Shiny moment to slimy movement

Brave New World (The Star)
19 December 2018


__________________________

THIS is my final piece for 2018. So I want to wish all of you an advance Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!

And what a year it has been. If at the end of 2017 you told me that in 2018 we would have a new government and there would be a fistful of Barisan Nasional bigwigs in court being charged for multiple crimes, I would have laughed in your face and asked you to share whatever it was you were smoking. But here we are.

And man, in May there was no need for any sort of substance, legal or otherwise, to feel high. The euphoria was practically tangible. Not for half the population, granted, but for those who voted for change. It was a moment of not just happiness but great pride.

As a university lecturer, I am often travelling abroad (Asean only for small fish like myself) speaking at conferences.This year, I got to use my country as an example of how people can peacefully change a government and how the democratic process can still work despite the filthy laws and tricks that those in power used and got up to. For a brief shining moment, we were the symbol of not just democracy but also a movement away from repressive regimes. Not just for our region, but the whole world. I have never felt so proud.

Besides being a wonderful achievement by itself, the election in May also marked a shift in the way that people were thinking. Suddenly, there was hope for the future.

The new government will be corruption-free and progressive and we can start moving forward. Moving forward in a manner that took the interest of all Malaysians at heart. No more politicising of race and religion. No more disrespecting of human rights.

Well, that went south pretty quick. Within a few short months, we have seen the government backing down to ignorance and racial fear-mongering as it made a U-turn on the promise to ratify the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Icerd).

This was particularly painful because all the points that were raised by the opponents of the treaty were founded on outright lies.

The Icerd allows for – indeed it demands – affirmative action if it is needed. This is exactly what our Constitution says as well, where the special position of Malays and Natives of Sabah and Sarawak can be protected via quotas and the like as long as it is “necessary” and “reasonable”.

To say otherwise is to lie.

With all the machinery at its disposal, the government did not put up a convincing attempt to try to convince the Malays (and it was mainly the Malays who objected) that they had nothing to fear. And how sad is it to live in a country where we can’t say loud and proud that we disagree with racism.

Then there is the U-turn on local elections. This was promised to us and now we are told that it can’t happen because it will be racialised. Exactly how this will occur is not made clear. Once again, Malaysians are expected to just listen to Uncle Government because it knows better than us.

As the year comes to a close, instead of yuletide cheer and end-of-year merrymaking, we are now faced with the repulsive sight of slug-like creatures crawling out of their political party to slide towards those in power.

The noxious slime coating their bloated bodies leaves a trail of toxic mucus as they crawl with large pleading eyes to be admitted into a party that has not lost.

If they think that the stench of their previous loathsome life while in power is not going to stick to them like cat poo on the sole of a heavily threaded running shoe, then they are delusional.

But what is this? There is a possibility they will be accepted? Oh no! I realise this is the season of goodwill but this is too much, man.

It is not all over. There is still time to do good work. Institutions can still be reformed.

Ministers learning the ropes can still become experts and do a good job. And as much as we must criticise every bump in the road to reform, we must not give up on the agenda to change this country for the better.

The year started off like any other year – cynical but with the slightest sliver of hope. In the middle of the year, we had one of the most unexpected and significant things to have happened to us as a nation, and now at the end of the year, we are once again brought down to earth.

It is impossible to stay as wide-eyed and optimistic as we were a few short months ago. But we must continue to hope and continue to strive. After all, that’s what we have been doing all this time.

Sedition Act should not be used again

Brave New World (The Star)
5 December 2018

__________________________________

SO, the Sedition Act has reared its little pimply head again. This time in relation with the Seafield temple riots.

This is all quite confusing to me because I thought there was a moratorium on the use of this archaic and undemocratic law.

However, news reports suggest the opposite with the men in blue reportedly investigating four cases under the Sedition Act.

Now, I will be the first to admit that I think some of those being investigated are highly unpleasant individuals. And yes, there is most definitely a frisson of schadenfreude that courses through me when I think that they may be getting their just desserts. If the police are investigating people under the Sedition Act, will it not be pointless if there is no prosecution under that law because it is the government’s policy not to use it? Would it not be wiser to simply start investigations using laws that we can guarantee will be enforced?

A quick perusal of the Penal Code shows several provisions that could be used against these thuggish fools.

