Brave New World

No strings attached, please

2012-02-12T20:11:00.000-08:00

Brave New World (The Star)
9 February 2012

Granting autonomy to a few of our public universities looks wonderful. But it will be an exercise in futility if each faculty or department is not free to determine its path.

______________________________

A FEW public universities in this country have recently been promised autonomy. How nice. I wonder, however, if there is a true understanding among the powers that be as to what university autonomy actually means.
Looking at what is promised to this bunch of soon-to-be-autonomous universities, I have my doubts.
The autonomy in question appears to be very technical in nature. For example, the autonomy to make student selection, determine pay schemes and the freedom to raise funds.
This is all well and good but it is only the tip of the iceberg where the concept of university autonomy is concerned and it also raises some disturbing questions.
The main thrust about university autonomy is that universities must be able to make academic and policy decisions free from any interference.
They are not totally free, of course, because the university council or board or whatever you might want to call it sits at the apex of university administration and the management is answerable to it.
However, this system of accountability is very much in-house and there is no government interference as such.
Furthermore, this autonomy spreads to the various faculties and even the various departments in a university.
Each department should be free to determine its path, and they are the ones who would lay down the standards and values which they consider important for their particular discipline.
For example, what would a Physics department know about what constitutes quality publications in the English department?
Top universities in the world like Harvard acknowledge that the autonomy of their university as well as the component faculties and departments of their university is one of the reasons of their continued success.
Looking at the so-called new more autonomous system being promised, I see no mention of this sort of academic autonomy, and it is worrying because, without it, then any exercise in granting autonomy to universities would be an exercise in futility because the fruits of true autonomy cannot be obtained.
An issue which is also not raised is one of academic freedom. Here, I shall discuss only academic freedom where staff are concerned.
What is the point of having an autonomous university if your academicians are cowed and fearful of teaching, writing and publishing issues which the Government deems sensitive or a threat to national security?
Academic freedom must only be limited by academic rigour; that is to say your work must stand up to standards of academic scholarship.
Academic freedom must not be curtailed either by law or a university management beholden to its political masters.
If the Government is serious about autonomy it must also be serious about academic freedom, and one thing it can do is either revoke the Statutory Bodies Discipline and Surcharge Act or amend it to remove academics from its clutches.
For those of you who don’t read Acts of Parliament in your spare time, this particular law makes it an offence for an academic to say or write anything for or against government policy without prior permission.
It sounds unbelievably obtuse, and that is because it is. Of course every single academic can’t be checked for every single thing he or she says or writes, but this law exists and it hangs like a sword of Damocles over our heads ready to fall down when any one of us is deemed to have displeased those who must not be displeased.
My final concern is about the financial autonomy that is being promised. Is there a price attached to this? I believe there is and the price would be less public funding.
This is a major issue that has to be considered by the people of this country. Should our institutions be funded by public coffers or should they be left on their own to find their funds?
The hardcore capitalists among you will point out that in America all the very best universities are actually private universities. I would like to point out two things.
First, in the US there is a very strong and long running system of endowments. Furthermore, the alumni of US universities tend to be very generous to their alma maters. Perhaps because their donations lead to tax breaks.
We have no such culture here and neither does it exist in Europe where the top universities are all public universities.
Another thing we have to consider is that one of the ways that a privately funded university makes money is by charging astronomical fees. Are we ready for that in this country? Should our people have to pay ludicrous amounts of money for their children’s education?
And on an academic note, if universities are expected to make money and be self reliant, what then of courses which have no immediate financial value?
As a university is also a storehouse of knowledge, what will become of the departments which have little perceptible economic value? Will they disappear? Go the way of the dodo and the philosophy departments in this country?
This so-called new autonomy is supposed to make our universities institutions of excellence. I have my doubts simply because these measures do not go far enough. There are many factors which have not been considered.
It is ironic that with regard to the future of our bodies of higher thinking, there does not appear to have been enough thinking done.

When silence implies consent

2012-02-07T18:34:00.000-08:00

Selangor Times
3 February 2012

________________________________

On Jan 21, a mob of supposedly Umno supporters attacked a forum organised by Hindraf and the group calling itself ABU (Anything But Umno). From the videos posted online, it is clear that this was an unprovoked attack.
Unless you take the police line which said that the forum was organised in a Malay area and therefore such an attack was to be expected. An odd logic since many of the organisers and speakers were Malay.
Be that as it may, there are also accusations that the police did not act in an impartial way and did not do enough to stop those who instigated this attack. Well, if this is true, it does not come as much of a surprise.
Any group which gathers and is seen to be in favour of Umno (I would say the BN but I can’t think of any examples of a BN mob), seems to be treated with kid gloves.
A few weeks ago a group of rotund men made a video where they threatened to commit battery on a university student for daring to take down a flag of their dear leader Datuk Seri Najib Razak. As far as I know, no action was taken against them.
Now, I wonder if these kinds of thuggish behaviour will actually turn people against the BN. For those who are directly involved, it most certainly will. But for those who were not at these places and did not get hurt by these thugs, I really do wonder.
After all, the BN is busy right now spreading goodies all over the place. They promise that they are going to fix Tamil schools, build houses for the Orang Asli and there’s cash being handed out left, right and centre (unfortunately, not in my direction).
So does the electorate care that in this country, mob behaviour is practically condoned? Should they care?
Of course I can write on about justice, rule of law and might not being right. But as much as I believe in these ideals, the Malaysian mind being what it is, a more pragmatic approach is required. What then are the pragmatic consequences that spring from having a government that is not willing to come out and condemn such behaviour?
The most obvious concern would be the hindrance to free speech and expression. Free speech and expression, as the government is so fond of saying, does not include violent behaviour. How correct they are. Threatening and hurting another person cannot be seen as a legitimate form of expression.
If a group of morons on motorbikes can storm a hall and get away scot free, then naturally people will be afraid to express themselves, or to even come and listen to others expressing themselves.
Without open and free expression, then a country can be run into the ground by the corrupt and inept without the people knowing about it. In other words, if we want to be successful and prosperous, we need to have free speech. We need differing opinions so that we can be informed and act accordingly.
The second pragmatic concern is that if our law enforcement agencies are not going to clamp down on such behaviour, then really, what are they there for? Their motto is currently “firm, fair and prudent”. Firm with whom, fair to whom and prudent in what is the question to be asked? Any gathering organised by people not from or sympathetic to the ruling party will get the police knickers in a collective twist because they are always spouting on and on about public safety.
Well then, I would have thought that when public safety was actually threatened they would jump at the chance to show off their prowess. It does not look like it. However at the time of writing a man has been brought in for questioning by our boys in blue, so I am hoping they will prove me wrong.
The final concern is simply this, if a leadership is not willing to say outright that mob violence is wrong, even when that mob seems to be supporting their agenda, then it means that this is a government for whom the ends justifies the means.
This means that we the people cannot be safe for they are leading not with any principle but by pure pragmatism and when that happens, anything can happen.

Assets — it’s all about trust

2012-01-25T20:39:00.000-08:00

Brave New World (The Star)
26 January 2012

Many MPs have their own businesses and professional careers, and frankly they need it. An MP’s pay is simply not that great.

________________________

WHEN I was a young boy, Chinese New Year meant getting money — lots of it. We would visit the homes of family friends and the red packets would be waiting.
I was trained to receive such gifts with grace. In other words, not to rip them open in front of the hosts and start counting.
So, I would patiently munch on peanuts and sip chrysanthemum tea, waiting for the time to leave and check out my loot.
In those days, getting a red packet that was light was considered a big deal. It meant that it contained paper money, and not coins.
One ringgit, two ringgit, this was big money. And if you managed to score a RM5 note, man, that was the jackpot!
As I got older, the red packets dried up but there were other things to bring amusement during CNY, like the Hong Kong comedy films that inevitably landed in our cinemas around this time.
This year, however, there was no need to hit the shopping malls to get my dose of laughs.
My favourite minister, Nazri Aziz, after being quiet for some time, gave me a hearty chuckle or two with his statement that ministers should not have their assets declared publicly because it may endanger them.
Endanger them from whom? The electorate?
I am guessing that he is thinking along the lines that if a person’s wealth is disclosed, then there is a threat of kidnapping and things like that.
Actually, if I were a kidnapper I won’t be sitting around waiting for an MACC report before choosing my target.
I could just get into my nondescript car and cruise around Damansara Heights and check out who lives in those giant, multi-million-ringgit mansions.
Or maybe I’ll hang around KL nightspots and observe which young man or woman steps out of a vehicle that costs the same as a luxury condominium.
There is really no need to wait for a public document to see who is rich and who is not.
But then, surely our hard-working elected officials have nothing to worry about. After all, they don’t live in mansions and their children don’t go scooting around in Ferraris, do they?
Actually, all this public declaration of assets business for me boils down to the issue of trust.
I find the whole idea of asking a person how much money and property he has, personally distasteful. It is just not a topic of conversation among polite society.
It can either be crass “I am a millionaire and I have loads of money”, or it can be intrusive “So, did you pay cash for this house?”
And I really don’t care if my elected officials are loaded or not. That is their rezeki.
Many MPs have their own businesses and professional careers, and frankly they need it. An MP’s pay is simply quite pathetic.
If you are an honest person, after you pay for your service centre and your staff you would barely have enough left to pay a mortgage, let alone live a life of luxury.
And I think it is unreasonable to say an MP has to stop all his business and professional interests when he or she becomes a minister.
However, when one is suspicious that power was abused in obtaining that rezeki, and that suspicion is reinforced time and time again by tales of corruption, perceived or otherwise, then it becomes necessary that such a distasteful activity be carried out.
I look forward to the day when we can trust our public and elected officials to the point that all this would simply not be necessary. Until that day comes, I am afraid that despite Nazri’s fear of politically-savvy kidnappers, a public declaration of assets for ministers is an absolute must.

Winning back public confidence

2012-01-12T18:27:00.000-08:00

Brave New World (The Star)
12 January 2012

It is not enough that our judges must be seen to be independent, we also need to know that the decision to prosecute or not is made without fear or favour.

_______________________

IN the wake of the Anwar Ibrahim verdict, there has been much debate on how this proves the independence of our judiciary.
Praise has been lavished on the transformation plan as though it was this plan that improved the judiciary’s freedom.
If this is so, then surely the implication is that before the transformation plan there were problems with the Bench.
However, it would be too much to ask of anyone in the ruling party to admit to this.
After all they have been vehemently denying that there is nothing wrong with our justice system despite damning reports both from home and abroad.
So for the past few days, Barisan MPs and supporters have been going around saying: “I told you so, nothing wrong with the judiciary. I told you so.”
Well, to use a well-worn phrase, “a swallow does not a summer make”.
The loss of confidence in the judiciary is too deep to be revived with just one decision.
Let’s look at this judgment. A cynic would say that this was the best thing to have happened to Barisan.
After all, if Anwar was locked up the ruling party would have to deal with a “martyr”; and Azizah would once again be pushed into the foreground.
I am not suggesting for one moment that this is why the judge made his decision; I am not privy to the workings of his mind.
I am merely pointing out that it is not so easy to say with just one case that all doubts regarding the relationship of the judiciary and the Executive can be wiped out.
To restore faith in the legal system would take years. And it is not merely the Bench I am talking about here.
The independence of the Attorney-General’s Chambers and its prosecution service must also be restored.
It is not enough that our judges must be seen to be independent, we also need to know with absolute certainty that the decision to prosecute or not is made without any fear or favour.
Once trust is lost, it takes years to rebuild.
This is true between individuals; it is even truer when it comes to institutions as important as a country’s legal system.

BFM interview on education

2012-01-12T18:25:00.001-08:00

http://bfm.my/assets/files/TheBiggerPicture/2012-01-12_DrAzmiSharom_RethinkingEducation.mp3

Lack of respect for the Constitution

2012-01-05T00:39:00.000-08:00

Selangor Times
25 November 2011

_________________

It’s quite apt that it was during a mass circumcision ceremony that Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz made his announcement that Section 27 of the Police Act 1967 is going to be removed. We, the people of Malaysia, just like the poor little nippers at that ceremony, are going to be rid of something.
However, there is a difference between us and the scores of little boys who will now be wandering around gingerly holding their sarongs at arm’s length. Whereas they are safe in the knowledge that their foreskins are not coming back, we can’t really be sure whether Section 27 of the Police Act is going to return in another form.
Section 27 is the law that governs public assemblies, and it has been heavily criticised as being a stumbling block to legitimate peaceful gatherings. Now the government wants to replace it with a new law. But we will have to look at the proposed Peaceful Assembly Bill very closely before we can say with any certainty that the draconian Section 27 is well and truly consigned to the graveyard.
It’s all rather silly, actually. We would not need a Peaceful Assembly law if there was a true understanding of the law in the first place. If one were to look at Section 27, it does look, on the face of it, a totally authoritarian law. The police appear to have unlimited power to decide whether a permit to assemble can be issued or not.
However, there are limits to police powers. It’s called the Federal Constitution. The constitution guarantees us the right to gather peacefully. The only conditions are that the gathering is non-violent, and not a threat to national security or public order.
In other words, unless the police have actual hard evidence that one or more of these conditions will not be fulfilled, they simply must give a permit. And if they make a poor decision, then the courts should be the final arbiter.
The problem is that there is no respect for the constitution. The reason why nations have constitutions in the first place is to ensure that government has boundaries. Think about it, they have tremendous power.
They can tax us, their agents can carry weapons, they can lock us up, they can make us listen to turgid patriotic songs. There has to be something in place to ensure that this power is not abused. Hence the constitution.
However, if one were to treat the constitution simply like some sort of manual, a sort of “Governance for Dummies”, without understanding its true meaning and purpose – which is as a guarantee and protector of the people of this country – then anything can happen.After all, the definition of “national security” can be so broad that it makes a farce of constitutional provisions.
The police could say, “Asking for fair elections is against national security, so we won’t allow for a march to happen”; and then the court says, “Yup, we agree.” They will be following the letter of the constitution, but certainly not it’s spirit.
But I think this argument for constitutionalism would roll off the government’s back. I mean, when you have two cabinet ministers saying that homosexuality is unconstitutional, you know that you are dealing with people with zero understanding of what the constitution is.
Because apparently, according to Article 3 of the constitution Islam is the religion of the federation and homosexuality is against Islam, then homosexuality must be unconstitutional.
First off, Article 3 does not make Malaysia an Islamic state. According to the Supreme Court case of Che Omar Che Soh [1988], it was held that secular law governs the nation and Islamic law is confined only to the personal law of Muslims. Article 3 is taken to mean that as far as official ceremonial matters are concerned, Islamic form and rituals are to be used.
Furthermore, if we take the ministers’ line of reasoning, the article that forbids slavery must be removed from the constitution because Islam does not forbid slavery. In fact, the Quran has several verses condoning it.
This country was built on the premise that our secular government is limited, and that the people have fundamental liberties that must be protected.
But when those who are in power have no concept whatsoever about this philosophy – when years of uninterrupted power and a pragmatic ruling style which cares nothing for principles have ruled for over half a century – we get the situation which we are in, where laws that already exist are ignored, and a big deal is made of new laws that do nothing more than illustrate the ignorance of the government machinery.

Hope Springs Eternal

2012-01-05T00:35:00.000-08:00

Selangor Times
30 December 2011

________________________

THIS year, the most amazing political event to have occurred in the world could very arguably be the Arab Spring. Popular uprisings all over the Middle East have seen dictatorships fall like ten-pins in the centre of of a camel race. The process continues still.
This phenomenon demolishes stereotypes like “Arabs don’t care about democracy”. There are also lessons to be learnt for the rest of us who live in authoritarian societies. And please, do not let the recent flurry of activities from Putrajaya fool you. We live in an authoritarian society.
Attempts made by the ruling coalition to give themselves a more liberal face do not pass close examination. The Peaceful Assembly Act basically bestows upon us the “wonderful” right to gather in stadiums.
The proposed amendments to the University and University Colleges Act simply does not understand at all the concept of student autonomy and freedom. Joining a political party at the age of 21 is not the be all and end all about student autonomy. And don’t get me started about the potential horrors that the replacement for the ISA is going to bring.
However, I digress. My point is that although we may differ in degree, Malaysia, just like the Arab regimes brought down by revolution is authoritarian in nature, and there are lessons to be learnt from the Middle East as to what to expect when a transition is made from an authoritarian regime to a democratic society.
When the Arab Spring occurred, the Malaysian government and mainstream media fell over themselves to say that such a thing could not occur here. Strange as this may seem, I feel that I have to agree. But my agreement is conditional.
People only take to the streets in such numbers and with such intensity and determination when they are suffering greatly (usually from poverty), and when they feel they have no voice. As long as the election process can be trusted in this country, then people will not feel the need to change governments through methods such as those used in Egypt.
Which goes to show that it is of vital importance that our electoral system is trustworthy. As such, significant reforms had best be made before we go to the polls again.
Another major difference between Malaysia and countries like Egypt is that if the current government loses (I won’t use the word “toppled”, because it sounds so harsh), there won’t be a power vacuum. In Egypt, the military has always had tremendous political clout, and there was never a significant “government in waiting”.
Hence the problems they are facing with trying to reduce military involvement in government as they start this new phase in their country’s development.
Here, we have had the fortunate experience of seeing someone else in power, albeit at the state level. The military has kept out of politics (and hopefully will stay so), and we cannot say that there is no alternative to BN.
The last time I looked, Kedah, Penang, Selangor and Kelantan are still standing and prospering. Thus if BN loses Putrajaya, it wouldn’t be difficult to fill those well-padded seats. Likewise if Pakatan forms the next government and they lose in the future.
This brings me to the final lesson that we can learn from the Arab Spring. What matters is not who governs. What matters is the system of governance. It must be democratic, it must be just, and it must be trustworthy.
Western commentators have been wringing their hands at the prospect of an Islamist government democratically elected in Egypt. So what if they are? If they are democratically elected then the wishes of the Egyptions must be respected. The key here is that it must be possible to elect them out.
The same goes in Malaysia. Our democracy is pratically foetal in terms of maturity, and it must develop in order for us to fully enjoy the fruits of a system that respects our inherent dignity as human beings. It does not really matter who holds the reins of power as long as we the people can take those reins away from them.
It feels like that is a long way away, but it does not need to be so. Who knows what 2012 will bring?
Happy New Year.

History lessons must be objective

2012-01-05T00:34:00.000-08:00

Brave New World (The Star)
29 December 2011

History education should tell us where we come from, how we have become the way we are and how to move forward.

____________________________

FOR the past few months I have been involved with a group of organisations and individuals known as Kempen Sejarah Malaysia Sebenar. In short it is known as KemSMS.
Yes, I realise that it is a rather unfortunate abbreviation. It makes us sound like a camp where they teach you how to send text messages (with special classes on how to make funny emoticons).
However, I feel fortunate to be asked to be part of this group because we are working on the very important issue of teaching history in our schools.
Well, when I say “we are working” I really mean that my colleagues have been working. I have merely been sitting in meetings, nodding at their wisdom.
The Education Ministry has formed a committee to review the history syllabus taught in secondary schools and I hope that they will do their work well and with integrity.
KemSMS has been invited by this committee to give our views on the issue and we have done so. What will happen remains to be seen and it would be premature to discuss it here.
What I do wish to discuss is what I have learnt from working with this wonderful group of people.
For one thing, the teaching of history is a far more complex proposition than I had previously thought.
Of course, the most basic complaint that one can make is that a history book has got its information wrong.
If you say that Thailand invaded Malaysia during the Second World War, then obviously you should be knocked on the back of the head with a plastic cup for being an ignoramus.
But of course things are far more complex than that. For example, I could say “The United States of America beat Germany in the Second World War”.
It is factually correct but it misses many important points, like the small matter of the involvement of the Soviet Union, Britain, Japan and Italy.
History is not merely about facts, it is also about emphasis and the subtle intonations of values. And it is here that things get cloudy.
On the issue of values for example, I have been told, rightly so, that one can’t possibly avoid value judgments in the analysis of history. However, when talking about a school syllabus, then any value judgment has to be universal in nature.
Where it is perfectly all right to say that the Pol Pot regime caused the deaths of hundreds and thousands and this is a negative thing, one must not be making statements where one says a particular ideology is better than the other.
It is a very fine line but one that must be walked when we are talking about the education of our children.
If you, as a historian have your own personal biases, then by all means write a book and let your prejudices blossom.
Academic rigour and vigour shall be your only judge. But any value judgments short of the most humanist and general should not infect our school books.
For me, education must have an objective. History education in particular should have the objective of telling us where we come from, how we have become the way we are and from this knowledge the lessons to be taken in how to move forward.
As it has been so often said, “those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it”. Yes, history education must have an objective.
What it must not have is an agenda.
And it is this distinction that KemSMS and those who care about education, must keep striving for.

Buzz your rep on the bus issue

2011-12-14T20:24:00.000-08:00

Brave New World (The Star)
15 December 2011

There is a need to understand what the philosophies of the competing political parties are, to know their thoughts on the problems of the day.

________________________

UNLIKE most of my contemporaries who signed up for driving lessons as soon as they turned 17, I was a late bloomer. I did not learn to drive till I was way into my 20s and then I did not actually drive until a few months after getting my licence because the Mini Minor I bought blew her gasket when my mate was driving it from the dealer to my house.
So for years, getting to and from work meant taking a bus. From the depths of Keramat, I would take a blue Sri Jaya bus to Chow Kit and from there I would take either a yellow No. 12 minibus or a pink No. 30 minibus (Actually its number 39. The Star made a mistake. Just in case there are any mini bus fanatics reading this!) to get to my final destination (both the Sri Jaya bus and the minibuses are now history of course). The whole trip would normally take me an hour and a half.
It was pretty tiring just getting to work. The buses were usually full to the brim. If I was fortunate enough to actually get a seat, inevitably there would either be an old pakcik standing next to me tremulously holding on for dear life or, more commonly, a heavily pregnant woman looking at my seat with undisguised longing, her bulging belly gently bumping my head.
Needless to say, I would end up standing for the entire journey hanging on to a metal bar as I perched precariously on the outside step of the bus, my Billy Ray Cyrus mullet blowing in the wind.
Once, I got to my final stop in such an exhausted state that I knew I would die if I tried to cross the busy street to my office. Being the wise young man I was, I just curled up on the bus stand bench and slept, lulled by the gentle sounds of the mon-soon drain gurgling and the kapchais spluttering.
The reason I am reminded of these adventures during my early days in Kuala Lumpur is the news that some bus companies are actually stopping entire routes because they are losing so much money from them.
Apparently, the prices of tickets have not gone up to balance the tremendous rise in fuel and maintenance costs.
This is indeed a serious problem because it will affect tens of thousands of people, especially those who live on the outskirts of town and those who live in rural areas.
And it is merely one of many serious problems that the Government, whoever they may be, will have to try to solve.
I don’t have any answers but I would like to know what our leaders and leaders-in-waiting have to say about such things.
Sure, it is fun to read about the shenanigans of our politicians.
Of course, no one expects candidates to be up to date on every single issue. That would be impossible to achieve, but to a large extent knowing what they will do or are likely to do is a question of philosophy.
There is a need to understand what the philosophies of the competing parties are. Are they laissez-faire capitalists or are they socialist? Or perhaps they are somewhere in between?
With this knowledge, we can figure out pretty much the kind of approach and direction they will take in governance.
Of course it would be useful if they had transparency as well. If a government official tells me “we don’t have money to subsidise bus routes”, then I jolly well want to know how much money we do have and just what have you been spending it on.
Alas, I know that this is a rather forlorn hope as Malaysian politics can be quite infantile and as we approach the next general election, it will probably be the usual mudslinging and histrionics.
But we can make a little change. The next time we see our candidate, let’s ask them some questions about things that affect our lives.
It will force them to think of the issues, or at the very least it will show us if they can think at all.

Understanding our rights

2011-12-13T19:13:00.000-08:00

Brave New World (The Star)
3 December 2011

Rights are not something to be played with. It is not a political tool to be bandied about. It is fundamental and inherent. It exists in us simply because we are civilised men and women.

_________________________

RIGHTS are the weapons of the powerless. And just who are the powerless? Well, in my view, it is most of us.
Ordinary folks who either do not hold the reins of government machinery or have the means to control those who hold the reins.
That is why only those who are powerless or who have been powerless can truly appreciate rights.
We only have to look at history to see that to be true. The Magna Carta was created because the nobility of Britain felt powerless against the King.
The American Declaration of Independence takes the shape that it does because the founding fathers wanted to ensure that they would never again be under the yoke of a distant king.
Our own leaders, during the early days of our existence as a nation also understood this need for rights, having been ruled by an oppressive force more powerful than them.
Of course there are those with short memories who belittle rights when they have power, bemoan the lack of them when they lose power and belittle them again when they have power once more.
But then, there will always be the utterly unprincipled in any community.
The human race has evolved. We have values which prevent the strong simply taking what they want from the weak.
Our laws are in place so that we can be assured a person who is bigger than us can’t simply knock us out and take our wallets.
And just as we have laws to protect us against thieves and thugs, so too do we have principles which prevent the rulers from abusing us.
As a race we have come a long way from “only the strong will survive”. And that is due to the civilising of human kind.
Rights therefore are the current pinnacle of this civilising process. It indicates that we are civilised.
Related to human rights is democracy. When we choose our own leaders, we ensure that we are not led simply by someone who is going to force himself or herself onto us.
Once again, we see a principle which empowers the powerless.
This is why I care so much about human rights and democracy.
This is why I get furious when those who do not understand or choose not to understand, take my rights away.
That is why I work on the premise that we must have as much rights as possible.
Of course I understand there are limitations to everything, including rights, but those limitations must be made with the aspiration that a complete right is the ideal.
It is only with these aspirations in place will we ensure that whatever limitations imposed are the barest minimum and with the smallest effect on our rights.
Rights are not something to be played with. It is not a political tool to be bandied about. It is fundamental, it is inherent. It is not something that can be given for it exists in us simply because we are civilised men and women.
The powerful do not wish to see this.
It is up to us, the powerless, to remind them.

An Assembly Tale

2011-11-30T23:50:00.000-08:00

Malaysia Today
1 December 2011

________________________________________

The scene is a small terrace house, somewhere in Kelana Jaya. Ten year old Mary and her younger brother Timothy approach their father who is sitting in the living room flossing his teeth after a large meal.

“Papa, Timmy and I would like to tell you something”
“Oh, really, both of you want to gather together and say something?”
“Yes, we think it is a very important issue and we would like to express ourselves to the whole family”.
“I see, so you want to assemble peacefully. You are not going to get violent are you?”
“Of course not Papa!”
“Good. Good. Very well, you can’t say I am a wicked and authoritarian father. I am in fact very liberal; much more liberal than other fathers, for example that Mr Hlaing from Myanmar. I am very happy to give you the space to get together with your brother and express yourselves to your little hearts’ content”.
“Oh thank you Papa. You are such a kind and understanding Papa”.
“I know, I am, all my buddies tell me. However, I just have a few teeny tiny conditions”
“What are they Papa”?
“There are some places in the house where you cannot gather. The kitchen is one. It is a very sensitive area where food is being prepared and I don’t want you to get in the way of your mother who is busy cooking there. Also you can’t gather in the dining room because that is where we eat. The living room is off limits due to the fact that the television is there and you would be interrupting the quiet enjoyment of the family by making noise when we are trying to watch TV. The garage is a no go zone. If you go tramping around in there you might jolly well scratch my car and we can’t be having that can we?”
“I suppose not Papa. Is there any where else we can’t gather?”
“Let me think. Of course! You can’t assemble in the toilet”.
“In the toilet? Why not?”
“You know very well that I suffer from incredible bouts of gas and I need the toilet to be free at all times so I can relieve the build up”.
“So, where on earth can we gather”?
“Your bedroom”.
"How can the other family members know what we are complaining about if we are stuck in our bedroom”?
“You silly little thing. If the rest of the family want to hear what you are saying they’ll just have to go to the bedroom isn’t it? Except little Annie. She’s too young and I don’t want her getting confused by what you have to say”
“Are those all your conditions Papa”?
“No, I have one more. If any of the family members complain about what you are saying, then I won’t let you speak”.
“That is not fair. You know that big brother Abe never agrees with us and he is bound to complain. He is your favourite and you always listen to him no matter how stupid his views are”
“Now, now, you are being over emotional. I don’t have any favourites and it is irresponsible for you to say so. See, I let you speak and you say irresponsible things. There are limits to freedom you know”.
“Your limits have no limits papa. This is too much.”
“Alright then, if you are unhappy with my rules you know what you can do.”
“What”
“You can go to your room and talk to yourself over there”.

Mary and Timothy trudge unhappily to their bedroom. Suddenly their father calls to them.

“Wait! Wait! Mary, I said you can go to your bedroom. I did not say that you and Timmy can go there together in a procession. When you walk in a group you block up the hallway and that is very bad. There’s a good girl. Now off you go and when you are finished, go make me a cup of tea”.

Keep it simple and indelible

2011-11-27T04:31:00.000-08:00

Brave New World (The Star)
17 November 2011

Why must the use of indelible ink need a constitutional amendment? If you have the right to vote under Article 119 and as long as that right is not taken away from you, there should be no problem.

__________________________

I HAVE always advocated respect for the Constitution and constitutionalism. I had no idea that the Attorney-General was of the same mindset.
In fact, he is so concerned about ensuring the Constitution is adhered to that he seems to have spotted constitutional issues where there appear to be none at all.
You see, according to him, if we were to use indelible ink during our elections, where those who have voted will be smeared with a bit of ink to ensure they don’t vote again, it would require an amendment to Article 119 of the Constitution.
Dutifully, I whipped out my copy of the Constitution and checked out the said article. Good news, it does exist and furthermore it is about the electorate.
Examining Article 119, I see that it is about who is entitled to vote. Basically you can vote if you are a citizen who is past the age of 21, resident in your constituency (or an absent voter), duly registered, not mad and not a convict.
I read it and I read it again, but I can’t for the life of me see how the use of indelible ink is going to need a constitutional amendment.
In essence, Article 119 is about who can vote. If you have the right to vote under Article 119 and as long as that right is not taken away from you, I don’t see what the problem is.
You can smear my index finger with indelible purple or draw an intricate pattern on my face as a sign that I have voted if that’s what you want, but as long as you don’t stop me from actually voting, there’s nothing unconstitutional here.
I tell you what should be amended though; the need to register to be a voter. Why can’t we just be automatically registered once we have reached the age of 21? It’s not difficult to ascertain a Malaysian citizen who is over 21; they are the ones with the blue identity cards which say their birthday is over 21 years ago. See, simple.
I like simple things. For example, I like the simple pleasure of making a cross on a piece of paper next to the candidate of my choice.
I like that if you can count, you can count the votes.
I like that anybody can check if there is hanky panky in the electoral process because checking little pieces of paper does not require any sort of qualification.
I don’t like complex things like e-voting. It sits uncomfortable with me that my vote is converted into electronic form and then disappears into the ether where who knows what’s being done to it.
All I want is to go with my MyKad to a voting centre, get my piece of unmarked voting paper slip and a pencil, make my choice, get my finger or whatever digit they choose smeared with ink, then leave knowing I have done my civic duty. Simple.
Maybe that is why I can’t see what the AG is getting at, I am far too simple.

