The Malaysian LBGT debate: Addressing 6 Common Arguments Against LGBTs

So recently the new Malaysian government under Pakatan Harapan (PH) created an uproar when the Islamic Affairs Minister, Mujahid Yusof Rawa, ordered the removal of portraits of two LGBT activists from an exhibition in Penang. He apparently claimed that this because the portraits were 'clearly promoting Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) activities" which are against the PH government policies.

FYI, the purpose of the exhibition was to display portraits of famous Malaysians with the Malaysian flag displaying patriotism and love for their country in conjuction with the upcoming Merdeka Day (Independance Day) celebrations. Hence the only thing about the 2 offending portraits which 'promoted LGBT activities' was the label of 'LGBT activists' on their portraits. Ironically, this effort to remove the portraits from public eye resulted in many more people, including those around the world, being able to see the portraits thank to this news going viral locally as well as internationally.

Haven't seen the portraits? Well, you can thank me later

On a positive note, after the incident, Mujahid took the time to meet with one of LGBT activists whose portraits were removed, Nisha Ayub, to discuss LGBT issues, and stressed that discrimination against the LGBT community must stop. He also promised to address challenges faced by the LGBT community. Of course, the whole debacle fueled a online debate on LGBTs in Malaysia, including fair share of backlash, hate and obvious discrimination from mostly Muslims as well as some Christians who of course don't support LGBTs due to religious beliefs.

I'm not an LGBT activist, and while I do know some people in the community, I'm not particularly close to them. Plus I'm as straight as a ruler, so there is no incentive for me to support the LGBT cause per se.  However, while I believe everyone has a rights to abide by their religious beliefs, I also believe giving flack to LGBTs is not the way to do so. In my opinion, hate towards LGBTs is actually very much contradictory to God's design, if there there is indeed a creator God as the Muslims and Christians believe.  In this post, I'd like to explain that theory, as well as address some of the common arguments against LGBTs. So I appeal to the patience of the religious folks out there to just take some time to read and consider what I have to say, before shooting me down with insults for supporting this 'abominable' group of people.

So here's are the 6 common arguments against LGBTs and my responses to them:

1) Supporting LGBT activists and LGBT rights is the same as promoting LGBT activities, lifestyle and culture
To say this is the same as saying supporting women's rights and activists is the same as encouraging men to become women. Or saying supporting native or 'orang asli' rights is the same as promoting orang asli culture to city folks. Or supporting animal rights is the same as encouraging people to behave like animals. Ridiculous, right? The purpose of activism in all these areas is to fight against the discrimination and suffering of marginalized groups, which could be women, 'orang asli', animals or in the case of our topic, LGBTs. Therefore LGBTs rights do NOT refer to promoting LGBT lifestyle or culture. LGBTs rights refer to the right for them to be able to identify as what they are, and still be treated equally without discrimination. This means being allowed the same opportunities to jobs, opportunities, benefits, recognition of good work, and freedoms allowed by law as anyone else. As it is, LGBTs get subjected to all forms of discrimination, including being ostracized by others, refused jobs, expelled from schools, disowned by families, denied police assistance when they report crimes, sexual harasssment or abuse and even death threats. They suffer all this NOT for promoting their 'activities' but simply for identifying as an LGBT. A religious person can therefore support LGBTs right, i.e. the right for them to get equal treatment and no suffering, without supporting their LGBT 'lifestyle'.

But then, is LGBT 'lifestyle' or 'culture' even correct terms to use? How come people don't say non-LGBTs are living a straight 'lifestyle' or 'culture'? Well, people don't say that because lifestyle and culture is a something we choose to adopt, but being straight is innate. Straight people don't choose to be straight, we just are. Imagine yourself, if you're a straight man, being stuck on a island of gay men trying to coeirce you into gay activities (and vice versa if you're a woman). Other than them forcing you into gay sex, would you do it willingly and happily? Does the very idea of sticking your hoohah into a another man's poop hole utterly disgust you? Well good, that means you are very much straight and no amount of pressure is going to change that. So straightness is not a choice.

So why is it that so many people can't understand that the same holds true for true homosexuals, i.e. that their sexual attraction to people of the same gender is innate? Well, that's because of the next argument

2) LGBT lifestyle/culture is a choice, and these people need to be rehabilited (or killed, if you're a bloody terrorist)
The main question is, can or did they choose to be gay? Or were they born that way, hence it is not a choice? If it was latter, of course, then it would grossly unfair to demand rehabilitiation or punish them for something that they can't control, in the same way that it would be unfair to force left-handed children to use their right hand only (something which some nutjobs unfortunately still do to their poor leftie kids).

To be fair, there is no black or white answer to this argument, because studies support both theories. Homosexuality could arise due to environmental conditions such child abuse, emotional trauma, violence or neglect from parents, which is the theory most anti-LGBT people support as it means these people can be rehabilitated. In fact, some supposed LGBTs had even changed their minds and decided to become straight or revert to their original gender, possibly due to this reason. On the other hand, homosexuality could instead be a result of how genes are expressed during foetal development, something known as epigenesis. In this case, something happened in the womb that cause the baby's genes to be expressed differently from usual, resulting in the baby eventually having gay or transgender inclinations. There is an interesting theory to why this happens, which I will explain later on in point 5. But the point is, in these cases, homosexuality is clearly NOT a choice.

