Other thoughts on Love

Some people think that it is enough to be in love with someone and for that someone to love us back. That finding someone to love is the hard part. That once you have achieved that the rest is supposed to take care of itself. That the intensity of love for each other is the most important. That its riding into the sunset from there on. As with all things that are supposed, it is not like that.

A very important component left out of the common idea of love is learning and understanding how to love someone. Each person has a unique way they need to be loved. Some need to be seized by their lover and die in their arms. Some need to be teased playfully. Some need to feel the heat of jealousy. Some need to be in complete agreement. Some find contentment with a peck on the cheek once a day.

Whatever that way be, you must find it. Your love depends on it. Once you have found it, possess it and walk upon it so often until it is only you that travels upon it. On doing this would you would be able to discover, identify and turn out any brigands upon it. If you do not find their way of love, then your love will not be able to reach your lover's heart. Your impoverished lover would be damned to only seeing your love as if through a bulletproofed window, unable to feel its heat, from the outside looking in.

Of Sex Objects

Betty Paige
World Renowned Sex Object

There are some women that vent about how derogatory it is for women to be treated as sex objects. I have for some time found this terribly annoying and am hereby submitting my riposte. Now a distinction needs first be drawn between a 'sex object' and 'an object for sex'. These are 2 different things. The latter is generally comprised of those offering sexual services either voluntarily or as a result of duress. They transform themselves into an object to be used for the sexual pleasure of others, to which their own sexual pleasure is of no consequence. A sex object is often mistaken for an object for sex. So what then is a sex object? It is someone who is able to symbolize not just sex but sexuality and sexiness.

Though a person often has to be beautiful/handsome or cum-in-your-pants HAWT, this singular feature does not a sex object make. More is necessarily required. I've seen lots of nova hot but clueless cardboard women. These women are lacking an important quality: sensuality (say it with me now), which intensifies, deepens, broadens, and infuses one's natural beauty (being what it is, not necessarily CIYPH) with sexuality. Just so you get an idea of what I'm talking about, go find some plants that have not yet been watered (better yet find a garden). Now ejaculate water on to it and take a hard look at it again. Do you see how fresh it looks? Do you notice how it looks almost horny as it drips with fresh cool water on its tender leaves? Do you see how the branches and trunk glisten in the sunlight, as if cleansed and ready for some action? If you don't you shouldn't be reading this. Go back and sleep with your parents you waste of carbon material. And if you do, that's what I'm talking about.

And in that sensuality is firmness to the softness, there is a familiarity at once both intensely familiar and intimate and yet at the same time distant and cool, there is an innocence to her coquettishness, there is a lover's touch in each social or friendly physical interaction, there is provocation of your fantasies as much as it forces you to suppress it, there is maturity and confidence as there is ignorance and reticence. Sensuality can be honed or refined but one must first possess it. Yet it is uncommon and even those that possess it often know little about how to develop it. It is a condemnation of our culture and society that there is now so little sensuality and too much sex. The difference can be illustrated thus: a striptease is sensuality, whipping off your clothes as if jumping into a river to save someone's life is sex. And there is just too many people jumping into the river. The problem is that they ain't saving anybody!

And because women who are able to combine raw beauty with refined sensuality are so uncommon, they should be celebrated and be offered a spot in Playboy instead of being dissed by their own sex. I mean let's face it, how many of us reading here have really come across a sex object or has ever been described as one? (If you are a sex object reading this, please email me immediately) If somebody told me I was a sex object, I'd reply thank you, ma'am/miss, but if it's a he then it'll be no thank you, sir (with nasty look). And then I'd immediately tell all my friends about it but will in all probability be laughed at by them and be accused as being delusional and making the whole thing up (I didn't you bastards!). So object not to the sex object. Because when you do you make an object out of u and me.

The Tun Salleh Saga - an open reply to Dr Mahathir

Dr Mahathir, I read with considerable interest your blog on the Tun Salleh Saga. To a certain degree, I must confess, I am happy for you have obviously regained your memory after having a momentary lapse of the same during the proceeding of the Royal Commission on the Linggam tape.

I must confess that I was not moved to post anything about the Tun Salleh issue as everybody and his dog has apparently written about it. However, after having read your latest boot-leg version, I am compelled to write this reply, just to put things on record and proper perspective.