Court decision a pleasant surprise

2011-11-07T05:25:00.000-08:00

Brave New World (The Star)
3 November 2011

Higher education is not merely about going to the lecture theatre and mugging for your exams. It is about expanding your horizons, taking responsibility for your actions and acting on your convictions.
_________________________

THE Court of Appeal’s decision on the Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM) Four case, which declared in a majority 2-1 decision that Section 15 of the University and University Colleges Act (UUCA) is unconstitutional, was a very pleasant surprise indeed.
The four students from UKM were initially charged by their university for “expressing support for a political party”. This is an offence under Section 15 of the UUCA.
They were accused of this primarily for being present during a by-election campaign in Selangor.
The question before the court was whether Section 15 impinged on the students’ constitutional right of expression.
One of the reasons that the dissenting judge used in his decision to not question the validity of the UUCA was that his lordship was of the opinion that it was not up to the court to question the harshness of the UUCA.
I respectfully disagree, for what is being questioned is not the harshness of the law, but the constitutionality of the law.
The thing about our Constitution is that all the protections they give us usually have a proviso.
The proviso generally being that Parliament can make laws which limit our rights if it is in the interest of public morality, order and national security.
For years and years, our courts have often times simply accepted repressive laws made by Parliament without actually questioning whether these laws are constitutional or not because the Government said that it was necessary for national security or public order or morality.
In effect, there was a tendency to allow the party with a majority in Parliament to do what it wanted.
This is derogating responsibility. It is not enough to simply accept the word of the Government when it says “this law is for national security”.
There should be an examination of it to see whether it really is for national security.
Without that examination, any old law can be made.
There will be no limitation on the lawmakers and what we will end up with is a system of governance where there is no real protection of our rights.
That is why it was so exciting to see the two judges in the UKM Four case clearly stating that any law made has to be scrutinised to ensure that its constitutionality is based not merely on the form of the law but also its substance.
In this particular case, they held that preventing students from expressing support for a political party is in no way a threat to national security, public order or morality.
The decision is made not only by taking a legalistic approach but is also one based on common sen-se.
After all, a person above the age of majority is free to enter into contracts, get married, be the head of a corporation, vote, be Prime Minister, etc, and yet by virtue of being a student they can’t express support for a political party. This does not make any sense.
Furthermore, how can supporting a perfectly legal organisation be considered dangerous?
The stand of the Government as well as the dissenting judge is that the UUCA is there to prevent students from getting involved in politics and thus being distracted from their studies.
This too does not make sense. Having been a student myself and having taught them for 21 years, let me assure you that young people can get distracted from their studies by a million and one things and chances are unless you are some serious political nerd, politics is not going to be on that list.
We might as well ban students from playing online games if we are so concerned about their focus on studying.
Higher Education Minister Datuk Seri Mohamed Khaled Nordin was also reported as saying that if it is considered that a student’s constitutional right of association is more important than his studies, then we can do away with UUCA.
Again, I have to disagree. This argument is far too simplistic.
When we restrict a person’s fundamental freedom, whatever that freedom might be, we are stifling their ability to develop.
Higher education is not merely about going to the lecture theatre and mugging for your exams.
It is about expanding your horizons, taking responsibility for your actions and acting on your convictions.
You can’t do this if you are kept chained by repressive laws.
But it is still too early to rejoice this victory for fundamental liberties in general and academic freedom in particular.
The case might still go to the Federal Court and who knows what their decision will be.
Neither is this case reason to say our judiciary is independent.
What this case does show is that there are individual judges in our courts who understand and appreciate constitutionalism, there are lawyers willing to argue for this principle and there are young men and women in our student body brave enough to stand up for their rights.
There’s still much to be done, but for the moment this is reason enough to cheer.

Don’t send Myanmars back

2011-11-07T05:23:00.000-08:00

Brave New World (The Star)
20 October 2011

Among Myanmars detained in Malaysia for immigration related offences are economic migrants as well as political refugees who left their country for fear of persecution and oppression.

___________________

FOUR years ago, scores of Myanmar citizens were killed by their government for taking part in non-violent protests which started out as a reaction to a cut in fuel subsidies.
The involvement of a large number of monks, many of whom were also beaten or killed, led this episode in Myanmar’s history to be known as the Saffron Revolution.
During the Saffron Revolution, according to the then Myanmar junta, 1,000 arrests were made (non-governmental sources put the number at many times that), but there were also many who were arrested before 2007 and many more who were arrested after.
The Assistance Association for Political Prisoners (AAPP) Burma estimates that there are currently as many as 2,000 political prisoners in Myanmar.
The AAPP also states that torture is commonplace among these political prisoners.
The people of Myanmar are among the poorest in the world, but their unhappiness is not limited to economic deprivation.
Considering the situation in Myanmar, where any sort of opposition to the authorities – be it in the form of peaceful protests, academic writing, public speaking or even artistic expression – is deemed as dissent and a political threat, it would come as no surprise that people would leave the country out of fear of persecution and oppression.
It is quite clear that human rights violations occur on a large scale in the country. Thus, people leave for reasons not limited to economics.
In this light, it is shocking to read that the Government has agreed in principle to deport Myanmar nationals who are currently detained in Malaysia for immigration-related offences.
It is possible, if not probable, that among those detained are political refugees and not economic migrants.
After all, if you are trying to escape a country due to your political views or ethnic background, necessities such as visas may not be on your to-do list.
The spin on the part of the Government is that Malaysians detained in Myanmar would be returned here, so it’s not simply a deportation exercise but a “swap”.
I would like to know how many Malaysians are actually detained in Myanmar.
I mean what would possess a Malaysian to enter Myanmar illegally? To get a high-paying job because Myanmar is so much more developed than Malaysia?
Or perhaps it’s a bunch of folk who went to Chiang Mai (Thailand) but overshot a little bit and went too far west?
It would be inhumane to have a blanket arrangement with Myanmar to return those detained here.
We cannot be sure what fate awaits them.
The act of sending people back to a country, which we know as such a harsh and intolerant regime, is simply unethical behaviour.

Right to question hudud law

2011-11-07T05:19:00.000-08:00

Brave New World (The Star)
6 October 2011

My problem with religion-based law making, is the idea that it cannot be questioned because it is divine in origin. In a democracy, if we can’t question the laws that affect our lives, then it is not a democracy at all.

__________________

POOR Fulham. Despite thoroughly thrashing Tony Fernandes’ Queens Park Rangers 6-0, all the sports headlines were about the other London derby where Tottenham Hotspur edged Arsenal 2-1. I suppose it is all about perception; just what is important and what is not.
As much as I would like to think that the game at White Hart Lane is an indication that the power in North London has shifted to Seven Sisters road, I am ever cautious and am reminded of the saying that a swallow does not a summer make.
Although I suppose in the case of the Spurs-Arsenal rivalry, considering that we have beaten them three times in the last four league clashes, it just may be there is more than one swallow fluttering about.
However, I digress. My earlier point remains and that is the perception of what is important and what is not.
At the moment, there are all sorts of news stories floating about and they point towards one thing, elections.
PAS has once again raised the hudud issue. Frankly, I am not too worried about this matter.
Pakatan Rakyat has stated that they will not go on with hudud unless all the component parties agree.
This seems highly unlikely as DAP will never agree and I am sure there are some voices in Keadilan too who will not be comfortable with hudud.
However, if they do try to introduce it, I will most certainly object.
The reason why I object is encapsulated in Hadi’s (PAS president Datuk Seri Abdul Hadi Awang) statement in the press on the matter (if it was accurately reported) where he said that hudud cannot be questioned.
Whoa there, “cannot be questioned”? I am sorry, if you have personal beliefs that affect only you and you won’t question them, that’s all fine and dandy.
But if you are going to introduce something into the public sphere, something that will affect the lives of the citizens, I don’t care if the source of what you are introducing is divine, it jolly well better be questioned.
And I don’t care if you say I have no degree from Al-Azhar and no goatee to go along with it, I will question any law that any government wants to introduce.
This has been my problem with any religion-based law making, the idea that simply because it is divine in origin means it can’t be questioned. In a democracy, if we can’t question the laws that affect our lives, then it is not a democracy at all.
And then there is poor Mat Sabu; charged with criminal defamation for questioning the heroism of the policemen who fought at Bukit Kepong.
I checked the Penal Code and sure enough, criminal defamation can be committed against the dead.
It’s a bit weird because how far back does this provision extend? I mean in historical matters there will always be different perspectives and differing opinions based on new findings and discoveries.
In case the Government decides to charge me with criminal defamation for questioning the character of one of our early leaders, let me use an American example.
Thomas Jefferson; renaissance man who helped draft the American Constitution and ensured a modern democracy where all men were created equal, or a shameless hypocrite slave owner who fathered numerous children with his female slaves?
Both views are correct and depending on your own take on history the view that will take precedence will differ.
And surely that was what Mat Sabu’s statement was; his take on history.
Was it insensitive, probably, should he be prosecuted for it, I don’t think so.
However, all these issues are really not that important to me. I think they are just the usual sound and fury that come with politicians posturing in the light that elections are coming.
The real important story for now should be the Budget and more importantly the alternative budget that the Pakatan has unveiled.
It is really good to see Pakatan acting like they have a Shadow Cabinet (although they don’t have one really).
We need to see concrete counter proposals from the opposition to not only help us question the Government’s Budget but also to assess the alternatives which a different government could give. This is vital in a mature democracy.
I certainly hope that discussions in the next couple of weeks will be about comparing the two budgets for surely that is more important than a hudud law which is unlikely to be implemented and Mat Sabu’s supposed lack of patriotism.

> Post Script: I don’t think the Fulham game was that important, who cares what happened at Craven Cottage. We beat Arsenal, again!

Testing the limits of reform

2011-11-07T05:16:00.000-08:00

Brave New World (The Star)
22 September 2011

Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak indeed has the country buzzing with his promises of sweeping reforms, but any change to these laws will take at least a year – and that’s practically an infinity in politics.
___________________________

THERE’S been so much excited quivering during the past week over the Prime Minister’s Malaysia Day speech that I sometimes feel like I’m living in a bowl of jelly. This is not the first time a PM has made the Malaysian public as giddy as schoolgirls at a Justin Bieber concert.
I am old enough to remember former prime minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad’s “Clean, Efficient, Trustworthy” promise upon taking power and how people thought that this was the beginning of a new type of government. One that was not “dirty, incompetent and dishonest”. Of course, after the numerous financial scandals involving billions, that hope went out the window.
Tun Abdullah Badawi’s “work with me not for me” statement also captured the public’s imagination and his promise for greater civil liberties had hardcore opposition supporters voting BN for the first time. It didn’t take too long before tear gas and chemical water cannons washed away the euphoria which greeted the new PM.
Now it is Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak’s turn, and indeed he has got the country buzzing with his promises of sweeping reforms.
The Internal Security Act (ISA) is to be abolished, and the Printing Presses and Publications Act (PPPA) amended along with a slew of other changes.
I do not believe that I am being overly cynical when I say “this is all well and good but I’ll believe it when I see it”.
My concern is two-fold. First, unless and until we actually see the shape that the amended PPPA takes, and until we can closely scrutinise the two new laws which are supposed to be the replacement for the ISA, I think it is premature to think that we are finally rid of these draconian laws.
From my understanding, under the proposed amended PPPA, a newspaper can still have its licence taken away by the Government. Is this process going to be easy for the Government and without any recourse to the courts for the paper? If so, then there’s not much change, is there?
The same goes with the two new security laws that are supposed to replace the ISA. If there is still broad discretion to detain without trial then all we have is old wine in a new bottle. I am unconvinced, for example, that the new laws will only be used for terrorism cases.
If the new law is only for terrorists, who is going to define who is a terrorist and who is not? And without a trial, a detention order can still be easily abused – all one needs to do is accuse a person of being a terror threat.
My second concern has to do with the sustainability of the idea within Umno. Let’s not forget, the system of government we have in Malaysia follows the Westminster model, that is to say we don’t vote for our PM directly.
The PM is fundamentally the choice of the party with the majority in Parliament, as opposed to the presidential system where the leader of the nation is chosen directly by the people.
If this idea to abolish the ISA and to make these sweeping systemic changes is primarily from the Prime Minister, how can we be sure that his party will follow through with it if he is no longer PM?
Any change to these laws will take at least a year. A week is a long time in politics, a year is practically an infinity – and anything can happen in such a period.
Putting my concerns aside, I hope that something positive will come from these promises and that these laws will be changed, and the changes will be substantial and meaningful. If it does happen, let us not forget that they happened because the people wanted it to happen.
No matter what the ruling party claims, if it wasn’t for the shock that they had in March 2008, if it wasn’t for the constant call for the repeal of these laws from the public and civil society, we wouldn’t all be quivering as we are now.

Vengeance has no part in justice

2011-09-01T03:04:00.000-07:00

Brave New World (The Star)
25 August 2011

It is easy to talk of proper procedure and fair trial when emotions are not brought into the picture. But in extreme cases, it is much harder to rationally hold on to such principles.

_________________________

I REMEMBER watching a BBC interview with Muammar Gaddafi many years ago.
It was the weirdest thing. In the middle of the interview, he broke wind with such vigour and volume that it was captured by the microphone.
Whether this was a case of uncontrollable gas or whether it was his way of showing contempt for the BBC, I have no idea.
How times have changed.
At the time of writing, the whereabouts of Gaddafi is unknown.
It does look like it is the end of the line for him and his regime.
I know that there are many Libyans who are of the strong opinion that he is guilty of many crimes against his own people.
From watching the interviews on TV, there is an overwhelming sense that there is a thirst for justice.
This is very understandable. Just as it is understandable that the people of Norway, for example, are desperate to see justice done against that lone right-wing gunman who mowed down and blew up so many innocent lives.
The tricky part here is separating justice from vengeance.
And this is where it gets hard.
It is easy to talk of proper procedure and fair trial when emotions are not brought into the picture.
But in extreme cases, be it a dictator who ruled with an iron fist for decades, or an evil individual with automatic weapons killing innocent young people, it is much harder to rationally hold on to such principles.
When something bad has been done to us, the urge to do all in our power to wreak retribution on those who have wronged us can become overwhelming.
It is imperative to try to remember the principles of justice and fairness that all civilised peoples adhere to during such times.
It would be a shame if the people of Libya, on the dawn of a new era, begin their fresh start with vengeance replacing justice.
It would be a blemish on the years of peaceful adherence to the rule of law in Norway, if they do not treat such a monster with the same kind of procedural and evidentiary fairness as they treat every one else.
It is easy to talk of justice.
But the true test arises only when we have to make sure that even the despised receive it without vengeance clouding our judgment.
If we can do that, only then can we claim to be living up to the civilised behaviour we aspire to.

’Tis the season for delusions

2011-08-12T07:37:00.000-07:00

Brave New World (The Star)
11 August 2011

There’s a whole bunch of us here in this happy place of delusion and madness, but while my insanity is fairly benign, my fellow inhabitants’ are not so harmless.

______________________

I LIKE to think of myself as a reasonable person. A person who would think logically most of the time and make decisions based on said logic.
But, around this time of the year, something happens to me and my usual level-headed self is replaced by a blithering idiot who mouths off such inane stupidities that people around me back away with fear in their eyes.
No, this state of being is not the result of low sugar levels brought about by fasting; I become like this because the English Premier League starts this weekend. And this year, like every year for as long as I can remember, the beginning of the season fills me with hope so high that I make Don Quixote look like the patron saint of sceptics.
I was chatting to a friend recently – well, I was babbling, really – about the new season and how excited I was. He dismissed me by saying there can be no thrill in a league where only two teams keep winning.
I agreed, but – and here my madness becomes apparent – “this year will be different,” I declared. “This year, Spurs will be champions.”
Every year, for a space of about two weeks I become like this. Then the season starts and I am flung out of Cloud Cuckoo Land to crash with a resounding thump in a reality where Manchester Bleeding United wins the damned thing again.
This year, however, I am not alone in Cloud Cuckoo Land. There’s a whole bunch of us here in this happy place of delusion and madness. The difference, however, is that while my insanity is fairly benign, my fellow inhabitants’ are not so harmless.
You see, I have delusions that Spurs are actually league winners, but these other chaps around me are under the impression that there is a massive Christian plot to grab unsuspecting Muslims and turn them to the way of Christ.
They go around with a red mist in their eyes and they see Christian conspiracies everywhere.
A fundraiser for HIV patients? No, no, it is a function where Christians are corrupting and converting Muslims. Lack of evidence that such proselytising is occurring puts no damper on their fervour. Who needs facts when you have conviction?
My friends in Cloud Cuckoo Land froth in the mouth as they make police reports against the wicked Christians, their bile dripping on the floors of police stations country wide. And they howl for new laws to make it a crime to proselytise.
Not once do they show any shred of proof to back their claims. Not once do they look inward and ask the question: if Muslims are leaving the religion, what is it that we are doing wrong?
Oh no, proof is for wimps, and introspection for those who don’t have a convenient scapegoat at hand.
As I sit here in Cloud Cuckoo Land, looking at their infantile antics and listening to their obtuse rants, I am grateful that the season is starting so soon and a happy distraction will be available every week.
On Saturday, I will watch with bated breath and hope that we beat Everton in our first game. And if we do, perhaps we can go on and win the title for the first time in half a century.
Yes, I admit, I am being delusional and not a little stupid, but at least my delusion and stupidity hurts no one.

Haunted by the Fanged King

2011-08-09T01:20:00.000-07:00

Brave New World (The Star)
28 July 2011

There is a sense of social justice to be found in our myths. But in the real world there will not be magical heroes. There will only be the constant vigilance and small acts of courage of ordinary folk.

_____________________

WHEN I was a little boy, there was one particular traditional story that freaked me out. This was the tale of Raja Bersiong (the Fanged King).
If I am not mistaken, it is set in Kedah. Anyway, for those of you not familiar with this Malay legend, let me tell you the tale.
Long ago there was a very cruel Raja.
He treated his subjects viciously and was feared and hated.
It is said that he had fangs instead of teeth.
One day, his cook was preparing his lunch when she cut her fingers and bled into his vegetables. Because she was pressed for time, she just went on cooking the meal, rather than face the wrath of the Raja for being late.
When the food was served, the Raja exclaimed that this was the best spinach he had ever eaten.
He called the cook and asked her what she did differently.
Out of fear, she admitted that the only difference to the dish was the addition of blood.
The Raja then ordered that blood be put into all his meals.
Eventually, his appetite for blood grew and grew, and soon people were being slaughtered just to sate his appetite.
The cruel reign of the Raja degenerated into one of abject terror.
Naturally, a hero appeared and he fought the Raja.
The hero had magical powers and he used it to turn himself into a tiger which then devoured the evil ruler.
The story ends, therefore, with a touch of irony; the fanged king met his doom at a pair of fangs.
I tell you, this story scared the heck out of me.
When I was seven I cut my lip and I bled into my mouth.
Inadvertently, I swallowed some of the blood.
I lived in terror that I was going to become Raja Bersiong.
Sure enough, a day or so later, I felt a pain in my neck.
Oh no, I thought, this is it.
My fangs are starting to grow.
It turned out that I had mumps.
Anyway, the point of these ramblings is that unlike some assertions that our culture demands subservience and sheep-like behaviour, our legends say otherwise.
There is a sense of social justice to be found in our myths, which means it is within our collective psyche to stand up against injustice and cruelty.
The legend of Raja Bersiong is about how the abuse of power will eventually lead to one’s downfall.
Of course, in the real world, there are no fairy tale demonic kings.
The forces of oppression take different, more understated forms.
It happens through the usurping of control in public institutions meant to serve the greater good. And just as there are no demonic villains, neither are there magical heroes.
A single hero can’t battle such subtle widespread tools of oppression.
In the real world, it is up to the people to take that responsibility.
In the real world, there will not be a battle royale between a brave tiger and an evil Raja to make the world a better place, there will only be the constant vigilance and small acts of courage of ordinary folk.
Without it, we will forever be haunted by our own Rajas Bersiong.

Protecting the royal institution

2011-07-22T06:34:00.000-07:00

Brave New World (The Star)
14 July 2011

The monarchy is held in very high regard among many Malaysians. If we are to ensure that this high regard continues, then the royals must play their role as determined by the Constitution.

___________________

NOW that the Bersih march is over, I would like to raise an issue that appears to have been overlooked. Just before the march was due to happen, the King intervened and said he would prefer it if a street demonstration did not occur. At the same time, he acknowledged the peoples’ right to express their legitimate expectations.
It all looks and sounds very reasonable and laudable. Indeed, I reckon most people would say that it is. However, I would like to raise a small warning flag if I may.
Our country is a constitutional monarchy. This means that the powers of the King is determined by the Constitution. His Majesty’s powers are limited. His only true power is to select the Prime Minister and to decide whether to dissolve Parliament or not.
In the past, the King was much more powerful but his immunity from prosecution and power to veto legislation was taken away by a constitutional amendment under the Barisan Nasional government led by Datuk Seri (now Tun) Dr Mahathir Mohamad.
There is, however, one power that the Constitution never provided for, and that is for the King to be involved in politics and governance.
His Majesty is meant to be above the petty politics of the day. In this way, he is above partisanship and also beyond reproach. Thus this seperation of royalty from politics is, in my view, a manner of protecting the institution.
What the King did when he made his statement about the Bersih march arguably borders on involvement in governance. It is of course his Majesty’s right to say what he wishes, but there is always a risk that his statement may have serious implications on public life.
As it is, both sides in the Bersih debate have claimed that the King supports them.
The Government said Bersih defied the King by taking to the streets. Bersih said they were merely following his Majesty’s request by wanting to have the rally in Merdeka Stadium, and it was the closing of the stadium that forced them onto the street.
Already, we can see here how all parties have dragged his Majesty into the fray. If the dignity of the monarchy is of concern, then this should not occur at all.
However, I am also worried that the royal statement may start a precedent where the King gets involved in public matters.
The danger here is that there is no constitutional provision empowering him to do so. And if he does so, he is beyond reproach due to laws such as the Sedition Act. That means that if the King gets involved, the people can’t criticise his involvement or his statement.
In a democracy, it is surely wrong that a hereditary — not an elected — leader can have such influence. This is not only because we the people can’t criticise him but we also have no avenue to show our displeasure via the ballot box.
Many people often point to Thailand where the king has a lot of influence in public life and is still largely beloved. All this is well and good as long as the Thai king is as respected and popular as the one they have now.
What if he is replaced by someone who is not held in such high regard? Such a situation, where a monarch who gets involved in public life and yet has all sorts of laws preventing the citizenry from publically opposing him, would lead to a system of governance that would be an uncomfortable mix between a constitutional monarchy and an absolute monarchy.
As I write this, I am aware that there are many out there who will be jumping up and down claiming I am being derhaka. This is another danger of the King making public pronouncements about issues on governance.
Even if the government of the day does not take action against those who criticise His Majesty, there will be plenty of little royalists who would love to take matters into their own hands, regardless of the resonableness of the complaint or the unreasonableness of the royal statements.
I come from Penang, which means I do not have an instinctive attachment to royalty, having never had a “sultan of my own”. Yet I realise that the monarchy is held in very high regard among many Malaysians.
If we are to ensure that this high regard continues, then the royals must play their role as determined by the Constitution. Only in this way can we make sure they remain untouched by the dirt of politics and the tenuous democracy we have is not watered down further by putting royal involvement in the mix.

Impartial referees matter

2011-07-10T18:04:00.000-07:00

Brave New World (The Star)
30 June 2011

Without faith in the impartiality of referees, the beauty of football just goes out the window as doubts over his fairness will mar the proceedings, no matter who wins or loses. The same goes for the EC referees when it comes to elections.

________________________

WHENEVER Tottenham Hotspur play Manchester United, we Malaysian Spurs fans, we few, we happy few, will check out who the referee is. There are a couple of them (who shall remain nameless) whose names we dread every time this particular fixture comes about.
It’s not that any of us have any proof that these men are corrupt and biased in favour of the ruling team, it’s just that this is our perception.
And who can blame us, when a ball that falls a metre into the goal and should have won us the match is deemed as not having crossed the line by the man in black.
Now, before you Manchester United fans out there write angry e-mail about how I’m just another whining Spud (which I suppose I am), let me say that there is a point to all this.
Referees matter. They are important and they must be seen to be impartial.
Without this faith in their impartiality, the beauty of the game just goes out the window as no matter who wins or loses, the doubts over the fairness of the match will mar the proceedings.
Now, if referees are important for something like football, imagine how vital it is to have free and impartial referees for something which will have an effect on our very lives (and not just our Saturday night thrills).
I am speaking of course about elections and the Election Commission (EC).
Do I feel that our electoral system needs an overhaul?
Absolutely, and I believe it has to be much more than just the introduction of indelible ink and other such measures to prevent fraud.
Primarily I think that the EC has to be given the same status as it used to have before the 1962 Constitutional Amendments.
Bear with me as we delve into a bit of history.
Before the 1962 amendments, the EC had tremendous power and, more importantly, it had a great deal of independence.
Between 1957 and 1962, it was the EC that determined the delineations of the constituencies. And because commissioners had security of tenure (it was really hard to get rid of them as once appointed their tenure was akin to that of judges), their decision could be made independent of any sort of pressure from the government of the day.
However, in 1962, all that changed. The security of tenure was stripped away so that the commissioners worked at the pleasure of the Executive. Furthermore, the delineation of parliamentary constituencies was now placed into the hands of Parliament.
The implications are obvious. Whoever controls Parliament could then determine the delineation of the constituencies that best suits them.
And because you have control of Parliament that means you also determine the Executive. Thus, you will have power over the EC, too.
In the words of H.E. Groves at the time of the amendment:
“The vital power of determining the size of constituencies as well as their boundaries is now taken from a commission, which the Constitution makers had apparently wished, by tenure and status, to make independent and disinterested, and has been made completely political by giving this power to a transient majority of Parliament, whose temptation to gerrymander districts and manipulate the varying numerical possibilities between ‘rural’ and ‘urban’ constituencies for political advantage is manifest.”
I do not care who has the majority in Parliament, be it Barisan Nasional or Pakatan Rakyat or any other party that may pop up.
The current situation is simply not a good state of affairs because it can be abused by whoever has power.
So to those who think that the election system is hunky dory, I beg to differ.
And please don’t tell me that I can’t differ, because we are supposed to be a democracy and we have the right to express ourselves.

Wham, Bam that’s my Man!

2011-07-10T18:02:00.000-07:00

Brave New World (The Star)
16 June 2011

There are many “soft men” out there who do not understand what it means to be male and as a result the girls start to get ideas above their station.

______________________

WELCOME gentlemen, welcome. Please take a seat. Anywhere will do. The serving wenches will be coming in a moment to serve your tea. Feel free to ogle at their bosoms and buttocks. That’s what they are there for.
We are gathered here today for the inaugural meeting of the Husband In Charge Klub or HICK for short. In the light of the creation of the Obedient Wives Club, it was thought that it would be appropriate for us men to have an equivalent society; something to help men in Malaysia truly understand what their role is.
After all, there are so many “soft men” out there who simply do not understand what it means to be male. It is these idiots who give us a bad name and they cause so many social problems. For example, they believe in women’s rights. This gives the wrong message to women.
Just because of a small bunch of sissy boys, it is as though we all agree with all that feminism rubbish. The girls start to get ideas above their station and because of that we poor men are not treated well and we have no choice but to have affairs and what not.
Therefore, for the good of society, we must set all men straight. Let there be no mistake, gentlemen, we are here to put things right in this country. We are doing a service to our nation. We should be as proud as a cock strutting the farmyard.
So, let’s establish our core principles and ideals. First, and most important, we are masters. Our word is final. We are the kings. We can express this through various means.
For example, there is no real need to actually talk to your woman. A grunt is sufficient. It is up to her to interpret what that grunt means.
In the first few weeks of marriage, you might need to help her understand by slapping her on the back of the head if she doesn’t get the difference between the “I want a drink” grunt with the “take off your clothes and wait for me in the bedroom until I finish watching football” grunt.
It is also great to have some public displays of subservience from your woman. Make her kiss your hand when you drop her off anywhere. What is important here is not the hand kissing as such, but your own attitude to it.
Don’t look at her when she kisses your manly digits. Look away as though you have something better to do. And remember, if you can zoom off in your car before she has the chance to step away, even better.
The next thing we must concern ourselves with is personal hygiene and fitness. The rule here is simple, neither is necessary. You can be as smelly and as unfit as you like.
She should learn to appreciate and to love your manly musk. And if you get overweight, well, it’s just more of you to love isn’t it?
Mind you, it is very important that this does not go both ways. Your woman must be as fragrant and as slim as on the day you met her.
If she gets podgy as a result of her dropping all those brats that you put into her womb, you have every right to complain about how unattractive she is and how it is because of her that you can’t get it up any more.
Now, the OWC is going to train women to be high-class prostitutes in the bedroom. This is very good. However, our women do not have the same experience as we do with high class prostitutes, so let’s help the girls a bit by telling them exactly what high-class prostitutes do.
On a final note, if they are going to be high-class prostitutes, then what about us? Do we have to be high-class studs?
Of course not, we have to put up with their incessant whining for jewellery, shoes, handbags, clothes, marketing money and all that. It would simply be inhuman to expect us to give them good sex as well.
Remember our motto: “Our Pleasure is Their Pleasure”.
That’s about it gentlemen. I think it is time for our tea break now. Ah, here come the wenches. Move your lovely butts, sweet things, we’re parched!