There is Section 298A where uttering words designed to hurt members of a particular religious group can lead to one-year jail.

Or Section 503 and 504 which is about criminal intimidation and intentional insult with the objective to provoke a breach of the peace.

These offences, if found to have been committed, could lead to two years in prison.

Until we come up with a law against hate speech and hate crime, it is perhaps best to use the Penal Code for such things as opposed to the Sedition Act which can so easily be abused to quell genuine and peaceful dissent.

Let us be frank. There are some serious plonkers out there. Those who are intent to stir up racial problems for their own warped and nefarious reasons.

I don’t like them and I want them to be punished.

However, we have to keep the big picture in mind. The values of a nation must not be shaped by the brutal and the stupid. It must be shaped by principles of justice.

This being the case, using an unjust law, even against the unjust is not acceptable. There are other options available, use them instead.

Punish those who deserve it but in a way which respects the rule of law and democracy. Only in this way can we assure that our nation remains pure even if we have the filthy living amongst us.

Racist views must be countered

Brave New World (The Star)
21 November 2018

____________________________________

AS I am writing this, I am getting ready to go to Bernama TV for some programme or other. I’ve been told that we will be discussing issues such as human rights and judicial independence.

I’ve also been on government-run radio stations to talk about the ­lowering of the voting age and on several private broadcasters to discuss a variety of issues.

I am not listing all these things to show off. But it is just that for all our grouses and complaints, this kind of exposure to the media would have been impossible under the old regime.

The laws that can be used against the media are still in place, and therefore, until this changes, there will always be the danger of them being used.

But the point is, at this moment, they are not, and there is a palpable sense of having the freedom to express oneself.

It is very key that those who are hoping for a Malaysia that is democratic, inclusive, plural and progressive, make full use of this freedom. There has to be a concerted effort at putting forward progressive views in a manner that is understandable and clear.

It is so important because at the moment, the opposition is working on a very dangerous platform indeed.

Left in the lurch by the electorate, Umno is now desperately seeking relevance. And they are doing this by falling back into their comfort zone, which is to make everything about race and religion.

It is their right, of course, to do so, but there has to be a counter-narrative. I think Umno has given up on any idea of getting a broad mandate and support from Malaysians of all creeds, ethnicity and faiths.

Their recent activities point to them focusing on the Malay demographic and raising hot-button issues that they believe will get Malay people on their side.

The increasing flirtations with PAS is also ominous because there is the constant nagging concern that these two will try to form a super-Malay coalition. Let’s not forget that in the last general election, PAS and Umno received an estimated 70% of the Malay votes.

If these two were to become political partners, then politics in this country will not be about policies and ideas and instead be divided on that crudest of divisions – race and (seeming) religiosity. This is not healthy for the country.

What then can be done? I am quite certain that at the end of the day, most Malaysians, regardless of ethnicity, are concerned mainly with bread-and-butter issues. It is vital therefore that the government counteracts its opponents by making all our lives better in a practical and meaningful manner.

In the meantime, there also has to be a constant countering of the kinds of racist and supremacist talk being spouted by those desperate enough to do anything to reclaim power. We have greater freedom of speech now, so let us not allow the bigoted to drive the agenda and instead make sure that a different narrative can be heard.

There are those who will never back down from their stance, but there are many who have only heard one view. Now is the time to provide an alternative to as wide an audience as possible.

Lies that keep inequality alive

Brave New World (The Star)
7 November 2018


Some people are relying on false arguments to whip up objection to an international convention on racial discrimination. 

___________________________________

I WAS looking forward to enjoying some chapati and muruku, but instead I received a WhatsApp from an old school friend with a disturbing forwarded message.

This mate of mine asked me if this message, which was about the consequences of Malaysia ratifying the Inter­na­tional Convention on the Elimina­tion of All Forms of Racial Discrimi­nation (ICERD), was accurate.

I normally don’t read forwarded messages, but this one was disturbing because it was so inaccurate that I feel I must respond. Especially if it is making its rounds.

Let me deal with the issues raised by the writer of this message. I won’t mention his name because heaven only knows if it is indeed his name.

Point one: Joining the ICERD will mean that the sultans won’t be rulers anymore and that Islam won’t be the official religion of the country.