It is quite obvious that you have mastered the fine art of manipulation. When everything else fails, what better than to stoke racial sentiment in order to gain support. That was what you were doing in Johore Bahru recently when you quite irresponsible pointed out that the Malays are the ones who would lose out if the IDR project were to continue. You than quickly followed it up in Japan when you reminded the Malays to unite and be strong because, according to you, other races are now asking for many things and questioning Malay rights. Samuel Johnson's "patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel" would normally be a cliche to repeat, but in your case, I would make an exception. Just change the word "patriotism" to "racialism" and you would, hopefully, catch my drift.

When the issue of an apology to Salleh Abas was started by Zaid Ibrahim, I remember you were quoted as saying that Salleh Abas was sacked by the tribunal and so an apology should be sought from the tribunal. How very convenient of you DrM. Of course you had conveniently overlooked the fact that the tribunal was established at your advice as the then Prime Minister. And so now, in your blog, you have revealed the truth. The truth, according to you, is that the King had wanted Salleh Abas be removed because His Majesty was angry with Salleh Abas' letter complaining about His Majesty's renovation work. So, are you now blaming the King, may I ask?

That is the first question which came across my mind while reading your post. The second question is this. Since when have you become a royalist so much so that you were almost paralysingly subservient to the King? The King had wanted Salleh Abas, the Lord President, sacked because of a letter over some noises made in a renovation work, and you followed it up with a tribunal established under our primary law, the Federal Constitution? You wanted us to believe that you, the then Prime Minister, the very same Prime Minister who amended the Federal Constitution to curb the powers of the King and the Malay Rulers, had agreed to establish the tribunal at the behest of the King? Since when has Dr Mahathir Mohamad, the fearless Prime Minister, who took away the necessity for Royal assents to any bill of law before it could effectively be the law of the country by amending the Federal Constitution, had suddenly be so subservient to the King in relation to the sacking of Salleh Abas?

The third question is glaring to people in the know. It is of course not there for every supporters of yours to see, as we could well surmise from the majority of the comments made in your blog on the issue. The question is this. Why was it that Salleh Abas was not charged over THAT letter? If what you said was true, why wasn't Salleh Abas charged for writin such a letter to the King and carbon copying it to all the Rulers? WHY? If the King had wanted Salleh Abas sacked for being rude to His Majesty, why is it that Salleh Abas not charged for being rude to our King? W.H.Y.??? Why is it that only now, 20 years later, suddenly, this letter has appeared and become an issue? Is it a case of you forgetting about that letter in 1988, just as you have forgotten about some events during the Linggam tape hearing, and suddenly rediscovering your memory last week about the same letter? Coincidently, your former secretary, Matthias Chang, has spoken about this letter in his blog sometime in the past weeks. Coincidently, I wrote.

By the way, during the constitutional crisis caused by your beligerent attitude towards the King and the Malay Rulers, I remember the state mass media, the newspapers and RTM, had even belittled the King and the Malays Rulers. The whole propaganda machines were used to smear the King and the Malay Rulers. Pictures of their palaces and mansions were shown on TV and in the newspapers. Stories about their wrongdoings were splashed in newspapers. Even Sultan of Kedah's house in Penang did not escape your propaganda machine. RTM would proceed to air old Malay movies about how stupid the Malay Rulers in ancient days were. Films like Nujum Pak Belalang, Hang Tuah and Dang Anum were aired just to shape the people's thoughts about how bad the King and the Malay Rulers were or could be. And yet, you now want us to believe that you were just doing what the King had wanted you to do by establishing the tribunal against Salleh Abas? Stretching your argument that Salleh Abas had to go because the King said so, why didn't you sack yourself, your whole cabinet and everybody else who had then partaken in the whole process of smearing the good name and dignity of our King and the Malay Rulers? Why only Salleh Abas?

DrM, sometimes, one's stupidity is most glaring in one's thought that everybody else is stupid!