Some want it, some don’t

2011-06-02T00:43:00.000-07:00

Brave New World (The Star)
2 June 2011

Note: The parts in red were removed by The Star

________________________________

There is an international environmental law called the Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Waste and their Disposal. Yes, I know, the title alone is enough to put anyone to sleep. I have had generations of students do just that.

Anyway, please bear with me. This international law, which Malaysia is party to, basically forbids the illegal export of hazardous wastes to countries that do not want them or do not have the ability to dispose of them safely. It came about because it is actually cheaper for companies to hire a ship, pack it full of hazardous wastes and then dump it in some third world country half way across the planet.

A nasty practice to be sure and one that got pretty out of hand in the eighties, particularly in African countries. Hence this international law came about and Malaysia very rightly decided to be part of this regime. After all why should we take other people’s dangerous waste products?

It is a bit odd therefore that this Lynas rare earth plant was even considered in the first place. The waste product of any rare earth manufacturing is radioactive. It causes ill health and untold misery. It’s happened before in Perak and now it looks set to happen again in Pahang.

The Asian Rare Earth company in Bukit Merah was Japanese, the one in Lynas in Australian. I wonder why they didn’t just have the plant in the wide open spaces of Australia. Is it because it is cheaper to have it here, or perhaps because the Aussies have more stringent laws with regard to radioactive wastes and therefore it makes more sense to come to a country where such laws do not reach such high standards.

Whatever the reason, it sure looks like a version of dumping to me. Instead of creating the waste in their own home country and then dumping it here, they just build the plant right here along with their waste products. I do not blame the people of Gebeng to be very concerned because this is their health and the future of their children at stake here. Their opposition to the plant is totally understandable. Naturally the government and the proponents of the plant will say that it is all safe and fine and dandy.

Speaking of the proponents of this plant a bunch of them disrupted a peaceful protest against the plant recently in Kuantan. The anti anti-plant group was reported to number in the scores and they not only yelled and screamed but also apparently resorted to a spot of physicality. They didn’t like the anti plant people because it seems that they were scaring away tourists.

Isn’t it nice to have such tourism minded people in Kuantan. I didn’t even know that there were tourists in Kuantan. Furthermore one of them was said to have stated that “this is Malay land”. This got me confused, is it alright to have Malay land irradiated? Does the glow of radiation enhance the Malay-ness of the place? Very odd indeed.

There was a review expert panel set up and they have been having meetings with various concerned groups. They seem to be saying that the plant is safe. However, opponents of the plant say that the data obtained in coming to this conclusion came from the plant proponent themselves and therefore is unreliable. An independent third party should be called in to make the necessary investigations and data gathering.

This is a reasonable request, and one which actually mirrors the decision of the High Court in the ARE case in Perak. The judge in that case held that analysis of the data coming from the ARE plant sources could be questioned as the neutrality of said data would doubtlessly be, well, questionable.

I am certain that those who are opposed to this plant will continue in their struggle and I hope that there will be a full and open disclosure of all the facts so that an informed decision will be made. It still seem strange to me however that a government which has put its name to an international law which condemns hazardous wastes would even consider such a plant on its shores.

Check, some news just isn’t right

2011-05-19T20:52:00.000-07:00

Brave New World (The Star Online)
19 May 2011

The irresponsible, unfounded and silly abound on the Net. It is up to responsible news organisations to verify the truth of the matter before picking up the story.

________________________

HEY! Guess what? The other day I was wandering around Brickfields in Kuala Lumpur and I saw a group of Hindus discussing something in their temple compound.
You know what? I think they want to make Malaysia a Hindu state!
They are somehow going to get two-thirds of both the Dewan Rakyat and the Dewan Negara along with the Council of Rulers to change the Constitution and make us a Hindu state.
No, don’t laugh. I recognised a politician in there among them, so it must be true.
How can you tell this story is true? Well, you are reading it in a newspaper aren’t you? And to make sure this story is truly credible, I’m going to make the same assertions on my blog.
Does this sound stupid to you? It does? Well, that is because it is.
Now in the world we live in today, anyone with a computer can say any old thing, no matter how obtuse, and then get it out for the whole planet to see.
For example, the “scoop” that a bunch of priests and politicians are going to turn this country into some sort of Christian state.
It’s a wild accusation – irresponsible, unfounded and silly.
However, on the information super highway, you get a lot of silliness and this is to be expected.
In my view, this freedom to be as dumb as you can be is a price worth paying for the freedom of expression the Net gives us.
However, I find it is surprising that this “scoop” would be carried by a newspaper. Aren’t newspapers supposed to work within this strange thing called “journalistic principles”?
Shouldn’t a newspaper check out a story first by doing a spot of investigating? I don’t know, perhaps by calling the organisers of this “insidious” meeting of Christians and asking them.
The conversation could sound something like this: “Hello Padre, are you going to convince Parliament and the Council of Rulers to make this a Christian state? You aren’t? Are you sure, because a blogger said you are.
“What’s his name? I don’t know because he uses a pseudonym. Perhaps there is some other way you want to do it, maybe by force?
“What did you say? Oh, yes, Christians make up only 7% of the population and there is no Christian Army to call upon.
“I see, so it’s just a silly accusation then? Right, well, thanks for your time Padre.”
There you go, simple. No need to do a Woodward and Bernstein with midnight visits to underground car parks to meet informers named “Deep Throat”.
A simple phone call is all it takes.
Speaking of simple, it came as no surprise at all to me to hear Ibrahim Ali jumping on this story and then proceeding to rave and rant.
He promises to lead a crusade against Christians, and that he and his jolly Perkasa pals will be the first to lay down their lives.
What a brave man he is because I would have thought that such language would definitely bring the law down on your head.
I mean what if some Buddhist said he wanted to wage war on Muslims, he would have been locked away under the ISA or the Sedition Act before he can say “bad karma”.
But then it doesn’t take much bravery to say such things where Ibrahim Ali is concerned. Especially if the de facto Law Minister has given you the freedom to make such comments.
He said we have to live with such comments and he won’t use the Sedition Act.
This is because people say such things on the Net anyway and to single out Ibrahim Ali would not be right.
Hey, that’s good to know. So if lots of people say the same thing on the Net, then the Government won’t take action against any single person? This is a fascinating new policy.
Does this mean that if, say, a thousand of us put on our blogs, tweets and Facebook that we want an armed rebellion, no action will be taken?

Terror threat remains

2011-05-04T20:48:00.000-07:00

Brave New World (The Star)
5 May 2011

Osama bin Laden’s death does not mean that the problem he symbolised has gone, not until the causes of terrorism are dealt with properly.

________________________

THE killing of Osama bin Laden has been dominating the news. This is to be expected, of course. After all, he is the embodiment of all evil where America is concerned. And what is important to America must naturally be important to the world.
Despite my sarcastic tone, let’s be clear. I think the world is a better place without Osama, mass murderer and hide-and-seek champion. He has claimed responsibility for the killing of thousands of civilians and in that he is monstrous.
I am of course aware that people like former US President George W. Bush and former British Premier Tony Blair are also responsible for the deaths of thousands with their, I submit, utterly unlawful war against Iraq. Be that as it may, Osama is still an international criminal and his demise will not see me shedding any tears.
It will be interesting to see what happens from this point. Already there are some choices made by the Americans which will raise heated debate.
The fact that Osama was so quickly buried at sea will mean that his body is now irretrievable. This will doubtless give fuel to the conspiracy theorists out there to claim that he is not really dead.
The politically cynical point out that this operation has come at a terribly convenient time for Barack Obama. The killing of Osama will boost his flagging popularity, just in time for the tough upcoming presidential election.
I for one believe that he was killed by the MI6. It is all a British plot designed to keep the world’s press preoccupied so that William and Kate will have a peaceful honeymoon.
Flippancy aside, the death of Osama does raise serious questions. There is a saying used by some who practise stick fighting: to destroy the enemy, you must de-fang the snake.
This means that if we destroy the opponent’s weapon, in this case his stick hand, then we have achieved a step to victory.
This principle, although generally sound, does have its problems. For destroying a person’s main weapon does not mean the problem is solved.
Just because a person loses his stick hand does not mean he has lost his other hand, legs, head and elbows. A key factor may have been removed, but the problem could still remain.
We can see this on the world stage in Egypt, for example. Although former President Hosni Mubarak is now gone, corruption is still rife in Egypt — and so is the economic chaos that the people were so angry about.
In other words, the “fang” is gone but the rest of the body is still there. In Egypt, it was not simply Mubarak that was the problem but an entire system rotted to the core after decades of corruption, nepotism and oppression.
With Osama now dead, it does not mean that the problem he symbolised has gone. The world must still deal with terrorism and, more importantly, the causes of terrorism.
There will always be mad men in the world, those who think that violence is the method to achieve their objectives. But for these kind of people to get large numbers of followers and supporters cannot be simply explained away by saying that all of them are bad.
Terrorism is not some sort of mental problem, it is the result of political, economic and social factors.
In countries where the political process is exclusive and people are not allowed to take part in governance, either because the system followed is a dictatorship or a sham democracy, they are more likely to turn to unlawful methods to get their point across.
When there is widespread poverty and desperation, it is easier to get recruits into a cause which promises salvation, even though the promise comes with a price of mindless violence.
When people are faced with gross social injustice, men like Osama with the message that they will fight that injustice (as deceitful as he may be) will draw plenty of eager followers.
Osama is dead, and although this is definitely a blow to Al-Qaeda and other organisations of their ilk, it does not mean that all is well.
Unless the approach taken goes beyond cowboy gunship diplomacy and idiotic jingoistic flag waving, and while the causes of terrorism are not dealt with properly, all that has been achieved is the destruction of a fang. The threat is still there.

Show us the real dirty stuff

2011-04-14T01:14:00.000-07:00

Brave New World (The Star)
14 April 2011

Videos on those in power with enough money to make Midas go green with envy make for more pertinent viewing than nasty clips of consenting adults.

_______________________________

SO, the infamous video has been making the rounds. I received a message on my mobile phone a few nights ago telling me which website to go to if I wished to take a gander.
I did not.
Neither did I do so when a link was conveniently placed on an Internet news portal.
The reason: My lack of curiosity in such matters is manifold.
First, it’s none of my business what consenting adults do to one another.
Second, come on, these are old people getting busy here; it is not what I would call scintillating viewing.
Rather gross actually, in a wobbly wrinkly way.
Finally, the reason these things float around is because they are supposed to make some sort of statement about our leaders and potential leaders, and frankly I don’t care about this kind of moralistic thinking.
I’ll tell you what videos I would like to watch.
I would like to see videos about leaders and their obscene wealth.
I want to see investigative work done on those in power with enough money to make Midas green with envy.
I want to know how they got it and whether there was any abuse of power in the process of them getting it.
In fact, I’d like to see what their family members’ wealth is like, too.
For me, that would be a far more pertinent issue with which to clamber upon one’s moral high horse for.
I would also like to see a video about strange decisions made, like the one proposing to build a rare earth plant in Lynas, Pahang.
It seems odd to me that, after the tragedy of Bukit Merah in Perak some 30 years ago, such a plant would find a welcome home on Malaysian soil.
In case you don’t know what rare earth is, it is a radioactive substance used in the electronics industry.
Its waste product releases low-level radiation, which can cause a host of potentially lethal ailments.
In Bukit Merah, the residents, upon discovering the dangers of the factory (called Asian Rare Earth) in their midst, fought back, taking the case all the way to the highest court in the land.
They won in the High Court on the grounds of nuisance and the factory was ordered to shut down.
This decision was reversed by the Supreme Court.
Fortunately, due to public pressure in Japan on Asian Rare Earth’s parent company, Mitsubishi, the place was finally shut down.
Many of the residents of Bukit Merah suffered major illnesses at a rate far higher than the national average.
Are we going to see that happen to the people of Lynas?
Perhaps someone should make a video of this issue.
This one I guarantee I’ll watch.

Focus on the big issues

2011-03-24T01:36:00.000-07:00

Brave New World (The Star)
24 March 2011

The civil unrest in the Arab world and fears of radiation poisoning in Japan hold many lessons that Malaysia can do well to take note of.

______________________________

LIBYA is being bombed; Japan is in the grips of a natural disaster as well as fears of radiation poisoning; another long-standing regime looks poised to topple in Yemen; and in Malaysia we are talking about sex videos.
As the world suffers convulsions from earthquakes and military action, we sit under our little coconut shells salivating over the latest sex scandal.
When will we grow up?
There are far more important things to worry about.
If there is anything to be learnt from the madness that is going on around the world, it is that there are some big issues to be dealt with.
If they are not, then disaster can strike.
The tragedy in Japan should make us think about two things.
The first is that nature is unpredictable and we must prepare for such unpredictability.
This is especially true in the light of recent climatic changes in the world.
Sure, it is unlikely that we will suffer a magnitude-9 earthquake; and the tsunami of 2004 is unlikely to happen again.
However, due to changes in weather patterns, we must prepare for effects like greater intensity of rainfall and rising sea levels.
We must ensure that precautions are taken to protect ourselves from these phenomena.
Another thing to ponder from the happenings in Japan is the feasibility of using nuclear power in our country.
I am worried about the safety issues surrounding a nuclear plant.
However, if the powers that be are so convinced, then let’s build our first nuclear plant in Putrajaya.
I am being facetious of course, but surely we should be looking more closely at energy-saving methods and alternative energy production.
Perhaps not on a large scale but on a smaller scale such as solar panels for individual homes.
Over in the Middle East, if Libya and Yemen are to teach us anything, it is that corruption and abuse of power will eventually lead to internal strife and turmoil.
And as hypocritical as the military action on Libya may be (for goodness sake, some of the weapons used by Muammar Gaddafi were the result of Tony Blair’s wheeling and dealing), it is a stark reminder that if things get out of hand, there will always lurk the possibility of superpower intervention.
These are big issues to think about, and they are just a few examples.
There are so many things that should cause us concern – the state of our economy, the integrity of our institutions, the plight of our indigenous peoples and our education system.
The list goes on.
These are the issues that must be debated now. Instead, I foresee yet another tawdry round of innuendoes and crass “banter” about some bedroom antics.
It would be a shame indeed that as we giggle and snicker, our country continues to roll on to an uncertain future.
All because we refuse to learn from the world around us.

Suppressing dissent at a cost

2011-03-10T18:54:00.000-08:00

Brave New World (The Star)
10 March 2011

We are squabbling over the ridiculous while the really big issues that will affect us all go undebated. One day we are going to look up and realise these issues have overtaken us.

________________________________

TWO weeks ago 10 students in UPM, who had won seats on the Student Representative Council, were told that they were disqualified by the university management.
This led to an angry reaction from their supporters and scenes of chaos on campus ... well, by Malaysian standards they were chaotic. Eventually the 10 were reinstated.
Last week seven students from Kuala Kubu Baru wanted to return their copies of Interlok to the school because they did not want to read it.
This resulted in them being brought to the police station and collectively interrogated for 10 hours.
These two incidents are separated temporally and spatially but there is a common link between them.
Before I go into that however, I just want to say how shocking I find the Kuala Kubu Baru incident.
It is beyond belief that seven boys, could be questioned by the police in a police station for something like this.
No doubt there is some political controversy about this book, and obviously the boys were making a political statement of some sort.
It would be naive to think otherwise.
However, they were not breaking any law and they were not in any way acting in a manner which would justify this heavy-handed action by the school and the police.
At the very most this was an internal school matter which should have been dealt with by the school authorities and no more.
Ideally of course, knowing the combustible nature of this book, it should have been dealt with in a firm, but sensitive, manner.
Be that as it may, this is what happened in the last two weeks and the common thread is paranoia.
The students of UPM and the boys in KKB were standing up for what they believed in, and it just so happens that what they believe in contrasted with what the powers-that-be want.
The UPM candidates who were disqualified were all “Pro-Mahasis-wa” candidates, not the establishment friendly “Pengerak”.
The KKB boys were in their own way protesting against a book that has been given the stamp of approval by the Education Ministry.
They were in short, dissenting. And dissent cannot be tolerated, especially if expressed by the young.
This is clear by the over the top reaction by the authority figures in these two situations.
So keen were they in protecting the status quo that they would behave in a manner that defies logic and reason.
Is this the level of feudalistic loyalty that we have in this country?
I am afraid that it is.
This kind of medieval thinking and attitude does not only lead to acts of injustice but also bodes ill for our future.
This year is more than likely going to be an election year. Buoyed by its recent by-election victories, the ruling coalition is bound to want to go all the way to win back their precious two-thirds majority.
In a mature democracy winning a strong majority and being able to form a government would be more than enough.
Not here. It is complete domination or nothing at all.
Be that as it may, there will probably be an election this year.
If this is the case, I want to hear what the politicians who want our votes have to say about the floundering economy.
I want to know why there is so much currency leakage.
I want to know how much longer can we depend on our petroleum resources.
And, more importantly, I want to know what are all the candidates going to do about it.
However, considering the stage of our national mental development – that the winning of seats on a powerless student council and the returning of textbooks can lead to such an over reaction, I doubt we are going to get that level of debate.
We are squabbling over the ridiculous in this nation.
We are squabbling while the really big issues that will affect us all go undebated.
One day we are going to look up and realise these issues have overtaken us, by which time it may well be too late.

Commission must be neutral

2011-02-25T01:09:00.000-08:00

Brave New World (The Star)
24 February 2011

To ensure that there is no conflict of interest, the conducting officers must be totally unbiased.

_______________

THE family of Teoh Beng Hock has decided that they do not want to take part in the Commission of Inquiry which was set up to investigate his death.
This act has been criticised by some quarters as being a political ploy designed to delay the proceedings. I beg to disagree.
The family has some very compelling reasons for doing what they did.
Their main complaint is that there is currently an appeal in the courts regarding the findings of the inquest.
To refresh your memory, the inquest that was formed to investigate the cause of Teoh’s death concluded with an open verdict.
The magistrate was unable to come to a conclusion whether Teoh was killed or whether he committed suicide.
The Attorney-General’s Chambers has decided to appeal to the High Court.
They believe that the cause of death was suicide and they want a declaration from the court to that effect.
The family want this High Court case to either be settled first or dropped by the A-G before the CI continues.
This is a reasonable request for what happens if the CI comes up with one decision and the High Court another?
They are also unhappy that the conducting officers are from the A-G’s Chambers.
The conducting officers are the people with the responsibility of conducting the inquiry.
They organise proceedings, for example by drawing the witness list.
It is odd indeed that the people who are conducting the proceedings of the CI are from the very same body (the A-G’s Chambers) who are calling for a finding of suicide.
It would appear therefore, that there is clearly a conflict of interest here. They are working for the CI, which is supposed to be independent and neutral, yet they are also from an organisation that has made up their mind as to the cause of death.
I am not for one moment questioning the integrity of the individuals who make up the CI.
However, the CI must be impeccable in its neutrality and, more importantly, it must appear to be impeccable.
The way it stands, this neutrality can be cast in doubt.
Furthermore, it must be remembered that the A-G’s Chambers was involved in the initial investigation.
For example, the Investigating Officer revealed the so-called suicide note so late in the inquest proceedings because he was waiting for the green light from the Deputy Public Prosecutor (who is part of the A-G’s Chambers).
The DPP and thus the A-G’s Chambers had a supervisory role in the original investigation, so how can their staff play such a prominent role in the CI.
In order to ensure that there is no conflict of interest, the conducting officers must be totally unbiased.
If it means getting them from an independent source, so be it.
There is after all precedence for this.
In the Commission formed to investigate former Deputy Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim’s black eye incident, an independent party was chosen to lead the conducting officers.
The CI has to distance itself from any possibility of impropriety.
This was not done and thus casts doubts on the whole procedure.
This is the reason why the family and later the state of Selangor decided to pull out.
It is unfortunate that there are accusations that the family had done what it did under external pressure.
They have been through the mill for the past two years or so.
They have stated time and time again that all they want is justice.
It is perfectly within their right to withdraw, and it is perfectly understandable.

Suppression taking its toll

2011-02-25T01:06:00.000-08:00

Brave New World (The Star)
10 February 2011

Ruling with an iron fist may work as long as a country is relatively prosperous, but if good governance, accountability and fairness are gone it will only be too easy for poor decision-making and corruption to come in.

__________________________

I WAS, to use that wonderfully Malaysian term, outstation, last week. The hotel I stayed in did not have any Malaysian channels on its telly, so all I had to watch was CNN, BBC and Al Jazeera.
For the entire week I was there, it seemed that the only news in the world were the protests in Egypt. Oh, and Fernando Torres joining Chelsea.
Watching the Tunisian-inspired protests on Tahrir square convinced me even more about the importance of democracy.
Egypt has been ruled by Hosni Mubarak for 30-odd years. In that time, political dissent had been quashed, elections rigged and democracy sidelined in favour of so-called stability.
This may work as long as a country is relatively prosperous.
However, in general, a lack of democratic principles will only lead to poor governance.
With the elements of good governance; transparency, accountability and fairness gone, it is only too easy for poor decision-making and corruption to take root.
Not exactly the right ingredients for prosperity.
Egypt has been mismanaged to the extent that 40% of its people live below the World Bank poverty line.
Food is expensive; Egypt has to import a large amount of its grains from abroad and is far from self-sufficient.
Amid this suffering, the people see a group of politicians entrenched as leaders and who are tremendously wealthy to boot.
Without the usual organs of a democratic state there is little chance for the citizenry to ensure changes of government and to see justice being done when there is corruption or incompetence or both.
This lack of empowerment will lead to frustration.
Such frustration can of course be suppressed by an iron fist; in the case of Egypt, the Mukhabarat or secret police. However, such suppression can only last so long.
We have seen it before in Indonesia, in the Philippines, and currently in Egypt and all over the Middle East.
When the pressure gets too much, people will revolt.
In this part of the world democracy is often portrayed as the opposite of order.
If people are free to speak their minds, if governments are tied to laws that limit their power, we are told that this would lead to chaos and a government too weak to take actions that it thinks are necessary for the good of the nation.
The term that used to describe this philosophy was “Asian Values”.
It is as though we Asians do not “value” our human rights and our civil liberties and the inherent dignity that comes with the power to freely choose who leads us.
It is all of course a great fallacy to think that we simple Asians want to be led by the nose by our glorious leaders.
Just as it is a fallacy to believe that without a true democratic system; a system that will keep government in check, dispense justice fairly and transparently, and empowering the people to have a voice in their own destiny; somehow peace and stability will be ensured.
Egypt, along with numerous other nations, has proven this to be not true.

B movie merits more attention

2011-02-25T01:04:00.000-08:00

Brave New World (The Star)
27 January 2011

With the infantile politics demonstrated in the Tenang by-election and elsewhere, watching a low-budget science fiction movie may be a more worthwhile pursuit.

_____________________________

ONE night, many, many, many years ago, while flicking through the TV channels, I came across a movie called Robot Monster. It was made in 1953 and was so funny it made me cry.
Robot Monster was one of those science fiction movies about alien invasions so favoured in the 50s.
Of course, nowadays scholars of movies – I’m sorry, I mean, scholars of film – will suck on their professorial pipe, stroke their academic goatees and tell us that these alien invasion flicks were really thinly veiled cautionary tales about the dangers of the Soviet Union and they were actually a reflection of American paranoia.
This may be, but who cares about symbolism and all that stuff when the movie is just so funny.
The one thing that stuck in my mind most of all was the cheapness of the whole thing. The “special effects” if you can call them that, were quite literally cardboard spaceships stuck to wires bobbing around.
The “plot”, which had something to do with indestructible aliens from the moon coming to kill us all, is suddenly inexplicably interspersed with dinosaurs (actually real lizards with extra bits stuck on their backs) coming back to life.
But the coup de grace for me was the costume of the Robot Monster himself. Obviously, the producers were working on a budget, so there was only one monster, not an army. This was so they had to get only one costume.
The costume in this case was a gorilla suit. However, a gorilla was not nearly alien enough. What kind of self-respecting science fiction monster looks like a common Earth gorilla?
So in order to give it that “alien vibe”, the makers of the movie used a deep-sea diver’s helmet as the head of Robot Monster. Voila, we now have a real sci-fi threat in our midst.
But wait! There was a problem. They only had enough money for one gorilla suit and one deep-sea diver’s helmet. For most of the movie, this was okay because there was just Robot Monster wandering the deserts of America (the only country aliens land, it would seem) molesting the heroine.
But in a couple of scenes, Robot Monster had to communicate via a television screen with his boss, Boss Robot Monster.
They used the same outfit for Boss Robot Monster, so they looked identical. How were they to differentiate between the normal Earth-invading Robot Monster and Boss Robot Monster, especially when there was no money?
The answer was ingenious. Some flunky must have looked around the studio’s storeroom and come back with a violin bow. So when you see the two identical Robot Monsters talking to each other, the one waving a violin bow with great authority and menace, well, is the Boss Robot Monster.
I am not sure whether you can find this movie at your usual pirated DVD stall, but if you YouTube “Robot Monster Trailer” you will get a pretty good idea of what I am talking about.
Now, you may wonder why I am writing about such frivolity. Frankly, I was about to write about the Tenang by-election, but the banality, childishness and sheer lack of substance in the politics of this nation had me feeling rather blue.
And although the reality of the infantile politics we are faced with will have to be dealt with, for the moment at least, I’d rather think of something ludicrous that made me cry tears of laughter as opposed to something ludicrous that makes me weep tears of frustration.

Social mores change with time

2011-01-15T06:10:00.000-08:00

Brave New World (The Star)
13 January 2011

Children’s literature has to be carefully examined as many books written decades ago are blatantly racist, something certainly not acceptable in this day and age.

__________________________

PAUL Theroux really annoys me. His most famous book is arguably The Great Railway Bazaar. It is undoubtedly well written and his style is gripping, but he sounds like an arrogant, whiny American throughout, which is very irritating.
What I find most grating is how he casually passes judgment on entire communities and societies from the few moments he observes them while sitting in his train carriage.
My home state Penang was reduced to little more than a bordello for foreign sailors. This conclusion was arrived at after looking out his train window during a short stop in Butterworth train station on route to Kuala Lumpur from Thailand.
What a plonker.
I won’t burn his books though. In fact, I won’t burn any book. No matter how offensive. Neither would I ban any book. No matter how offensive. Instead, to paraphrase John Stuart Mills, one kills off bad ideas by debunking them.
In this light, the recent furore over a secondary literature text has raised many disturbing questions. First off, the book burning episode is to be criticised as crude and an affront to the freedom of expression.
But if one were to criticise this deed, then one must also be willing to criticise other forms of assault on the written word, namely the act of book banning.
If one were to defend Interlok as a work of literature, then one must be equally willing to defend The Satanic Verses. Both are literary works and their value, or lack of, should be judged on those grounds, as literary works.
So, as offensive as I find the burning of this book, I find the lack of intellectual honesty as well as hypocrisy in the criticism by some quarters of the book burning, equally offensive.
Going back to the crux of the mater, the content of Interlok, there is clearly a need to examine the book to assess its suitability as a school text book. But this assessment must be made by level heads and their reasoning must be made open for public debate.
Times change and it is possible that what is deemed acceptable in the past is not so acceptable today. Children’s literature in particular has to be carefully examined. There are many books written decades ago which are blatantly racist, and surely such a viewpoint is not acceptable in this day and age.
Neither should the standing of the author be part of the decision making. A work should be judged purely on its merits.
George Bernard Shaw may have had some grotesque views on the “benefit” of the killing of “unproductive” members of society, but his Nobel winning works ought to be judged as they stand.
However, as I stated earlier, such an assessment has to be made in a reasonable, clear minded and transparent manner. Dramatic outbursts from either side of the debate serve no purpose except to reveal a childish streak in the debaters.
Besides, if we are talking about instilling good race relations among school children, the problem is far deeper than any literature text.
In a school system where children are told to give one greeting for Malay teachers and another greeting to those from other ethnic groups, it is obvious that the removal or the continued use of one piece of fiction is hardly going to make any real difference.

Balanced worldview via history

2010-12-30T20:00:00.000-08:00

Brave New World (The Star)
30 December 2010

Our secondary school history syllabus needs some serious thought and reworking as it is very imbalanced.

_________

I DID a funny thing on Christmas Day. I went to a bookstore and bought an SPM history book. The last time I read one of these things, Ronald Reagan was president and it was considered the height of fashion to wear carrot-cut trousers and white socks with your little black shoes; an ugly time indeed.
Anyway, the reason I bought this SPM history textbook was because there has been some controversy recently about the proposal to make history a compulsory subject in the SPM exams.
The main contention about this move by the Government is the actual content of the history taught. In the spirit of independent research, I bought the book to see if there is any cause for concern.
The thing about history is that it is not written in stone. Discoveries are made which shed new light on old ideas. For example, archaeological digs in Malaysia have shown that the peninsular has been inhabited for far longer than previously thought.
In Egypt, discoveries of entire towns surrounding the great pyramids suggest that they were built by a skilled workforce as opposed to an army of slaves (or technologically advanced Atlanteans if you read some of the more far out books).
Even existing facts can be reinterpreted in order to view established historical figures and events in a new way.
Recent works on Genghis Khan dismiss the simplistic (and racist) view that he was merely a blood-thirsty conqueror. Instead his empire established progressive ideas such as a common currency, protected trade routes and centres for education and culture.
However, the interpretation and reinterpretation of history has to be done very carefully.
There is always the danger that if a person has a specific agenda in mind, then his version of historical events can be very skewed and untruthful.
For example, for many years the great African civilisations like Nubia were not given any prominence because it conflicted with the European agenda to depict Africa as a backward place, thus justifying their exploitation of the continent and its peoples.
Therefore, any historian worth his salt must be as objective as possible and back his assertions with solid evidence; assertions which can change with future discoveries.
With this in mind, I dipped into my brand new book. And I must admit that the SPM syllabus leaves much to be desired.
The most glaring oddity is found in the Fourth Form section of the book. There are 10 chapters in the Fourth Form syllabus and five of them are about Islamic civilisation.
I do not understand why there has to be so much emphasis on Islamic civilisation.
Great swathes of important history such as the ancient Greeks, the Roman Empire, the Chinese Kingdom, the Indian empires (north and south), the Renaissance and the South-East Asian kingdoms are dealt with almost perfunctorily.
What is even more troubling is that the “history” of Islamic civilisation has elements of theology in it.
This overly heavy emphasis on one aspect of human history is not healthy as it provides our young people with a very imbalanced worldview.
And it is most ironic that it is Islamic civilisation that is given so much space in the history syllabus because one of the greatest strengths of the so-called golden age of Islamic history was the hunger that Muslim thinkers then had to seek knowledge from around the world.
They were not insular and narrow in their thinking and if one were to truly honour Islamic civilisation, then it is this attitude that should be embraced, not the rather strange idea that one civilisation deserves so much more attention than all others.
Looking at the Fifth Form part of the book, there is also some cause for concern.
In studying the development of the nation state that is Malaysia, there is a need for our young people to understand that there were many players involved.
The Malayan Union, for example, was not opposed by the Malays only. The multi-racial AMCJA-PUTERA (which was given approximately three dismissive lines in the book I bought), opposed the Malayan Union too.
They organised massive rallies and a general strike which Malayans from all walks of life and ethnic communities participated in. And they were the first to actually demand independence.
So yes, I do believe that our secondary history syllabus needs some serious thought and reworking. As it is, it is very imbalanced.
If taught correctly, history can be fun and also invaluable in shaping a sense of common identity.
However, if taught wrongly it is deadly dull and if content-wise it is wrong, it can be divisive and breed dangerous ideology.
With the New Year upon us, let us not forget that to move forward we must understand the past.
Let that understanding be a fair one in order for our progress to be fair too.