This is false. The sultans are sultans not because of racial discrimination but because of ‘familial discrimination’.

Officially I am Malay, but I can’t be a sultan because I am not from any royal family. And the Conven­tion says nothing about the official religion of the country. So I don’t know what the writer is on about regarding Islam.

Point two: With the ICERD, horrors, anyone can be prime minister, even, shudder, non-Malays.

Well, actually the Constitution says that already. The PM is the person who has the confidence of Parliament. That’s all. No mention of race, ethnicity or gender. Gosh, has this dude read the Constitu-tion?

Point three: No more 10% discounts for housing for Malays.

Actually there should not be 10% discounts in the first place. The Constitution only allows for affirmative action that is specifically spelt out in the Constitution itself.

There are provisions for quotas in business permits, education and civil service jobs, but nothing about discounted houses.

The final point is really about the special position of the Malays and natives of Sabah and Sarawak, which is provided for in the Consti­tution. There’s a whole list that the writer goes through including education institutions, certain military units and of course the famous Article 153 of the Constitution.

Actually, Article 1 of the ICERD says that affirmative action to advance certain groups (due to existing inequalities) is not considered racial discrimination.

Article 2 then goes on to say that governments shall take these measures if they are needed. In other words, affirmative action is actually a requirement.

The only thing is that it is only acceptable as long as it is necessary. This being the case, as long as the Malays are backward and need help compared to everybody else, then I suppose it is necessary.

What it also means is that affirmative action must have an objective and once that objective is achieved, then it ought to stop.

Our Constitution is actually in line with that principle. Article 153, which provides for the special position of the Malays and natives of Sabah and Sarawak, states that the King, under advice from the government, may set quotas (for business, education and civil service) for as long as it is reasonable to do so.

If parity is achieved, then surely it is reasonable to stop. This is in line with the ICERD.

Unless of course the writer of the message forwarded to me wants the Malays (and natives of Sabah and Sarawak) to be forever given special help, regardless of their standing and position in society.

If that is the case, then why not be honest about it and say that the Malays and natives of Sabah and Sarawak are of a different class of citizenry and everybody else is second class.

That would at least be honest – racist and bigoted, sure, but at least honest.

Slippery slopes of pathetic excuses

Brave New World (The Star)
24 October 2018

__________________________________

ONE of the advantages of being a university lecturer is that we often get to read very good work from our students.

Jeong Chun Phuoc is a PhD student of mine and according to his work for me and his publications, it is clear that the laws regarding hillslope developments are poor and poorly enforced.

Before we go on, I mention Jeong by name not because I favour him over my other students, but I seriously don’t want to be accused of plagiarism. Unlike some professors I won’t mention.

Anyway, the Environmental Impact Assessment requirements for hillslope developments do not require several key things, such as rainfall patterns and geological reports.

This does not mean, however, that these things can’t be demanded for by the authorities.

Look, the country has faced landslides before and, more often than not, they have been as the result of heavy rain.

The volume of rainfall has become more intense (with some theories laying the blame on climate change) and this means greater danger.

This is nothing new, and therefore not to consider such things is negligent. The deaths in Penang due to the recent landslide have to be subject to a thorough and independent investigation.

If the work being done was careless and if there were things that could have been done to mitigate such events, then this must be exposed.

It is no good saying that this is the work of god.

If there were things that could have been done, then they should have been done.

And this is something that can’t be blamed on the previous government. DAP has been leading the Penang government since 2008.

In 10 years, Pakatan Rakyat and now Pakatan Harapan have had more than enough opportunities to impose good practices in the manner of how land in the state is being used, regardless of the weaknesses of the existing laws and the practices in other states.

Meanwhile, the comedy of Umno continues. The ongoing spate of arrests and investigations by the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commi­ssion has recently been compared to Operation Lalang of 1987.

It has been alleged that the current government is unfairly quashing dissent and in that way is ensuring a weak opposition and one-party rule.

Oh, the irony. As if the previous government never tried to quell dissent.

Let me just explain a few things. Firstly, Operation Lalang used the Internal Security Act, which means that people were being detained without trial.

All those now charged with money laundering, criminal breach of trust and corruption will face trials in open court.

Secondly, those detained under Operation Lalang were never accused of any specific crime but were instead detained under the flimsy pretext of protecting national security.