You then mention in your blog that it was your opinion that Salleh Abas had committed wrongdoings and that he was not fit to be a Judge. If that was the case, may I respectfully ask why is it that you had not deemed it fit to establish a tribunal against a certain Lord President who was photographed with a certain lawyer oversea? Wouldn't that constitute a wrongdoing? That fact was, I am sure, known to you as it was widely discussed in the media during your premiership. It was even investigated by the ACA. Or how about the ACA investigation which showed that a certain lawyer had written a certain judgment for a certain Judge? Wouldn't that be a wrongdoing which would, if substantiated, render the Judge unfit to continue be a Judge? Why only Salleh Abas? Why not these Judges? Or is it a case of you having forgotten what they did just as you have forgotten several events during the Linggam tape proceedings, again?

You now charged, as you have always charged, that the judiciary, had interfered in the administration of the country. Your disdain for the law, lawyers and judiciary is well documented Dr M. I remember clearly in one speech, you liken the lawyers to vultures. But of course, you would now say it was all in jest. Your contempt for the law and judiciary, every time the judiciary made a decision against you or your government is almost peerless. You would deem such decision as interference with the administration. Although you know that the administration consists of 3 different, but essential, arms, namely, the legislature, executive and judiciary, you failed miserably to understand their respective functions and duties. The phrase "check and balance" was missing from your administrative dictionary which was probably reprinted with an express instruction from you to delete the same.

Thus, history will show that you were so upset and angry with the judiciary that you had instigated another Constitutional amendment to take away "judicial powers" from the judiciary! May I point out Dr M, that Malaysia, would be the only country in the whole Commonwealth ( I say Commonwealth because I am not accustomed to non-Commonwealth systems) whose judiciary does not have judicial powers unless the legislature says so. Coincidentally of course, who controlled the legislature? That was, and I surmise, still is, your idea of a democracy.

Remember what I said above about stupidity? Let me repeat it. One's stupidity is most glaring in one's thought that everybody else is stupid!

You some what denies that the sacking of Salleh Abas had anything to do with the UMNO 11 appeal which was then fixed by Salleh Abas to be heard by a full bench of 9 Judges on 13.6.1988. Events will show, at least on a balance of probability, otherwise. Salleh Abas was served with a letter of suspension on 27.5.1988. Abdul Hamid Omar became the Acting Lord President. I will come back to this character later in this post. On that very day, namely, 27.5.1988, on which Salleh Abas was suspended, Abdul Hamid Omar, as Acting Lord President, acting without any application by any party named in the UMNO 11 appeal, adjourned the appeal to a date to be fixed later. Why? For what reason? Why the haste? Nobody knows. That appeal was later fixed for hearing on 8.8.1988 before only 5 judges comprising of 3 Supreme Court Judges, including Abdul Hamid Omar himself and 2 High Court Judges. Not 9 as originally fixed by Salleh Abas. How could a valid decision by a Lord President, which was made prior to his suspension, be reversed by an Acting Lord President is quite beyond me or my intelect to comprehend, let alone answer. And quite why the appeal was to be heard by a corum of 3 Supreme Court Judges and 2 High Court Judges, instead of all Supreme Court Judges, is also beyond my tiny brain's ability to understand. I am sure you wouldn't remember this fact Dr M. Otherwise, I am sure you would have stated it in your post. I am sure.

If the sacking had nothing to do with the UMNO 11 appeal, why, may I ask, is that the first official act of the Acting Lord President was to postpone the hearing of that particular appeal? Why did he then proceed to overturn a valid act of the Lord President, who was then still a Lord President, albeit the fact that he was suspended? Why?

Salleh Abas made a statement to the press after his suspension. In the statement, he alluded to a meeting on 25.5.1998 with you, in the presence of the Chief Secretary, Salehuddin Mohamad, where you allegedly told him (Salleh Abas) that he was to be removed because, among others, of his bias in the UMNO 11 appeal. Salehuddin Mohamad was a witness at the tribunal. He said he was taking notes during the said meeting. While he could remember writing down only 2 matters in the note book during the meeting, namely, Salleh Abas' speech and his letter to the King (about your attack of the judiciary and not about the renovation issue), he only managed to say that he cannot remember that you had mentioned the UMNO case during the meeting when asked by the tribunal members. If he was so sure that he only took down notes about the aforesaid 2 matters in his notebook, why then he could not EXPRESSLY deny that you had mentioned about the UMNO case during the said meeting? Why can't he remember? And, in a show of embarrassing shallowness on the part of the tribunal, it FAILED to ask Salehuddin to produce the notebook! Why? It would appear that your Chief Secretary was clearly suffering from the same disease as yours namely, partial and momentary lapse of memory.