In any case, if you want to attempt to 'rehabilitate' an LGBT person, there is totally nothing wrong with talking to an LGBT person, trying to understand why they feel the way they do, understanding their background, and maybe identify and address the childhood issues they may have had. But that is IF and ONLY IF they are willing to try to be counselled. IF they refuse or don't feel the need to be helped, then it is very likely they are of the latter group where they were essentially born gay and can't change their sexual desires.

The big problem here is the majority of the over-righteous religious folks don't bother with even trying to understand the LGBT person and find out which category they fit into. They just immediately decide the person is a sinful abomination and does not deserv to be treated like a normal human being. Now if you believe LGBTs are a product of environmental conditions, you essentially believe LGBTs underwent some kind of  emotional or violent trauma in their life. So if you discriminate, mock, insult, and refuse rights and opportunities to an LGBT person, doesn't that make you an incredbily horrible person for doing all that to a person who you believe to be have been traumatized? And if they are an LGBT because of epigenesis, which means they couldn't possibly choose to be straight, doesn't that also make you an incredible horrible person for mistreating a person due to a trait that they can't possibly change?

Either way, discriminating against an LGBT makes you a really horrible person. And you know what's even more horrible? Forcing or pressuring these people to choose a partner of the opposite gender just to appease your idea of what is 'normal'. Of course true homosexuals can always choose to ignore their desires for same sex partners and choose a partner of the opposite gender solely to appease others. But they surely won't be happy about that, for the very same reason that you 100% straight men would not be happy if the imaginary island of gay men forced you into sticking your hoohah into their poop holes. And not only is it unfair to the gay folks, but it is unfair to the straight partners they choose to marry, as they will both spend their lives in a loveless, passionless marriage. It is unfair to their children, having to grow up in said loveless marriage. If you anti-LGBT folks truly believe a happy family unit is important, why force these people into a loveless, unhappy, and very likely dysfunctional marriage just to appease your idea of what is normal?

Buuuut if you reeaallly insist, then please go ahead and offer up your straight daughters to gay men or straight sons to lesbians. That would make everyone happy! Everyone except your straight children and their gay partners, that is. :)


3) LGBTs are spreading deadly diseases like HIV and AIDS
I have 3 responses to this argument. Ready? Let's go!

i) Let's not kid ourselves. Hate against LGBTs has nothing to do with improving improving health. If that were truly the case then we should also be discriminating against following:
  a) People who serve food or drinks with too much sugar. Sugar has been proven to be the cause of weight gain and diabetes which leads to health issues and potentially death
  b) People who smoke. Smoking causes lung cancer and second hand smoke can also cause cancer in loved ones including children, leading to disease and death
  c) Motorists who speed, run red lights, etc. By doing so, they can cause accidents and lead to death.
But if someone were to say, refuse a job opportunity, benefits or recognition to a person who uses too much sugar, a smoker or a bad road user, simply for those reasons, that would be deemed silly and unreasonable. Also, no one claims that doing giving these people their rights is 'supporting a lifestyle of smoking, eating too sugar or being a lousy road user'.  Yet people justify denying such opportunities to LGBTs all the time (i.e. discrimination) with that same ridiculous excuse.

ii) While it is true that gay men (or men who have sex with men, i.e. MSM) have historically shown highest rates of HIV infection as compared to heterosexual couples, exclusive lesbians (or women have sex with women, or WSW) on the other hand, have shown a low to almost negligle risk of STD infections, even compared to heterosexual couples. So technically, if health is your excuse, you should not be hating the 'L' part of LGBTs, coz' lesbians are at much less risk of HIV or AIDS than you straight folks (but nope, I'm still not tempted to try. I'm so straight I will bravely take on the higher risk of a HIV infection!).

iii) High HIV rates among gay men is also not strictly due to the gayness itself, but the tendancy to promiscuous behaviour which increases the risk of spreading STDs. Promiscuity among heterosexuals can ALSO (surprise, surprise) greatly increase the risk of spreading STDs. Hence the key to reducing HIV infections among gay men is pretty much the same as for straight people... use protection and don't be promiscuous! In fact, there are many gays and lesbian loyal to only one partner, and hence why they are fighting for same sex marriage. But even that doesn't go down well with you religious folks, so doesn't that again go to show health reasons just really aren't the issue here? Yep

Please support us in our effort to reduce the HIV infection rate among gay men!

4) If homosexual behaviour is allowed, the human race will go extinct
Well, I have good news and bad news.

The good news is that the global human population is currently 7.6 billion people and has been growing continuously since the 1300's (or probably around the time people started bothering to record trends like these). Also, homosexuals are minorities for a reason, because there are much less of them than heterosexuals (you know, the ones who can still have babies). While rates of homosexuality differ among countries, on average rates of homosexual encounters among people could be up to around 10%, but exclusively homosexual people are more likely around 2% of the world population. That means over 90% of the world population is still going to be happily going on making babies, so rest assured, LGBTs will not cause human extinction simply because there are too few of them.