And to use more recent history, there were scores who were investigated and charged because they voiced opinions that the previous government did not like.

Those being investigated and charged now are not being oppressed for political beliefs or dissenting views. They are being accused of common crime, pure and simple.

There has to be evidence offered to the court and then based on that evidence, a conviction occurs or not.

This could take years and the opportunity for defence is there. Unlike under the dead and unmissed ISA.

So, there is a huge difference between what is happening now and what happened 30 years ago.

If Umno wants to be a strong opposition (and it should try), perhaps it would be better to stop making pathetic excuses for people who are associated with such gross corruption and find some better leaders instead.

Think twice before deporting Syrian

Brave New World (The Star)
10 October 2018


__________________________________

HASSAN Al Kontar, the Syrian man who had been living in KLIA2 since March, is currently in police custody. I am sure you have heard of this man; after all, his story is interesting and has parallels with a particularly saccharine movie. Except there’s no Catherine Zeta Jones.

Due to a series of immigration issues, Al Kontar ended up in limbo in KLIA2 with no valid passport and absolutely no desire to return to Syria. Why does he not want to go home?

Well, according to him, he originally did not want to go back because he would have been forced to join the army. Something he did not want to do in the civil war-torn country as he did not want to kill his fellow Syrians. A conscientious objector then.

Now, if he does go back he will doubtlessly be punished for his political stand. Amnesty Interna­tional reports that there is a high likelihood that not only will he be punished, but his life may well be in danger too.The Deputy Home Minister has also said that he was offered to be sent to friendly countries to wait out his application to go to Canada.

This, it is said by the Deputy Minister, was an offer he rejected. I do not know if this is the case as there has been no statements from Al Kontar, being detained as he is.

Let’s look at this from the legal perspective. From the angle of international law, Al Kontar does appear to fit the description of a refugee.

He faces the possibility of serious harm if he returns to Syria because of his political views (anti-war) and he will most definitely not get any protection from his government. In fact, they are the ones who may cause him harm.

This being the case, what can Malaysia do? Unfortunately, Malay­sia is not obliged to follow the international law as we are not party to the Refugee Convention.

This does not mean, however, that we should just send him back. The situation in Syria is horrific and it is morally reprehensible to send a person to a place where harm may befall him simply because he ­refuses to kill.

There is no doubt that Al Kontar has breached the Immigration Act. However, the Act does say that the minister has the discretion to exempt him from the provisions of this law.

This is something I urge the government to do. There is the possibi­lity of allowing him to stay here while waiting for Canada to approve his application (the UNHCR in Malay­sia has already registered him).

What is imperative is that he must not be sent back to Syria or any other country that may even remotely consider sending him back to his homeland.

On another issue, I noted with some amusement that Rais Yatim complained about the possibility of Wan Hamidi Hamid being appointed the Bernama CEO. This is because he may politicise the institution.

This is quite laughable – is there any news agency in this country that is not politicised?

Besides, and this is an important point, Bernama is a government agency. It has often been mistakenly claimed that Bernama is like the Malaysian Reuters. This is simply not true.

Reuters is a private body and is thus independent from any government. Not so with Bernama.

It is more akin to RTM, seeing as both of them are directly under the Ministry of Communications and Multimedia. Thus it is not surprising that the current government would want someone they like to head Bernama.

Besides, let’s take a look at Bernama’s Board of Directors, shall we? Currently, we have four permanent members from government departments and one from UiTM.

There are six permanent representatives of newspapers and they are all from papers which are either owned by the current opposition or had in the past shown extreme political fondness for the previous government. If Hamidi is chosen, he won’t exactly be joining a PH-loving bunch of folks.

Perhaps the objection to Hamidi is because he used to be top dog at the Rocket (DAP’s paper). This is true, but he also used to work for the New Straits Times, The Star and The Sun.

In other words, he is a newspaper person through and through. The experience is there. What truly matters now is not whether he has close relations with one of the parties in the ruling coalition, but how he does his job, whether he will have the integrity to make Bernama as impartial as possible – something which under the previous government would have been extremely difficult.

Unless Bernama (and RTM) are changed to follow the BBC model, it is pointless to expect any government to choose anyone to head it unless it is someone of their choosing and liking.