On the balance of probability therefore, your contention that the sacking of Salleh Abas did not have anything to do with the UMNO case under appeal is flawed, to say the least. Why don't you state all these facts in your blog Dr M? And let the people who read it to judge the matter after having been fed with al relevant facts. Not with facts which you think are relevant. Not with facts which you choose to remember for your own purpose and objectives.

I have reserved my comment about Abdul Hamid Omar. Now is the time form me to say something about him. This was the man who was effectively Salleh Abas' subordinate. He became Acting Lord President when Salleh Abas was suspended. He was also next in line to be the Lord President, in the event Salleh Abas was sacked. History will show that he did replace Salleh Abas after his sacking. How could he then head the tribunal? He was obviously conflicted out from being in the tribunal. Justice must not only be done, but must also be seen to be done. Haven't you heard of that? Or have you forgotten about it? Or is it a case that you did not really care?

Salleh Abas was then charged, among others, for writing a letter to the King dated 26.3 1988. For the benefit of those readers who don't really know the facts, this was not the letter complaining about the renovation. As I had said it, the renovation letter was never mentioned in any of the charges. The letter dated 26.3.1988 was a letter by Salleh Abas to the King to inform the King that Dr M had been attacking the judiciary. I will not touch on the merit or demerit of this letter. But what Dr M had failed to realise, or rather, what Dr M had ignored was the fact that this letter was written by Salleh Abas after all the Judges had a meeting on 25.3.1988. Even the Chairman of the tribunal, the aforesaid Abdul Hamid Omar, was present during the said meeting. In more ways than one, the said letter was a collective result of the Judges' meeting, including that of Abdul Hamid Omar, the Chairman of the tribunal. Two questions arise here Dr M. Firstly, stretching your contention that Salleh Abas had to be removed because of that letter as well as the renovation letter to its own logical conclusion, why didn't you suspend all the Judges who attended the meeting of 25.3.1988 and institute the same proceeding, with a view of dismissing all of them? That would be its reasonable conclusion as the letter was a collective result. Secondly, how could Abdul Hamid Omar, be a part of the tribunal, let alone its Chairman when he was obviously a potential witness? But then again, the 2nd question is borne out of a legal point, and so I don't expect you to understand it, let alone grasp it.

Allow me to also set out the exact facts and events around the same time Salleh Abas was charged. In 1986, you, as Home Minister cancelled the work permit of 2 Asian Wall Street Journal journalists in Malaysia. They brought the matter to the Court and the Supreme Court held that your action was illegal and therefore invalid. You were upset. IN TIME magazine (issue of 24.11.1986), you expressed your displeasure. Contempt proceedings were brought against you by the opposition. You escaped as the proceedings were dismissed by the Court. However, the learned Judge remarked in his judgment that you were confused at the doctrine of separation of powers. Later, in a speech to law students, the same Judge said that the process of appointing senators should be by way of an election. You mistook, as usual, this speech as a challenge and interference in politics when all the learned Judge was doing was expressing his own personal opinion over a matter which was not entirely political but also legal as well. Of course you then had to accuse "certain Judges" as interfering with politics. You then began a series of unwarranted attacks against the judiciary at a level and intensity as yet unseen in Malaysian history. What would you do if you were Salleh Abas, the Lord President? Take all the attacks lying down while waiting for pension?

You failed to appreciate his duty as the Lord President. He was the chief of the judiciary, an essential branch of the country's administration system. AS much as you were the head of the executive, so was Salleh Abas the head of the judiciary. He had to defend the very institution which he then headed. He convened a meeting of Judges on 25.3.1988 and collectively they decided to write a letter to the King about all the attacks leveled against the judiciary. What was so wrong with that? Why, you wanted him to lodge a police report over the matter?

By the way, in the present climate when every other Malay politicain is trying to be more Islam than every other Malay and his pussy cats, you of course forgot to mention one of the charges against Salleh Abas in your blog for obvious reason. The charge was that Salleh Abas had advocated the acceptance of the Islamic legal system in Malaysia and had re-stated the law along Islamic legal principles with against the multi-racial and multi-religious character of our country. Why didn't you mention this in your blog? You forgot? Or is it simply a case of you being afraid of losing the Malay support among your Malay readers if that was published by you in your blog?

