27 September 2017
______________________________________
THE decision by the authorities to ban the proposed beer festival for security reasons has left some unconvinced.
The Inspector-General of Police has cited fear of possible attacks, after the police received intelligence that a militant group was planning to sabotage the event.
But some wonder whether the whole thing only became a big deal when some PAS chap made it a big deal. In other words, some see the root cause of the ban as religious intolerance.
This episode, as irritating as it is, is not by any stretch of the imagination the first of its kind.
We have already had issues like opposition to the building of
non-Muslim houses of worship; the imposing of dress codes in public
buildings; the ban on the use of the word “Allah” for non-Muslims.
Now we even have self-appointed guardians of the Muslim community demanding that public consumption of alcohol in their neighbourhood be stopped.
The list goes on.
And all this is done because of so-called Muslim sensitivities.
I just want to make a few observations.
Firstly, it appears to me that the authorities are giving way to those making the threats.
This beer festival thing for example; if there are threats being made towards people who are merely having a frothy beverage, then surely it is those who threaten who should be stopped. Not the other way around.
It would appear that in Malaysia, thuggery (especially when clothed in religiosity) will always win and victims are told to shut up and go home and not cause trouble.
This is very weird. It is like saying to a person who gets carjacked, “Well, who asked you to drive a fancy car?”
Secondly, my country is becoming a pit of intolerance and it appears that the imposition of one community’s so-called values and so-called morals is to be imposed on everyone, regardless of whether they share those same values and morals or not, is a norm.
This is oppression.
Thirdly, we are heading towards being a ghetto nation. Where because of the intolerance that abounds, there will be a Muslim ghetto and a non-Muslim ghetto.
We are heading towards a system where the two communities are separated. Is this far-fetched? Not if you live in a country where a school segregates cups, and laundries refuse to accept the clothes of non-Muslims.
Fourthly, all this talk by some politicians that Muslim laws and policies are only for Muslims is nonsense.
The conservative elements of this country want to impose their views and their way of life on everyone.
To say otherwise would be simply lying.
Finally, I would like to point out that there does not appear to be any strong political stand against what is happening in this country.
I understand why you won’t hear such a stand from Umno and PAS: PAS digs imposing its moral values and Umno is the newfound defender of Islam so it will not go against PAS on such matters.
However, what about the opposition parties? Especially those with a strong Malay/Muslim membership?
Is the lack of fight against this state of affairs which disrespects individual rights, plurality and secularism merely political expediency? After all, it is so easy to be demonised in this country by the so-called moral guardians.
Well, perhaps it is then time to make a stand based on principle. Everyone in this country has a right to live their lives according to their own belief systems.
No one has the right to impose their own belief systems on others. Is this too dangerous a political position to take?
If that is so, then the outcome is a foregone conclusion.
My country, which used to be a place of diversity and plurality, will slowly but surely become a monocultural, monoreligious behemoth with no space for those who do not fit in the mould of the oppressors.
The Inspector-General of Police has cited fear of possible attacks, after the police received intelligence that a militant group was planning to sabotage the event.
But some wonder whether the whole thing only became a big deal when some PAS chap made it a big deal. In other words, some see the root cause of the ban as religious intolerance.
This episode, as irritating as it is, is not by any stretch of the imagination the first of its kind.
Now we even have self-appointed guardians of the Muslim community demanding that public consumption of alcohol in their neighbourhood be stopped.
The list goes on.
And all this is done because of so-called Muslim sensitivities.
I just want to make a few observations.
Firstly, it appears to me that the authorities are giving way to those making the threats.
This beer festival thing for example; if there are threats being made towards people who are merely having a frothy beverage, then surely it is those who threaten who should be stopped. Not the other way around.
It would appear that in Malaysia, thuggery (especially when clothed in religiosity) will always win and victims are told to shut up and go home and not cause trouble.
This is very weird. It is like saying to a person who gets carjacked, “Well, who asked you to drive a fancy car?”
Secondly, my country is becoming a pit of intolerance and it appears that the imposition of one community’s so-called values and so-called morals is to be imposed on everyone, regardless of whether they share those same values and morals or not, is a norm.
This is oppression.
Thirdly, we are heading towards being a ghetto nation. Where because of the intolerance that abounds, there will be a Muslim ghetto and a non-Muslim ghetto.
We are heading towards a system where the two communities are separated. Is this far-fetched? Not if you live in a country where a school segregates cups, and laundries refuse to accept the clothes of non-Muslims.
Fourthly, all this talk by some politicians that Muslim laws and policies are only for Muslims is nonsense.
The conservative elements of this country want to impose their views and their way of life on everyone.