It is far more important that they choose someone who is able, competent and honest. Only time will tell if Hamidi is that person; and he needs to be given the chance to show that he is.

Tricky path to university independence

Brave New World (The Star)
26 September 2018

____________________________________________

HE government of the day is facing a conundrum. Well, I think there is one. I don’t know if the government feels the same way.

You see, there are certain institutions that ought to be independent, or as independent as possible, from government interference. I’m not talking about institutions like the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commis­sion, the judiciary, the Attorney General’s Chambers and the like.

That has been discussed before in greater detail by cleverer people than me. I am speaking of universities.

Ideally, universities are autonomous from government. It is normal and acceptable if the government was to engage with universities regarding things like the general needs of the nation.

For example, there could be a greater need for IT graduates. And universities, being public bodies, would do well to try to be of use in achieving nation-building goals.

However, what they do on campus and how they do it should be up to them.

For instance, I find it ridiculous that the government can dictate the type of courses that universities should have and that it has so much influence in the selection of university management.

Why do I oppose such influence? Well, a university is a place of learning where we teach and where we hopefully generate new knowledge. In order to do this, we need freedom to think and express ourselves. We also need to be free to set our own academic agenda.

Governments are led by politicians. They therefore will always have their own political agenda. Such an agenda must not be allowed to enter the campus because it may very well be at odds with our aims and objectives of quality education and research.

I understand that public universities get their funding from the taxpayers, so some sort of accountability is called for. But please remember, we get our funds from you the people and not from any political party.

Therefore, our responsibility is to do the best we can for you.

The results can be direct, perhaps your children are able to enter local universities, or indirect, where we produce better graduates and research that may end up serving you better.

However, to do this, we must not be bound by any political agendas or misguided and politically motivated concepts of what makes a university good.

Hence the need for autonomy. Autonomy is not being free from accountability. It means being free from interference and it also ultimately should mean better quality universities.

So where does the accountability come from? Ideally, universities should be accountable to the University Board.

(The board used to be called the University Council, which sounds cooler and more dignified. The name became University Board in the 1990s, when the government, making yet another misguided decision, thought universities should be more like corporations and forced the change.)

This board should consist of eminent people, not just from higher education but also the public at large. The board members are the ones who oversee broad policy issues and they are the ones who take the lead in choosing a vice chancellor (VC), with the help of a properly constituted search committee.

As it stands, the Education Minister can impose all sorts of conditions and obligations on universities and he is the one who selects the VC as well as sets the VC’s KPIs (key performance indicators).

As I said, this should not be the case. But then, at the moment, there is a conundrum. Even if the board is given the powers it should have, will this mean that there will be an improvement? Not necessarily, because the current crop of university management in all public universities are those selected by the old regime.

This means (with apologies for generalising) that many, if not most of them, will be of the same mindset as the old regime – a regime that did not respect academic freedom and did not understand academic autonomy.

So, what does the Education Minister do? Should he stick to principles and give universities autonomy now?

Or should he use the powers that he has inherited and make sweeping changes, ensuring more independent-minded folks are in positions of authority before he steps back and allows universities to be autonomous.

I am leaning towards the latter. Unfortunately, sometimes in order to fix something, drastic measures have to be taken first in order for the foundations to be strong before one starts rebuilding. Having said that, the choices for the new faces of university management must be done in such a way that those chosen are truly qualified and independent-minded individuals.

Those within the same political circles of the current government need not apply.

Minimum wage is about dignity

Brave New World (The Star)
12 September 2018

______________________________________

MALAYSIA has the fifth highest number of public holidays in the world. This is all well and good, but in this newspaper business, we lowly columnists are often forced by our harsh editors to submit our pieces well ahead of holidays so that they can go and sit on a beach somewhere.

(Editor’s note: Nope, no beach in sight.)

And as everyone knows, lots can happen in Malaysia in a few days. This being the case, I apologise for the hurried nature of this article. And if it becomes stale between writing and publication, blame my editor.

There are two things I want to speak about this week. The first is this business about teaching in English in Sarawak. According to a news portal report, the Education Ministry stated in a written parliamentary reply that it was against the use of English as the medium of instruction in government schools in Sarawak.

