalition of Conscience. Follow him at AskDrBrown on Facebook or at @drmichaellbrown on Twitter.

     

    letters R1C

    YOUTUBE: youtube.com/user/rilek1corner

    FACEBOOK: facebook.com/rilek1corner

    TWITTER: twitter.com/Rilek1Corner

    WEBSITE: rilek1corner.com

    EMAIL: [email protected]

    FEEDBACK: rilek1corner.com/hubungir1c

  • Challenges ahead for moderate Islam

    The Nahdatul Ulama and Muhamadiyah organisations will probably remain on their paths as modernist Muslim movements that address the challenges of modern Indonesia.

    INDONESIAN POLLS: Can the state forestall the proliferation of new radical groups that chip at the country’s plural and democratic culture?

    AS Indonesia heads to the polls next month, a range of political actors and parties have come to the fore to defend the country’s image and standing internationally, and to emphasise yet again the pressing need for Indonesia to defend its tolerant culture and beliefs.

    More than a decade ago, it was feared that Indonesia would have been swept towards a rising tide of exclusive communitarian thinking that seemed poised to spread across that vast country.

    Groups like the Laskar Jihad were waging what they regarded as a holy war against infidels, and Indonesia was hard-pressed to defend its reputation as a bastion of moderate Islamic thought and praxis.

    Yet, despite the fears of many, Indonesia has been able to maintain its own cultural-historical course, and it remains a country where normative religiosity has not been overwhelmed by the culture of violence.

    This is largely due to the important role played by the country’s mainstream Muslim organisations, notably the Nahdatul Ulama (NU) and the Muhamadiyah.

    Today, as we watch the election campaign intensify, it is interesting to note how groups like the NU and Muhama-diyah remain steadfast in their stand against all forms of religious communitarianism and intolerance.

    Take for instance the party-political TV ad for the Partai Kebangkitan Bangsa (PKB, National Awakening Party), which is the party-political offshoot of the NU.

    The PKB’s ad features prominent leaders of the party reminding the viewers that Indonesia is not “like other Muslim countries”, and that Indonesian Islam has evolved along its own trajectory and has its own local character.

    This is in keeping with the position taken by successive generations of the NU’s leadership, who have argued tirelessly that Southeast Asian Islam has to adapt to the realities of pluralism and diversity that is the norm in our part of the world.

    It reminds us of the slogan coined by the late leader of the NU, Abdurrahman Wahid, who spoke of Indonesian Islam as being warna-warni: complex and with many hues. Today, that legacy of pluralism and diversity is being defended still by the NU and its party, the PKB.

    The same can be said of the Muhamadiyah, that has been a reformist Islamic movement from the outset, and which has laid great emphasis on modern education, the sciences and a pragmatic approach to dealing with the question of diversity in culture and society.

    Both the NU and Muhamadiyah have created a vast network of think tanks, publishing houses, intellectual and activist circles, etc. to consolidate their hold on the country’s Muslims and to disseminate ideas related to their vision of a modern, dynamic Islam.

    Via bodies such as the LKiS research unit and publishing house and circles like the Jaringan Islam Muda Muhamadiyah (JIMM), the two mass movements have been defending Indonesian pluralism and diversity for decades.

    But Indonesia today is a very different country than what it was two decades ago, and gone are the days where the NU and Muhamadiyah could propagate their brand of religious and philosophical thinking without being challenged.

    In short, their view is no longer hegemonic and pervasive as it once was, and the reason for this lies in the erosion of state power as well as the opening up of public domains.

    Since 1998, the once-invincible Indonesian state, that was centralised with power in the hands of the political-military elite, has been challenged by new political actors and agents across the country. The demand for more decentralisation of power has led to the emergence of competing power-bases and sites of discussion, and also opened the way for the rise of many smaller, yet vocal and demanding Islamist groups across the country.

    Today, Indonesia’s Islamic arena is still dominated by the NU and Muhamadiyah, but it is being contested by groups as diverse as the Front Pembela Islam (FPI), the Hizb’ut Tahrir Indonesia (HTI) and even quasi-state bodies like the Majlis Ulama Indonesia (MUI) that has been busy issuing judgments on things as diverse as yoga and Facebook. As these new actors and agents enter the contested discursive arena, new debates are emerging and new concerns being raised.

    Here lies the concern of many Indonesia watchers who wish to see Indonesia remain a peaceful and diverse country, for these new groups present a different, if somewhat homogenous and monolithic vision of what Indonesia should be.

    Though they are small in number, their reach is greater thanks to the manner in which they have managed to capture the imagination of the young, poor, disenfranchised and the media. It is worrisome indeed when small groups of hardliners are given so much attention in the media, and when it is clear that such radical clusters have learned the art of media manipulation themselves. Over the past few years, these are the groups that have captured the headlines for their attacks on intellectuals, minorities and even other schools of Muslim thought.

    As long as the public arena remains an open one where any new actor can enter and enunciate a different — sometimes provocative — stand on issues, groups like these will continue to thrive. The NU and Muhamadiyah may be able to command the loyalty and support of more than 70 million Indonesians, but it has to be remembered that in predominantly Muslim Indonesia today, there are around 200 million Muslim minds to win over.

    So the question arises: Can Indonesia retain its reputation as the bastion of Muslim tolerance, pluralism and diversity?

    The answer lies as much in mathematics as it does in ethics, for in the final analysis it is numbers that count. The NU and Muhamadiyah can, and probably, will remain on their appointed paths as modernist Muslim movements that address the challenges of modern Indonesia.

    But if the state does not prevent or forestall the proliferation of the new radical groups that continue to chip at the country’s plural and democratic culture, this bastion, too, might fall in the future.

    With these factors in mind, the coming elections in Indonesia will serve as a useful barometer of public sentiment and Muslim sensibilities, and so once again, I state the obvious: Indonesia’s coming elections are important not only for that country, but for the region and the Muslim world as well.

    Written by Farish Noor

    Source: New Straits Times