The bad news is, there are many other things that could cause the extinction of the human race, such as global warming, which may lead to death of food crops with temperature increase, flooding of land mass due to ice caps melting, leading to less land for food and space for people (not to mention drowning), resulting in high competition for resources and poverty. Some smarty pants scientist dude even estimated that humans could go extinct in 100 YEARS due to global warming. That means your kids or your kids' kids may witness the death of humankind at our own hands. This problem is being exacerbated by OVERPOPULATION. Yes, that baby-making activity you straight people love so much could really end up killing us all! Not to mention various other Armageddon possibilities such as supervirus, supervolcanoe, nuclear war, alien invasion, meteor hitting the earth, etc.

So if you really truly are concerned about the survival of the human race, stop bitching about LGBTs, and start walking to work instead of driving, take less antibiotics, keep Kim Jung Un happy, and yes, have less babies. Well hey, the LGBTs are pretty good at that last one! You should thank them for doing their bit to save the world :)

Arrrghhh, the end is niiigghh

5) There is no benefit to homosexual behaviour
I have 2 points in response to this, one with regards to this interesting idea that sex only has one benefit, and another on some surprising science that suggests homosexuality is actually essential for survival. Wait for it!

i) What people mean when they say this is of course that there is no benefit to homosexual sex, and usually they say this because homosexual sex does not lead to procreation. Which in itself implies that they believe the one and only benefit of heterosexual sex is the ability to make babies. Although as I mentioned above, overpopulation is becoming a real problem that can cause the human race to eventually go extinct, so right there I've shown that this so called benefit is quickly becoming not very beneficial.

But even ignoring the fact that we are dangerously overpopulating the world, is it really true that procreation is the only benefit of sex of any nature? These people imply that humans are nothing more than baby making machines, where their worth is measured only by this ability. So then what about married couples who are infertile and can't have children? What is their worth? Should the fertile partner demand a divorce so he or she can have kids? Should the infertile partner just go hang themself coz their inability to not have kids renders them useless? What about people, including married couples, who choose not to have kids? Does that mean any sex they have has no benefit?

Well duh, of course not to all of the above. The benefit of sex is not just to procreate but is an important act of intimacy between loving partners, essential to foster closer relationships and bonds. Strong social interactions, including love, are important to all humans. A couple can of course enjoy a loving and healthy sexual relationship without the need to have children, which applies to both heterosexual and homosexual people.

ii) And here's the shocking bit. Science suggests that homosexuality is important to survival! Which is not to say, humans will die out without gays, but it seems that nature has a mechanism to create gay people as a way to build stronger connections within families.

Dr. James O' Keefe who presented this idea in a Ted Talk on homosexuality, compared it to ants, where the queen ant has the ability to switch the expression of genes in her offspring to produce either soldier ants, when their territory needs to be defended, or worker ants, when the colony is hungry and they need food. In humans, studies showed that the more older brothers a male has, the more likely he is to be gay. Why? Well, typical men are less predisposed to developing close social bonds with family, but gay men usually have a higher emotional quotient (EQ) and hence have higher inclination to prioritizing close social bonds. So this trend of a gay man being born after several straight brothers may be nature's way of ensuring while there are enough manly man out there to their manly man jobs and take care of the physical needs of the family, but there are also 'softer' men with higher emotional intelligence to help keep the family's social bonds strong. Of course, some gay men are born first in the family, so why did they become gay? Well, this is also explained by Dr. O'Keefe that gay men who were born first was due to prenatal stress in the mother. Basically, if mummy is having a tough emotional time while carrying her first baby boy, this also can cause the activation of the genes that create gay male babies. Also nature's way of creating someone who can help mum emotionally through that tough time.

For the religious folks, don't be shocked. All this just goes to show the amazing nature of the creator God that you claim to believe in, that he designed such mechanisms for our benefit. But if that wasn't enough to convince you that God intentionally designed homosexuality, then the next point is going to be a killer!


6) LGBT lifestyle is unnatural and does not occur in nature
Unfortunately, if you really want to be an expert about animal behaviour, religious classes aren't the best place to learn. Just a quick Google search on 'homosexual behaviour in animals' shows various example of homosexual behaviour in nature, including a list of animals displaying homosexual behviour. That comprises of at least 500 different species ranging from mammals, birds, insect, fish and even insects. A few examples of observed behaviour, plus the expected conservative reaction, include:
- Pair bonding among ducks, where ducks of the same gender sometimes form lifelong partnerships, or a female will raise young with two male ducks (ok, that's not too bad)
- Female bonobos (a type of chimpanzee) who regularly rub against each other's genitilia for no clear reason other than sexual pleasure (well, that's worse but at least not penetrative sex...)
- Male rams engaging in very anal sex with other male rams (THAT'S IT, kill me now!)