One of the grounds of this stand is that such a move is unconstitutional as Bahasa Malaysia is the official language as stated in Article 152 of the Federal Constitution. According to this article, all activities by public authorities (which includes schools) have to be conducted in BM.

However, the thing is, there are special provisions for Sabah and Sarawak in the constitution. The one most relevant here is Article 161, which states that both the Borneo states are free to use English until 10 years after Malaysia Day. But after that date, if there are going to be any changes, these must be accepted by the two states via their legislature.

So, what this means is that even if there are federal laws making BM the lingua franca of schools in Malaysia, this can only apply in Sabah and Sarawak if they accept it.

Regardless what laws and policies have been made by Parliament or the federal government, with regard to the use of English, if there is no Sarawak state legislation accepting this, then it does not apply.

The question is, of course, whether Sarawak has ever made such a state law. If not, then in my opinion, the Education Ministry is mistaken and Sarawak can teach in English if it wants to.

The second thing I want to discuss is the minimum wage. RM1,050. Seriously? This is so low. The cost of living is insanely high and this figure seems very small.

Naturally, the government will say that the economy is in poor shape and this is what is feasible. I’m no economist, but will a decent minimum wage cause businesses to go bankrupt? Are our businesses now so close to collapsing that by having higher wage bills, we will have homeless CEOs begging for spare change to make their BMW payments?

I don’t know. What I do know is how annoyed I felt at a totally callous comment I heard on the wireless this morning.

I can’t remember the name of the person who said it, but this dude said the minimum wage would only help foreign workers because they were the ones earning less than RM1,050.

And then he went on to say that this is bad because all these foreigners would just remit more money back home and this would be bad for the nation. Wow. That’s a great argument. Let us not give foreigners decent pay because all they will do is send it home to help their families.

A minimum wage is about allowing people to live with a modicum of dignity. It should reflect the realities of the day and not be merely symbolic. And it should apply to all human beings who work, regardless of what passports they hold.

Come back, Jho Low

Brave New World (The Star)
29 August 2018

______________________________

I HAVE never written about Jho Low before because of embarrassment. He is a Penang boy and that just fills me with deep shame. We Penang boys are cool. We don’t do things like blow hundreds of thousands, maybe even millions, of dollars to propose to a woman and then fail. Twice.

Women are naturally drawn to our strange accents and beach tans. We don’t need money to be a failure. We can do that for free. This chap has done something that will make any self-respecting Penang person shudder with disgust – spend money and get nothing in return.

And now he has gone and done something worse – playing the victim.

Come on, man. Is there no end to his despicable effort to stain the good name of Penang? We are tough island folk. We don’t play the victim. And even if we do, it’s only so that we can get a refund or something.

Anyway, this Jho Low fellow is in hiding somewhere. By the way, what is with the name? It sounds like a really sad attempt to sound cool. Seriously, you are either cool or you are not cool. The guy on the road to Batu Ferringhi who dances while he makes your burger, he’s cool. When you look like a plump spoilt brat but you give yourself a name that sounds like a cross between a Latina diva and some rapper, that is not cool.

Back to my story. He is a victim because according to him, the Malaysian government does not believe in the rule of law.

Well, this may have been true at one point. But there is a new go­vernment and as far as I can see, they are trying to comply with the rule of law. If they are not, some of Jho Low’s closest friends would be in jail by now.

He thinks he will not get a fair trial because the public has already made up their minds about him. Gosh, poor chap. All this while he has been keeping such a low profile, diligently doing his work and not spending money on celebrities like some attention-craving loser, is it?

If he is such a victim and he has not been pilfering the money of Malaysians, come and face trial. Many of us have had to face trial in this country. Many of us did not run away. Come home, Jho boy, come home and prove your innocence.

But I doubt he will. Firstly, because he thinks that the money laundering charges against him are merely a distraction to keep the public eye away from the injustice of his boat being seized.

That is a really brilliant argument. It is the most self-deluded line of reasoning I have ever heard in my life. Kudos to Jho Low for getting a lawyer who has a mind that can think in a way that normal people need certain banned substances to achieve.

Anyway, the little guy may be a blight on the good name of my state, but he is no fool. He will be hiding away in some luxury place in a country with no extradition treaty with Malaysia. Without such a treaty, it is very hard to get him back here.