The beauty of democracy

2010-12-30T19:58:00.000-08:00

Brave New World (The Star)
16 December 2010

Governing well is a boring thing because it is scandals and exposes of corruption that sell the newspapers. Still, it is important that the people choose those who govern well.
__________________

SOMETIMES, we can miss the forest for the trees. In Malaysian politics, there are so many rotten trees that we sometimes forget there’s even a forest in the first place.
The forest I am talking about here is that when we elect a government, we are primarily concerned that they should jolly well govern.
However, everyday government business is actually a very boring thing, so it is unlikely that the newspapers will cover it.
Why should they when scandals sell so many more copies. This is true with the online media as well.
So there is a tendency to emphasise more on the juicy stories.
In the meantime, boring stories about governing either do not get told or are lost amid the more titillating tales.
I admit I too am guilty of running with the most exciting issue of the day but sometimes we need to just look at the boring stuff to remind ourselves that a country is not run by rhetoric alone but the drudgery of simply organising things day after day.
We have to look at this because it is important for Malaysians to not just look at the “big” stories, we must also examine the minutiae of a government’s record of doing its day-to-day job.
If we take a look at Selangor for example, the state government made some good decisions since it has been in power.
Local councillors in my area have been chosen from a wider array of people than before, many of whom are recognised and respected in our local community.
There are councillors who established their reputations by being representatives of the interest of the disabled, local residents and human rights.
It is reassuring that local council posts are not being treated merely as a reward for the faithful and if the Selangor government can overcome the legal minefield that lie before it, we should see proper local government elections.
The Freedom of Information Bill, if it is passed by the state legislature will ensure much better access to information that citizens deserve.
Sure, it is not perfect, but it does put into place a mechanism where in a clear and organised manner, we can demand information which, by and large, should not be denied to us.
And I am certain that if it comes into force, we can demand information about the open tenders being conducted by the state government and it won’t have anything to hide.
Despite the whinging in some quarters, I like the fact that on Saturday I will not get plastic bags in my local store.
It forces me to carry my little canvas bag when I go shopping.
And although I have yet to see a canvas shopping bag that has even the slightest hint of masculinity, I am quite happy to do my little bit by using them even if it means swinging a girly bag when I buy my onions and coffee.
The Penang state government also has much to be proud of.
For example, my home state finds itself in the black from better financial management after tottering on the brink of being broke.
The fact that the mainstream press so gleefully print stories of protests by disgruntled citizens in both these states is also a reason to be happy for it shows their respect for the freedom of assembly.
The Pakatan has had many hiccups in the political arena, the latest being of course the sheer debacle of Parti Keadilan Rakyat’s party elections.
I have said it before, and I will say it again that my main concern for Malaysian politics is that we achieve a proper two-party system, where we have a real choice to vote one party in and if we don’t like the party, to vote it out again.
It is imperative therefore to look at the ability of the parties to govern and if they do a poor job, we can just kick them out again and put whichever party we like in.
That’s the beauty of democracy.

Sore need for plurality in law

2010-11-17T17:34:00.000-08:00

Brave New World (The Star)
18 November 2010

Over the years, our courts as a whole have been steadily abdicating their duty to protect the citizens’ rights as stated in the Federal Constitution.

____________________________

YOU may remember the Shamala case; the story of a Hindu man converting to Islam and then without the consent of his Hindu wife converting their two small children as well. The latest development in this saga is the Federal Court decision on the 12th of this month.
The roots of this case lie in the judgment of the High Court in 2004; the judge held that it was all right for one parent to convert their child without consent from the other.
His reasoning was based on Article 12 (4) of the Federal Constitution which states: “The religion of a person under the age of 18 years shall be decided by his parent or guardian”.
He noted that the article says “parent”, not “parents”. This is an overly simplistic literal interpretation of the article, for if taken to its logical conclusion what it can lead to is a child being converted by one parent one day and then converted again by the other parent the next day.
Surely this ridiculous situation was not what the article intended and surely it can be implied that the word “parent” means both parents.
He then proceeded to give custody to the mother but on the condition that she will not expose the children to her Hindu faith. Again, this is another strange ruling. It places an unreasonable condition on the mother.
After this decision, the mother left the country with her two children.
Meanwhile, her lawyers appealed to the Court of Appeal asking the court to decide, among other things, on the constitutionality of one parent being able to unilaterally convert their children.
The Court of Appeal agreed to allow the case to go straight to Federal Court, the highest court in the land, to decide the matter on the grounds that it will save time and effort as whatever its decision, one of the parties will appeal to the Federal Court anyway.
The Federal Court decided not to make a judgment on the constitutional issues as the mother and the children were now out of the country and therefore whatever it decides will come to naught as she is not within its jurisdiction.
The Federal Court judges made clear their displeasure that this woman had left the country in contempt of the court and was now seeking a decision from the very same court; something they were not going to do.
With all due respect to the court, I am of the opinion that this entire situation is the result of our courts as a whole steadily over the years abdicating their duty to protect the citizens’ rights as stated in the Federal Constitution.
And now using a technicality, albeit a legally sound one, they are once again side-stepping an important constitutional question.
Time and time again, we have seen our courts hide from their responsibility to uphold the Constitution whenever cases involving Islam appear.
They either do it by stating that such matters belong in the jurisdiction of the Syariah court, even though the Syariah court has no jurisdiction to answer questions regarding the Constitution, or they come out with a ruling like the High Court decision in this particular case.
The courts have lost track of the fact that this is a secular country and that its citizens have rights as stated in our secular constitution. They have bent over backwards, for reasons unknown, to allow Islamic matters to be above and beyond the limits placed within the Constitution.
In this way, they have ignored the fact that this country, being a multi-religious and secular one, needs a high degree of plurality in order to avoid injustice.

Perfectly legal, but not necessarily good

2010-11-16T05:43:00.000-08:00

Brave New World (The Star)
4 November 2010

Laws must be good and have an ethical foundation, for without such a foundation we can so easily slide into barbarism cloaked behind a thin veneer of legality.

_____________________________

A NATION ruled by law not men — a concept that demands our behaviour be determined by a set of principles and not by our own desires. As an ideal, it is a leveller, a protector, for at its core is the idea that power should not be abused.
Power takes many forms, some simple and base, whereas others are more complex. At its most simplistic level, a healthy 200lb, 6ft tall 20-year-old man is far more powerful than a frail 70-year-old pensioner.
This does not, however, give him the right to knock the old man down and rob him. There are laws against assault and theft.
But power is not merely about physical strength, it is also about authority. In a modern state, we give a lot of that authority to governments and government agencies. This is a necessity for governance in large complex societies.
What this means is that some ordinary men and women find themselves with tremendous power over their fellow citizens.
I can’t walk the streets with a pistol in my pocket, but every day I see men with guns. Usually they are directing traffic.
What is there to stop these armed men from pulling out their weapon and shooting someone? Absolutely nothing, except perhaps, their own conscience.
However, one can’t be overdependent on an individual’s moral compass, and so we have laws. And everyone is subject to these laws, even those — no, especially those — who have been given powers greater than the average citizen.
It ought to be remembered though that these laws must also be good laws. They must have an ethical foundation for, without such foundations, you have barbarism cloaked behind a thin veneer of legality.
Let us not forget, for example, that the atrocities of the Second World War committed by the Nazis on Jews and other people considered below their Aryan perfection, were perfectly legal according to the laws of Hitler’s Germany.
These were the thoughts that played on my mind upon reading the news of the last few days. The arrest and alleged beating of Selvach Santhiran on Oct 25, the very day that he testified against the police in the R. Gunasegaran death-in-custody case is very worrying indeed.
The police have arrested him under the country’s drug laws, but the close proximity between his testifying against them and his arrest is suspicious to say the least.
Furthermore, if his family’s allegations are true, why was there a need to beat the man in front of his children after he had been arrested and was no longer a physical threat?
The court had reached an open verdict on Gunasegaran’s case, meaning the judge was unable to conclude the reason for his death, despite the fact that three witnesses testified that he was beaten.
This judgment itself has been criticised, but it is what it is. S. Selvach had testified in a court of law, and the judge had made a decision. He had done nothing wrong and in fact had fulfilled a civic duty.
If his arrest had anything to do with his testimony, there is reason to be concerned. Concern for the apparent example of “rule by man”, and concern for the safety of the other two witnesses, Ravi Subramaniam and Suresh Subbaiah, who are also in police custody.
Another news item that caught my eye was the arrest of Teoh Lee Lan. She is the sister of the late Teoh Beng Hock and she was arrested along with some of her friends for distributing leaflets at Galas amid the by-election campaign.
She and her group, “Malaysians for Beng Hock,” have been campaigning hard to raise awareness about the case and to press that the truth be uncovered regarding Beng Hock’s tragic death two years ago while in the custody of the MACC.
Her arrest was made on the grounds that she broke election laws and was “campaigning” in a manner that was promoting feelings of ill-will. Whether these reasons are justifiable is extremely debatable as she was not representing any political party.
But what we see here is the use of a law to prevent a person from expressing her legitimate concerns.
If a law is used to favour one group over another, if it is not enforced in a neutral manner, then it is just as bad as having a poor law or no law at all and it will be yet another example of a nation ruled by men and not laws.
These examples are important to us as a nation because they show a disregard of the principle that I stated at the beginning of this column.
And this is a principle that has to be adhered to for it is a civilising ideal without which we can so easily slide into barbarism, and surely that is not something one would wish for one’s own country.

Turning rhetoric into reality

2010-11-16T05:36:00.000-08:00

Brave New World (The Star)
21 October 2010

'I am talking about we citizens using the Asean Charter as one of our tools in the fight for human rights, rule of law and democracy.'

_____________________________

YOU may have heard of the Asean Charter, it is a treaty signed by all the members of Asean and it formally confirms that Asean is an international entity.
This means that Asean as an organisation now has legal “personality” on the international stage.
It can make treaties with nations and other international bodies.
It has international rights and obligations and it is bound by international laws and principles.
All this time, Asean has never been officially an international entity in its own right. It was a loose coalition of various countries with no legal personality of its own.
You can imagine it like an informal club. A group of buddies get together and form a club.
They have rules and they do things according to those rules. However, the club was never registered with the Registrar of Societies, so the club itself did not have any legal personality.
Thus, if a member of the club does something wrong to you, you can sue the member but you can’t sue the club because legally, the club does not exist as an entity which has rights and obligations.
This was what Asean was before the Charter was signed. Alright, this may be really exciting to students of international law, but I guess that if you are not, and if you are still reading at this point, you are probably thinking of turning the page to see how Spider-man and Iron Man are faring in their fight with the Puppet Master.
Before you do, let me explain that the Charter may well have a profound impact on our lives.
The Charter has a set of principles and Asean and its members are obliged to act in accordance with those principles.
Two of those principles are:
> Adherence to the rule of law, good governance, the principles of democracy and constitutional governance;
> Respect for fundamental freedom, the promotion and protection of human rights, and the promotion of social justice.
This means that our Government has agreed to live according to these principles.
Now, those with any knowledge of Asean would probably dismiss this document with a contemptuous wave of the hand, saying “Asean is weak and toothless and nothing will be done”.
There is plenty of justification in that cynicism for amongst the principles of the charter is also an emphatic confirmation that there will be no interference in the internal affairs of Asean members.
This is the famous “Asean way” in which they try hard not to step on each other’s toes, no matter how appalling the behaviour of their members.
But I am not thinking of Asean taking the initiative to make sure that the Malaysian government lives up to its principles.
I am talking about we citizens using this document as one of our tools in the fight for human rights, rule of law and democracy.
It is not interfering if we are campaigning within our countries. And campaign we must.
We must remind our government, no matter who they may be, that an international agreement has been signed, an international law has been agreed to, and it says that this government will abide to the principles of human rights, rule of law and democracy.
You can’t agree to such things and then pretend it does not exist.
Well, they may want to, but we can remind them that it does exist and we will push them to live up to those promises for they affect us the citizens.
Last week, there was an International Conference on Human Rights in South-east Asia, held by the South East Asian Human Rights Scholars Network (SEAHRN) in Bangkok. Dr Surin Pitsuwan, the Secretary General of Asean gave the opening keynote address and in it he said, “Those who toy with the rhetoric of human rights and democracy will have to live up to the standards of human rights and democracy in the end”.
Well, our government has been talking about it, let’s make sure that they don’t forget it and press them into turning the talk into something real.

Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde in PKR

2010-10-07T23:19:00.000-07:00

Brave New World (The Star)
7 October 2010

The ongoing party elections and a recent book launch show the different, sometimes opposing, faces of Parti Keadilan Rakyat.

______________________________________

THE last two weeks has seen Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR) acting in a way that is akin to Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde. On the one hand its party elections have so far been conducted in a manner that does not reflect well on it. On the other hand, an event last week showed the vast potential of PKR.
Let’s discuss the party elections first. As far as I know, this is the first time that a Malaysian political party is having direct elections for party posts. That is to say, one member one vote as opposed to party divisions having the vote.
This method is of course far more democratic and should be applauded. It is quite obvious to the outsider, however, that the actual organisation of such a large endeavour was not done with any efficiency by PKR.
It is not easy to run an election with an electorate that goes into the hundreds of thousands, and logistically it does appear that PKR has not done well.
This has led to unseemly fights and arguments, which perhaps could have been avoided if the election process was properly run with mechanisms in place that ensured transparency and accountability.
Admittedly, being the first time that this method is used on such a scale, mistakes will be made and lessons must be learned for future elections. We must also remember that the reports we have been receiving have been lacking in context.
Sure it makes great copy to write about furious rows and breaking ballot boxes, but we are not told how many divisions conducted the elections peacefully and in a civilised fashion. It is possible therefore that trouble only occurred in a minority of cases and proportionally takes nothing away from this experiment.
Be that as it may, PKR cannot deny that this poor running of its party elections does not paint a complimentary picture of it, and needless to say its political enemies have gone to town making the most of the chaos.
I don’t really want to talk about the nature of the competitions themselves, except to say that they have been disappointing indeed.
The kind of character assassinations that has been going on does suggest that PKR is playing old politics and that its top people are not mature enough to not stoop to such crude tactics.
And this is where the Jekyll and Hyde analogy comes in. While all this was going on, very few people noticed the book launch of The Road to Reform: Pakatan Rakyat in Selangor.
This is a book commissioned by the Selangor government and it consists of over 20 chapters by various intellectuals giving their perspectives on how the state government has performed since the 2008 elections.
These writers are all independent-minded and the chapters are by no means a public relations job. They are intelligent and well-thought out. Most importantly, they were critical where they needed to be.
On top of this, the book launch on Sept 27 included a forum where the panelists were very outspoken and (in my view sometimes unfairly) witheringly censorious.
What this shows is that PKR (and they are the main component Pakatan party in Selangor) is willing to face uncomfortable intellectual discourse when examining its own work.
This is amazingly progressive as I am certain no other political party in this country will have the guts to commission a project that gives writers a free hand to be brutally honest about its performance.
This is a level of progressiveness and intellectual honesty that simply does not exist in Malaysian politics; reading the book and attending the forum was like being in another dimension.
The question here, therefore is, which personality is dominant in PKR? The squabbling, crude and crass PKR of the party elections, or the forward thinking, courageous and intellectually honest PKR of the book and book launch?
This is a question that the PKR has to ask itself, but I can tell them which one the voters who gave them their unprecedented success in 2008 want.

BFM interview 14 September 2010

2010-09-15T06:32:00.000-07:00

http://www.bfm.my/current-affairs-140910-azmi-sharom.html

Forum: What it means to be Malaysian

2010-09-15T06:31:00.000-07:00

http://www.malaysiakini.tv/video/20035/forum-what-it-means-to-be-malaysian.html

Debates to tickle the heart

2010-09-11T23:00:00.000-07:00

Brave New World (The Star)
9 September 2010

If only new NGO 1Malaysia Youth Graduands and Perkasa's Ibrahim Ali will come forward to defend their assertions that the Constitution has been slighted.

_____________________________

AS I am writing this, my mind is not really on the happenings in this country of ours.
It is instead on lemang.
Which is very strange because I never grew up with lemang on my mind.
Coming from the north, the stodge of choice for Raya feasting was always ketupat.
And by ketupat, I mean the triangular ones made with beras pulut which is sometimes enhanced with soft boiled peanuts amidst the sticky goodness.
For years, I have defended the superiority of the feminine ketupat over the phallic lemang.
But that was just my stubborn northern pride talking because at the end of the day, lemang or ketupat, it is a small matter and to discuss the merits of one over the other is really making a mountain out of a molehill.
Which is rather like political party elections really.
It’s quite funny to see Azmin Ali and Zaid Ibrahim battle it out for the number two spot in PKR.
I never really understood the venom that goes into political party elections. I mean, you are all on the same team, right?
So, whoever wins, as long as it is the better person, then the whole team wins.
This being the case, there is no need for any viciousness, just a simple statement of intent and policy should be enough.
Then let the members choose. Simple.
Especially with the wonderful one-member one-vote system that PKR has implemented.
Each member has a voice, and that is empowering.
I am sure they can make up their minds on who is best for the job without the need for big-shot party members making declarations of support even before nominations are in.
All these press conferences and declarations of loyalty look awfully 1984 (the book, not the year) to me.
Besides there is something tawdry and terribly sycophantic about making such premature public declarations of support.
Kind of like the kid in school who will go out of his way to please teacher.
No one likes a teacher’s pet.
Speaking of teacher’s pets, I really like the name 1Malaysia Youth Graduands.
It truly sounds like a name a group of teacher’s pets would come up with.
Anyway, 1Malaysia Youth Graduands is the new NGO that made a police report against the Bar Council recently.
This is because, according to them, some of the booklets in the Bar Council’s My Constitution campaign are seditious.
Namely, the booklet that says that elected MPs can change the Constitution.
It’s all so pathetic, really.
All it takes is for a person to actually read the Constitution to see that it can be changed, and the main agent for change is the Legislature.
For some provisions, it requires a majority vote in the lower and upper houses of Parliament.
For others it needs a two-thirds majority in both Houses and the approval of the Council of Rulers.
In fact, the Constitution has been changed many times. On average about once a year ever since independence.
So I am not quite sure just what got 1Malaysia Youth Graduands’ (oh, I just love that name) drawers in a twist.
It would be nice to see them debate with the Bar Council about just how elected parliamentarians voting to change the Constitution is seditious since the Constitution actually allows for it.
Another constitutional debate I would really like to see would be between MPs Nurul Izzah Anuar and Ibrahim Ali regarding the interpretation of Article 153.
I know it is unlikely because Ibrahim Ali probably does not like to be beaten by one so young, and a woman at that.
Which is a shame because such a debate will be truly meaningful politically.
It will draw an intellectual line between PKR and Perkasa (and whichever other group that thinks like them), and this will inject much needed ideological balance to the political landscape of this country.
Such an event would mean so much more than yet another press conference over the PKR party elections.
It would even mean so much more than a debate over which is tastier, lemang or ketupat.
Have a safe and happy Id.

Stand up and be counted, Malaysia

2010-08-26T01:57:00.000-07:00

Brave New World (The Star)
26 August 2010

It is strange that in the 21st century, we are still having to face the problem of institutionalised racism.

______________________________

OVER the past week or so, there have been some developments in our country which are more disturbing than usual.
In particular, the two cases of alleged racist remarks by school heads; the accusations that Penang mosques have replaced the Yang di-Pertuan Agong with the Chief Minister’s name in their prayers; and the continued insistence that Article 153 of the Constitution is equal to an inalienable right that could not be questioned.
These events are interrelated and it seems to me that they indicate that there is a battle of ideology going on in the country now.
On one side is the idea that a person’s ethnicity and religion entitles him to be treated better than anyone else who is different. On the other side is the idea that equality is an aspiration that is both noble and necessary for nation building.
It is strange that in the 21st century we are still having to face the problem of institutionalised racism.
Looking at our history, one can see why this has occurred. The combination of race-based politics and poorly interpreted constitutional provisions have meant that the idea of racial and religious superiority has been allowed to grow and become the norm rather than something undesirable and out of the ordinary.
How else can one explain the possibility that teachers, the very people to whom we entrust the education of our children, can have such warped values and also have the gall to express those views publicly?
How else can we explain the near rabid attack on the Penang Chief Minister for something which he and the state religious department have vehemently denied and in fact would have been insane to attempt?
Let’s analyse this one step at a time. When the dominant political parties in this country do not have any political ideology to speak of and are instead, based on the principle that each race-based component has a duty to safeguard the interest of its community, what one has is a recipe for the kind of policy and rhetoric that divides rather than unites.
Historically, one can see the reasons why the politics of the nation was forged in this way. It was a necessary evil in the face of the divide-and-rule policy by the British to show that even when separate, the three major communities of the nation can still work together politically.
However, it is an unsustainable model and what started life as a fairly rosy example of racial cooperation too easily descended into crude racialist type politics.
Which is why the early aspirations that our founding fathers had for a society treated with equality has now been all but buried by the idea that one race is superior to others and in fact is the only race with any right to be here in Malaysia.
This is because in the battlefields of politics, it is easiest to appeal to base racialist emotions, especially when without those types of ideas, a party based on race will have no collateral to work with.
In this kind of political atmosphere, it is of no surprise that what has been forgotten is that the basis of this nation was one of justice and equality. And the document that is meant to protect that, the Federal Constitution, has been misinterpreted to the extent that there is no longer any trace of this aspiration in the mainstream discourse of the day.
Let us be absolutely clear on this matter, the Constitution does give powers to the government to take affirmative action and it does acknowledge the fact that Islam has a special place in the public life of the nation.
What it does not intend to do however is create a perpetual system of ethnic-based favourable treatment nor does it advocate the idea that all other religious beliefs must be subservient to Islam.
However, instead of this reasonable position, what we have today is the idea that affirmative action for Malays is unquestionable and to be continued in perpetuity becoming the norm.
This cannot be further from the truth as there are no legal justification for it at all.
Article 153 of the Federal Constitution is seen as the holy grail for those who hold this view. However, if we examine the provision closely we will notice two things.
Firstly, affirmative action is not a Malay right. Article 153 does not endow a right. What it does is to merely give government the power to take affirmative action despite the overarching ideal of equality which is enshrined in Article 8 of the Constitution.
To support this contention, we see that Article 8 clearly states that all citizens in this country are equal except for situations specifically provided for in the Constitution. Those “specific provisions” are found in Article 153 and there are not many of them.
They include the power to establish quotas for the civil service, permits and licences, scholarships and education.
Therefore anything other than these areas should not be subjected to affirmative action.
Furthermore, any affirmative action has to be reasonable. The idea of what is reasonable must surely be open to research and debate otherwise there will always be the risk of abuse and wastage of resources.
This being the case, although questioning the existence of such a power to have affirmative action is moot, discussion on the efficacy of affirmative action policies and programmes surely is not.
The way the discourse is today, and not merely by the racialist fringe but by mainstream politicians in power, is that even the implementation of Article 153 is not to be questioned at all.
This is surely wrong based both on the meaning of the Constitution as well as the principle held by the founding fathers that Article 153 was an unfortunate but necessary aberration from the ideals of equality and that it was to be used not in perpetuity.
With these kinds of distortion of law, is it any wonder then that we still get people actually classifying whole swathes of the citizenry as having no right to be here?
Is it any wonder then that a crazy accusation against a Chief Minister whose government has given twice as much money to the Islamic bodies in the state than the previous administration, can give rise to the belief that he is a threat to the faith?
If this country is to have any future as a true nation, the time has come for those who believe in the ideals of equality, ideals which were held by the political founding fathers of the country as well as the traditional Rulers of that time, to stand up and be counted.
To not be cowed by the bigots and to say that this is our country and it stands on noble humanitarian ideals, not opportunistic racialist thinking.

Living in the Puasa Zone

2010-08-11T21:12:00.000-07:00

Brave New World (The Star)
12 August 2010

What once was ordinary has now become bizarre and mind bending, and just when you think you have a grasp of what they are, the air shimmers, changes, and they become something else.

____________________________________________

THE caffeine withdrawal has kicked in and things around me have taken a surreal turn. What once was ordinary has now become bizarre and mind bending.
The low blood sugar level in my body does not help as I cling to my sanity, waiting for a time when I can have that first sip of rose syrup which would take me safely through the Puasa Zone.
Cue music
It is a town unlike any other. Purpose built to act as a grandiose statement of one man’s ambition, it houses the machinery of government. But recently another machine has been seen stalking it’s corridors of power.
It is a strange creation, both charming and yet disturbing. Speaking in a high squeaky voice it walks around followed by an irritating boy in shorts and spectacles. The boy complains and whines when in fact he should be the happiest boy in the world.
How can one not be happy when one’s best friend is a blue robot cat from the future? A robot cat who has magical powers. And these powers are truly mind blowing; from a special pouch on his tummy, our magical blue robot cat can produce anything that you may want. Things that were not there moments before can suddenly appear, making life so much easier and happier for you.
Is this true and have things been appearing out of thin air? Or perhaps this is just my imagination as I watch the clock ticking, in the Puasa Zone.
Cue music
What once was considered to be a simple political alliance has now become something far more sinister and dangerous. It has taken on powers that the most mighty of magicians can only dream about.
Behold Pakatan Rakyat. They may appear to be a simple coalition between three political parties who for the longest time have been in the opposition. But when joined together they become a stronger more potent political force.
But is this truly all that they are? No, I am afraid not, for they have mastered an art which is so difficult that the most skilled of sorcerers would give their beards to possess. Pakatan has learnt the art of being two different things at the same time.
It bends the mind, confuses and confounds for you look at this creature called Pakatan and just when you think you have a grasp of what they are, the air shimmers, changes, and they become something else.
To some, if Pakatan sinks its claws into political power, then we will be ruled by a Chinese party. And yet to others if it comes to power, we will be ruled by a Muslim party. They warn us about the dangers of Pakatan but the dangers shift and change depending on who talks, in the Puasa Zone.
Cue Music
It is a special month. To many it has deep spiritual significance being a time for quiet contemplation amid strict discipline and physical deprivation that bring about greater understanding and appreciation of life’s blessings.
Yet, to others, it is a time to use what should be a time where one rises above the worldly, to campaign for cheap political mileage.
But perhaps one should just take a deep breath and turn away for a moment. Do not get drawn into anger and bitterness.
For just once a year, is it too much to ask of oneself to be more measured than usual, to keep that temper in check, no matter how idiotic the world may seem to be, for only once a year, one finds oneself living, in the Puasa Zone.

Less talk, more debate please

2010-07-29T02:29:00.000-07:00

This article was published in Brave New World (The Star) on 29 July 2010. However, the passages in red were taken out. I post here the article in its original form.

_____________________________________

The recent news that Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) in Malaysia has dropped so much that it is now the lowest in ASEAN is worrying to say the least. Rather unsurprisingly the brother of the Prime Minister, head of a major bank, cautioned against panic and suggested that there be a thorough investigation into the matter to find the root causes and to determine if there is really cause for alarm.

This all sounds very reasonable and level headed except of course that we have a history of sweeping studies that are unpopular to the powers that be under the carpet. Take for example the findings by the Centre for Public Policy Studies in 2006 which put forward the argument that Bumiputra Equity had exceeded the target set by the NEP.

Faced by a tidal waste of government protest and the lack of support from parent organisation ASLI, the Director of CPPS resigned. Amidst the denials and crass accusations (it was insinuated that the findings of the CPPS was a non-Malay plot), what we did not get was a public debate on the issue.

So, it is well and good that the PM’s little brother wants a proper examination of the issue, but really, can we expect a thorough and open debate? We are faced with some serious economic questions but I do not think that the powers that be would want hard questions being asked and answered, and in this matter, hard questions and answers are exactly what’s needed.

And this is what worries me about the nation at the moment. We have real problems but we are still stuck on a mindset that is not helpful and is in fact counterproductive. Take for example the New Economic Measures (NEM). It would be unfair to say that it was a complete load of cobblers. Admittedly some of the ideas are taken pretty much wholesale from the Pakatan agenda, for example the bits regarding helping the bottom 40% of the society based on poverty as opposed to ethnicity, however I suppose one should take good ideas wherever one finds them.

However, back to my point: in its analysis of the economic situation in the country the NEM does concede that there are tough issues that need to be done away with in order to ensure future economic health; such as rent seeking and corruption, as well as race based policies leading to a brain drain.

If one were to look at this document alone, then one might feel that the “hard questions” mentioned above are at last being asked and following that there should be some equally hard answers. Still, it is one thing to talk the talk, quite another to walk the walk. And it strikes me as odd that in a time when we are economically vulnerable and when we should be looking at what is best for the country as a whole, we still get acres of print space being dedicated to ideas like “Malay Unity”.

