The Student Room Group

Brunei passes gay stoning law

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-27216798

Amputations come under the second phase, and stoning, for crimes including adultery and homosexual acts, under the third phase.

When he announced it last year the Sultan, 67, one of the world's wealthiest men, called the code "a part of the great history of our nation".


The Sultan of Brunei has passed a decree that the penalty for gay sex will be stoning (adulterers are also to be stoned, and thieves will have their limbs chopped off). The sultanate is a UK client state, the oil that has made the Sultan one of the richest men in the world is drilled by Royal Dutch Shell, and we have a garrison of 1,000 Gurkhas there to protect our interests.

The locals generally feel the Sultan is kept in power by the Brits. Should we yank the Sultan's chain, using the substantial influence we have there?
(edited 9 years ago)

Scroll to see replies

Original post by MostUncivilised
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-27216798



The Sultan of Brunei has passed a decree that the penalty for gay sex will be stoning (adulterers are also to be stoned, and thieves will have their limbs chopped off). The sultanate is a UK client state, the oil that has made the Sultan one of the richest men in the world is drilled by Royal Dutch Shell, and we have a garrison of 1,000 Gurkhas there to protect our interests.

The locals generally feel the Sultan is kept in power by the Brits. Should we yank the Sultan's chain, using the substantial influence we have there?


Why? Remove the sultan and you're likely to see a less tolerant leader in place. Sadly, radical Islam is on the rise no matter where you look.
Original post by MatureStudent36
Why? Remove the sultan and you're likely to see a less tolerant leader in place. Sadly, radical Islam is on the rise no matter where you look.


I didn't say remove the Sultan, I said yank his chain. He could not survive without British support, if we order him to revoke the decree he will do so.

And where is the evidence he would be replaced by a less tolerant leader? With respect, I wonder how familiar you are with Brunei. I've actually been there twice, when I was in the Australian Army reserves, the people are actually pretty progressive and have views that are fairly similar to those of Indonesians and Malays.
Original post by MostUncivilised
I didn't say remove the Sultan, I said yank his chain. He could not survive without British support, if we order him to revoke the decree he will do so.

And where is the evidence he would be replaced by a less tolerant leader? With respect, I wonder how familiar you are with Brunei. I've actually been there twice, when I was in the Australian Army reserves, the people are actually pretty progressive and have views that are fairly similar to those of Indonesians and Malays.


You'd know from history then that the Sultans in a position of weakness from a certain extent. I doubt he's introducing these measures of his own back. It'll be in response to increased internAl pressure to follow the teachings of Islam. You only have to look across and see what's happening in Indonesia for that.

Weaken the sultan by yanking his chain a bit and we may be looking at a potential re run of the Borneo campaign.
Original post by MatureStudent36
You'd know from history then that the Sultans in a position of weakness from a certain extent. I doubt he's introducing these measures of his own back. It'll be in response to increased internAl pressure to follow the teachings of Islam.


Actually, it's completely the opposite. It's definitely off his own back, he's started to follow the teachings of a Malaysian Imam / politician called Nik Aziz who has implemented exactly the same phased introduction of hudud / sharia in the Malaysian state of Kelantan, where he was the Chief Minister for about 20 years.

The fact that he was introducing these measures raised questions because the Sultan has been a well-known debauch in the past, but it is generally felt that he is becoming more religious in his old age. The Sultan specifically warned the Bruneians to stop the chatter about the law and the criticism of it, or face punishment.

The idea that there is some groundswell of Islamism in Brunei is completely at odds with the facts.

Weaken the sultan by yanking his chain a bit and we may be looking at a potential re run of the Borneo campaign


Yanking his chain wouldn't be inconsistent with what most Bruneians believe about their Sultan anyway. They see him as a British puppet.

Oh and just on the issue of Indonesia, it is a perfect example of moderate Islam, not some example of extremism that can be pointed to. The Indonesians are probably the most moderate Muslims in the world, and the vast majority of the people there are very progressive. There have been problems but they have really managed to get the crazies under control over the last 5 years, whilst maintaining their democratic form of government
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by MostUncivilised
Actually, it's completely the opposite. It's definitely off his own back, he's started to follow the teachings of a Malaysian Imam / politician called Nik Aziz who has implemented exactly the same phased introduction of hudud / sharia in the Malaysian state of Kelantan, where he was the Chief Minister for about 20 years.