To say otherwise would be simply lying.
Finally, I would like to point out that there does not appear to be any strong political stand against what is happening in this country.
I understand why you won’t hear such a stand from Umno and PAS: PAS digs imposing its moral values and Umno is the newfound defender of Islam so it will not go against PAS on such matters.
However, what about the opposition parties? Especially those with a strong Malay/Muslim membership?
Is the lack of fight against this state of affairs which disrespects individual rights, plurality and secularism merely political expediency? After all, it is so easy to be demonised in this country by the so-called moral guardians.
Well, perhaps it is then time to make a stand based on principle. Everyone in this country has a right to live their lives according to their own belief systems.
No one has the right to impose their own belief systems on others. Is this too dangerous a political position to take?
If that is so, then the outcome is a foregone conclusion.
My country, which used to be a place of diversity and plurality, will slowly but surely become a monocultural, monoreligious behemoth with no space for those who do not fit in the mould of the oppressors.
1 comment:
THE MALAYSIAN CONSTITUTIONAL AND COMMON LAW RIGHTS TO INFORMATION AND TRANSPARENCY
Article 10(1)(a) of the Federal Constitution guarantees Malaysian citizens the right to freedom of speech and expression.
The Malaysian constitutional provision is in pari materia with Article 19(1)(a) in the Constitution of India, its Indian brethren which holds that “all citizens shall have the right to freedom of speech and expression”.
Decades before 12th October, 2005 in which the Indian Right To Information Act 2005 came into force, the Indian Supreme Court had already ruled in State of U.P. vs Raj Narain case (1975) 4 SCC 428 that :
“In a government of responsibility like ours, where all the agents of public must be responsible for their conduct, there can be but few, secrets. The people of this country have a right to know every public act, everything that is done in a public way, by their public, functionaries. They all entitled to know the particulars of every public transaction in all its bearing.”
In People’s Union for Civil Liberties vs Union of India (AIR 2004 SC 1442), Justice S.B. Sinha and Justice B.M. Khare held that :
“Right to Information is a facet of the freedom of ‘speech and expression’ as contained in article 19(1) (a) of the constitution of India. Right to Information, thus, indisputably is Fundamental Right.”
In Govt. of India vs The Cricket Association of Bengal (1995) 2 SCC 161, the Supreme Court decided that :
“the freedom of speech and expression includes right to acquire information and disseminate it. It enables people to contribute to debate on social and moral issues. Right to freedom of speech and expression means right to education, to inform, to entertain and right to be educated, informed and entertained. Right to telecast is, therefore, within the ambit of Article 19 (1) (a).”
Recently, the Malaysian apex court, the Federal Court in its decision in Semenyih Jaya Sdn Bhd v Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Hulu Langat & Another Case [2017] 5 CLJ 526 had referred to and reaffirmed the decisive ruling in Sivarasa Rasiah v Badan Peguam Malaysia & Anor [2010] 2 MLJ 333, 342 where Gopal Sri Ram FCJ said :
“… Further it is clear from the way in which the Federal Constitution is constructed there are certain features that constitute its basic fabric. Unless sanctioned by the Constitution itself, any statute (including one amending the Constitution) that offends the basic structure may be struck down as unconstitutional.”
In that same latter corum consisting of Federal Court Justices - Sri Ram, Zulkifli Makinuddin & Malanjum had unanimously and decisively ruled that "the rights guaranteed by Part II which are enforceable in the courts form part of the basic structure of the Federal Constitution."
The Indian Supreme Court in Kesavananda Bharati v State of Kerala [1973] AIR SC 1461 which had propounded the basic structure doctrine was recognised and referred in the very same Federal Court decision in Sivarasa Rasiah v Badan Peguam Malaysia [2010] 2 MLJ 333.
Needless to say, Article 10(1)(a) of the Federal Constitution falls under Part II of the same. The Malaysian Constitutional Right To Information is implicit and a corollary right entrenched in the same provision.
The UK Supreme Court in Kennedy v Charity Commission (2014) UKSC 20, 20 WLR 808, ruled that the common law right to information was based upon the basic principles of transparency. The brilliant judgment made two clearly distinguished observations :
1) the existence of a Common Law Right To Information, and
2) General Common Law Duties of Opennes and Transparency on Public Authorities.
In JAMIL BIN HARUN v YANG KAMSIAH [1984] 1 MLJ 217,
the Privy Council held that "Modern English authorities may be persuasive....".
In light of the aforesaid constitutional provision and caselaw authorities, it is submitted that the Right To Information and the Right To Transparency form part of our Constitutional Guarantees and Common Law.
Post a Comment