Both the PM and the DPM have been talking about this “Malay unity” thing. First and foremost, I have no idea what they mean by the term. United for what purpose and perhaps more importantly united against whom?

Of course at the heart of it, what they must surely mean is united in the support of one political power. This is a repulsive notion as it flies in the face of democratic freedoms and it also has serious racist implications. After all, why should people be united based on ethnicity? If one wants to talk about unity, shouldn’t it be based on common endeavour, or ideology?

We are on the verge of what could be yet another serious economic crisis, and although official policy seems to point towards a more rational approach doing away with antiquated ideas based on race; the political reality is that race is still foremost on the minds of those in charge. I would have thought that the depressing news of having less FDI than the Philippines would wake us up to the reality that for the good of the nation, we need all our best people working for all the people. Instead those in charge appear stuck in that tiresome mire of caring more about hanging on to political power by using the basest of philosophies.

Important to have free access to data

2010-07-16T00:45:00.000-07:00

Brave New World (The Star)
15 July 2010

Only with accurate information being freely available can the rakyat play a meaningful role in ensuring government decisions will have a positive effect on their lives.

_____________________________________

THE Freedom of Information Bill (FOI) tabled in the Selangor assembly this week is the first major legislative action taken by the Pakatan Rakyat state government, and it is an important one.
It is, in my opinion, the first time they have taken a substantive step — by which I mean more than mere rhetoric — to show an ideological divide between themselves and Barisan Nasional.
The FOI, if it is passed, is a law that will enhance and strengthen one of the people’s fundamental liberties; specifically Article 10 of the Federal Constitution, which is about the freedom of expression.
The right to information is an integral part of the right to expression because it is near impossible to voice your views with any authority if information is denied to you.
If the FOI lives up to its promise and works on the philosophy that information as a matter of course will be released, then it should make a real difference to the rights of the residents of Selangor.
Their participation in governance will then become much more meaningful.
And this is the second reason why this bill is so important. To achieve good governance, two of the key ingredients are accountability on the part of authority and meaningful participation by the citizens. In one swoop the FOI can enhance both.
When information is available freely, it is harder to hide wrong-doings and corruption, too, becomes more difficult to practice.
Human beings are flawed and because of our flaws we shall always be vulnerable to temptation. It is hard to change people’s character but what one can do is to ensure that the system within which they operate does not give them free reign to indulge in the baser parts of that character.
A system which is transparent and promotes accountability does just that.
With regard to participation, citizens will need the necessary data to take part meaningfully in any discussion regarding actions that will affect their lives.
Sometimes this information will be used in an ad hoc manner, for example in formulating a criticism over forestry policy.
Other times it can be used as part of an established system of public participation, for example through the provisions in the Town and Country Planning Act allowing for the public to give their viewpoints to the planning authority.
There are basically two avenues through which this can be done. The first is if there is a development project in your immediate neighbourhood; the second is when the entire town or district is given the opportunity to comment on the Draft Structure Plan for their area.
Both avenues will be made more effective if the people have access to information.
I certainly hope this law will become reality although I realise it may take some time to be passed and, more importantly, to be operational.
In the meantime, there are other things that the Selangor government can do to make information more freely available.
To my understanding, during the consultation period for draft structure plans, local authorities actually note down and consider public opinion. If this is true, then it is very good practice indeed.
However, it will only be truly meaningful if the people are in the know about this practice.
In other words, this process must be made known to the general populace so that they can see whether their opinions are taken into consideration.
Another thing that the Selangor government can do is to introduce a more people-friendly modus operandi with regard to consultation processes.
If there is going to be a large-scale consultation process involving the planning authority, then tell us via our cukai pintu letters.
After all, you are going to post us those letters asking for our money anyway.
It is true that the FOI is limited to Selangor and the activities which are within the jurisdiction of the state government.
Be that as it may, that still covers a lot of issues concerning the people living in this state. The FOI is welcome indeed and I hope it is passed.
This combined with better practices in the day-to-day government operations will go a long way in showing that Pakatan means business when they say they are concerned about more rights, more democracy and good governance in this country.

It’s democracy and not derhaka

2010-07-02T01:10:00.000-07:00

Brave New World (The Star)
1 July 2010

It is one thing to have a populace that does not quite understand the full extent of their democratic rights, it is quite another to have leaders perpetuate a feudalistic atmosphere to keep their grip on power.

_____________________________________

After the 2004 general election, the newly chosen MP for Putrajaya was being interviewed on the telly. He was obviously very happy with the result – his chubby face was glowing. The Barisan had won big in that particular constituency.
His happiness was understandable but his explanation for the victory, however, was a little bizarre. He said the reason Barisan won the seat so easily was because Putrajaya was home to mainly civil servants. In other words, it was expected that these people will vote for the “government”.
Two points of clarification should be made here. Firstly, the freedom to choose is the right of every single Malaysian, regardless of job description. And secondly people don’t vote for a “government”, people vote for a party which will then form a government.
It’s all pretty basic Democracy 101 type stuff, but I guess for some it’s a lesson which is a little tough to grasp. Not surprising really, considering how terribly feudal our country is.
Why, just today I read that tribal leaders in Sarawak have been warned not to vote for the opposition. The last time I checked, the right to choose belonged to all Malaysians. I didn’t realise there was a tribal clause.
To a certain extent, I can understand why some people may think that once a party is in power then they deserve undying loyalty. It is a throwback to our days of absolute monarchs, chieftains and the like. You had an allegiance to your ruler, whoever that ruler might be and woe betide you if you were to be rebellious, or to use that most heinous of Malay words “derhaka”.
But times have changed and we are a democracy now. Or so we claim to be. If we are, then this thinking is simply not in line with our rights as citizens to choose our leader and to choose whoever we like as our leader. A feudal system is very much top down whereas a democracy moves the other way.
But like I said, I am not too surprised that we ordinary people may fail to understand and appreciate the power that is in our hands. I’m not surprised because the everyday business of governance in this country is infected with the trappings of feudalism.
Look around you – if you are in any public building, chances are you will see several portraits smiling benignly down at you a la Kim Jong Il. Apart from providing income to a bunch or photographers, printers and framers, I really don’t see the point in having these elected mugs smirking down at me. After all, what is important is the office, not the individual holding that office.
And although our national characteristic is one of politeness and respect, I don’t think it should degenerate to base toadying and brown nosing. It is distasteful to see grown men slobbering, bowing and scraping to elected officials who, let’s face it, are our servants and not the other way round.
Again, in a warped kind of way, I understand why people do this. These big shots have power. But then, even here there is a distortion of how things should be. They have power, that is true, but that power must not be in any way unlimited and the use of that power has to be accountable and transparent.
Because our system of governance lacks transparency and accountability, the amount of power wielded by the few is far too great and this merely feeds into the feudalistic thinking of the society we live in as people will prostrate themselves before someone whom they think can give them reward, regardless whether they should have such power to reward or not.
However, back to the Sarawak tribal chiefs. Michael Manyin, who is the Sarawak Infrastructure Development and Communication Minister, said in a speech that “tribal leaders are the government’s agents in developing local communities and are not supposed to go against the government”.
This may be true in the daily life of a tribal leader. He will have duties to carry out and he should not do anything to undermine that. However, during election time, there is no longer a “government”. There are only parties vying to be the next government and in that situation, a tribal leader or any other citizen for that matter can choose who they want.
It is one thing to have a populace that does not quite understand the full extent of their democratic rights, it is quite another thing to have leaders perpetuate a feudalistic atmosphere in order to keep their grip on power.
It is about time we realise that this country belongs to all of us, the citizens. It definitely does not belong to elected officials who are at the very most merely managers entrusted with the running of the nation and managers with no security of tenure because we can fire them.
And that is not “derhaka”, that is democracy.

The New Parliament Building

2010-06-17T19:53:00.000-07:00

Note: This was not published in The Star due to the fact that the IT department thought it was a dubious email and quarantined it!

______________________________

Throughout history we have examples of how the excesses of rulers help propel a revolution. Marie Antoinette was perhaps not quite the callous spoilt queen who supposedly uttered those famous words “let them eat cake” when told that the starving people of France had no bread. But it is undeniable that the extravagance of the court in Versailles played a major role in the over turning of the French monarchy and the success of the Revolution.
A bit closer in place and time, we need only look across the South China Sea to observe that the corruption of the Marcos regime was quite wonderfully symbolised by the thousands upon thousands of shoes owned by Imelda. The bleeding of the people of the Philippines by the dictator in Manila was represented by the row upon row of dainty slippers and pumps. In a country where so many were too poor to afford shoes, the imagery was powerful indeed.
And so it is here. The recent plans to build a new Parliament building at the cost of hundreds of millions of ringgit, along with the similarly priced new palace for the King, will quite naturally stick in the craw of the ordinary Malaysian.
Especially in the light of all the sounds made regarding subsidies. The people have been spoilt it appears. We have had it too easy with the cheap petrol and basic food stuff. And it is because of us that the country is going bankrupt. So the subsidies will be taken away, and we have to jolly well tighten our belts and economise.
How can anyone announce with a straight face multi million ringgit projects for new buildings (when there already exists buildings for said purpose) and at the same time bemoan our impending economic collapse. It looks a lot like them making fun of the people.
Yet, I am sure that no matter what you might think of them, the government can't possibly be so clueless. And I can already see the arguments that will be made. It is the same argument made by Mahathir when he had power (and not seeking publicity in poorly attended rallies in Terengganu).
In order to make money, you have to spend money and large government spending is a method with which to give a boost to the economy. The money for our Parliament building and palace will go to contractors and this will start a cascade of spending that will involve a whole host of industries.
Putting aside the obvious question of just who exactly are going to get the contracts, and are they truly the best companies to be awarded this work; one has to question the validity of this argument. It is true that government spending helps the economy and it is largely because of such spending that the growth in this country has appeared to be quite healthy in the past few years. However, it has to be remembered that this shine of health is only skin deep.
This kind of spending is a short term fix and for sustainable growth there has to be investment from the private sector, both internally and internationally. Ideally any public sector spending will encourage private sector investment. I can't see how a new parliament and palace is going to do that. Without private investment eventually you will simply be in a situation where there is no longer any growth and absolutely no money in the nation's coffers to artificially encourage growth.
From what I understand, foreign investment is at an all time low and much money is being taken out of this country to be invested elsewhere. Issues such as corruption, the rule of law, smooth bureaucracy, safe cities, working infrastructure and competent workforce are tough problems that have to be tackled before there can be confidence in this country by those with the money at home and abroad. Surely these are the issues that need to be addressed with certainty and courage and we ought not be looking to the quick fix of building yet even more buildings which are unnecessary and in the current climate look like cruel taunts.

It takes more than just subsidy cuts

2010-06-03T00:55:00.000-07:00

Brave New World (The Star)
3 June 2010

Doing away with subsidies is only plugging some of the holes in the system. A holistic approach is needed to put the economy back on sturdy footing.

___________________________________

SO, there I was driving down the Federal Highway, minding my own business when the car in front of me stopped suddenly. I braked as hard as I could, but due to the wet conditions and the fact that I was perhaps driving a wee bit too close, there was a moment of realisation that I was going to crash. Sure enough, I did.
This was the second time I’ve crashed due to wet conditions. The first time saw me spinning a little Kelisa a full 360 degrees; on a flyover no less.
Contrary to popular belief that during such moments one’s life flashes before one’s eyes, the only thing that flashed before mine was a vision of Ah Sang my mechanic sucking his teeth and saying “Waaah! This will cost you”.
Anyway, back to my Federal Highway escapade. The front of my Proton was pretty much smashed. The lights were gone, the bumper and bonnet were gone, and the radiator was wheezing its last breath.
With a heavy heart, I took the car to a workshop, mentally kissing away my No Claims Bonus, and they proceeded to repair it.
At the end of two weeks, the car was ready. Everything was fixed and shiny. Now, if I had gone there and they had just replaced the radiator, or just the bumper, I would have been mightily peeved. You can’t just fix one part of a car that has so many problems; you have to fix it all.
This brings me rather neatly to the subsidy cuts. According to Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Idris Jala, our country will go bankrupt if we don’t stop the subsidies we enjoy on petrol and basic food items.
Now, the only thing I remember from my Sixth Form economics lessons was that supply and demand are somehow related and if you sell crisps in a pub your sale of both crisps and beer will increase. I never understood any of it, so forgive me if I am a little slow.
I wish someone would explain to me the following. Firstly, are subsidies the only thing causing a drain in our resources? I mean, we do have a gigantic civil service; perhaps a lot of money is going there.

And corruption is pretty rife, so rife in fact that “commissions” to deal makers for government purchases goes into the tens of millions of Ringgit. If our money did not line the pockets of cronies, wouldn’t there be more of it safely tucked away? [This paragraph was taken out by The Star - I wonder why?]

How about wasteful spending? I mean we’ve had petroleum money for decades that is now running dry; has all that money gone to subsidies so that we can enjoy cheap roti canai and kopi tarik?
Maybe, just maybe, if we did not use our money to bail out failed companies and financial institutions, and perhaps if we did not build grandiose buildings in the middle of nowhere, some of that money will still be around.
Be that as it may, the subsidies look like they are going away. This would not be so bad if we can be assured that, to paraphrase the many billboards I see on the Federal Highway, “people will come first.”
If you take away the petrol subsidy, for example, Mr BMW is not going to suffer. Neither will those having government-issued Perda-nas. But the ordinary Mat on his kapchai or his second-hand Kancil, will.
And the reason people scrimp and save to buy these vehicles which drink up subsidised petrol is because our public transport system is simply awful. If our ministers were to take the time to look, they will see hordes of people squeezing into buses even late at night.
So, it is all well and good to do away with petrol subsidies. It’s better for the environment, for example, but those with no alternatives will suffer.
Furthermore, when the price of basic foodstuff goes up it means that a working person’s daily expenses go up as well.
I remember just a few months ago when an iced tea at my favourite roadside stall went up by 20 sen due to the rising sugar price.
This may be a laughing matter for those who sip lattes in a hotel lounge, but it’s not for most Malaysians. Many Malaysians do not enjoy a reasonable minimum wage because we do not have any law that imposes a minimum wage.
So, pardon me Mr Jala, but I think putting the responsibility of saving the nation from bankruptcy on the shoulders of the masses is not only unfair; it is also merely fixing a part of the problem and not the whole.
It must be done holistically; otherwise, one cannot be surprised if people get a little peeved.

Tough game to overcome

2010-05-26T00:55:00.000-07:00

Brave New World (The Star)
29 April 2010

It is very hard to win when officials appear to make decisions that favour one side over the other.

______________________________

LAST weekend was terribly depressing for me. I was a distant witness to a battle whose outcome seemed inevitable, although one did hope that it would have been different.
On the one side you had a group which has been dominant for so long that they felt it was their god-given right to always be at the top. Any challenge to them is met by petulant fury from their leader. On the other side is a weaker group which has struggled over the years to have some sort of impact on the status quo.
However, over the last two years, they have grown from strength to strength, and after a string of stirring and unexpected victories, they looked set to overcome the odds and beat their all-powerful foe.
But perhaps their recent good form was misleading, and to win this time was a bridge too far.
It did not help of course that officials almost always seem to favour the mighty enemy. Their leader in particular seems to have an unseemly amount of influence on the very people who are tasked with ensuring that any contest is clean and fair.
It is very hard to win when officials appear to make decisions which favour one side over the other. And to make matters worse, the supporters of this powerful group are arrogant and smug creatures who are unaware of the ideals behind the competition that their team is participating in.
I watched from afar, unable to do anything more than give moral support.
It was so frustrating being unable to actually be down there on the field of battle to do something more tangible.
But alas, this is the way of the world and most times high hopes and fervent prayer just don’t do the trick.
Still, it was a close call. And for a little while at least, it looked like the underdog might have been able to pull off a small miracle of sorts.
At one point, I was certain that they would win. Unfortunately, in the last lap of the race, they fell behind and victory went to the powerful.
It was not surprising, although painfully disappointing. But one must not give up hope, there are battles yet to be fought and they hover in the future.
The little guys must pull together and focus their attention on what they can do well. They have to fight on intelligently, building on their many strengths and shoring up their weaknesses.
A culling period may be called for where the ineffective and the counter-productive are trimmed away from their ranks, leaving a strong core that can bravely and honestly face the challenges that lie ahead.
I am, of course, speaking about the defeat of Tottenham Hotspurs to Manchester United at Old Trafford. What did you think I was talking about?
■ Brave New World will be taking a leave of absence and will return in June.

Why the need for Pornthip?

2010-05-26T00:53:00.000-07:00

Brave New World (The Star)
15 April 2010

The fact that Dr Pornthip had to be asked to testify at all is a damning statement on how low the belief is in our justice system. Her presence casts a shadow over the judiciary.

________________________________________

THE controversy surrounding Thai pathologist Dr Pornthip Rojanasunand especially the cicumstances surrounding her reluctance to return to testify at the Teoh Beng Hock inquiry is something that does not surprise me.
There are accusations and counter accusation by so many sides - some even defamatory.
However, that is not what I wish to concentrate on here. There is a bigger issue. The question that we should be asking is why did we have to obtain the services of Dr Pornthip in the first place?
True, she is very good at what she does, and it was through her efforts that forensic sciences in Thailand have developed by leaps and bounds.
But she was brought in not just for her expertise but because, frankly, of a lack of faith in the Malaysian justice system.
There is uncertainty that local experts will be able to do their work without any interference from outside parties.
In the Asian Rare Earth case of the 1980s, where a village in Perak became the dumping ground of radioactive wastes by an irresponsible company, the villagers had to get expert witnesses from Japan and Canada to provide evidence of the higher than normal radiation levels.
It was not a situation where they could not find any local person with the ability to use a Geiger counter, it was just that the company in question had influential shareholders, and local experts were unwilling to come forward.
In the Teoh Beng Hock case, it is not a company that is under scrutiny but the MACC, a government agency.
Furthermore, the young man who died was working for an opposition party. It is therefore even more likely that a local expert could be faced with all sorts of pressures, especially if he or she works in a government institution.
This is not to say that pressure will be applied. Neither is this to suggest that the government will resort to such underhanded tactics.
It boils down, not to a matter of fact but a matter of faith; faith that our system of justice is incorruptible and fair.
It really does not matter if it is or not, the problem is just as profound if one simply does not believe that it is just and honest.
Yes, it is very sad that Teoh Beng Hock died in such violent circumstances, and yes, it is imperative that we find out the truth about how he died. But there is also a larger question to be answered here.
The fact that Dr Pornthip had to be asked to testify at all is a damning statement on how low the belief is in our justice system.
Is it possible for us as a society to wipe clean the debris that is our justice system and build again?

What ‘social contract’ entails

2010-03-31T20:54:00.000-07:00

Brave New World (The Star)
1 April 2010

The term has been hijacked by those who choose to invent their own meaning of the expression.

_______________________

AH ... the social contract — a theory propounded by the philosopher Hobbes where the citizens of a country agrees to give power to a government in exchange for the guarantee of their own civil liberties and rights.
It is a term meant to dictate a type of governance where the needs of a powerful authority are balanced by the protection of citizens from abuse of that power. In this Hobbesian philosophy we find a weapon against tyranny.
But this is not so in Malaysia. The term “social contract” has been hijacked by those who choose to invent their own meaning of the expression. When “social contract” is used on these shores, it means that Malay political power must always hold sway and a state of perpetual pro-Malay economic policies must remain in place and everyone else must keep quiet as their forefathers had agreed to it.
The founders of this country did not have such racialist aspirations when we obtained our independence in 1957. The provisions in the Constitution which provides for the “special position” of the Malays and the natives of Sabah and Sarawak (note there is no such thing as “Malay rights” in our Constitution), were meant as a stop gap measure but not a permanent crutch.
Tun Dr Ismail likened it to a golf handicap where you give the weaker party a boost until he reaches a point where he can play on equal terms. Indeed the time limit initially set was for the affirmative action to last 20 years.
But hey, don’t take my word for it. Allow me to regale you with some quotes that can be found in the Report of the Federation of Malaya Constitutional Commission “… in an independent Malaya all nationals should be accorded equal rights, privileges and opportunities and there must not be discrimination on grounds of race and creed …”
And the people who said this were not the British and their pompous hats. It was the Alliance which in case you have forgotten who they were, consisted of the Malayan In-dian Congress, the Malayan Chinese Association and the United Malay National Organisation. That’s right our great leaders of Umno hoped and dreamt of a Malaya based on equality. And you can see this aspiration reflected in the Constitution. Article 8 guarantees equality except in situations specifically provided for in the Constitution. In other words, if an affirmative action is not specifically allowed for in the Constitution, it is unlawful.
And there are other provisions as well; like Article 136 which states that all government servants must not be discriminated against based on race and creed. So our non-Malay public servants have a Constitutional protection against poor treatment for example in promotions. I don’t see all these “warriors for the social contract” waving placards demanding impartial treatment to all civil servants. Of course not, it would not do to defend the non-Malays, will it?
By the way, it is not only the politicians who wanted a country where there is racial equality, the rulers, our Sultans themselves said that they “... look forward to a time not too remote when it will become possible to eliminate communalism as a force in the political and economic life of the country”.
But in case you think I am making this up, it’s in the report mentioned above on page 71. Check it out yourself.
So the next time some ex-premier, or multi-millionaire Malay, or racist rhetoric politician, go on and on about the “social contract”, please be informed that this kind of self- serving bigoted behaviour was not part of the dream that is independent Malaya. Our founders did not have such base ideals they wanted better, and so should we.

We need to move with the times

2010-03-18T23:14:00.000-07:00

Brave New World (The Star)
18 March, 2010

When Man was lucky to live past 30, starting a family young might have made sense, but with lifespans having expanded many-fold, surely children should not be pressed into the rigours of adulthood

____________________________________________

IN THE 19th century, slavery was still legal in many parts of the world. Societies which allowed for this practice often found justification for slavery in the scripture. Neither the Bible nor the Quran specifically disallows slavery.
To be fair, there are verses in both books which might be interpreted to discourage it, but if you are looking for any lines that say “slavery is bad, don’t do it, at all, ever,” well, you are in for a long search.
However, the cruelty of slavery soon became too much for people to endure. Values were changing and what was once deemed normal, became repulsive. This being the case, both Christian and Muslim scholars had to rethink the way they looked at the issue.
Many of the abolitionists at this time were Christians who chose to look at the “spirit” of the Bible, rather than specific verses, to oppose slavery from a religious perspective. Muslim scholars, while accepting that slavery was allowed in principle, concluded that it led to such cruel practices that it was no longer acceptable.
By the beginning of the 20th century, slavery was a thing of the past. Sure, it still happens, it happens today, but it is no longer legal, and stories of its existence are met with outrage.
In other words, values change and societies change with them regardless of earlier practices.
Another example from the 19th century is the age of consent for girls. Up till 1874, the age of consent for girls in England was 12. This was then raised to 13 in 1875. About a decade later, it was raised to 16 where it remains today.
The main proponents for the raising of the age of consent were concerned by the large amount of child prostitution that was occurring. With such a low age of consent, it was easier for young girls to be made prostitutes and harder to prosecute the men who preyed on them.
Today, of course, the concern for the protection of young girls (and boys) has become linked more to their mental and physical well-being.
Child prostitution still occurs, and to see images of broken little children being pawed by lecherous paedophiles is disgusting and disturbing to the extreme. But even without such vile practices, it is still generally accepted that children need to be protected.
If we look at the Islamic idea of what constitutes adulthood and sexual maturity, it is based on two very simple things. For girls, it is when they get their first period and for boys it is when they wake up in the morning feeling confused and with their pyjamas in a mess.
This may have been well and good in the 6th century but, really, times have changed. For one thing, the transition from childhood to adulthood has become much more extended.
Schooling, for example, is no longer a luxury for the wealthy but open to almost every child. The preparation time needed to become a grown-up has become more complex, and therefore children are not expected to jump immediately from childhood to the responsibilities of adulthood.
The need for the human race to procreate has also changed in the sense that there is far less urgency considering that lifespans have been extended significantly. Perhaps in a harsh world where one was lucky to live past 30, it made sense for people to start families as early as physically possible. But surely that is no longer the case.
This brings us to the story of the 11-year-old girl who was married off in Kelantan to a man in his 40s. The fact that it happened is not particularly shocking. This sort of thing occurs. Paedophiles exist. What should be shocking is the apparent “justification” used by the man (and I use the term here loosely), that the girl was “old enough” and their “marriage” was lawful.
The law as it stands does allow for Muslim girls younger than 16 to be married off with special dispensation. I think that it should be changed so that it is not allowed at all for girls under 16 to be married.
I realise that maturity is different from person to person. There are very mature 15-year-old girls who may well be able to handle marriage and child rearing. Just as there are very immature 18-year-old women who can’t. So, the age of 16 may seem arbitrary. However, a line must be drawn somewhere and short of further studies, it may as well remain at 16.
The importance of changing the law is two-fold. The first is to protect all our children in general. The second is to lay down the idea that as a society, we care that our children are given that protection so that they can grow safely and securely into adulthood.
Surely that should be the values we are projecting in this day and age, not some outdated concept from a bygone age.

Understanding three layers of a phenomenon

2010-03-05T01:52:00.000-08:00

Brave New World (The Star)
4 March, 2010

To keep changing in a positive manner, we need to view social behaviour from the perspectives of the individual, national institutions and culture.

__________________________________

CHAIWAT Satha-Anand of Mahidol University in Thailand theorises that a societal phenomenon such as violence can be conceptualised in three layers: agent, structure and culture.
Agent is the individual perpetrator; structure is the institutional situation within which the act occurs, and culture is the societal norms that either condemn or condone such acts.
Only by studying all three layers does one come to a complete picture of the phenomenon in question. His study was focused on violence against children in Thailand, and how it appears to be in stark contrast to the perceived idea that the Thais are a peaceful society.
He states that of all the layers, the easiest variable to change is the agent. One can capture the perpetrator and punish him, thus removing him from the equation.
What is harder to change is structure; the laws and institutions that could have an encouraging effect on violent acts, for example, lenient punishments or corrupt judges. Still, it can be done with the requisite political will.
However, the most complex and difficult variable to consider is culture. It is an instinctive and ingrained feature of society which does not have a formalised shape (therefore making any change very hard), yet permeates thinking and attitude.
In his studies, Satha-Anand examines how, in some Thai myths, children are deemed to be property upon which great violence can be carried out for the greater good. Such myths, he suggests, are norm setting and create an attitude which may result in society not taking seriously enough the problem of violence against children.
For real change to occur, one must understand all three layers of a particular phenomenon. He does not suggest that only by fixing all three layers can society fix its problems; it is, after all, possible for a change in structure to have profound effects on agents and culture. But without understanding all three, the process will be flawed due to a lack of depth in understanding.
What I like about his theory is that it is applicable to all sorts of phenomenon, not just violence. Take, for example, corruption and racism.
As a lawyer, my tendency is, of course, to think more along the lines of structure. If there is a problem, lawyers tend to think along the lines of “can we improve the law, can we strengthen the institutions that enforce the law”. This has value but there is also a need to understand the mind-set behind the problem.
For example, I have said before that ultimately the Constitution is a document which has equality, liberty and liberal democracy as its aspiration and ideals. Yet, the way it has been interpreted by the courts appear to fly in the face of such aspirations.
Now, structurally, there appears nothing wrong with the Constitution itself. Neither is there, on the face of it, anything structurally wrong with the judiciary.
I realise the appointment of judges is a contentious issue, but it was not contentious before 1988; and the power of choice given to the executive exists in countries such as the United States without anyone questioning the independence of its Supreme Court.
The answer, therefore, must lie within the cultural milieu of the judges themselves. Ideals such as those I mentioned above do not seem to be part of their ethos any more.
Finding out why would be necessary to effect real change for, otherwise, even if there were a structural adjustment, it would do no good if the agents involved still have the cultural baggage of those from before.
This is, of course, a very narrow illustration. Broader issues can also be examined in the same way, and it is fascinating to look at these phenomenons through the prism of culture as a norm setting variable.
The legend of Hang Tuah is an interesting myth to study. The most renowned aspects of the legend revolve around machismo, fighting, and the concept of loyalty taken to the nth degree. And it is these elements of the legend that are most often alluded to in the behaviour of many in the country, politicians in particular.
But, as social commentator Farish Noor points out, that is only part of the story. The second half of the Hikayat Hang Tuah paints a very different picture of the man.
He is a diplomat, a pluralist, a linguist, and he is multicultural. How different would our situation be if these were the parts of the legend emphasised and these values, not the warlike blindly loyal narrative, had become our norms.
In conclusion, when studying the Malaysian condition, one has to bear in mind all three layers of analysis. And to keep changing in a positive manner, an understanding of all three is needed. All three can be changed.
As pointed out earlier, grappling with agents and structure is relatively simple. Culture, on the other hand, would require space for us to re-examine our norms and to discuss them openly.
In this way new norm setting can take place, either by the re-evaluation of old ones, or even the creation of new, more progressive ones.

Thanks

2010-03-01T22:41:00.000-08:00

Hello,

As you may know, this blog was kindly set up by Elanor to compile the stuff I write (mainly for the Star). I have recently learnt how to use this new fangled thing called "blog" and now I post the articles myself, saving Elanor the tedium of doing so.

However, this is not really what you would call a real blog in that I don't interact on it. All this time, I just thought it was a handy archive type thing and a convenient place to direct imsomniacs to help them sleep.

But, recently I noticed that people actually read the damned thing and also take the time to comment. I would just like to say here that I am grateful, very grateful, to all of you and I would like to thank you. I may not reply to the comments but rest assured they are all read, considered and enjoyed. Yes, even the "direct selling" ones!

Cheers

azmi

Road to political change

2010-03-01T00:15:00.000-08:00

Brave New World (The Star)
February 18, 2010

"Our country needs a two-party system. Not as a panacea to all the nation’s ills, but as an important first step towards a vibrant democracy where there will be greater hope for things to improve."