The fact that he was introducing these measures raised questions because the Sultan has been a well-known debauch in the past, but it is generally felt that he is becoming more religious in his old age. The Sultan specifically warned the Bruneians to stop the chatter about the law and the criticism of it, or face punishment.

The idea that there is some groundswell of Islamism in Brunei is completely at odds with the facts.



Yanking his chain wouldn't be inconsistent with what most Bruneians believe about their Sultan anyway. They see him as a British puppet.

Oh and just on the issue of Indonesia, it is a perfect example of moderate Islam, not some example of extremism that can be pointed to. The Indonesians are probably the most moderate Muslims in the world, and the vast majority of the people there are very progressive. There have been problems but they have really managed to get the crazies under control over the last 5 years, whilst maintaining their democratic form of government


Areas of Indonesia are moderate. But extremism is on the rise.
Original post by MatureStudent36
Areas of Indonesia are moderate. But extremism is on the rise.


My experience (as someone who has spent much time there and has many Indonesian friends) is that it is on the decline, or has settled into a holding pattern.

Ten years ago we were experiencing regular suicide bombings (repeatedly in Bali, and against the Australian embassy on Java), there was a huge concern for the safety of the Christian population, Jemaah Islamiah was on the march. JI these days has essentially been dismantled, we haven't seen a big terrorist attack in years. There has been reconciliation on Ambon, where you saw the most bitter clashes between Christians and Muslims.

In the legislative elections last month, the Islamist parties vote share (whilst higher than the previous election) is 8% lower than the 2004 legislative elections. PKS (which was the largest Islamist party) saw its vote share decline.

Political Islam is a reality in Indonesia, but the Islamist parties tend to be moderate by comparison to what you'd see in Islamist parties in the Middle East (or even Malaysia). Overall, I think there's a lot of reasons to be very optimistic about Indonesia, it's a very buzzing place and its people are very entrepreneurial, incredibly warm and with a very underrated culture imho.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by MostUncivilised
My experience (as someone who has spent much time there and has many Indonesian friends) is that it is on the decline, or has settled into a holding pattern.

Ten years ago we were experiencing regular suicide bombings (repeatedly in Bali, and against the Australian embassy on Java), there was a huge concern for the safety of the Christian population, Jemaah Islamiah was on the march. JI these days has essentially been dismantled, we haven't seen a big terrorist attack in years. There has been reconciliation on Ambon, where you saw the most bitter clashes between Christians and Muslims.

In the legislative elections last month, the Islamist parties vote share (whilst higher than the previous election) is 8% lower than the 2004 legislative elections. PKS (which was the largest Islamist party) saw its vote share decline.

Political Islam as a reality in Indonesia, but the Islamist parties tend to be moderate by comparison to what you'd see in Islamist parties in the Middle East (or even Malaysia). Overall, I think there's a lot of reasons to be very optimistic about Indonesia


You've been there. I haven't. I'm just repeating what one of your regular colleagues was telling me about who monitors the situation.

That whole area has had an uneasy peace since the 60s
Why does it matter to you and if you yank his chain wouldn't make a difference. Britain shouldn't be intervening in others counties laws.
Original post by MatureStudent36
You've been there. I haven't. I'm just repeating what one of your regular colleagues was telling me about who monitors the situation.

That whole area has had an uneasy peace since the 60s


I don't think uneasy peace is a particularly good characterisation. Australia and Indonesia have an exceptionally complex relationship, which after Suharto deposed Sukarno was actually quite good. We turned a blind eye to their annexation of Timor L'Este and West Papua, and their human rights abuses, and in exchange were given the lion's share of the gas in the Timor Gap. We also trained their military and sold weapons to them.

Things obviously became quite tense in 1999 when Timor became independent and Australia deployed troops, and there are hiccups in the relationship (like when Snowden disclosed the fact Australia had tapped the phones of the President and his inner circle), but otherwise it is still quite close and both countries tend to see the other as their primary foreign relationship excepting the United States.