There are ways, but they need government-to-government agreements and this chap is as slippery as a well-fed eel. He will wriggle away, I am sure.

Personally, I want him back. To face a fair trial, sure, but also so that I can get a movement going to formally reject his status as a Penangite. He can always make Pekan his new hometown.

Time to do away with Sedition Act

Brave New World (The Star)
15 August 2018

__________________________________

THE 100th day of the Pakatan Harapan Government is coming up. It is this Friday, if my math does not fail me. The coalition has promised to do 10 things within 100 days of forming the Federal Government and some have been fulfilled, like the abolishment of the Goods and Services Tax and the reintroduction of fuel subsidies.

Others may not have been fulfilled, but perhaps some progress has been made. I hope that come the end of the week, Pakatan will give us a report card explaining what has been done, what has not been done, and how it is going to ensure that it will be done.

But what of the other promises that have been made? Just how much time are we to give to those for which no deadline has been set?

For example, under Promise 27 of its election manifesto, Pakatan Harapan said it would abolish what it described as oppressive laws. Number one on the list of laws that it promised to do away with is the Sedition Act.

This has not happened yet, but then legislative changes take time and I, for one, can be patient.

What I cannot understand, however, is why the law is still being used.

Activists Fadiah Nadwa Fikri and Asheeq Ali Sethi Alivi are both being investigated under this law for allegedly saying things against the monarchy.

Now, before we get too carried away, let us remember that these two people are being investigated. At the time of writing, they have yet to be charged. It could ultimately come to nothing if the Attorney General decides not to press charges.

And if I am not mistaken, at this point it is the police who are doing the investigating and they said investigations are normally the result of a police report made by someone.

In other words, somebody did not like what Fadiah and Asheeq said, thinking it was seditious. These persons lodged police reports, which were then acted on.

Supporters of the Government will say these investigations are not direct acts of the Government (unless the Government is the one that made the police reports).

Furthermore, aren’t the police supposed to do their job without fear or favour? If there is a report and there is a law that may have been broken (no matter how bad the law is), then they are duty-bound to investigate.

This is all true, but it is not satisfactory. The Government has promised that this law would be abolished. Therefore, it does not make sense that while we wait for it to be done, this law – which Pakatan itself has described as oppressive – continues to be used.

While we wait for Parliament to do its job, something must be done to ensure that the Sedition Act is not used, even though it continues to exist.

Civil society has suggested a moratorium on the Act. It is up to the Government to explain why this has not been done.

Anything less will show a lack of commitment to a very important promise.

Spare us the righteous anger

Brave New World (The Star)
1 August 2018

_________________________

I sometimes wonder what it is that these Umno fellows eat and drink. I would not have thought that such self-delusion could be possible unless one was scoffing “special” mushrooms on a regular basis.

For example, Umno Youth chief Datuk Dr Asyraf Wajdi Dusuki took offence with some comments made by Human Resources Minister M. Kulasegaran.

He must resign, the youthful fellow yells. His comments are divisive and seditious and will cause disharmony amongst the people. And if he doesn’t resign, he must be sacked, he screams.

What did the minister say? It depends how you want to interpret it.

Basically, when speaking in Tamil at an event in Nilai recently, Kulasegaran said that Indians have been on the Malay Peninsula for hundreds of years, as proven by the Hindu ruins in the Bujang Valley.

He then went on to assert that Indians were not “pendatang” but instead “they” were.

The question is, who is the “they” he was referring to? The minister said he was referring to those who would call Malaysian ethnic Indians “pendatang”.

People like the Umno Youth chief would say Kulasegaran was referring to all Malays. If such is the case, then it is super offensive and the minister’s head must roll.

Wow. Such hypocrisy. How many times have Umno ministers been unapologetically racist, telling non-Malays to leave the country and “go back to where they belong”? Have these people been fired or forced to resign? Of course not.

(Incidentally, the Human Resources Minister has apologised if he caused offence.)

And even now, the Umno machine (with their best pals from PAS) go on about how it is better to vote for someone Malay and Muslim regardless of his capability or indeed his integrity.

If anyone plays the race card, it is Umno and those of their ilk (which now seems to include PAS).

So please, Umno Youth leader, do us a favour and spare us your righteous anger.

I know that race and religion is all these sort go on and on about because it is all they know.