_______________________________________

I READ an interesting article criticising the Penang Government for being too business-friendly. In other words, the Pakatan government is behaving in the same capitalist fashion as the former Barisan Nasional government.
Examples that were used included the continued development of hillside land.
A similar complaint has been made against the Selangor Government which has apparently softened its outright ban on hillside development.
The writer of the article claims that this is because of the powerful business lobby, namely the developers lobby.
He may very well have a point, but one line struck me.
He said that this kind of behaviour by Pakatan suggests that a two party-system makes little or no difference.
After all, what is the point of having one bunch of capitalist to replace another? Shouldn’t we have a real choice with truly different parties and different ideologies?
To be fair to Pakatan, even if they are closet capitalists, they do have a different stance than Barisan and that is their non-race-based policy. To me, that is a pretty big and important difference.
However, that is still besides the point. A proper two-party system, where one group can actually lose and be replaced by another is, like I stated earlier, merely a first step.
Only with the real fear of being booted out of office can any change occur. And by change, I do not mean necessarily that suddenly we change from a capitalist state to a socialist one.
I mean the little changes which are needed to give people a real choice.
We desperately need a free press, for example. Newspapers that are free to provide an alternative view.
Therefore, the Printing Presses and Publications Act needs to go.
I realise that even without this law, a newspaper would still be bound by the wishes of its owner. But at least without this law anyone can start a newspaper and the people will have a choice.
And it is only with free and open discussion can there be other developments, for example the dissemination of different economic ideologies.
So, if you want the people to have a less capitalistic viewpoint, they have first to be exposed to that viewpoint.
Another law that has to be amended or done away with is the Societies Act.
If this was done, anyone can establish a political party. There will be many useless little ones, of course, but a few may survive and even if they are small they could still be influential.
In most democracies, the harsh realities of politics usually mean that two parties tend to be dominant.
But if we look at some of these countries we also see the possibility of a third party, perhaps with little chance of actually taking power but with enough clout to be influential, for example the Green Party of Germany with their eco-message.
Furthermore, with the necessary changes in place, a most vital third force in politics will be able to come into play — civil society.
Politicians are politicians and as such they will always be bound by several things.
Their party line is one but also their unquenchable thirst to hang on to power.
It is up to civil society, therefore, to keep them honest and in order to do this, they need the freedom to associate and the freedom to express — things which can’t be done properly with the two laws mentioned above.
These changes I mention are relatively small, but they will not occur if there is no change of government, because the laws I mention maintain the status quo.
Why would the wielders of power want to change the status quo?
It is for this reason that we need to have a viable two-party system. It won’t be a magic bullet, just to change one government with another, but it would be the start for real change to occur.

Going from dissent to defiance

2010-02-04T18:41:00.000-08:00

Brave New World (The Star)
February 4, 2010

"Fumbles and trips as one learns the ropes can be forgiven, but there is a difference between ineptitude and downright sabotage."

_________________________________

IN A soccer team there will always be someone who is not as good as the others. This is the chap who can’t dribble for more than two seconds without getting dispossessed; always passes to the wrong team and can’t ever kick straight.
However, usually the team puts up with him, because sometimes he has his uses. For example, if you kick the ball at him hard enough, it might just bounce off him into goal. I speak from experience here.
Pity and team spirit dictate that everybody can play. This should not be the case though when the player does something which is utterly destructive to the team; like taking the ball, turning towards his own goal and shooting past his keeper with all the force and venom of a World Cup penalty shoot out.
Now I know that the Pakatan Rakyat have been moaning and groaning that in the last general election, they had to field candidates who, shall we say, are a little under par.
In the rush to put out a team, some choices from the lower divisions had to be made. I am sure many of these greenhorns are working hard, and perhaps their constituents can forgive them their fumbles and trips as they learn the ropes.
Having said that, there is a difference between ineptitude and downright sabotage. Pakatan has prided itself on being a more democratic organisation than their opposition, and dissent is tolerated.
This is well and good, but I think Zulkifli Nordin has gone beyond dissent to insubordination, and that can undermine his party and the coalition. Making a police report on his coalition partner Khalid Samad for essentially defending the coalition’s policy means that Zulkifli does not agree with the policy in question.
In a coalition that is well established perhaps this can be allowed to pass. But when we are talking about the fledgling Pakatan, which has yet to prove its cohesiveness to the public, it is folly of the utmost to do anything less than to throw the book at this person.
Pakatan’s stand has supposedly been one based on equality, non race-based affirmative action and respect for human rights.
When one of their own still spouts race-based rhetoric, supports supremacist ideology and has no understanding of the fundamental right to free speech, then he simply does not belong in the team anymore.
By enduring him, Pakatan shows itself to be at best weak and indecisive and at worst not totally convicted to the principles upon which it had built its platform and upon which it had won the biggest victory by opposition parties in the history of our nation.
Look, if you want to be a racial supremacist and if you think equality is a bad thing, then by all means there are other parties and groups you can join up with.
Take for example, Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad, who has thrown in his lot with Perkasa.
Perkasa’s agenda is a Malay agenda. Not a Malaysian one, a Malay one, and they have every right to be like that.
It is something that I would not want to be part of because I am sick and tired of the whole stupid idea of race-based anything, but hey, I’m weird like that.
I would like to close by talking briefly about the boar heads in the mosques incident because that too looks like a case of the purposeful own goal. At the time of writing I have no idea who the culprits are and what their motivation can be.
If they were doing it as some sort of revenge for the church burning issue, I have one thing to say: congratulations, you morons, you just ensured that a civil solution becomes that much harder.
When people resort to violence (and the pig head incident is an act of violence, albeit more on a spiritual level, just like the cow head incident of last year) then it does not take much to inspire more violence.
This sort of tit for tat action is counter productive and ultimately destructive and has to be condemned.
I do not believe that this country is all hunky dory and I haven’t bought into that loving multi-cultural propaganda for a long time, so the vile actions of a few did not come as a surprise.
However, it is not the existence of such people that matters but the reaction of the public at large as well as those playing a leadership role.
If we truly want a nation of united people with a common goal, then we must have certain ideals, principles and aspirations and we must stick by them. Sometimes we can do it alone. Other times we may want to do it as part of a team; just make sure you are in the right one.

We must never allow the mob to rule

2010-01-20T19:55:00.000-08:00

Brave New World (The Star)
January 21, 2010

"People calling for a ban on the use of ‘Allah’ by non-Muslims must find their justification in the Quran or in legal enactments."

________________________________

A COUPLE of churches were burnt by people who believe that non-Muslims should not use the name Allah when describing God. A very strange motivation indeed when we look at the scripture.
In Surah 22 Verse 40 of the Quran, it is said: “Had not Allah checked one set of people by means of another, there would surely have been pulled down monasteries, churches, synagogues, and mosques, in which the name of Allah is commemorated in abundant measure.”
Looks pretty clear to me. There is no scriptural justification to stop non-Muslims from using Allah to describe God. In fact the opposite is true, the name Allah is praised in “monasteries, churches, synagogues, and mos-ques”.
This is not my assertion, this is a quote from the Holy Quran, and there are more in the same vein.
Right, so all these people calling for the ban surely must find their justification elsewhere. There is the law, it is said. In particular, state enactments banning the use of Allah by non-Muslims. We must obey the law they assert.
All right, let’s look at the state laws then. Space prevents me from going through each enactment, so let’s just look at the Selangor enactment of 1988.
In the preamble it says: “[This is] An enactment to control and restrict the propagation of non-Islamic religious doctrines and beliefs among persons professing the religion of Islam.
“Whereas Article 11(4) of the Federal Constitution provides that State law may control or restrict the propagation of any religious doctrine or belief among persons professing the religion, and whereas it is now desired to make a law to control and restrict the propagation of non-Islamic religious doctrine and beliefs among persons professing the religion of Islam, therefore pursuant to Article 11(4) of the Federal Constitution it is hereby enacted by the Legislature of the State of Selangor.”
And if we look into the Enactment, we do see a section which lists down words that can’t be used by non-Muslims (it includes Allah). However, the explanatory note to this section states that to do so is “an offence of distributing in a public place publications concerning non-Islamic religions to Mus-lims”.
Again, this looks very clear, the law was designed to prevent proselytising to Muslims. And the ban on the use of the name Allah by the state law is in the context of proselytising.
If used within the context of their own worship and their own religious community, this law does not apply.
And if we look at Article 11 of the Federal Constitution, the only specific limitation on the freedom of religion is that the proselytising to Muslims (even Muslim to Muslim proselytising) can be controlled.
Other than that everyone is free to practice his or her religion in peace. It is unconstitutional to stop anyone from using the word Allah in their worship if they so choose.
So, the Quran says there’s no problem with peoples of other faiths using “Allah”, the state enactments are limited in their scope, and the Constitution says that everyone can practice their religion peacefully. What other justification can be used to try to ban this word?
There are two more; firstly it is culturally unacceptable among the Malays in peninsular Malaysia to hear the name Allah on non-Muslim lips. Oh yes, this is a great argument.
It reminds me of similar arguments used in the past. For example, “it is culturally unacceptable to allow negro children to go to the same schools as white children”. Look, just because some people are bigoted does not mean we have to pander to them.
Secondly, there is also the argument that if Muslims see Allah being used by non-Muslims they will get awfully confused and in their simple-mindedness, they will become Christians. People who make this argument can’t have very high regard for Malay intelligence. Rather insulting, I think.
At the end of the day there is no scriptural or legal reason to ban the use of Allah by non-Muslims, and if the powers that be have an iota of principle in their collective bones, they would stand on principle and not cater to the small minded and ignorant.
Instead they try to be pragmatic, leading to ludicrous statements like “it’s all right to use Allah in Sabah and Sarawak but not in the peninsula”.
The Muslim community, particularly the leadership, must ask itself: Is the way Islam is taught in this country so weak that Muslims can get easily confused by just one word?
I do not believe there is any evidence of large scale conversions by Muslims to Christianity. It is illegal for Christians to try to convert Muslims anyway.
However, if this sort of unintelligent and vicious behaviour goes on, I can’t imagine a greater disservice to Islam.
The Catholic church must not back down on this matter. It is in the right and if it gives in now, it will set the precedence that a bunch of thugs with firebombs can dictate the type of country we live in.
For the good of the country as a whole, not just any specific religious or ethnic group, we must never allow the mob to rule.

Ear biting is fighting dirty

2010-01-17T19:30:00.000-08:00

Brave New World (The Star)
January 7, 2010

"There are ways and means to deal with the alleged leak of evidence yet to be tendered to the Teoh Beng Hock inquest. The most obvious and fair procedure would be to make a complaint with the inquiry itself."

_____________________________

YOU know someone is in trouble when he starts to play dirty. Take for example the fight between boxing heavyweights Mike Tyson and Evander Holyfield in 1997.
I have always thought of Holyfield as a great fighter ever since I saw him fight George Foreman in 1991.
Those were the days before satellite TV and you could get live heavyweight championship fights for free on normal telly.
Holyfield had just beaten Buster Douglas, who put up a weak and spiritless defence of the title he had won from Tyson in Japan.
It was clearly a win, but could Holyfield stand up to a real opponent? Someone who comes to fight and not just to pick up a pay cheque?
Enter Foreman, 42 years old and only recently re-entering the fight scene he had quit in 1977.
He was tubby, he was old and he was laughed at. He joked his training diet was cheeseburgers, and looking at his belly you would have thought it was true.
But after 24 fights – all of which he won, 23 by KO – people stopped laughing. He wasn’t just beating journeymen but guys who were genuine contenders.
Somewhere beneath that genial, bald, preacher facade the monster who destroyed Joe Frazier with tremendous hitting power was lurking there.
Holyfield won on points. He couldn’t knock out Foreman, but more importantly, despite many clubbing blows by a man larger and stronger than him, Holyfield himself was not beaten.
He had a chin of stone and a heart to go with it. It was then I thought that he was a true champ.
When Tyson faced Holyfield in 1997, he was facing a man who would not be intimidated, who was not going to crumble under his usual barrage and who was hurting him in return.
Tyson knew he was in trouble. So what did he do? He bit Holyfield’s ear. He played dirty.
Which brings me to the MACC and its police report against Thai pathologist Dr Pornthip Rojanasunan for supposedly making a sub judice statement to the press.
I have not read the actual press report in question so I would not want to comment whether such a claim has any merit.
My point here is that there are ways and means to deal with a complaint of this sort. The most obvious and fair procedure would be to make a complaint with the inquiry itself. In other words to allow the inquiry process to sort out any problems “in house”.
By making a police report, what the MACC has done in effect is to bring a third party into the mix.
A chief witness now has to not only deal with justifying her findings to the inquiry but also with her possible arrest and interrogation by the police.
Instead of playing fair, the MACC has taken a route which could at the very worst intimidate a witness or at the very least irritate her to the point where she won’t come to the country to take part in the inquiry.
And even if she did come back to the country to face down her accusers, just how swift would the police be in handling the problems of their fellow government servants?
In other words, the MACC, by making the police report instead of simply lodging a complaint to the inquiry, has put a spanner in the works.
I wonder why? Is it not interested in finding out the truth about Teoh Beng Hock’s death? If it were concerned with justice, then surely it would want the inquiry to continue smoothly and honestly.
Unless of course, it does not view this as an inquiry but some sort of scrap that it has to win at all costs, where it has to ensure that what really happened in Plaza Masalam remains uncovered.
Why it would want this is beyond me, but what is clear is that if it views this inquest as a fight, it is obviously in trouble because it is playing dirty.

Songs that send me up the wall

2009-12-09T18:16:00.000-08:00

Brave New World (The Star)
December 10, 2009

"If You Are Not The One, or The Man Who Can’t Be Moved, it makes no sense to be told I’ve Never Been To Me."

_______________________

IT has been a rather busy week and I have found it impossible to write coherently (please, no snide remarks) about any of the current affairs that are happening, errrr, currently.
So I thought why not take a break from politics, law, governance and all that, to write about something fun, like music.
The first idea that popped into my head was to write about the songs of the best band in the history of bands, the Beatles. With any luck this free publicity might encourage Apple Corp to give me a set of the newly re-mastered albums.
However, knowing that Apple is no longer the happy hippy body it used to be in the 60s, when their headquarters was also a shop where people just took what they wanted (“hey man ... don’t be such a square ... it’s only your things I’m taking, not your mojo”), I realised there was little hope of this.
Furthermore, where’s the fun in me gushing about a band that I have loved since I was six? It would be far more interesting to write about songs I loathe; songs that actually set my teeth on edge.
These are quite popular songs mind you, and I expect that some of you probably love them and have a special place in your heart for them. If this is so, I offer no apologies and I await with pleasure your vitriolic e-mails about how I am a philistine.
Let us begin with that drippiest of drippy songs, If You’re Not The One by Daniel Bedingfield. If ever there was a song written by some pathetic little 16-year-old who has never had a girlfriend in his life, this is it.
I don’t know if Bedingfield wrote this when he was a loveless little oik sitting in the back of the classroom gazing longingly at the prettiest girl in school who looks at him as though he was something she scrapped off the sole of her shoe, but it sure sounds like it.
The singing is whiny and the rhyming makes Hallmark sound like Keats. Clumsy attempts like “If I don’t need you, why am I crying in my bed. If I don’t need you, why does your name resound in my head.”
“Resound in my head”? That gives rise to some serious imagery (unintentional, I am sure, as anyone who can write such drivel can’t possibly understand imagery) of a rather empty cranium.
The next song is similar to the first in that it is what a drummer friend of mine classifies as “loser music”. The difference being that while If You’re Not The One is just wet, this one steps over the line into downright creepy. The Man Who Can’t Be Moved by The Script, is a perfect example of how an idea put to music may actually sound quite sweet, but when you listen carefully to the words, this is not something that you would want to happen to you in real life.
OK, here’s what it’s about. Some dude, meets a girl on a corner, falls in love and waits there for her – for months. He can’t be moved. He’s got a photo of her which he shows strangers walking by. He hopes to appear on the news so that she could see him.
Now, imagine if this was real life. You meet some guy on some street corner, no less. You don’t like him enough to give him your phone number or e-mail. You don’t like him enough to ask him for his.
Next thing you know, this person is on TV news with your picture, pleading for you to come see him. And he’s been standing there on that street for months, through sun and monsoon.
Seriously, are you going to say “awww, how sweet, he must really truly love me, I must run to his arms this very minute” or are you going to call the police and try to get this guy locked up in Tanjung Rambutan? He’s a nut case potential stalker, for crying out loud!
The last song is the one I hate the most. I have saved the best for last.
In case you are unsure, I am not a woman. However, if I were a woman, this is the last thing I would want to happen to me.
I am in a hypermarket buying groceries. One hand is trying to control the trolley with a wonky wheel; the other is holding a baby who is crying and has also just pooped himself.
Pulling at my pasar malam skirt is a three-year-old little brat (just like his no good fat father) demanding I buy him chocolates. I am at the end of my tether.
Then suddenly from around the aisle comes this woman dressed in Donna Karan, Hermes handbag on her shoulder, clicking away in her Jimmy Choos. She looks at me and with a simpering smile, comes up to me and says in a so-called “understanding” whimper: “Hey lady, you lady, cursing at your life. You’re a discontented mother and a regimented wife”.
Then she goes wittering on and on and on about how she has travelled to Greece, sailed on a yacht, been wined and dined by kings and basically lived a life that would have taken up an entire episode of Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous.
At the end of it, she tells me that I am the lucky one. Hell, the last time I went on holiday was to Fat Husband’s company retreat in Port Dickson and I spent the whole time taking care of the kids.
I swear, if I were a woman and some rich bimbo comes up to me like in Charlene’s I’ve Never Been To Me, I would slap her so hard, she’d think she was back in Monte Carlo where she moved like Harlow.
Anyway, that is all folks, one of these days, I may write about movies I can’t stand.

Desperately seeking real unity

2009-11-25T19:08:00.000-08:00

Brave New World (The Star)
26 November 2009

______________________________

ON Sunday night I was with a group of chaps and we were jumping, dancing and shouting with joy.
Looking back now, it occurred to me that if someone had photographed us, we would have made wonderful poster boys for unity (albeit highly unattractive poster boys). We were your classic Melayu, Cina, India group (with apologies to my indigenous fellow citizens).
No, I was not taking part in some plastic 1Malaysia campaign. This moment was a genuine one with real feeling. The reason for our unbridled muhibbah celebrations was Tottenham Hotspur’s 9–1 victory over Wigan.
It was an amazing night which started (as it always does with long-suffering Spurs fans) with cautious optimism, building to happiness at what was looking like a solid victory, and culminating in ecstatic disbelief that we were watching a historical game unfold.
I suppose the authentic nature of our oneness that night was due to the fact that we shared a common goal and a common endeavour.
And that is the key to any true sense of unity – an overarching ideal that transcends petty differences like the colour of your skin, the god/s that you worship and the food that you eat.
I have written before about gross displays of racism in this country. And I have been critical of those in power who pander to such feelings, indeed, who perpetuate it with their bigoted gesturing.
I have called many times for governance that does away completely with ethnic-based policies and laws.
These elements remain in our country and they continue to scupper any efforts of achieving a sense of Malaysian-ness.
All efforts must be made to exorcise them from our national psyche and system of governance. However, it would be folly to wait for these “big” issues to be settled before we did anything.
We must not fall back on our old “Hang Tuah” complex wishing for some hero to come swooping down and with a Herculean effort solve all our problems overnight.
Instead, we must reclaim our country by making changes ourselves, within our own personal orbits.
And we must make it clear to those who lead and who wish to lead, that we will tolerate no such garbage from them.
In this light, I was happy and honoured to take part in the launch of the Saya Anak Bangsa Malaysia movement in Penang on Nov 15.
The SABM is a non-aligned movement made up of volunteers who are basically spreading the message of creating a Malaysia where our different cultures are celebrated but with the belief that we are all Malaysians first.
They advocate a non-ethnic brand of politics and governance with the protection of our human rights via the Federal Constitution (for more information go to http://www.saya anakbangsamalaysia.net/)
Although they are not aligned to any political party, it does not mean they are not political.
By this I mean they advocate that citizens use their power to voice dissent (at the very least through the ballot box) and to push for change from the grassroots up.
In this way, the SABM does not provide yet another organisation seeking a leadership role; instead it aims to empower citizens to instigate changes themselves.
An interesting aspect of the launch in Penang was that the organisers had requested Malay participants to bring a friend who was not of their ethnic group and vice-versa.
It came as no surprise to me to find that the majority of the participants (despite their obvious earnestness) were unable to do so.
To me, this shows that where ethnic relations are concerned, this country has reached a crisis point.
True, we have not (yet) got the experience of skinhead fascists prowling the streets, but in a way our situation is more perilous as it is quiet and swept under the carpet by superficial shows of supposed unity.
We have accepted racism as a way of life and when it happens, it is seen as a norm.
Using a trite example: How often have you seen advertisements for housemates with an ethnic prerequisite?
And no one blinks an eyelid, because we have allowed this to be part of our flesh and blood.
The number of participants at the SABM launch was small, and as I said, it did not go on as the organisers had hoped it would.
However, instead of finding this discouraging, I find it means that such movements like the SABM are needed more than ever.
They are taking their message across the country starting early next year, and it is a message that has to go out.
Yes, they are idealistic and yes, they are utopian. And I count myself as one of those idealistic people longing for a Utopia.
Unrealistic? Perhaps. But without such higher hopes and goals, we will forever be squabbling and scratching around in the divisive, exclusionary, bigoted, unkind, nation state of our own making.
In the meantime, every time there is a Spurs match on, I will be watching it with my pals.
And I am secure in the knowledge that they see me not as Azmi Sharom, Melayu, but Azmi Sharom the loyal Spurs supporter who can’t analyse a game to save his life.

Postscript: I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate Arsenal fans for having the second highest margin of victory so far in this season.

Freedom to agree or disagree

2009-11-25T06:29:00.000-08:00

Brave New World (The Star)
November 12, 2009

"Our own laziness and lack of self-belief are producing high-handed action by some authorities."

_______________________

THERE are about 1.5 billion Muslims in the world. Broadly speaking, these 1.5 billion are divided into two distinct denominations; the Sunni and the Shi’ite.
The Sunnis are further broken into four major schools of thought (or mazhab) and these are the Shafii, Hambali, Maliki and Hanafi.
The Shi’ites have three major mazhab and these are the Twelvers, Ismailis and Zaidis.
Within each broad denomination and mazhab there are further groupings and ideologies.
Amongst the Sunnis for example there are the literalist Salafis (which Saudi Arabian Wahhabism falls under).
Then there are certain cross-denominational movements like the mystical Sufis.
Any basic textbook will describe these different schools of thought within the Muslim world.
It is nothing particularly new or exciting.
Well, it can be exciting if one who is raised in the Sunni tradition finds oneself in an Ismaili mosque, not knowing it is an Ismaili mosque.
This is what happened to me many years ago.
I had found a mosque within walking distance from my house in Middlesex, England.
It looked very nice and I thought it would be good to go to Friday prayers there.
I should have guessed this was not Shafii territory anymore when I saw that everyone was dressed in the same kind of robe and when the prayers did not seem to have any end in sight.
Standing out like a sore thumb in my black jeans and black leather jacket, I prostrated along with the rest for what seemed to be a heck lot of prostrations until finally, at the end of what was the umpteenth prayer, the gentleman next to me kindly said, “We are finished now, you can go home.”
My point is that within the rich tapestry of world religions, even within a particular religion, there will be many differing views and ways of thinking.
It is an unfortunate but natural tendency amongst followers of a particular faith or even a group within a particular faith to think that they have the real deal and that everyone else is either wrong or misguided in some way.
I remember a Methodist pastor telling me with some amusement how a Catholic once said to him, in all earnestness, “you know, we Catholics view you Protestants as Christian, too.”
As a pluralist, I would like to think that all people have a right to believe what they want in any way they want; the only proviso being the golden rule, which is to not do unto others what you would not want done unto you.
In other words, if you aren’t hurting anyone, go ahead and do what you are happy with.
This is of course not the way things are in Malaysia.
Although our Constitution guarantees religious freedom to all people, it does place restrictions on proselytising to Muslims.
This includes Muslim-to-Muslim proselytising, which is why we have laws requiring permits and the like for anyone to preach to Muslims.
Datuk Dr Muhammad Asri Zainul Abidin, the former Mufti of Perlis, experienced this law first-hand when he was arrested by the Selangor Islamic Department.
The question here is why we should have such laws in the first place.
It has been argued that such laws are necessary to ensure public order.
There have been arguments, for example, that Dr Asri has been preaching a brand of Islam that is different from mainstream Malaysian orthodoxy and this has caused “unease” amongst Muslims who have heard him speak.
This is of course conjecture. Besides, if some sensitive souls may be uncomfortable with what we say, it would be a rather pathetic reason to curb such a fundamental right as the freedom of speech.
Short of incitement to violence, there should be no limitations on speech.
However, let us assume this was the case, that Dr Asri had been causing “unease”.
The question then becomes, why on earth is this so?
I have read some of his works and there are times I agree very strongly with him.
For example, his attacks on “khalwat squads”, poor treatment of Muslim converts by those in authority and the downright narrow-minded practice of not allowing non-Muslims into mosques.
I believe these were necessary stands to take.
Coming from a person with the requisite “qualifications” and goatee, I was hoping such statements would begin to take the practice of Islam in this country away from petty perversions, racist dogma and exclusivity.
I don’t agree with some of the other things he has said, for example his criticism of the Islam Liberal movement in Indonesia.
But surely that’s the point: he has his views and one is at liberty to agree or disagree.
The reason why there is “unease” is because for generations, Muslims in this country have not been encouraged to think for themselves.
On the contrary, we are told to obey those who know better, and that is that.
So, when an authority figure says something different from another authority figure, there is a moral panic of sorts.
To me the root issue here is not Dr Asri’s right to speak.
Instead, it is about a mindset of subservience to religious authority that is so entrenched that the very thought of ideas different from the mainstream is enough to “justify” high-handed action.
The Islamic authorities in this country prefer to keep the Muslim populace in their thrall.
In that way, their word is law, and their power and influence are maintained.
And we, through laziness and lack of self-belief, have let them do so. The arrest of Dr Asri is the logical conclusion of this state of affairs.

Let's not forget the value of the rule of law

2009-11-25T06:27:00.000-08:00

Brave New World (The Star)
October 29, 2009

"Those who should know better are forgetting the values enshrined in our Constitution, thus the Bar Council’s education campaign."

___________________________

DO you remember VK Lingam? You don’t? Let me refresh your memory.
He is a lawyer who, at least at one point, was said to have had a lot of influence on the judiciary. So much influence in fact that he was found to have been brokering judicial positions.
Normally I am coy about making blunt statements like this, due to memories (vague and sleepy as they are) of my classes on the topic of defamation, but this is not me making a bold statement. This is the finding of the Royal Commission established to investigate the authenticity of a videotape which had VK Lingam in it.
The video shows Lingam talking to a judge and promising to ensure his promotion. The Commission found that the tape was real; the person talking on the tape was VK Lingam; he was talking to Judge Ahmad Fairuz; and indeed the appointment and promotion of judges do appear to have been open to manipulation from private citizens and members of the Cabinet (in the case of that video, Tengku Adnan Tengku Mansor).
Do you remember now? Correct, correct, correct, he is the man in the scandalous Lingam tape.
Well, it seems that the Commission’s proposal that these men be investigated under several laws (such as the Anti-Corruption Act) is not going to be taken to the logical conclusion of a trial, because the government has decided there is not enough evidence.
Bizarre, isn’t it?
You have a tape with serious implications about our judiciary and prima facie unsavoury activities authenticated by a Royal Commission, and they say there is not enough evidence.
Come on, just last week Tian Chua the Pakatan MP was found guilty of biting a policeman on, at least as reported in the press, little more evidence than the policeman in question basically saying “he bit me, honest he did, he bit me.”
How much evidence do you need?
Why is this a serious matter? Well, the judiciary is a crucial part of our system of government; a system of government which, according to the Constitution, practices a separation of powers.
That is to say, to ensure that despotism does not rule, the people who make the laws (Parliament), the people who enforce the laws (Cabinet) and the people who decide on any question of law (the judiciary) are kept apart to avoid any one body or person from having absolute power.
The judiciary must therefore be as independent as possible so that they can do their job without fear or favour, and so that the citizens of the country can have faith in the system.
If we do not want to live in a dictatorship, then an independent judiciary is a fundamental element of our system of governance that must be protected.
Having lawyers brokering positions in the judiciary along with Cabinet ministers in the tawdriest manner imaginable does not bode well for the independence of the judiciary or its dignity.
This matter is important to the founders of this nation, which is why you find it enshrined in the Constitution.
The Constitution is the document that lays down all the basic principles required to run our country in a particular manner. Ours has determined that our country is one which practices a secular, democratic system with separation of powers.
Without this foundation, the governance of this country will be rudderless and its citizens bereft of important protections spelt out in the Constitution.
The importance of this document cannot be emphasised enough, and in this light it is heartening that the Bar Council’s Constitutional Law Committee has decided to launch a first-of-its-kind awareness programme called the My Constitution Campaign (Kempen Perlembagaan Ku).
I really dislike campaigns. They usually smack of lip service and sometimes are embarrassing (1Toilet anyone?), but this is one campaign that I think is necessary.
It will basically be about spreading information regarding the Constitution to the Malaysian public in a style that is easily understood and digested.
This will take the form of booklets, citizen service advertisements and public forums.
The campaign begins at 3pm on Nov 13 at the Bar Council (open to all), and hopefully they will enjoy some success.
Now, I do not for one second believe that the My Constitution Campaign is going to create an entire population well versed in the Constitution.
I have no delusions that people will be talking about it with the same vigour as they do about whatever reality singing and dancing programme on the telly right now, but what I hope it will achieve is to ensure that those of us who do care about our lives and our futures; those who think that good governance and justice are important aspects of life, will at least have a better understanding of this, the supreme law of the nation, which was created with those values as its ideals.
It is an understanding that those who have decided to drop the Lingam case seem to lack.

Hoping for change

2009-11-25T06:26:00.000-08:00

Brave New World (The Star)
October 15, 2009

"The Nobel Peace Prize should not be given lightly, and neither should corruption and political office be mentioned in the same breath."