For your viewing pleasure, here's a fascinating documentary on gay animals. My personal favorite is at 33:30 where two male octupuses of DIFFERENT species were caught mating on camera! That's right, folks, there are fags right at the bottom of the deep blue sea. :)

Oh wait, nature gets even MORE shocking! In addition to homosexual behaviour, some species also demonstrate the ability to change gender! This most commonly occurs among fishs, gastropods, and plants. This condition occurs usually due to environmental conditions and is known as sequential hermaphroditism. It's ok, you conservative folks, I know big scientific words are tough, so let's just call them sex-changing animals (or you could call them tranimals for short. Get it? Tranny + animals? Ok, nevermind). Here's a simpler list of 10 sex-changing animals.

So remember what I said at the beginning about hate against LGBTs being contradictory to creator God's design? Well consider this. Scientists have estimated that the world has anywhere between 8.7 billion to 1 trillion different species. With so many different lifeforms and so many different animals behaviours including homosexual behaviour, it should be clear to anyone who learns the intricacies of nature that God the creator loves diversity. So it makes sense that we should also love and appreciate diversity, including LGBTs, and any other way would be an insult to the amazingly diverse world God has created.

And this is why you should watch more National Geographic

Welllll, I don't care about your previous 6 incredibly valid points. LGBTs are forbidden in Islam/Christianity and that's that!
Alright, calm down and breath, people, before you hyperventilate at the suggestion that maaaaybe what you've been taught all your life is wrong (maaaaybe it is, but I'm not saying that). I'm not telling you people to give up on religion. But maaaaybe it would be good to go back to the source and analyze what the holy books really say about LGBTs.

Now I'm not going to even try and deny what your holy books say about male homosexuality being a sin and unacceptable in these religions. I've done my research and know that both holy books say as such. Note, however, that I only mentioned male homosexuality. It seems that both holy books don't really mentioned anything about female homosexuality or the desire or act of change genders as being a sin. In fact, according to this article, transgenders are accepted as clergy members in some Christian denominations and in this article, there is apparently Biblical support for transgender identify. While in the Quran, there seems to be no clear prohibition on sex change. Funnily enough, Iran is the only country that has the death penalty for homosexuality BUT prescribes sex change operations as a treatment for it. So one has to wonder why the 'L', female 'B' and 'T' part of LGBTs are all considered unacceptable by religious folks as there does not seem to be any clear basis for it in the religious books. But I admit, I'm not the expert, so perhaps someone can enlighten me on which parts of the Bible or Quran forbid female homosexuality or gender changes. I'm honestly interested to know. As in specific verses and all. Anyone? Hello?

Both the Quran and the Bible also refer to Sodom and Gomorrah as the primary story of why male homosexuality is a sin. We all know the story, God wanted to destroy these two cities because they were so deeply in sin, namely homosexual behaviour, that God decided they were not worth keeping around. But funnily enough in the Bible, outside of the book of Genesis, when the sins of Sodom are mentioned, homosexuality isn't one of them!

Ezekiel 16: 49 “‘Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. 50 They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen

Mmm, if gayness was the greatest sin, why isn't it listed as one of the reasons why Sodom got obliterated by God? Apparently things that non-gay people do, such as being arrogant, greed (being overfed), indifference (unconcerned), disregard for the poor, and pride (haughtiness) were all big enough sins to wipe out an entire city! However, arrogant, greedy, and indifferent people don't get discriminated against half as much LGBTs.

So it goes to show that there are many other sins that were apparently very abhorrent to God. Yet we straight people do not systemically discriminate against anyone displaying such characteristics, perhaps because most of us have also been guilty of arrogance, greed or indifference towards the needy at some point or the other. People just for some reason enjoy segregating and hating those who are different from us, and hence why LGBTs always get the brunt of discrimination. But again, as nature shows, God loves diversity... so why can't we?

Conclusion (finally!)
I truly believe that the intent of any religion is to teach people to be good, kind, and to better ourselves. It is sad to see that it is constantly misused instead as an excuse to judge, curse and condemn others different from us, even when they are not out to hurt anyone. All in all, you don't need to openly support the LGBT community. They are certainly not asking the public for special treatment or to support homosexuality, their 'lifestyle' or 'culture' or whatever you want to call it. They just want to live their lives in peace, freely choose who they want to love, and maybe even just be able to say "I'm a lesbian/ gay/ bisexual/ transgender" without fearing rejection or even for their lives.

We humans are all here on this wonderful diverse planet God created for such a short time, how about less hate to the other people he created, and more focusing more on making it a better and safer place for everyone?

Have a nice day! :)

The Malaysian LBGT debate: Addressing 6 Common Arguments Against LGBTs

4 Tips for Choosing a Pet Dog That Won't Drive You Crazy

I'm an owner of five dogs, 2 males and 3 females. I got my first dog when I moved out of my parent's place and lived on my own which was about 6 to 7 years ago. The others became part of my doggy family within about 2-3 years after that and when one of my female dogs passed away recently, I adopted another female dog the week after, who quickly adapted well to living with my other dogs and me.