They scream about Malay rights and Muslim rights being under threat without defining those terms and without offering any evidence such a threat even exists.

This is what they do. This is the only thing they know how to do.

But Malaysians can rise above that. We can, all of us, regardless of ethnicity, see that when those who are intellectually bankrupt go on and on about some imaginary problem based on race and faith, it is because they have nothing to say of any actual intellectual value.

We changed our government in a peaceful manner. We showed to the world that democracy can work. Even when the odds are stacked against you. Even when the system is designed to ensure the victory of one side over the other.

We showed the world that if enough of us come out and vote and if enough of us take the trouble to do the hard work of PACAs (polling agents and counting agents), we can make a difference.

I am now somewhere in Yorkshire – in the West, where democracy is taken for granted and where people are so complacent that their laziness to even go out and vote has put Britain in the madness of Brexit and the Americans in the madness of Trump.

We have already shown how we can change things, despite the odds, by sheer effort of enough people.

Now we need to show that sustainable change can occur and we can move away from the vile and regressive with patience and reason.

We have to make small-minded voices redundant by firmly and surely working in a manner to benefit all Malaysians and not use the poisonous and toxic narrative of race and faith that only serves the few.

Objections built on false grounds

Brave New World (The Star)
18 July 2018

_______________________________

I CANNOT begin to tell you how angry I am at the objections raised regarding Tan Sri Richard Malanjum’s elevation to Chief Justice.

All forms of opinion are welcome, of course, and everyone has a right to object.

However, the sheer obtuseness of the objections and the language being used reflect both profound ignorance and a vile worldview.

The primary concern about Malanjum in the new post is that he is non-Muslim. Coupled with the fact that the new de facto Law Minister and the Attorney General are also non-Muslims, this has got some people’s knickers in an almighty twist.

And besides, how can a kafir (their words, not mine) be allowed to hold such power.

Right, let me sort this lot out.

Firstly, there is nothing, absolutely nothing, in our laws that says the Chief Justice (or the AG and any minister) has to be of any particular faith.

Nothing. Get that?

Secondly, these people seem to have no idea how laws are made in this country or how the judiciary works. The CJ does not make decisions on his own. Sitting in the Federal Court as he does, he is always part of a panel.

Furthermore, the CJ, AG and Law Minister do not make the laws. Laws are made in Parliament.

They are debated and voted for by 222 MPs.

The “three amigos”, therefore, cannot control the passage of any law, Islamic or otherwise.

The Law Minister, being an MP, has one vote. But that is it – just one vote. So they can’t influence legislation.

I don’t know how to make this any simpler.

A big deal is made about Malanjum’s decision in the Lina Joy case.

For those who have forgotten, Lina Joy was a Malay woman born into a Muslim family who converted to Catholicism. She wanted to change her status on her identity card and was prevented from doing so. The case was fundamentally about whether she had the freedom to choose her faith.

According to some, Malanjum’s dissenting judgment shows that he is anti-Islam. Rubbish. Utter and total rubbish. His decision in that case was not anti-Islam; it was in accordance with the Constitution.

He dealt head-on with the issue at hand, which is whether a person has freedom of religion in this country. The answer is an emphatic yes because the Constitution says all persons have the freedom of religion. Not non-Muslims only, all persons.

The other two judges did not deal with the issue.

They instead focused on the procedural, saying that Lina had to leave the faith via the Syariah Court for her new status to be recognised. And just a side note: there weren’t two majority judgments. One judge wrote the majority agreement and the other simply agreed.

So, let me get this straight. A judge who follows the rules – and the Constitution is the main rule of the land – is somehow a bad judge? Why? Because he is not a Muslim? How bigoted is that?

You know, it is the right of these folk who want to have an Islamic state in this country to ask for it, campaign for it and argue for it.

I have always said this and I maintain it now. However, it has to be done within the rules of this country.

If you want Syariah law to be the only law, if you want non-Muslims to be unable to hold certain posts (or perhaps these bigots don’t want them to hold any post at all), then campaign for it.

At the next general election, make that your manifesto, that you will change the Constitution and you will make Malaysian law Syariah law and that you will ensure non-Muslims be kept in their place with no major positions for them.

Get the requisite majority and change the Constitution. But be honest, for heaven’s sake.