freetrip to Turkey

These are among the scores of pictures that remind me of Turkey. I went there for a few weeks during the fasting month a couple of years previously, and truly, it took my breath away. Whenever i go abroad, i would always try to keep abreast with the history of the place. Now, when you talk about Turkey, there are A LOT of historical stuff that you simply have to dig in. Ancient Greek, the Hittites, early christianity, the Islamic caliphate, so fascinating!



Lately, when i read about the latest constitutional case concerning the ruling political party of Turkey, i was taken aback by the aggressive secularism practised by some minority elites in Turkey, namely, the military and the courts. Make no mistake that the ruling party had won the elections that was democratically held, hence they have the mandate to administer the country, and their legimitacy is derived from the people. The military and the courts are not representative of the people, not by any stretch of imagination that you could confer any popular sovereignty of such bodies. Simply put: they do NOT represent the people. The principle of popular sovereignty demands that people's choices are respected. But that did not happen in Turkey. NOtice that when the Parliament passed a law to allow the wearing of headscarves in universities in Turkey, that measure was struck down as unconstitutional, and that was soon followed by an attempt to bar the ruling political party from political participation.

The decision is a neither-here-nor-there type of decision. FIrstly, the judges failed to reach the required amount of votes to bar the party from the political processs. Good, or so we would have thought. But then, the COurt slashed a considerable amount of money from the accounts of the party. A slap on the hands maybe?

This secularism v Islam debate would always remind me of a blunder made by Philip Koh. He was a panel member on the unity and the constitutional framework forum a few months back. He proudly declared his support for a secular state. His reason? "If we were in Sri Lanka, the buddhists would want to see us turn into buddhists, and if we were in India, the hindu fundamentalists would similarly want to see us embrace hinduism". In other words, if Malaysia were an Islamic State, the non-muslims would be in danger of forced conversion to Islam. And this guy has a string of degrees to his name including an LLB, LLM and a master's in theology. I was totally "enthralled" by such a stunningly captivating display of reason as to why Malaysia should not be an Islamic state. Has this guy ever heard of the "no compulsion rule in Islam" principle? If anyone would simply point out to the mess created by the Subashini and all the body snatching cases, wouldn't you agree that those mess are due to the obfuscation in jurisdictional conflicts rather than the nature of Islam itself?

When muslim women are forcibly prevented from wearing their headscarves, the outrage by the international community does not reach the same level as compared to forced veiling. The silence is deafening, particularly in light of feminist writings that explore the calamity experienced by women in de"veiling", similar to the forced "burqa"nized policy of the Talibans. Could you imagine the bimbos defending the right to wear the headscarves? Hilarious! Reason as employed in political philosophy to bolster the aims of liberalism and libertariansm seems to be anathema in islamic discourses. Here, while the clamour for the release of the Hindraf 5 from ISA is near to deafening proportion, you could almost hear the pin drop concerning the fate of those arrested for suspicion of close contacts with "islamic terrorists" .

Anyway, is there anything sacred in the Constitution? The Turkish Courts have demonstrated yet again that secularism is not something to be trifled with since that is the Turkish State's "identity". An easy question to that would be :since when? History books would tell you that it only came about when Mustafa Kamal took control over the reign of power, which was as a result of extreme disappointment with the last Turkish Sultans. If the identity of Turkey could change from an Islamic sultanate/caliphate to an agressive secular State, what pray, tell me, could stop the people from reverting back to an Islamic State? Isn't there a fundamental tenet in political philosophy that the present generation could not be shackled to the aims and desires of previous generations? And isn't the constitution a flexible document of destiny that can and must be amended to suit the needs and wants of those living ? But then, why stop here? Extend these discussions with reference to our constitution, ad that's exactly what i am doing right now. Wish me luck Really need all the luck that i could get.