The one thing people always ask me is how do I manage to handle so many dogs pretty much by myself, especially when I have no garden and the dogs are in my house when I'm away? As amazing as it may sound to dog owners who have trouble dealing with even just one dog, all of my dogs are quite easy to handle. They learned the proper place to do their toilet business quickly with little or no training, they rarely bark except when scared or excited, they don't fight with each other and they do not chew up my belongings. Of course, it's not a 100% perfect behavior streak for all of them as there are exceptions to the above. For example, one dog still makes minor mistakes by doing her business close to but not exactly at the right area, they sometimes bark in the middle of the night at the smallest odd sound, my late dog used to be slightly aggressive and sometimes started fights with my other dogs, and when I'm away for long periods, sometimes my cushions would get chewed up due to anxiety. But all these cases are rare and tolerable. To me, the amount of work I have dealing with my five dogs, which includes almost daily walks, cleaning up their business, cleaning up their fur (by vacuuming) and feeding them is still easily much less work than raising one child. Yet I know there are people who can't even handle one dog due to annoying behaviours like excessive barking, pooping and peeing in all the wrong places, hyperactivity and destruction of belongings. Well, for those looking to get a new furry friend, especially new adopters, here are my 4 tips for choosing a dog that won't drive you crazy:

1) Choose an older dog over a puppy
Having rescued dogs before, I can say that 90% of people are only interested in getting puppies, so usually the older dogs, even those less than one year old but are fully grown, usually get sidelined. Personally I think this is the silliest mistake, unless you have a lot of free time to spend with your puppy. Puppies are like babies, they need plenty of attention and training, and they will demand what they want by making the most noise. Like babies, they also have growing teeth which means they very likely destroy your stuff, even if you give them chew toys. They also have poor bowel control and so you have to deal with potty messes until they grow older. So if you enjoy endless yapping, your stuff getting chewed up and poo and pee everywhere for weeks or months, by all means, get a puppy. But if you don't have time or energy for that nonsense, get an older dog, ideally one that is about a year or two years old, done teething and therefore much less likely to chew up your stuff. From my experience, my older dogs rarely destroyed my stuff, except for cushions as they enjoyed pulling out the fluff. So I got a sofa that has no chewable cushion, and the problem stopped. People who prefer puppies usually think older dogs are more difficult to train, especially on where to do their business. But really, older dogs are smarter than puppies, and also like to maintain the cleanliness of their territory, so it is much easier to train them where to poo and pee than one might think. The only older dogs that might have difficulty learning this are those who have spent most of their lives in cages. Which brings me to my next point. 

2) Choose strays/rescues over store-bought pets
This not only helps to reduce the stray population and unnecessary breeding of profit hungry breeders, but strays and rescued dogs are usually much easier to train on the proper poo/pee spot than store-bought pets. This is because animals that grew up in stores spent their lives in cages where they were forced to do the deed right where they sleep and live. Hence in a home environment, getting  them to unlearn this habit and not poo or pee all over the place will be more challenging. On the other hand, strays would have spent most of their lives outdoors and be used to doing it on the grass, far from where they rest. Hence if they are made to live indoors and once they figure out where the main 'hangout' area is (i.e. The living room, your couch, their sleeping mat, etc), they will naturally do their business away from that area, and preferably on a grassy type surface.

My first male dog until today prefers not to do his business indoors but prefers to wait until I take him out to do his deed, which is OK for me as it means less to cleanup in my house. For my other house trained dogs, my doggy pee and poo spot consists of a tray covered with a grassy like texture mat with holes, so they can squat over it to do their business while not getting their feet messy. Once my first female established that as the pee spot, the others who were adopted later watched and learned from her, and learned to use it quickly with very little training from me.

If you are to adopt a rescued dog, it is better to get one from an independent rescuer rather than a 100% caged shelter (unless the shelter has a grassy area for dogs to run freely at least once a day). Reason is again because a dog that has spent too much time in a cage has to be trained again not to pee and poo where he has been sleeping, whereas a rescuer would very likely have already house trained the dog, or dogs from shelters with grassy playgrounds would get chances to learn how to defecate away from their resting area.

Of course, if you have time and patience and willing to train a dog who has been caged most of their life (and most likely is traumatized from it), then this is most commendable, and hats off to you! For most people who don't have the time, and need a dog that is easily toilet trained, my tips above apply.



3) Adopt more than one dog
This would definitely seems impossible to those who already can't handle one dog, but did it ever occur to you that maybe your dog is misbehaving because he or she is bored? And that he is bored because you aren't spending enough time with him? And that a single dog would get lonely without companionship just like humans do when left alone in a house or garden by themselves every day for hours on end?