Dr M, I am not your supporter. Nor am I Anwar Ibrahim or Abdullah Badawi's supporter. I am a supporter of truth. In this matter, nobody would know the truth. But if you are persuading people that your version is the truth, I would at least, expect you to lay out the whole story. And let the people, and history, be the judge.

Do you know what the beauty of the Common Law (which we practise)? The beauty is that it is a set of law common to all the people. That means, when a matter is wrong or right, ultimately, the common people would know. The common people. Me, and your readers.

Kind regards,

Art Harun

Pre-Marital Sex

Note: All puns are intended unless notified otherwise. Definition: Navel Gazing categorizes 'sex' as the complete act of copulation until ejaculation (whether premature or mature) or orgasm (multiple or otherwise). So even if there's a whole lot of bed shaking but no crash, we won't count it (even though we'd be quite happy to watch or assist in the video recording). It also does not include foreplay no matter how heavy such as blow jobs, cunnilingus and any form of masturbation,(mutual or otherwise).

Every now and again some unsuspecting fool will ask me, 'Do you believe in pre-marital sex?' I always wonder about such people. Were they dropped on their head when they were young? I tell them, 'I don't just believe in it, I pray feverishly for it (optional: you stupid fool!)'.

Why they use the word 'believe' never ceases to baffle me. And what is there to 'believe' about pre-marital sex? It happens. It happens a lot. As it should. Except to people who want it most. ... And you know what, it's probably happening all over the world in all sorts of funky places as you are reading this - in some nearby secondary jungle, in some filthy public toilet, in the backseat of a car, on the bosses' office desk, at the 7th floor of an internal fire escape of a building. Not that I would know but those 3gp video clips that get passed around sure help verify this (so thank you all of you selfless exhibitionists in Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand, Singapore, and occasionally the Middle East)! And that's just counting the humans.

Don't forget animals always have pre-marital sex because there's nobody to marry those poor godless things. Bloody sinful heathens that they are! It's bad enough that as compared to humans they are naked most of the time or have their pubes cover their whole body and can have a riotous bout of sex in public without having to worry about on lookers or the local state religious departments raiding them. So that they get lots of pre-marital sex (granted its the only kind) is quite unfair and smells like the big H putting one over us humans. Sure we get opposable thumbs and big brains but hey, them animals get only pre-marital sex (which I understand from my assiduous analysis of voluminous literature both fiction and non-fiction about this category of sex is the best of its kind as opposed to virgin sex [homosexual or heterosexual], post-marital sex and lousy sex). That's probably the only reason why the big H made animals incomprehensible to us because they would be lording it all over us. I mean, that's why birds sing, hyenas laugh, horses' neigh and cows moo. They're gloating. If we had lots of that, we'd be doing a lot more singing, laughing, neighing and uh... mooing.

If I could enact legislation as easily as I could some really kinky sex fantasy and then pass it as easily as I answer Nature's routine call, you would by now be governed by the Compulsory Pre-Marital Sex Act 2008. This sexcellent Act would require all couples seeking to be married to have sex about 4 weeks before their marriage registration or nikah date with their intended lifelong partner. You could do it with someone else but complications are very likely to arise.

The first 2 weeks is to be spent having lots of sex in as many ways they can think of. The remaining 2 weeks is for the couple to decide whether to go through with their mutual lifelong commitment. If they are virgins that is. If they are not then the first 2 weeks is an encouraged option, unless of course they had already boned their brains out earlier in their courtship. Then only the first week is compulsory. Both are then to fill in a form setting out what they enjoyed, what they want more of, what other positions they want to try, which public places they would like to enact those fonky positions and any suggestions on equipment which will have to thereafter be affirmed before a Commissioner of Oaths. That's right - statutory declarations will be compulsory and must be submitted to the newly formed Ministry of Sexual Pleasure and Sexuality, which I fully expected to be appointed as both First and Second Minister.