I think some Brits tend to view the area through the prism of Konfrontasi and the Five Power Defence Arrangements, which is a rather anachronistic lens, because they don't have that relationship with Indonesia. Australians tend to view it with more of a pragmatic eye, considering the substantial trade flows, the extensive person-to-person links, and actually tend to view Indonesia with a fair degree of fondness, many Australians have spent time there (particularly in Bali), there's also a bond that's been forged in a common experience of terrorism (the Bali attacks were in Indonesian soil, but it was almost 90 Australians who were killed in that bombing). There really is no sense, even remote, that conflict is possible between the two countries.
(edited 9 years ago)
It's tiring that we heavily aid countries like Brunei, Nigeria and Uganda, only for them to spit in our faces when we ask them to stop lynching and being unnecessarily cruel to homosexuals. Cultural relativism is a ridiculous justification for disgraceful and inhumane practices like stoning.
Original post by Ibn AbdulFatah
Why does it matter to you and if you yank his chain wouldn't make a difference. Britain shouldn't be intervening in others counties laws.


Perhaps the Sultan would like to defend his own borders then, rather than relying on British troops?
Original post by MostUncivilised
Perhaps the Sultan would like to defend his own borders then, rather than relying on British troops?


The British government can decide to withdraw its troops or not, i can see his corrupt because of his massive wealth but the law is the law.
Original post by Ibn AbdulFatah
the law is the law.


That's not a serious argument, it's a slogan. The whole point is to discuss the value of the law. Or do you cease criticising a policy or bill when it becomes a law?

Could I take it from your username that you approve of such laws?
i think we should wait for Stephen Fry to pronounce before making our minds up
Original post by MostUncivilised
I don't think uneasy peace is a particularly good characterisation. Australia and Indonesia have an exceptionally complex relationship, which after Suharto deposed Sukarno was actually quite good. We turned a blind eye to their annexation of Timor L'Este and West Papua, and their human rights abuses, and in exchange were given the lion's share of the gas in the Timor Gap. We also trained their military and sold weapons to them.

Things obviously became quite tense in 1999 when Timor became independent and Australia deployed troops, and there are hiccups in the relationship (like when Snowden disclosed the fact Australia had tapped the phones of the President and his inner circle), but otherwise it is still quite close and both countries tend to see the other as their primary foreign relationship excepting the United States.

I think some Brits tend to view the area through the prism of Konfrontasi and the Five Power Defence Arrangements, which is a rather anachronistic lens, because they don't have that relationship with Indonesia. Australians tend to view it with more of a pragmatic eye, considering the substantial trade flows, the extensive person-to-person links, and actually tend to view Indonesia with a fair degree of fondness, many Australians have spent time there (particularly in Bali), there's also a bond that's been forged in a common experience of terrorism (the Bali attacks were in Indonesian soil, but it was almost 90 Australians who were killed in that bombing). There really is no sense, even remote, that conflict is possible between the two countries.


I think a bit of the turning a blind eye to East Timor was influenced by Indonesia turning its territorial aspirations away from Malaysia and Brunei.

A 3 and a half year armed conflict involving commonwealth troops that most people today have little knowledge of. Then again, I suppose at the time people were more focused on Vietnam.
Original post by MostUncivilised
That's not a serious argument, it's a slogan. The whole point is to discuss the value of the law. Or do you cease criticising a policy or bill when it becomes a law?

Could I take it from your username that you approve of such laws?


Whether i approve it or not is not the issue. I am simply saying the UK getting involved is none of their business regardless of their garrisons stationed their. If they don't like the bill withdraw your troops and don't trade but putting pressure on their bill which you may agree or not agree shows you're trying to shove down secular ideas down the sultan's throat.
I wonder if people still think Steve Kean is a nice man now he works for a member of this backwards family.
Original post by MostUncivilised
I didn't say remove the Sultan, I said yank his chain. .


you could get stoned for that
Original post by Reluire
It's tiring that we heavily aid countries like Brunei, Nigeria and Uganda, only for them to spit in our faces when we ask them to stop lynching and being unnecessarily cruel to homosexuals. Cultural relativism is a ridiculous justification for disgraceful and inhumane practices like stoning.


Heavily aid them whilst also refusing to write off their debt so we can control them through the IMF and maintain their subordination to the west.

Quick Reply

Latest