________________________

WHAT a funny week it has been. One man gets a prize despite having done nothing to deserve it and another gets a prize despite having done something which should have prevented him from getting it.
I am speaking of US President Barack Obama and local politician Tan Sri Mohd Isa Samad. Boy, I never thought I’d use these two names in the same sentence.
Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize came out of the blue and of course the question on everybody’s mind was, what on earth did he do to deserve it?
Apparently it is for the “hope” that he has given to a world totally “bushed” from America’s cowboy “diplomacy” of the past eight years.
Well, if making people feel good is a factor to be considered for the Nobel Peace Prize then I nominate Barry Manilow for bringing joy to countless millions of housewives around the world (with his music, of course).
Another reason given by the Nobel people is the “potential” that he has shown for bringing peace to the world. This is very weird. For one thing, his “potential” has not been particularly promising.
America is still at war in Iraq and Afghanistan and in fact its presence in Afghanistan appears to be getting even stronger, what with the call from the senior US military commander there, General Stanley A. McChrystal, for 40,000 more troops.
And the so-called peace process between Palestine and Israel sees America basically letting the Israelis do whatever they want.
Jewish settlements in Arab land continues, United Nations Human Rights Council Judge Richard Goldstone’s (a Jew incidentally) condemnation on the attacks on Gaza is brushed aside by the United States and the Palestinians are told to go to the negotiating table with no conditions attached, basically tying their hands behind their backs.
So, forgive me if I don’t see how Obama is going to achieve this “potential” as the architect, or at the very least a big wheel in the achievement of world peace.
And what if he doesn’t live up to this expectation? What if things get worse? Does he have to give the prize back?
Don’t get me wrong, Obama is so much more palatable than Bush and I’m certain diplomatic ties between America and the rest of the world is going to be much, much better under him.
But the Nobel Peace Prize should not be given lightly and the reasons why he has been bestowed this honour seems to me to be rather frivolous and premature.
Now, over to our little corner of the world. Isa Abdul Samad has given something for the Umno people to crow about.
He won the by-election in Bagan Pinang and added some 3,000 votes to Umno’s majority.
This is Umno’s first major victory in all the by-elections after the 2008 general election.
It’s all a little strange because Isa, as everybody knows, was found guilty of money politics by his own party and has just served out his punishment.
Some may say that the man has “done his time” and should not be stopped from competing in the elections.
Normally I would agree, but not in this case. Money politics is corruption; it is not a “technical offence”, whatever that might be.
In light of the fact that corruption is one of the banes of Malaysian public life, choosing him as their candidate (and now having him as an assemblyman) is to my mind akin to allowing a convicted paedophile to be a kindergarten teacher after he has served his time.
There are some offences which should bar one from certain jobs.
Corruption and political office is one of those situations.
Having said that, the people of Bagan Pinang obviously do not consider corruption to be such a big issue, which is why they gave Isa such a nice majority.
What is interesting to note is the very large (40%) swing among non-Malay voters away from the Pakatan. Whatever their reasons for this loss in faith, Pakatan, in particular PAS, has to take note.
They have to figure out what went wrong and try to rectify it. Denial and angry accusations are not going to help.
It’s been a funny old week. We have two men, both receiving prizes that maybe should not have gone to them.
Only the future can tell if this will have any significant effect at all.

Growing up in an age of innocence

2009-11-25T06:21:00.000-08:00

Brave New World (The Star)
October 1, 2009
"Childhood is the time of great innocence. Friends will be friends because we get along, and there’s no ‘other’."

__________________________________________________________________________________

I WENT to Francis Light 1 primary school in Jalan Perak. This was in Penang, naturally, because which other state will have a school named after Francis Light?
The school was (is) in a poor part of town and most of the children were street smart and tough.
I, on the other hand, was a soft suburbanite who only went to this school, miles away from home, because of my father’s strange “sense of history”.
I suppose Sekolah Bukit Lancang does not have the same historical resonance as “Francis Light”.
Be that as it may, I had a wonderful time there, partly due to the fact that I was fat and too large to be picked on by my fellow undernourished pupils.
I am not one for sentimentality, but looking back, it was indeed a time of great innocence.
My “best friend” depended on who sat next to me.
So, in Standard One, it was a little chap with curly hair called Syed.
We used to play on the roots of the giant trees surrounding our school, pretending that if we fell off, the “buaya” would eat us; very exciting stuff, and not a Gameboy in sight.
In Standard Three, my best mate was Alan.
Strangely enough, we have both ended up on the same career path.
He, too, is a law lecturer, but he’s on the wrong side of the Causeway.
Unfortunate for us, as he is a far better academic than me.
Standard Four saw me perpetually hanging around with Ganesan, a kid fatter than myself who had a wonderful brain rich with imagination.
Obsessed as he was by food, he was convinced that heaven was a place where everything was made of edible stuff.
Knowing my dietary restrictions and concerned about his pal after death, Ganesan once told me, “Azmi, in heaven, you don’t have to worry. You can eat pork because the pigs will be made of pink jelly.”
I think he has emigrated to Australia.
In my last year there, I was in a little gang of misfits consisting of Sultan, Zahir and Suresh — I think that was his name.
Oh, but I’m getting old; I can see his face so clearly and remember that he was petrified of cockroaches, but what is his name?
Friends were friends because we got along. That’s all.
And teachers were liked or disliked because of what they did.
Cikgu Syed was well respected because he was cool.
Mr Goh could play the guitar and sing; groovy.
Cikgu Zubaidah was loved because she was utterly dedicated to us.
And there was Mrs Gopal who was rather feared because she was such a disciplinarian.
So much so that when I bumped into her on the streets while I was in Form 3 and she looked at me and said “Ah, Azmi, why are you not in school”, I trembled and mumbled some excuse about it being break time between SRP papers.
The fact that by then I was a head and a half taller than her made no difference at all.
There are others, of course, friends and teachers. Some were enemies and some were seriously disliked, but the point is there was no sense of the “other”.
“Unity” depended purely on personality. That is the way with children.
But when you have a situation where the “real world” divides us and insists on our differences, whatever childhood innocence will dissipate and be replaced with something else. Something divisive and exclusionary.
In this light, will the idea of having a “multiracial hostel” be anything more than simply a PR exercise? I seriously doubt it.
As long as we go on the way we are, as long as our system of governance does not change, as long as there is no true sense of belonging for all people in this nation, then any superficial attempt at “national unity” will be as illusory as pink jelly pigs.

Penang needs the money too

2009-11-25T06:16:00.000-08:00

Brave New World (The Star)
September 17, 2009

"George Town as a Unesco heritage site may have to play second fiddle to ‘twin’ Malacca if petty politics gets in the way of responsible governance."

________________________________________________________________________

IN November last year, then Prime Minister Datuk Seri (now Tun) Abdullah Badawi said that RM50mil would be allocated to Penang and Malacca for conservation purposes. That’s RM25mil each.
The reason for this is because the cities of George Town and Malacca are on the Unesco World Heritage list. This means that in the eyes of the UN, our two cities are of such value and worth that they are a heritage, not just for Malaysia but for the entire planet.
Quite an honour really and our Prime Minister at the time recognised this. Good for him, I say.
Both the towns have truly beautiful bits (I grew up on the island and have over the years enjoyed many an evening strolling the streets of Malacca); but they both need money to conserve, preserve and restore those beautiful bits.
Then, this week, I read that the money was not going to Penang. I have no solid news as to whether it is going to Malacca or not, but the minister in charge, Datuk Seri Dr Rais Yatim, most definitely said the money would not be given to Penang.
He said that the money promised by Abdullah was a “misconception”.
This got me to scratching my head. How can “The Federal Government is going to give Penang RM25mil for conservation purposes” be misconceived?
It’s not as if Abdullah said something vague like “The Federal Government is going to give a town somewhere in the north of the peninsular an undisclosed amount of money for some purpose or other. Maybe.”
But then, I am not surprised really. Rais once wrote an impassioned plea to rid the nation of the ISA and then later said it was a fine and dandy law. I guess his book was a misconception.
I am also not surprised because Penang is no longer under Barisan Nasional rule. Malacca still is, and from my informants I gather that 40 heritage projects have been appro-ved there.
This is not the only example of differential treatment. Agriculture Minister Datuk Noh Omar gave an order in July to all civil servants in his ministry to not attend meetings with opposition state governments, upon pain of disciplinary hearings.
He said this is because money for agriculture projects come from the Federal Government, so why should they cooperate with the Opposition state governments?
Let me explain a little about federalism to these two gentlemen. In a federal system, you have a Federal Government with its own powers. You have state governments with their own powers. They each exist in their own worlds but there will be situations where they have to cooperate, and there will be situations where they have responsibilities to one another.
Now, if the Federal Government has a responsibility, for example, to develop agriculture or if it placed the responsibility upon itself, like making a promise for money to be used for heritage conservation, then it has to live up to that responsibility.
This is a responsibility between two governments — federal and state. It is not about political parties. This is a question of good governance, and once elections are over those in power have a duty to us, the people of this country, to get on with governing properly, fairly and indiscriminately.
The people of Penang, indeed the world, will risk seeing a heritage site neglected. For what? Cheap political points?
I would also like to remind Rais that once a site has been declared a world heritage, then the nation has an international obligation to care for it. Being the sophisticated man of the world that he is, well versed in international laws, I am sure he understands this.
Yesterday was Malaysia Day. We have come a long way in terms of infrastructure and wealth. It’s a shame that our political maturity is still so stunted that we are unable to draw a line between governance and party.
If we are to blossom into the true democratic country that we have the potential to be, then it is high time we grew up.

Let’s stamp out racism

2009-09-02T23:34:00.000-07:00

Brave New World (The Star)
September 3, 2009

"Not only must we condemn the cow-head protest in Shah Alam last week but we must look into ourselves and make sure we don’t think and speak like racists."

_______________________

The cow-head protest in Shah Alam last week left me feeling utterly disgusted. The men who organised and participated in that foul act are nothing but rank racists, and by cloaking their activities in a veil of piousness they show themselves to be even more despicable.

Yes, I was furious, but sadly I was not surprised. How can I be and how can anyone else be? We have allowed racists to have their way for so many years now.

Their appalling words and actions get progressively bolder and it just builds and builds until we have these men feeling they have the right to insult another religion in the most vile and brutal manner.

In the light of how Malay and Islamic supremacist thinking and expression have caught hold in the last few years, this sickening behaviour is simply a natural progression.

It happened because we allowed it to happen. Those bigoted thugs did what they did because we did not stamp down on the racists among us hard.

We allowed racist politicians to spout their garbage about “immigrant races”; we allowed them to tell our brothers and sisters to “go back to where you belong”; we allowed them to wave weapons of war; and we allowed them to ask for the weapons to be bathed in blood.

It’s too late for any politician to condemn something now when all the other acts of bigotry that have been brewing in the past few years were not even protested against because they suited their political needs.

It is too late to be making pleas of unity on National Day when not enough has been done before.

Let’s look at something recent. Two books that attacked the Mentri Besar of Selangor and Opposition Leader Anwar Ibrahim are blatantly racist.

They claim that Selangor is for Malays only. They claim that the Pakatan Rakyat state government threatens Malays because they hire non-Malay staff.

In other words, the government must only hire Malays so that only Malays get benefits from the government. This is racism pure and simple. But because it suits the ruling party, as these books attack Pakatan, nothing is said.

Racism is racism, be it some vile words published in some cheap self-published drivel, or a bleeding cow head stomped and spat upon. Racism is racism and it must be fought.

When it is not fought, when it is not faced down every single time, then those without the courage to fight it are merely accomplices who, through their cowardice or selfishness, support it.

And how should we fight it? The law that should be used is the Penal Code. The Sedition Act is a blunderbuss of a law and could be used against genuine dissent as well. Let us not look to that archaic leaving of the British.

Use the provisions in the Penal Code that make incitement an offence. Charge these people under the Penal Code and lock them away.

But that is for the authorities to do, if they so choose to. We, the people, must look into ourselves and make sure we don’t think and speak like racists. We must be even more careful that we do not infect our children.

We should speak out against racism and we should tell our political leaders that if they do not fight racism then they are supporting racism and we will not support them.

We must make sure that what happened in Shah Alam faces utter and complete public contempt. Only in that way can we ensure it is not repeated.

(El: But Azmi, yours is an increasingly lonely and disregarded voice.)

Aide’s death a tragedy for the entire nation

2009-07-28T20:32:00.000-07:00

Brave New World (The Star)
July 23, 2009

"There is need to find out for certain what happened in the case of Teoh Beng Hock and to punish those who are responsible."

_______________________

I hope there will be an independent Royal Commission of Inquiry formed to investigate the tragic death of Teoh Beng Hock. Anything less will simply not satisfy our demand for the truth.

Unfortunately for the nation, faith in the legal system of this country is very low. Therefore, for the sake of answering the many questions surrounding this young man’s death, a body which is outside the system and is trusted to be impartial must be created and left alone to do its job.

There is absolutely no point in telling the people to place their trust in the police investigation. In high profile political cases like these, the police are, rightly so, seen as little more than the servant not of the people but of the government of the day.

The MACC interrogated this young man for hours. He was not even a suspect, merely a witness. Yet they kept him in custody into the early hours of the morning.

This may appear to be a determination to do one’s duty to the utmost (after all corruption is corruption even if it involves RM10).

But the issue is not simply about fighting corruption, it is about double standards.

The victim was a worker for the Selangor Pakatan government. Specifically, he was working for a DAP member of the state legislative body.

There are huge cases of supposed corruption in Selangor, yet, the MACC or its previous incarnation the ACA has not tackled these cases with even the slightest bit of enthusiasm as they have with the DAP state legislators accused of wrong doing.

Why is this so? It is because this is a political case and if Teoh had not been working for who he did, he would not have been in that building at all.

It is, however, not a racial case. At the small vigil held at the MACC building the day Teoh died, and at the Kelana Jaya rally, not once did anyone mention race.

Not one person accused the MACC of being Malay bigots. It was not mentioned by the speakers or even people in the crowd.

People were angry, yes, but they were angry over the needless death of a young Malaysian man, not a young ethnic Chinese man.

They were angry at what they think was the abuse of power by MACC officers, not the abuse of power by Malay officers.

And here you have some saying that the outrage felt by the people is racially based and an attempt to topple a Malay institution.

Malay institution? The MACC stands for Malaysian Anti-Corrup-tion Commission, not Malay Anti-Corruption Commission. Either these people are too moronic to see the difference, or they are up to something more insidious.

By painting this as a race issue instead of what it truly is, a human rights and democracy issue, they seek to divert attention from the crux of the matter.

It is also possible that they truly believe that government institutions like the MACC are supposed to be Malay institutions, in which case they show themselves to be the utter racists that they are and, if this is so, they should be treated with nothing but the utmost contempt.

A young man with his entire future ahead of him died needlessly last week. He leaves behind a grieving family, a devastated fiancée and an unborn child who will grow up without a father.

On the most basic compassionate level, the need to find out for certain what happened and to punish those who are responsible is imperative.

But the death of Teoh Beng Hock is more than just about the death of one man. It is about the future of democracy in this nation.

At a time when young men and women feel the change in the air, when they feel a difference can finally come and they seek to do nothing more than serve the public in thankless tasks, they see that this desire to do good can be rewarded with death. What does this bode for the future?

Teoh’s story is a tragedy for those who loved him and those who knew him.

It is also, sadly, a tragedy for the entire nation; a tragedy made all the worse if we do not go on striving for the values and ideals that this young man obviously believed in.

The creation of an independent investigative body is necessary.

May you rest in peace, Beng Hock.

View the bigger picture

2009-07-28T20:30:00.000-07:00

Brave New World (The Star)
July 9, 2009

"The recent squabbles within Pakatan Rakyat show up its deficiencies, that it still has much to learn about governance."

_______________________

The importance of the last general election and the creation of Pakatan Rakyat is that it gave the hope of a viable two-party system.

For a true democracy to exist, we need a two- or multi-party system, with governments actually changing every now and then.

Thus when March 8 occurred, the thrill for me was the possibility of Malaysia getting a real and vibrant democracy.

However, for this hope to be a long-term sustainable reality, the Pakatan has a lot to do; it has to consolidate its grip. This ought to be done on three levels with three different roles to play collectively.

The first level is with regard to the state governments. The governments of Penang, Kelantan, Kedah and Selangor just have to knuckle down and work hard as the administrators. They have to prove their ability to keep things running well, and to keep their promises, too. Theirs is an administrative role.

The second level is in the hands of the MPs in Parliament. They should keep the pressure on Barisan Nasional by being more vocal in and out of Parliament, questioning decisions and pointing out wrongdoings. With their larger numbers, they can be a more powerful presence in the legislature. Theirs is a political role.

The third level is with the Pakatan coalition itself. It has to prove cohesiveness in direction, ambition and philosophy. It is understood of course that there are some differences that are insurmountable, but politics in Malaysia is nothing if not a series of compromises. What is vital is that the compromises in the Pakatan be seen to not tear it apart. This is what can be described as the role of leadership.

The past few weeks have seen the Pakatan floundering in at least two of these levels: the administrative and leadership.

With regard to the administrative issue, I believe that by and large the Pakatan state governments have been working hard. There have been successes particularly in Penang, Selangor and, prior to the change, Perak. It needs, however, to concentrate on a few matters.

One of the most important in my view is to act like the government that they are, and to portray this effectively to the people.

Concentrate on keeping election promises as well as proving that corruption will not be tolerated, and efficiency will be improved and real paradigm shifts will occur.

Small political games like taking every opportunity to throw jabs at the Barisan should not be the job of the state governments, in particular the heads of government.

The Penang Chief Minister in particular seems to have forgotten that he is the boss man now, not the hired muscle. Political street fighting should be left to the MPs, and I think they are more than able to do it. Only by acting like statesmen can the state administrations convince the people that they have it in them to govern.

The recent Kedah fiasco is also another sign of poor governance, but I disagree with Information, Communications and Culture Minister Datuk Seri Dr Rais Yatim, who says it is an indication that the Pakatan cannot work and that there are inherent flaws in the coalition.

The problem in Kedah arose not because the PAS government acted like PAS; it arose because it acted like Umno. The allocation of 50% of a housing project to Malays is not what the Pakatan believes in.

Why is it so difficult for PAS to stop thinking along racial lines and start thinking along the lines of economic need?

This is not merely a Pakatan ideal; it is also a PAS ideal. It was, after all, PAS spiritual leader Datuk Nik Aziz Nik Mat himself who insisted that in Islamic eyes, there is no such thing as race.

The destruction of the state’s only pig abattoir was insensitive and contrary to the tolerant approach taken by the Kelantan PAS government. If the Kedah PAS government had acted in a way that matched the coalition’s ideals and indeed, PAS’ ideals, then these problems would not have arisen.

The Pakatan also needs to have stronger leadership. Granted that what PKR strategic director Tian Chua says is true, the Pakatan is clearly more democratic than the Barisan as it does allow for quite open disagreements.

However, there is healthy disagreement and then there is outright subversion of purpose.

I am speaking of course about PAS youth wanting to play footsie with Umno youth. These “unity discussions” are an outright disgrace on several levels.

First, the entire premise of such talks is racially based. Malay unity seems to be the primary concern, no matter what language is used by the two groups in couching the terms of their courtship.

Again, we see the race card being played when it is fundamentally against the whole ethos of the Pakatan. One has to wonder then why this game is being played.

If it is done in the hope of PAS politicians securing their future with Umno, perhaps a cushy ministerial post, then the Pakatan leadership must show the necessary toughness to stop such behaviour in its tracks.

And this must be done not in some namby-pamby way but with determination and force. Anything less reveals a lack of backbone to stand by your own ideals and principles.

There has been some good recently coming from the opposition. I like the idea of the shadow Cabinet committees. It is a step in the right direction, although I have reservations about Kulim Bandar Baru MP Zulkifli Nordin being in the Higher Education Committee.

I can’t see how a man who can disrupt a peaceful discussion organised by the Bar Council – and thus disrespecting fundamental freedoms – can be of any use in a committee dealing with higher education.

Higher education, after all, is about the dissemination and exchange of ideas. Such a person is not suited to be on this committee and one wonders then if the Pakatan pool is so small that it has to choose this person.

Be that as it may, the committee idea shows a desire to have a more cohesive approach in parliamentary opposition, and it ought to be applauded. However, the Pakatan still has a lot to do to get its house in order. It is important for us, the people, to not forget the bigger picture, and that is the need for a sustainable two-party system.

But such lofty ideals are beyond most folk. They make decisions based on what they can see; and the Pakatan had better show them something solid as administrators, politicians and leaders. It’s only got, at the most, three more years to do so.

It takes two to tango

2009-07-28T20:28:00.000-07:00

Brave New World (The Star)
June 25, 2009

"The little sneak was secretly chatting to his ex-girlfriend who he had dated in the 70s and 80s with disastrous results."

_______________________

Dear Aunty Selma,

I never thought that I would be the type of person to write to a newspaper Agony Aunt, but really I am at my wits end and I do not know what to do.

It all started last year. I met this man and at first I was a little wary of him. I mean he was nice and well mannered, but sometimes he was a little conservative for my tastes.

But eventually after we got to know each other better, I thought that on the more important things, we saw eye to eye.

It was a whirlwind romance and we had such an exciting time. Many friends thought our relationship was a breath of fresh air. So, in this heady atmosphere, we decided to get married. We had a truly amazing wedding last March.

Then, before the honeymoon period was even over, he started to act really strange. He kept making these mysterious phone calls and when I walk into the room, he would suddenly hang up.

I was suspicious but thought that being a jealous wife was just not on. I decided to trust him. Oh how I rue that decision.

It turned out that the little sneak was secretly chatting to his ex-girlfriend. He had dated this girl in the 70s and 80s and it was a disastrous relationship.

He almost lost everything because of this girl. But suddenly he is talking to her again. I really cannot understand why.

She is a rich girl and maybe it is her wealth that is attracting him. I am sure it is not her looks. I am so angry at her. I will bet my bottom dollar that she is the one who has been trying to tempt him away from me.

Anyway, I confronted him and he seems repentant. He swore he is not going to go out with her anymore and that he is mine forever.

The trouble is Aunty Selma, I just don’t know whether I can trust him again. I am so hurt and I cry to sleep every night. Please help.

Yours,

Desperate and Pretty

Dear Desperate and Pretty,

There, there. Don’t waste your tears. Men are like that. They can be such fickle creatures. Obviously this ex-girlfriend has something that he misses; a sexual quirk perhaps. Who knows?

The point is I admire your decision to stick with him. But even so, you must go into this relationship with open eyes.

Please do not try to make excuses for him by saying it’s the other girl’s fault. She may be a slattern, but it takes two to tango and from the sounds of it, he was getting into the beat quite willingly.

From now on, you must keep a sharp eye on him. It is his responsibility to earn your trust once more. My advice is to simply put your shoulder to the wheel and concentrate on making sure this relationship works.

Of course, if he should stray again, well, he has had his chance. Dump him like the rotten tomato he is. I am certain he will be ostracised by all your friends who have given you two such goodwill and love.

Let him see what it feels like to be shunned and left in the cold. Serves him right!

Dear Aunty Selma,

My boss won’t give me a day off. He expects me to work seven days a week. What should I tell him?

Sincerely,

Made to Work

Dear Made to Work,

Your boss sounds like a very unreasonable man. My advice is very simple, go up to him and quote the following passage. It is Article 24 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

“Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.”

I assume you are human and therefore you deserve to be treated as such.

That’s all I have time for this week loyal readers. Join me again next week as I deal with “Broken White Heart Lane” and his depression due to underachieving all the time. Cheerio my darlings!

Sincere greetings

2009-07-28T20:23:00.000-07:00

Brave New World (The Star)
June 11, 2009

"The Arabs have a really nice way of saying hello, by just wishing someone ‘peace’."

_______________________

So, there I was, surfing the Net, looking for something to distract me from work. During the breaks from playing “Flight of the Hamsters”, I chanced upon an article regarding Barack Hussein Obama’s speech in Cairo.

I had heard bits and pieces of the speech on the telly and my feeling was it’s all fine and dandy, but he did skirt around some issues; and unless and until the words are translated into action, it was little more than a feel good PR exercise.

No, the online article I read was not an in-depth analysis of the speech, it was about how a whole bunch of Americans headed for their computers to search what Assalamualaikum meant.

Their president had used the greeting in his speech and they were probably in a tizzy wondering whether their boss man had declared a new-found faith in Islam.

“Gosh, Billy Bob Joe, did he say somethin’ in Ay-rab?”

I can imagine their relief when they found out it only meant “peace be upon you”.

I’m sure there were a lot of Budweiser bottles being clinked together in celebration that Obama was not the closet Muslim that the redneck right wingers were saying he was during the election campaign.

This led me to thinking.

When I was a little boy, the usual greeting that people gave each other in formal events was usually “Selamat pagi/tengahari/petang/malam” or “Good morning/afternoon/evening”.

Over the years, the Arabic Assalamualaikum started to be used more and more often. Then it developed to Assalamualaikum warahmadullah wabarakathu. Then there was a further development of a little doa (prayer) before the whole thing.

I suppose it was yet another facet of the growing Islamisation/Arabisation of the country. Well, you know, whatever.

Eventually, I started to use the greeting, too. That’s not to say I was becoming any holier (although for many Muslims there are religious connotations to the greeting), it’s just that I like it; in the same way that I like to wear blue jeans and T-shirts. We borrow from other cultures all the time, and the Arabs, in my book, came up with a really nice way of saying hello.

I mean, how cool it is to wish someone “peace”?

Not “Good morning” when it could have been a really crappy morning.

Not “How are you?” when the answer will always be “I’m fine” regardless of whether I just discovered that I have piles the size of walnuts.

And “Selamat pagi” sounds like I’m being asked to go on some military mission. “Safe morning, Private, I hope you don’t get your legs blown off.”

In this context “I wish you peace” is really nice. And when said earnestly, is utopian even.

However, over the last few years, I have stopped using it when I speak in public. The reason is we in Malaysia have managed to contort something so sweet into yet another symbol of our continued obsession with dividing ourselves.

I’m sure you’ve noticed, it’s never just “Assalamualaikum”, it is almost always “Assalamualaikum dan selamat sejahtera”.

Even when we greet each other, it is as a divided people. “Hey for you Muslims out there; I wish you all peace. And for everyone else; I wish you well being, man”!

Why do we do this?

No, that is the wrong question.

I know why we do this. For the Muslims, it is because they feel the greeting is exclusive to them.

For non-Muslims, they probably feel the greeting is yet another way of forcing Islamisation onto the populace and thus it is better to have something else just for them.

The question therefore should be “how did we come to this?”

When did exclusivity become such a norm that we experience it without even noticing its divisive power?

When did suspicion become so ingrained that the harmless becomes a symbol of oppression?

For me, much of the divisiveness in our society can be traced to many policy and legislative sources. However, we have a bigger battle on our hands and that is the changing of our very own attitudes towards one another.

It will be useful, of course, if we governed ourselves with as little prejudice as possible, but even if the laws and policies were changed it would matter little if our hearts and minds have not.

It is a tiny thing, I know, but for now at least, in my own pathetic attempt at ensuring I am Malaysian first, I shall continue to use “Good morning” and “Selamat pagi”; even though your piles are making it hard for you to sit down and the most dangerous thing you will be doing all day is boiling the water for your coffee.

Acting to dispel the darkness

2009-07-28T20:22:00.000-07:00

Brave New World (The Star)
May 28, 2009

"Large balloons with writings pose a danger to passenger aircraft, and black clothes – the colour is associated with death – will drive investors away."

_______________________

Below is a transcript of the final exams for the BA (Governance) degree conducted by the University of Malaysia in the second semester of the academic session 2020/2021. It is an excellent example of a First Class exam script.

Policing 101

Please answer the three questions below. Please ensure your handwriting is legible.

Question 1.

In your opinion, what is a threat to National Security?

A threat to national security is fundamentally anything that the police or Government wants to declare as a threat to national security.

In Malaysian policing and governance, what is important to realise is that the discretion to determine national security need not follow any logical thought process. To call something a threat is in effect to make something a threat.

The citizens of the country are safer and happier under such a system, because with such broad powers the police are able to ensure peace and prosperity.

Any citizen who does not understand the need for such powers is either mentally disturbed or a traitor to the nation who should surrender his or her passport and return to where he or she came from.

Question 2.

Give examples of a threat to National Security.

This question deserves much more time and space than a two-hour examination allows. I shall therefore limit my examples to two.

My first example is the dangerous act of flying large balloons. Balloons are a grave danger to the country because they can interfere in our growing air and space industry.

Aeroplanes flying over Malaysian airspace will have difficulty navigating if we allow large balloons to be flown.

There is always the risk that a pilot may mistake a balloon for a cloud and fly through it only to entangle the aircraft in the lethal combination of rubber and cable, causing the plane to crash and resulting in the death of hundreds, perhaps even thousands, of people.

The problem is compounded if the balloon has writing on it, for a pilot may be distracted and may take the time to read the writing, causing him to lose control of his aircraft and crashing it, killing everyone on board as well as people on the ground.

Another example of a threat to national security is the wearing of black clothes. Black is a colour associated with bad things like death and darkness.

If the people are allowed to wear black, then foreign investors will think that Malaysia is a country of death and darkness. They will lose interest in investing here and they will take away all their money.

This is the reason the Appropriate Malaysian Clothing Act 2015 was passed. Malaysians should wear bright coloured clothes, preferably silk batik, so as to portray a lively and cheerful country, thus attracting investment.

If we do not have foreign investment we will not be the great country that we are. According to the 2018 World Bank Report, we are still richer than Somalia and Myanmar.

This is because of foreign investment, and if anything threatens foreign investment, it is a national security threat; like black clothes.

Question 3

What is the use of Part II of the Federal Constitution?

This is a trick question. Part II of the Federal Constitution is entitled “Fundamental Liberties” and this entire part has been removed by the Constitution (Amendment) Act 2011.

In its place a new Part IIA has been put in. Part IIA is entitled “Fundamental Duties” and it lists the duties of citizens.

Among these is the duty not to light any candles whatsoever – unless in the event of a blackout – and the duty to not show solidarity with any person or cause unless a permit is applied for and obtained from the Ministry of Home Affairs and Internal Security.

Note: The candidate whose script this is went on to graduate summa cum laude and is now a personal assistant to a Minister. He is currently being groomed for a leadership role in the near future.