The reason for this very pressing Act is to firstly establish sexual affinity between the couple. Trust me when I tell you that you don't want to marry this hot hoochie mama only to discover that she likes eating the carpet after she takes one look at your lamp (and lamp shade, where applicable). Or once your clothes are off, she realizes that she actually likes guys with lots of hair, especially on their back or ass (the disgusting bastards!). Or that she dislikes the smell of your body odour around your privies and needs to wear a gas mask to give you the Australian kiss. Or that he screams excitedly, 'I won! I won!' when he comes 2 minutes after he sticks in her. Loser.

Secondly, it is to ensure sexual compatibility in terms of performance and interests. Sure you may have the affinity but do you want to do the same things, the same positions? I mean, if you like only straightforward missionary sex (you uncreative bastard!) and she can only get going when you have a 12" spiked dildo up your ass, you got a problem. How big the problem is depends entirely on size of dildo and how roughly she manipulates it. Or perhaps she may have this awful habit of pulling out her magazine to read while you're 3 minutes in. It's not uncommon okay! The trouble with modern women is everything is a job and sex is their 5 minute power nap break. So you definitely wanna check this stuff out lest you be prepping for your bout of sexual dalliance by arranging the magazines on the bed. Loser.

Thirdly but not the least important, is to gauge your future partner's sexual desire not just for you but for sex as well. I know for a fact that there are a race of people walking the earth that have no interest in sex whatsoever. Though they may indulge in it 3 or 4 times in their life time, they could quite comfortably and calmly do without it. They sound human, they look human, hell they even eat what we do but don't be fooled my friend. Don't be fooled for a second.

They are fucking aliens. Only aliens don't like sex and well filmed and acted porn. And no they are probably not from Uranus (you immature bastard!). You don't want to tie the knot only to realize you've got to tie up your space shuttle as well. That first 2 weeks (or week depending on which is applicable to you) is therefore very important. These aliens may fool us for the 1st week but their alien inhibition cannot hold out that long provided inflict awesome bouts of fornication upon them. I know this because Pentagon knows this and have yet to declassify the documents on alien visitation but watch out for it in 2024.

Now that you know why you need me to be Prime Minister of Malaysia, please vote wisely in the next elections. I'll be in one of those independent parties with a strong sexual policy for government. So now go out there and register to vote and convert some of them aliens. They're taking over the world as we know it. And if you're an alien reading this, do us all a favour - go fuck yourself.

Barely Legal

Dungun, Terengganu
Malaysia
June 2008

A Songpiracy

This may sound very cliche but I think it is neither the Djs nor radio stations that decide the songs on the airplay list. The master controller is the universe. The universe could sense how you feel and it conspires to send you messages as to console you when you feel down and lift your spirits up so that you do not give up.

Now, I am not a prophet but if I were one, I think I would be the only prophet who receives his "wahyu" from songs.

I believe that the universe communicates through songs that you listen to. The conspiracy part comes when a particular song started to play at the time when you need it the most. The fact that the DJ played it was just a coincidence. It is all part of a bigger picture, a conspiracy that you cannot solve.

If you did not believe me, just turn on the radio and start listening. I believe for messages to come accross, your mind has to work with your heart and sub- conscience. Sometimes you notice these messages but sometimes the wrong ones get sent.Then you realised that you just lost your mind. hehe. So you turn on the radio, listen to songs. Slowly, your thoughts swim, stroke after stroke, defying winds and cruel waves. You drift away then water started to lead, you struggled and when you cried for help, words from the songs you listen to started playing in your head. How they make you feel depends on you. If you listened to them wrongly, you would drown and listening right, you would swim.

I remember feeling very depressed a couple of years ago. Alright, so I am depressed by default but circa April to July 2005, I was really down, lower and deeper than anything else that is low and deep in this world. It was the most terrible feeling because I was heartbroken. Work too was no consolotion.

For the whole of that period, no song could pick me up. Rob Thomas' Lonely no more" became lonely. There was another song, about a guy who finally fell in love but only the words "even the best fall down sometimes" continued to play in my head. I cried when listening to Akon's Lonely and wondered why the stations like to play depressing songs.

Then my mum told me to try out and audition to be a DJ. I did and I think the auditioners knew that I was depressed. When told that I was going to introduce Rob Thomas' song, they kept correcting that the correct title is Lonely NO MORE and not lonely. They then asked whether I like Akon's Lonely, I did not give an answer so they started to dance to the song. I was too blur to notice but while driving home, I realised I was listening to all these songs the wrong way!