If you are unable to spend most of your time at home with your dog, and can't stand the idea of yourself being stuck in an enclosed area all day with nothing to do and no friends, then you should understand the importance of getting more than one dog. Two is good. More is better. Dogs are pack animals so the closest you can them to living as a pack means the more behaviourally stable they will become. Putting a younger dog in a group of older dogs will allow the younger dog to learn manners from the older dogs as well. All in all, they can easily spend time enjoying each other's company, meaning you don't feel so bad when you're away all day for work. Plus more dogs means that much more love and joy from happy mutts when you get home! 😄


4) Choose behaviour over breed
Another bane in the life of animals rescuers is when they have a perfectly adoptable, loving, friendly, easy to manage, well-behaved dog for adoption, and yet get potential adopters who, other than wanting a puppy, also wants to know, "What is the breed?"

Most people claim to want a dog of a certain breed because those breeds have certain characteristics or traits that they think make the dogs easier to train or more manageable. But let's face it, the other 'real' reason why most people want a purebred rather than a mixed or unknown breed is coz they want a status symbol, and want to be able to show off that you can 'afford' an expensive purebred, regardless of whether or not in actually that dog was abandoned and you got him or her for a fraction of the market price. But in the end, many purebreds also have specific needs. Some like huskies and terriers are high energy dogs that need lots of exercise, and some like pugs, shih tzu and pitbulls have breed specific conditions like breathing difficulties and skin problems. A dog owner who has no idea of a purebred's needs and just wants a 'status symbol' will very likely get very frustrated when the dogs acts up and misbehaves when he is not getting enough attention, or constantly needs medical attention. This will then lead to them very likely abandoning the poor dog.

If you truly want a great companion dog for life, don't ask about their breed and instead ask about his or her personality. This you can easily do when you adopt from an independent rescuer or fosterer who knows the dogs since they have raised them. Rescuers and fosterers will almost certainly give you accurate info about the dog because the fact that they sacrificed their time and most of the time, own money to care for the dog, means they want the dogs to get a good home and won't lie to you just to get the dog off their hands. You can find out about the dog's energy levels, toilet and eating habits, level of aggression, health problems, and pretty much anything, then use that info to decide if this is the dog for you.

Hope my tips helped anyone out there looking for a forever furry friend to make a better informed decision.

P.S.: If you live around Klang Valley and looking to adopt a furry friend, please get in touch with my mother, Madam Jocelyn from Subang Jaya. She is an independent rescuer with many loving and healthy doggies looking to bring joy to your life. Feel free to contact her at +6016-9950708 for adoption enquiries. If you can't adopt but would love to know more about her and support her rescue efforts, do check out my mom's story at this link. You can make a PayPal contribution to her email at jocelynnkf@gmail.com. 

Thanks and be blessed!

4 of my 5 furry kids, including my late female, Angel  😊

4 Tips for Choosing a Pet Dog That Won't Drive You Crazy

A Poem for 'March For Our Lives'

18 years ago when I was a typical angsty teenager of only 17 years old and I still had a creative streak (which has now mostly died due to the mundane adult working life), I used to write poetry. One of the poems I wrote was about the gun culture in the USA. Even back then, from halfway around the world and at that young age, the gun culture of the USA which resulted in many accidental or intentional shootings, was disturbing to me. At the time, mass shootings were less of a thing but being from a country where it is very difficult to get our hands on a gun without stringent training, background checks and a license, it amazed me how people in America can easily leave guns in the house in a manner that is easily accessible to teenagers and young children, which had sadly resulted in many young lives being lost through accidental shootings.

It's even sadder that after almost 2 decades, the gun culture has not gotten any better, but even worst as mass shootings become an almost normal occurrence in the USA while the rest of the world, including less developed countries like mine, look at the 'great' US of A and wonder why the heck is it with this resistance to sensible gun laws which have been so effective in practically every other part of the world in preventing similar atrocities from happening?

Gun loving Americans will of course pump their fist at me, saying that a non-American has no right to question this and we can never understand the rights under the 2nd amendment, yadda, yadda, yadda, I've seen all the comments on social media. Quite frankly, the 2nd amendment matters sh*t to me, as I have a brother, sister-in-law, and young nephew and friends in the USA who I would never want to be another victim of a crazy gunman. It should be a shame that supposedly the greatest country in the world can't even have sensible gun control laws to protect your people, and even people from under developed countries with a much lower gun death rate wonder what is wrong with the US.

So from halfway around the world, my support goes to the children and young people making a stand this week to change what adults have failed to change for decades. Keep on marching for your lives!


Here is the poem I wrote 18 years ago:

The Bullet

I am named the bullet

I'm just a small and tiny one

Beside me lies my lover

You all call her the gun

We lie here in this closet

Each and every day

Laughing at your foolishness

This is what I have to say

I know that my existence

Is merely to cause harm

To shoot down the next robber

Who awakens your alarm

You think that I'm your friend

You don't realize, you don't see

The times your suicidal teenager

Have eyed the gun and me

I often wonder why you never know

The pain my people cause

When we're used to satisfy your greed

And solve your petty flaws

Why you opt for violence

When you could have peace instead?

I bet I have a brother now

Embedded in someone's head

You say I'm needed for protection

To give you peace of mind

But once I've put someone in a coma

Will you feel better at that time?