I never notice the effect of songs again until recently, more precisely since two weeks ago. I felt depressed again, not due to any matters of the heart but more towards fear and disappointment. Reality has finally set in at work and I was thinking of too many negatives.

So I turned on the radio and cried, not one but many many nights and all the time, many songs were played but only these words came flashing "No stress" and "whatever it takes". I suddenly felt dumb and started thinking about what I want to do. I turned on the radio and coincidentally, the songs were on the playlist again. Oh yes, universe I know what to do.

DESERT ROSE

The Child is born.

The Mother feels anger towards the Child.

Fourteen hours of pain. Not like the Firstborn. Easy that was. Beautiful, the Firstborn was. This one ... she does not like.

The Child knows instinctively. The Mother does not love her.

The Child cries.

The Mother drugs her to sleep. Easier that way.

The Child wakes. The Child cries.

The Mother pinches the Child hard when she thinks no one is looking.

The Child is three.

The Child has a male nanny. The nanny loves the Child. The nanny knows the Child is not loved by those who should love the Child. The nanny gives as much love as he can.

The Mother is angry with the Child.

The Mother makes the Child stand in the bathtub. Naked. The Mother turns on the hot water. Only.

The Child screams. In pain.

The Child cries : "Mama please stop".

The nanny cries. The Mother stands and watches. Her face set. Hard as stone. Lips a thin line. Anger and satisfaction in her eyes. The nanny goes down on his knees. Begging the Mother to stop. The Mother cannot feel the anguish of the Child. Physical, emotional and mental. To be harmed by one's own Mother.

The Child is scalded. For life.

The family moves.

The nanny is left behind.

A maid and a manservant join the family.

The manservant molests the maid. The maid complains to the Mother. The maid leaves. The manservant stays. The Mother does not think that one day the manservant may molest the Child too. The Mother never thinks of the Child's well being.

The Child is twelve.

The parents are divorced. The Mother leaves. The Child with the Father. The Father is never at home. The manservant is in charge.

The manservant molests the Child. Repeatedly.

The Child is damaged. For life.

The Child is eighteen.

The Child is studying in England. The Child has a boyfriend. The boyfriend loses his temper. The boyfriend picks up the Child and throws her across the room. The Child crashes to the floor. The boyfriend kicks her in the stomach. The Child is bleeding. Internally. For two months.

The Child is scarred. For life.

The Child returns.

The Child is working.

The Boss asks her to be his mistress. The Child says no. The Boss says she is insubordinate. The Child is sacked.

The Child is maligned. For life.

The Child is weary.

The Child goes home. The Child opens the family album. To see her family. There are many photos. Her beautiful Mother. Her handsome Father. The Firstborn. Many photos of the Firstborn. When he was a baby. When he was one. When he was two. And so on. Many. A beautiful boy. Light brown hair. Big brown eyes. Fair skin. Happy face.

No photos of the Child.

Maybe the parents forgot. The Child searches. Still no photo. The Child remembers. The disappointment. The conversations of the aunties: "Oh what a pity the Child looks like that. Her Mother is so beautiful. What a waste." Even without the photo the Child remembers. What she looked like. The toothless grin. The "tempurung" cropped hair.

As she sits there she realises:

"Nobody loves me. From the time I was born. Until today. Nobody loves me".

The Child collapses.

The Child is sobbing. Her body full of lacerations. Inflicted by those who should have loved her. The Child hears. Her name being called. The Child looks up. And stares into. The kindest eyes. The most loving face.

"I love you."

He says. He extends his hand. "Follow me". The Child reaches out and holds the hand. He lifts her up. With her hand still grasped in his. She follows him. The One who loves her. From the time she was born to the time she leaves this temporal world. She follows him. The Child is healed. The Child is loved. Forever.

You are my Desert Rose.

The rare and beautiful rose that grows in the harsh desert. Alone. Strong. Waiting for someone worthy to discover it.

I love you my Child. My Desert Rose. Her heart fills with joy. Her being immersed with love. The Child follows him. The Prophet.

Author's note: This piece is dedicated to all the children who have suffered in this world. Those who are not loved as they should have been loved. Those who are not protected as they should have been protected. I send you all my deepest love.