Oh, go ahead and kill yourselves

Make your children cry

I'd merely served my purpose 

To cause you to writh and die

So I'll sit here in this closet

Anticipating with glee the day

When I'll be used for your abuse

That's all I have to say

A Poem for 'March For Our Lives'

When the Persecution of Malaysian Artistes Backfires

Image from Ahram Online

In recent times, several Malaysian artistes have made headlines for their artistic creations which got them into trouble with the law. Namewee, or Wee Meng Chee, a local singer, director and actor who has several times gotten into hot soup for his past videos (i.e. ‘Oh My God!’ and ‘Negerakuku’), was once again sniffed out by the local police for his latest Youtube video, ‘Like a Dog’. The video, uploaded just before Chinese New Year, featured several dancers wearing dog masks, dancing and at some points, performing acts akin to mating dogs. 

Fahmi Reza, a graphic designer and film maker, is now infamous for posting his depiction of the Malaysian Prime Minister as a clown on social media. About a week ago, he was sentenced to one month’s jail and RM30,000 fine by the Ipoh Sessions Court for the offensive caricature of the Prime Minister.

Zunar, a cartoonist known for depicting Malaysian politicians negatively in his comics as well as tweeting his dissent against the authorities, is also no stranger to brushes with the law. In the past few years, he has been charged and investigated for breaching six laws, including under the Penal Code and the Sedition Act, has had his books and related merchandise banned and confiscated at several events, and recently has been charged with 9 counts of sedition, which could land him a maximum of 43 years in prison.

Even ordinary citizens have not escaped being charged for posting derogatory images or comments about the Prime Minister. In August 2017, A roti canai seller, a recruiter and a teenage storekeeper were today jointly charged at the Kuala Lumpur Cyber Court with intentionally posting offensive content about Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak online. One was accused of posting an image on Facebook of the prime minister's head superimposed on a dog's body with the Umno log on its chest and ridden byhis wife, Rosmah Mansor. Another was accused of posting a doctored image of Najib's head superimposed on the body of China's founding father, Mao Zedong. Another was accused of simply calling the Prime Minister a robber and embezzler.

In all cases , the police action and charges against these artistes are justified by the authorities with reference to the Section 233 (1) (a) of the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 that criminalizes the intentional creation and transmission of derogatory communications material to hurt another. They are accused of attempting to ‘jeopardize the harmony of the nation’, ‘hurting the feelings of all Malaysians’, and in Namewee’s case, he is almost always accused of insulting Islam. 

‘Hurting the feelings’ of all Malaysians… or just hurting certain politicians?

The fact of the matter is that Section 233 (1) (a) of the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998, far from being implemented fairly across the board, is only ever used to take actions against artistes who spread derogatory material against the Prime Minister and politicians from the current ruling party, but not if the victims are ordinary people or politicians from the opposition. There have been a number of instances of people making derogatory images of others with obvious intent to hurt and offend, but with no police action taken against the culprits. For example:

· In year 2011, Nurul Izzah lodge a police report due to the mass distribution of booklets containing lewd caricatures and photos of her father and ex-opposition leader, Anwar Ibrahim, who is now languishing in jail. 

· In 2014 there was a public event where a number of Malays and dog owners gathered to allow Malays to touch dogs, primarily to help them overcome their fear and stigma of dogs, while everyone, including non-Muslims, learned about the proper practice of ‘samak’ or cleansing ritual for Muslims after touching dogs. However, the event garnered negative publicity and outrage from conservative Muslims, and photos of Malays seen at the event shared on social media (mostly women) were superimposed on pigs in an attempt to humiliate them.

· More recently, the proponents of the ‘Undirosak’ campaign, namely Hafidz Baharom and Maryam Lee, came under fire on social media, with many netizens slamming them both with insults and even threats of physical harm or even death. However, Maryam Lee bore the brunt of the online abuse, as not only did she face additional threats of sexual abuse, her face was also superimposed on lewd photos. Even if one disagrees with the ‘Undirosak’ campaign (this writer certainly does not support it), resorting to this extent of cyber abuse is abhorrent. 

Wouldn’t all of the above classify as transmission of derogatory communications material to hurt another, and therefore against Section 233 (1) (a) of the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998? Yet why was no action taken the culprits of the first two cases, and so far there has been no news of the police following up on the police report lodged by Maryam Lee against those who defiled her image and threatened her?

One can see the obvious difference. In all cases above, the authorities were simply not bothered, whereas in the case of Zunar and Fahmi Reza whose artworks featured PM Najib Razak in a negative light, immediate police action was taken and punishment meted out. Whereas in the case of Namewee, while the authorities claim that his latest ‘Like A Dog’ video was a threat to Malaysian harmony and an insult to Islam, one would scratch their head watching the video, wondering which part of it was a threat or insult to either? There was no reference to Islam, there was no mosque in the video, there was no insult to any of the races or communities of Malaysia. There was, however, a prominent backdrop of the Prime Minister’s office, and one line of the song (which describes the various dog sounds made in different countries) goes ‘Dogs in Malaysia bark “Mari mari wang wang”. While ‘wang’ in Chinese is the word for the barking sound of dogs, ‘wang’ in Malay means ‘money’. So the best that one can deduce from this line is he could mean there are some greedy ‘dogs’ in Malaysia who love money. Given the location of the video, one can make another deduction that these greedy dogs are based in that specific location. So why would Namewee’s latest video threaten the harmony of the nation or be an insult to Islam? Simply put, it is not. It is merely a threat and insult to the people based at that particular location of the video, who of course don’t like the insinuation that they are the same as these infamously ‘unclean’ animals.  Personally I don’t like it either. Dogs are loyal, loving, and protective of the people who take care of them. Hence I find it insulting that these amazing animals be compared to greedy people in power who disrespect those who provide their paychecks through taxes.

What is achieved by stifling artistic dissent?

The objective of the authorities taking action against these artistes is clear. Criminalizing imagery or videos that insult politicians will make ordinary Malaysian think twice about making or sharing thing that put the ruling party in a bad light. They also aim to wear down these artistes with constant threats and punishments, so to discourage them from doing the same in future. What they seem to fail to realize however, is taking such excessive measure to keep these artistes under control is counterproductive and backfiring.

A lot of people, including myself, did not find out about Namewee’s video from friends sharing it, but because of news reports that the police were looking for him in connection with this video. Most news readers would have done what any curious person would do, which was immediately search for and watch the video to see what the hoopla was about. Same goes for anytime Zunar comes out in the news for some latest insulting cartoon…those who read the news will of course be curious and want to see the offending image. By lodging investigations against them and it coming out in the news, it gives these artistes pretty much exactly what they want: Free publicity! More people have and will be seeing the offending images or videos thanks to the constant attention given to them by the police and the press, which is counter-productive to the authorities’ intentions of trying to have less people view the offending material.

The coverage of these cases in the news are also giving Malaysia a negative image on the international front. Cartoonists Rights Network International, an organization based in the United States, has been closely monitoring and reporting Zunar’s case. They have also written an open letter to PM Najib, demanding that all sedition charges be dropped as they are a violation of rights to freedom of expression, as enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, as well as under provisions of the Malaysian Constitution itself. Given that this is a country where opposition leaders have been put in jail for ridiculous charges and little is being done to regulate foreign labour in this country where abuse is common, news of regular violations of human rights by international media seems to do little to deter our authorities. It is, however, another embarrassment to ordinary Malaysians.

Fahmi Reza’s case shows most clearly how the free publicity has benefitted him. After the ruling from the Ipoh sessions court, Fahmi started a crowd-funding campaign online selling various merchandise featuring his clown caricature of PM Najib in order to raise funds to pay for the RM30,000 fine. He managed to raise that amount and more in less than 18 hours from starting the campaign! Thanks to the court ruling and free publicity, Fahmi now has more than enough money to pay the ridiculous fine as well as to live off for a few months.

The fact that Fahmi raised so much money in such a short time goes to show another important thing: Malaysians are not happy with the constant attempts by the authorities to clamp down on Fahmi and other artistes. Malaysians do not find their artwork as attempts to cause disharmony to the country or any religion. Rather Malaysians are tired of being forced to tow the line when it comes to voicing dissent against the government on social media. Malaysians are tired of seeing police taking action on people committing non-crimes like tweeting, making music videos and drawing cartoons, while corruption and other more severe crimes are ignored. But for many who have limited financial resources, families or dependents, they cannot afford to take the risk of actively voicing out for fear of legal action being taken against them. Hence, these artistes who have no such qualms are their voices of dissent. The money poured in because Fahmi is like a hero to them, one of the brave few who dared to use their talents to openly highlights abuses of power in this country.

The authorities should take heed, they may be able to use the law to shut up the general voices of dissent, but the massive support for Fahmi shows dissent is there and the people will show it in other ways where possible, whether it means backing persecuted artistes, or at the ballot box. Our tourism Minister, Dato’ Seri Mohamed Nazri Abdul Aziz has wizened up and advised fellow politicians to ‘suck it up’ and be less sensitive, else they have no business being in politics. Even the president of the United States, constantly undergoes constant mockery, including from American comedians on national television. In fact, a comedy series, ‘The President Show’ was created purely to parody and insult President Trump, yet as immature as many people believe Trump to be, he has even not tried to curb such public mockery.  Doing so would of course be seen not only as extremely immature, but a blatant abuse of power. Even much more so if he were to use the excuse that mocking him is a threat to the national harmony of the US, and is an insult to his religion, i.e. Christianity. Yet this immature behavior is displayed by our authorities even so often.

If the authorities did not like being mocked then the best thing they can do for themselves is focus on their jobs and improving the livelihood of the rakyat. Stop diverting valuable police resources away from curbing actual crimes by making them clamp down on non-crimes of making cartoons and music videos, which has already shown to be counterproductive. Stop misusing the excuse of national harmony and insults to Islam as a cover for the fact that it’s your own egos that were bristled.

In effect, stop clowning around. Earn the respect of the people, only then will the mockery turn to respect. 

When the Persecution of Malaysian Artistes Backfires