Intention behind the law misunderstood

2009-07-28T20:20:00.000-07:00

Brave New World (The Star)
May 14, 2009

"There are limits to freedom, and the Constitution allows for these. However, those limits are subject to certain over-arching protective principles."

_______________________

Some things are impossible to understand. For example, how on God’s sweet earth could Tottenham Hotspur in their last game against Manchester United go from leading 2-0 at half time to losing 2-5 at full time?

And this is not the first time we’ve done it. A few years ago, we were leading 3-0 at half time only to lose 3-5.

My Liverpool-supporting friends were flabbergasted as Spurs, by their total and complete implosion, have probably destroyed Liverpool’s last hope of winning the Premier League this season.

They tried to make sense of it, but we long-suffering Spurs men and women know that some things just can’t be understood.

But there are some things which must be understood. It is in fact imperative that we understand them. And these pertain to things in our country. Yet, sadly, it appears that some of us can’t.

I am referring here to the Sedition Act and the Police Act. Both, in my opinion, have been totally abused in the last few weeks because those with the power to use them simply did not understand them.

Allow me to explain. The Sedition Act is a remnant of the bad old British days. The English introduced the law to quash dissent among the people who were opposing the Malayan Union, namely the Malayan left.

One would have thought that we would have got rid of this law, seeing as how its formation was for the purpose of oppressing some of the heroes of our independence. But, strangely, we have kept it.

Now, as appalling as this law is, it is not the blunderbuss that the Internal Security Act is. You don’t have the discretion to use the Sedition Act willy-nilly like you can the ISA.

You can’t just arrest someone for sedition for no good reason – for example, for their outlandish hairstyle or their choice of clothes.

The Sedition Act is really meant for those who advocate the unlawful destruction of a government.

If one were to read the Act, it looks pretty broad; on the surface, it looks as if you can’t at all criticise the monarchy or the government.

But if you were to read carefully, you will see that if the King or the Sultans were mistaken in their actions, or if you are advocating a lawful change of government, then it is perfectly OK to criticise them.

This being the case, I could not see any reason whatsoever for Coalition for Free and Fair Elections (Bersih) activist Wong Chin Huat to be arrested for sedition last week.

All he did was advocate the wearing of black in order to peaceably protest what was considered by many to be a poor state of affairs in the Perak legislature. Something which was perfectly within his rights and the rights of everyone in this country – to peaceably express themselves.

Another law which appears to be misunderstood by the powerful is the Police Act. It was used on May 7 against scores of people for “illegal assembly”. Most were in Ipoh, dressed in black, and some were in Kuala Lumpur gathering to show their support for Wong, who was being held in remand.

The Police Act also looks a bit crazy. Any gathering of more than two people can be deemed an illegal assembly. It, therefore, looks as though the police can do anything they want.

They can charge into a coffeeshop and haul two pals and me away because we constitute an illegal gathering. It appears unbelievable, does it not?

What is misunderstood, however, is that the Police Act is not meant to be used by the police as though it were their personal toy.

Any invocation of it has to be done within the context of the Federal Constitution.

In fact, the use of any law in the country has to be done within the context of the Constitution. And the Constitution does say that we have the freedom to assemble.

Sure, there are limits to that freedom, and the Constitution allows for these. However those limits have limits, too. You can only stop an assembly if it is armed, violent, and a threat to national security and public order.

The people in Ipoh were not armed. They were there merely to express their disappointment at how things were turning out in Perak.

The people burning candles outside the Brickfields police station to show solidarity with Wong were not in any way being a threat to national security.

In this light, the very most the police could do was to control the crowd to make sure that order was maintained. There was absolutely no need to trample on the citizens’ Constitutional rights. Their arrests, in my view, were uncalled for and totally against the Constitution.

It’s perfectly all right to not understand how a football team can play so beautifully for 45 minutes and then crumble for the next 45. I’ve lived in such a state of befuddlement for the past 30 years of supporting the boys from North London.

However, it is not acceptable to misunderstand that our laws are subject to certain over-arching protective principles.

The Sedition Act is to be used for those advocating the unlawful overturning of governments and institutions. The Police Act is not to be used to indiscriminately take away our civil liberties. If these things are not understood, then we have no right to call ourselves a democracy.

A new breath of hope blows

2009-07-28T20:19:00.000-07:00

Brave New World (The Star)
April 30, 2009

"That many African countries are in a mess is, to a certain extent, due to the way the colonial powers carved up the continent."

_______________________

When I landed at KLIA last week, there was an annoying high-pitch whine in my ear. At first, I thought it was the engine of the plane cooling down.

But upon closer listening, I figured out that it was actually a chorus of whining voices saying: “Oh, we have another by-election coming up. How awful. What a waste of public funds. Moan. Moan. Moan. Whine. Whine. Whine.”

It was particularly irritating to hear such complaints, especially in the light of where I had just been. I was in Ghana for work, and speaking to colleagues from West Africa was a real tonic.

The world tends to see Africa as a place where chaos rules; and let’s admit it, when we do, there is more than a hint of smugness on our part.

How often have we heard the pompous comments that Ghana and Malaysia both obtained independence in the same year but look at us now compared to them?

Yes, it is true that many African countries are a mess; and even when they are blessed with natural resources, they are also cursed with corruption and violence.

To a certain extent, this is due to the way the colonial powers carved up the continent, drawing borders that suited their imperialist dreams, but not the natural divisions of Africa.

Thus, communities long at war with one another suddenly found themselves part of the same nation state. Not a recipe for success.

Yet despite all this, there is optimism and hope. Take Sierra Leone, for example. The vicious civil war the country suffered for almost a decade, fought over diamonds, is barely over.

The memories and the pain of that conflict are still fresh. And yet there is optimism there. An optimism borne on the hope that democracy gives.

They have the ability to choose their leaders and speak their minds — and that is a boon in a country that is economically in ruins.

In a nation where 70% are illiterate and electricity is a luxury, radio has become the main source of news and information.

And radio stations in Sierra Leone are blossoming, providing not just entertainment but, more importantly, a critical eye cast upon a government that is suddenly accountable to its people.

And believe me, their radio is way freer than ours. That this has been so in Sierra Leone is because not only have the people gone through the trauma of war, they have also suffered the frustration of having no voice.

In Ghana, the democratic process seems to have re-established itself firmly. A peaceful change of government via elections, a steadily growing economy and public safety make it the shining light among African nations.

At the workshop I attended, the Education Minister gave the opening address. He entered the little seminar room with no entourage, no fanfare, and he gave a speech lauding academic freedom and promising a new Freedom of Information law.

He looked and sounded like a servant of the people rather than some overblown “tuan”.

Of all the new friends I made, only the one from Ethiopia was pessimistic about the future of her country. I asked her: “If you had free and fair elections, would that attitude change?”

She looked at me like the moron that I am and said: “Of course it would.”

Over here, the moans grow loud at the prospect of another by-election and I can only shake my head in bewilderment.

The fact that we have by-elections at all is something to be proud of. And I believe by-elections are worth the cost. Speaking of which, I wonder just what the fuss about costs is all about.

Sure, there will be some overtime pay to the police, but considering how badly they are paid in the first place, I think a few million ringgit of honestly earned OT would be a good thing for them.

Besides, wouldn’t the bulk of the cost be borne by the respective political parties in their campaign efforts? Lest we forget, campaign funds should come from party, not government, coffers.

And lest we forget, if it were not for the ballot box, Sagong Tasi and his orang asli community in Selangor could still be denied the money owed to them for the loss of their ancestral lands.

That case went before the Court of Appeal which decided against the state government, then under Barisan Nasional. The latter appealed against the decision. Then the March elections ushered Barisan out of the Selangor Government.

Now, to the delight of the orang asli, the current state government has said it will drop the appeal.

Would this have happened if there had been no change in government? I don’t think so.

It seems that we Malaysians are so unappreciative of democracy that when the practice of this ideal becomes a little “inconvenient”, we start to get anxious.

The fact of the matter is, our democracy is still infantile and we have a long way to go.

In the meantime, we must press on. For we cannot hope for good governance until all the politicians in this country are made to realise that we can put them in power and we can also boot them out.

Neither can we hope for good governance until we appreciate this power and use it.

Having spoken with my new African friends, I am convinced more than ever that the alternative of not defending and using our democratic right, is unthinkable.

If pressing on means another by-election, then so be it.

Pirate and privateer rolled into one

2009-07-28T20:17:00.000-07:00

Brave New World (The Star)
April 2, 2009

"The English were a strange lot and swashbuckler Henry Morgan would sometimes be labelled a hero and sometimes a villaiBy the English government, depending on who held the political reins."

_______________________

This is a true story. Once upon a time in the 17th century, there was a young nobleman from Wales named Henry Morgan.

Although he was from a blue-blooded family, he and his folks had seen better days and their wealth was not as it was. Henry decided to seek his fortune in the West Indies – Jamaica to be exact, or to be even more precise, the city of Port Royal.

Henry Morgan did not make his money from the sugarcane industry (although it was a very prosperous industry in those days as slave labour was free).

No, Henry Morgan became a pirate. He would of course hate that term because in his eyes, he was a loyal Englishman serving King and Country by raiding the Spanish enemy. In his eyes, he was a “privateer”.

However you may label it, when you attack ships and cities, kill civilians and soldiers alike, and then steal all their property, it’s piracy.

In any case, the English were a strange lot, so depending on who held the political reins, Morgan would sometimes be labelled a hero and sometimes a villain by the English government.

When it suited them, they would “commission” the pirates of the Caribbean as “privateers” to raid the Spanish on behalf of the Crown. This would “legitimise” them.

When diplomatic ties with Spain got a bit touchy, they would condemn them as pirates. As I said, strange.

Anyway, Henry Morgan was very successful in what he did. He was an intelligent man who was also blessed with luck; and there was also the ineptitude of the Spanish.

The Spanish were a hierarchy-bound, bureaucratic empire, whereas the pirates were fleet of foot and flexible. Armed with the most modern and state-of-the-art guns, they were often able to beat the Spanish despite the latter’s superior numbers.

Morgan’s speciality was the land raid. He would land his men many miles from the city he sought to attack and then march them through thick jungle to surprise the enemy and emerge victorious.

He was not averse to resorting to torture when it suited him or even the use of human shields. Thus, despite his well-earned glamorous reputation, he was still not the most pleasant of fellows.

One can be forgiven, though, if one were to forget his occasional acts of barbarity. Especially in the light of some truly amazing exploits that look as though only Hollywood could invent them.

There was one occasion when Morgan disguised a ship to look like his lead vessel when in fact it was basically a giant bomb, loaded to the stern with explosives and flammables. With a skeleton crew, the ship was steered into battle.

The Spanish, confident of an easy victory, met it head on. When the ships collided, only then did they realise that the “pirates” were dummies wearing hats and holding wooden cutlasses. By then, it was too late because in the collision, the Spanish ship itself was blown to blazes.

Another time, Morgan was trapped in a river mouth at which a Spanish fort bristling with cannons was ready to rip his ships to bits if they tried to escape. He put on a big show of landing his pirates to make the commander of the fort prepare for a land battle.

In fact, the pirates would reach shore and then lie flat on the canoes they had come by, so they would not be seen by the enemy in the fort, and paddle back to the ships. The process was repeated so it looked like the ships had been emptied of men.

Then when night fell, Morgan let the ships drift seemingly empty and aimless to sea. When they were out of range, they fired a few shots at the fort, not to attack it but to sound out a cheeky hasta la vista.

Really, you can’t make this kind of stuff up, but there’s more. With his fortune made, Morgan became a landowner and acquired respectability. He even climbed the ranks to become Governor of Jamaica.

And here’s the clincher – with his fortune secure, he set about to destroy the pirate vermin that sailed the waters of the Caribbean. He did this with some success using his usual combination of brutality and trickery.

One story has him regaling a bunch of suspected pirates with fine drink and food. And because he was an ex-pirate and hero to them, they confessed their true profession.

The next day, he had them arrested and, as presiding judge, had them summarily hanged.

Of course, his ex-brethren went on doing what they always had. It was all too hypocritical for a man like Morgan who had made his wealth by piracy to suddenly condemn it.

It was also ludicrous to expect pirates to stop being pirates just because one they held in high esteem told them to stop.

This story finishes quite abruptly. At the age of 53, Morgan died of dropsy, a condition where one becomes hideously bloated with excess fluid; the result of a life of excess.

And Port Royal, a city whose prosperity depended on the pirates, was wiped out by a cataclysmic earthquake. It is all fitting perhaps that such a man and such a city so steeped in corruption would end in pain and utter destruction.

Note: The story of Henry Morgan can be read in the excellent Empire of Blue Water by Stephen Talty.

High hopes on Suhakam which has little power

2009-03-12T21:34:00.000-07:00

Brave New World (The Star)
March 5, 2009

"Malaysians have this thing where they hope some mighty champion will sweep down from the mountains and solve their problems for them."

_______________________

Last weekend I was at a public forum organised by ERA Consumer. It was held in Johor Baru. I have not been to JB for many years and I found that it has the largest concentration of modified Protons I have ever seen.

That’s not the point of this article though. The forum was held to get feedback from the public regarding ERA Consumer’s report on Suhakam’s 2006 Annual Report.

What I noticed from the comments of the audience was a very strong desire for Suhakam to “do more” in the field of human rights.

Underlying the comments is a sense that Suhakam is a body that the citizens of this country can look to for assistance, and if Suhakam can’t get the attention of the government, then what hope is there for ordinary folks like you and me?

This is an understandable sentiment, but perhaps a little unrealistic. Suhakam does not have any real powers. It is not a body that can start prosecutions, for example. Its role is largely advisory and also educational.

For Suhakam to be able to “do more” would thus require an amendment to the Act which created it. Any dramatic changes are unlikely.

And even today the Suhakam annual report is not given any debate time in Parliament. Be that as it may, perhaps some simple changes could be pushed for.

For example, the appointment of Commissioners could be narrowed down from any old “eminent persons” that the Act specifies, to “eminent persons with a record of human rights work”.

As it stands, the Commission is large and filled with people who are not necessarily experts on human rights.

However, even without a change in the law, Suhakam can make itself more relevant by being more proactive in its endeavours. Education is well and good, but really it should push its power to conduct inquiries.

The Bandar Mahkota Cheras inquiry into the alleged police brutality inflicted on a young man was emphatic in its condemnation of the police and clearly stated that a wrong was committed.

So far (according to its website) Suhakam has only conducted three public inquiries. By focusing on these inquiries, Suhakam would be working on real cases of immediate concern to the citizens. And furthermore, it can start an inquiry on its own volition if it so chooses.

It is of course wonderful if Suhakam were to have real powers and play the hero for us, but another thing I noticed at the public forum in Modified Proton Land, is what I call the “Hang Tuah Complex” raising its little head again.

I have noticed that Malaysians have this thing where they are constantly hoping for some mighty champion to sweep down from the mountains and solve their problems for them. The way I see it, Suhakam is merely one cog in the wheel of human rights activism.

Sure they are pretty powerless but there is nothing to stop civil society from using its findings. Raise the findings, publicise them and demand they be acted upon.

After all, Suhakam is not some loony NGO. It is a legally constituted body created by the Government. Surely what it says must have some kernel of truth.

If the Government does not want to take what Suhakam says seriously, then we have every right to ask why not.

It’s in the Constitution

2009-03-12T21:29:00.000-07:00

Brave New World (The Star)
February 19, 2009

"Sultans and Rajas are constitutional monarchs and have powers determined by the Federal Constitution."

_______________________

I wish that all those people calling for Karpal Singh’s head would just take a minute and pick up the Federal Constitution. Turn to Article 182 and you will see provisions for a “Special Court”.

The job of this Special Court is to try civil proceedings brought against the Yang di-Pertuan Agong or any of the Sultans.

This was not always the case. Before 1993, the rulers had absolute immunity. And before 1984, they actually had the power to veto legislation. These powers were taken away by the Barisan Nasional government headed by Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad.

DAP chairman Karpal Singh’s desire for the Sultan of Perak to be brought to court is reasonable and allowed for by law. Besides, I think it is a good thing that the King and the Sultans can be brought to court.

You see, the days of the all-powerful king is gone now and that is, for me at least, progress. It shows that we are a society that values democracy.

Yes, we have Sultans and Rajas, but they are constitutional monarchs. This means that they have powers determined by the Constitution and not some divine power to do as they wish. This being the case, surely if they overstep their boundaries, if they behave in an unconstitutional manner, they should be challenged – respectfully, properly – in a court of law.

Now, did the Sultan of Perak act in a way that was unconstitutional when he appointed a new Mentri Besar? It is arguable.

The power to appoint a Mentri Besar is clearly at the discretion of the Sultan. This is one of the few real powers that he has. A power that he does not have is to dismiss an existing Mentri Besar.

Usually this does not raise many problems. During the last general election, we saw the Sultan of Perak and the Sultan of Terengganu both deciding on who should be the new Mentri Besar of their respective states.

They made decisions that went against the desires of the majority party in both state legislative assemblies. The two monarchs thought that their choices commanded the confidence of the two Houses and were the best men for the job. It was their prerogative.

But the current case in Perak is different. The Sultan chose a new Mentri Besar while the old one was still in office. By appointing a new man, he was in effect sacking the old one. And sacking the Mentri Besar is not within his constitutional powers.

I think there is room for debate on this matter and, ideally, it should be settled in the Special Court.

Actually, I am rather curious as to why the Sultan did not just dissolve the state assembly when requested. All this party-hopping business was wreaking havoc on the public’s faith in the democratic system.

Surely, the clearest and fairest way out of the debacle was to have fresh state elections.

For the sake of continued faith in democracy, I would have thought the Sultan, who has spoken many times so eloquently about democracy and rule of law, would have just said “right, let the people decide again”.

After all, the greatest threat to political, and thus national, stability are a people who have lost their faith in the democratic system. It is only when such faith is lost that extreme behaviour emerges.

Anyway, what is done is done; legal battles are being fought over the Perak matter and that particular crisis will be settled in its own time.

Meanwhile, there is much that can still be achieved. The states ruled by Pakatan Rakyat must continue to push their agenda forward and live up to their election promises.

For example, I notice with a little dismay that the new Selangor government has yet to withdraw the case against Sagong Tasi.

In 2002, Sagong obtained a judgment in his favour by the Court of Appeal which held that his Orang Asli community had a propriety interest in their customary land. This meant that when the land was taken by the government, they should have been properly compensated.

This case was against the former state government and, of course, Datuk Seri Khir Toyo and his men appealed the decision.

Considering the fact that Pakatan Rakyat is concerned about justice and fair treatment to all Malaysians, and considering also that the last MB of Perak was making headway in granting proper titles to the Orang Asli in his state, the current Selangor government should just stop the action.

Yes, the battle of Perak must continue. But there are many other battles to be fought and won. Fairness and justice must be striven for on all fronts, continuously. It’s easy to forget this amid the shrill cries of “traitor” by the ill-informed.

Where are our human values?

2009-03-12T21:24:00.000-07:00

Brave New World (The Star)
February 5, 2009

"How the nation responds in the wake of A. Kugan’s death in police custody reflects the values that we have as a society."

_______________________

Kugan Ananthan is not the first person to die while in police custody. I doubt he will be the last. The actual numbers who have so far died are unclear because of the contrasting data given by the authorities.

But we need to know the actual details. We need to know the reasons why they died, and we need to know the ethnicity of those who died.

We have to know how many of those deaths are caused by beatings and torture because such deaths are totally unacceptable.

And while it is true that this issue is one about human rights and not about race, if the numbers show a disproportionately high number of Indians dying while in police custody, it becomes not just a human rights issue; it also becomes an issue of racism.

If it is true that Indians held in custody died in higher numbers compared with those of other races, and if it is true that their deaths were due to torture and beatings, then there are two possibilities – one, there are individual racists on the police force; two, which is worse, the police force as a whole practices racist policies. Neither is acceptable.

An investigation has to be conducted, and it has to be done by an independent body.

The police and the executive, for the sake of their own credibility, must not be allowed to conduct it themselves.

For the good of the nation, this independent investigation has to be given priority.

The issue of death in custody is important because the manner with which we treat our people, even those who have committed crimes, is a reflection of the kind of society we are.

On a very basic level of argument, even if you are in jail after being convicted, your sentence, the price you pay for your crime, is your incarceration. Not death.

Yes, we do have the death penalty in this country but it is for specific crimes like murder and drug trafficking.

Yes, we have corporal punishment in this country, but it is for specific crimes like kidnapping and rape.

There are ways and means to administer these punishments and they have to be followed. Anything short of that is lawlessness and barbarity.

And for those who are incarcerated pending trial, it is even more important that they are not hurt or killed, because at that point they are still considered innocent.

I have heard talk that Kugan was part of a gang of car thieves, that he was a crook. All this does not matter to me one single bit. Why? Because Kugan was not convicted in a court of law, and until he is, he is innocent. The death of Kugan is the death of an innocent man.

In a way, as awful as this may sound, I will not be surprised if an independent study shows that there are deaths in custody as the result of beatings and torture.

It all boils down to the values that we have as a society.

Do we believe that the ends justify the means or do we hold to the idea that certain core principles must hold sway, principles like the outright rejection of torture and that a man is innocent until proven guilty?

As pointless and as cruel as Kugan’s death may be, at the very least it ought to provoke us into asking these questions.

Wow! Umno has to wake up

2009-03-12T21:22:00.000-07:00

Brave New World (The Star)
January 22, 2009

"The party has now to be more open and allow its young members to move to the fore considering that it was young voters who made the difference in Kuala Terengganu."

_______________________

So, it seems that Umno has lost its “wow” factor, according to party vice-president Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin.

I don’t think so. For one thing, for the past 10 months I have been saying to myself, “Wow! It still hasn’t learnt the lessons of March 8!”The result of the Kuala Terengganu (KT) by-election, and more importantly the reaction of some of the top Umno leaders after the defeat, also left me saying “Wow!”

“Wow” because I did not think it would lose. KT was different from Permatang Pauh (PP). In PP, the people had already chosen PKR, and Datin Seri Wan Azizah had won with a huge majority.

Furthermore the PKR candidate for that by-election was Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim, the constituents’ old MP and favourite son.

In KT, Umno had won in March. Sure, it was by a slim majority (just over 600 votes), but basically it was the incumbent party and it had the entire Barisan Nasional machinery at its disposal for this campaign.

What with all the goodies that the people of KT would be presented with, plus the postal votes, it seemed unlikely Umno would lose that seat. Boy, was I wrong.

The swing came to over 3,000 votes, which means Umno really should be very concerned.

I am sure they are, but when t he leadership makes statements saying this was not a reflection of people’s loss of faith in Barisan Nasional, well, again I had to say “Wow!”

How can it not be a statement against the ruling party and the present government? If it were a state seat in question, perhaps the personality of the candidates, their appreciation of local issues, would be the primary factor.

But this election was for a Member of Parliament. It was about having a voice in Parliament, which is situated in Kuala Lumpur.

I don’t think the good people of KT are so simple-minded that they did not realise the implication of their vote.

The only thing that can help Umno now is to change fundamentally, and I wonder if that is a possibility. Umno was traditionally a party of teachers. I have a soft spot for teachers, so perhaps I am biased, but in the decades before and after Merdeka, teachers had a lot of clout.

They were respected and supported not because they were wealthy but because they were knowledgeable and educated.

That is why up until fairly recently, the education portfolio was considered so vital and a stepping stone towards the premiership. Work with the educationists and you had your grassroots support for the job of Prime Minister.

Now Umno has become a party of businessmen. The vast majority of division heads are businessmen.

That cherished value of knowledge and education has been replaced with wealth and the ability to obtain contracts.

This means there is no strong foundation of principle (whether I agree with the principle or not is not the point here) and idealism.

Being part of Umno becomes like being part of a business opportunity.

This has the further effect of making the holding on to such posts an economic consideration. This in turn means that challengers will not be viewed favourably.

Therein lies the problem. Maybe there are new Umno members who can climb the ranks and provide them with that “wow” factor. But they will be inhibited by their youth and their lack of wealth.

Idealism and new ideas will be seen as a threat by the old guard who would want to maintain their lucrative status quo.

And when I talk about the young, I don’t mean the rabble-rousing Mat Rempit stylings of Umno Youth. I mean new blood with fresh idealism and ideas, those who are more in touch with the needs and the demands of Malaysians in the 21st Century.

And perhaps those who are not beholden to racist ideas for their political collateral.

Considering that political analysts have pointed out that the swing in KT was due primarily to young voters, Umno has now to be more open and allow its young members to move to the fore. This should be done based on merit and ability, and nothing else.

I do not want to see the destruction of any political party. A diverse group of parties is what makes for a healthy democracy, no matter what we may think of them. And so it is with Umno.

However, unless it truly gets its act together, eject its dinosaurs and their outmoded way of thinking, there will be many more KTs, and in time people will be saying, “Wow! Whatever happened to Umno?”

Israeli cruelty must be stopped

2009-03-12T21:20:00.000-07:00

Brave New World (The Star)
January 8, 2009

"The Jewish state seems not to want peace, but to stoke Palestinian fury. The lesson to civilised nations is that they must never behave like Israel."

_______________________

Nineteen eighty-one was an election year in Israel. Then Prime Minister Menachem Begin’s campaign was not off to a good start. So he bombed “PLO strongholds” in Lebanon; nothing like the killing of a few Arab “terrorists” to get the electorate on your side.

The PLO retaliated by shelling northern Israel. The Israelis replied by bombing the living daylights out of Beirut. In this exchange, five Israelis died whereas the death toll of Lebanese and Palestinians was 500.

A truce was then signed between Israel and the PLO. This truce held for 11 months. Then Israel complained that the PLO was attacking its soldiers. Even America saw through this ruse by pointing out that the Israeli soldiers being shot at were in Lebanese territory, where they should not be in the first place.

But what were such minor details to Begin? Israel broke the truce and invaded Lebanon. And a few hours after promising the American Special Envoy that Syria would be left alone, it attacked Syria.

Thousands of Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese died. Hospitals, schools, school buses, civilian homes were bombed, shot at and crushed by tanks. It was an utter massacre and Israel got away scot-free.

In late 1987, in Gaza, four Pales- tinians were killed by an Israeli truck. This sparked the Intifada or people’s uprising.

After decades of torment, the Palestinians had nothing left but their fury and the stones at their feet. During this period, also as a reaction to Israeli atrocities, Hamas was formed.

Fast forward to 2006 and Hamas is the democratically elected government of the Palestinian people. Contrary to Israeli propaganda, Hamas was willing to give de facto recognition to Israel if it pulled back to its 1967 border.

Considering that the Israeli border was expanded via an illegal war in 1967 which it initiated, it was not a terribly unreasonable request. But this was rejected.

And because it did not like Hamas, Israel (with the blessings of America) blockaded the Palestinian territories, causing untold suffering and grief.

Then in June 2006, Israel bombed a beach in Gaza, killing 14 people. Hamas retaliated by shooting rockets into Israel. The latter, in turn, invaded Gaza and started capturing elected Hamas officials.

This little war stopped in June 2008 with a ceasefire. This truce came to an end recently and Hamas was willing to keep it going on the condition that the blockade was lifted and a ceasefire was initiated in the West Bank.

We know what Israel’s reaction was – it has been spilled all over our front pages for the past week.

The anger being expressed at Israel’s disproportionately barbaric attack on Gaza, its arrogance and utter refusal to accept its part in the creation of this bloody mess is, in my opinion, completely justified.

Israel seems to be single-mindedly determined not to make any concessions whatsoever; the only logical reason for this that I can see is that Israel does not want peace.

It wants to make sure that Pales- tine is kept impoverished and desperate by being in a state of perpetual conflict. It would appear that Israel wants war and by doing all that it can to cause the spilling of blood and keep the fury of the Palestinian people alive; that is what it will get.

There would not have been a PLO if Israel had not begun its offensives against Palestine in the 1940s. There would not have been a Hamas if Israel had not butchered innocents in Lebanon in the 1980s.

Who knows what new manifestation of desperation and anger this latest act of violence will create?

Here in Malaysia, a lot of effort has been initiated, with funds being collected for humanitarian purposes and calls being made on our Govern- ment to keep pressing for an international effort to stop Israel. Such efforts must continue.

It is a little sad, however, that it needs such a cruel act by Israel to generate such action. In “peace time”, the quiet work of the Malay- sian Sociological Research Institute, which has been organising the sponsorship of Palestinian refugee children in Lebanon for decades, has suffered because the number of donors has shrunk.

Efforts to help Palestine and the Palestinians have to be seen as an ongoing. It is not enough to take measures to help those who are suffering only sporadically.

Neither is it good enough that our ire is raised only for the Palestinian cause. There is much cruelty in the world, for example, the genocide in Darfur.

It is not expected of individuals to care for every cause, but our Government has a responsibility to speak out against injustice wherever and to whomever it may happen.

The Israeli government (note please that I do not at any time condemn either Israeli citizens or Jews in general; there are too many cases of individuals who despise Israeli aggression for broad generalisations to be made) has shown time and again their hypocrisy and selectiveness, where what is all right for them is not all right for anyone else.

We can’t go down that road of hypocrisy and selectiveness. What is wrong must be opposed.

In the end, Israel’s cruelty is nothing new. It has been sporting that for half a century. It must be opposed until it stops. To my mind, the lesson it gives to civilised nations is that we must never, ever, in any way behave like Israel.

What I want for Christmas

2008-12-27T19:20:00.000-08:00

Brave New World (The Star)
December 25, 2008

"A specialist heart hospital with a conscience, a bicycle with freedom to ride, proper sex education and a Lancer Evo ... er ... for dad".

__________________

Ho! Ho! Ho! Merry Christmas, little boy. What is your name?”

“Azmi.”

“Err ... are you sure you should be here on my knee with a name like that?”

“Don’t care; paid money to the mall, I want my presents.”

“Er ... okay … how old are you, little boy?”

“I am fort … four-and-a-half.”

“You seem mighty tall for a four-and-a-half-year-old.”

“Yes, my mother says I have big bones.”

“Right. And that moustache is the result of …?”

“Hormones in my milk.”

“If you say so … well then, have you been a good boy this year?”

“Yes. Give me my presents.”

“Ho! Ho! Ho! You are an impatient one. Well then, what would you like for Christmas? A shaving kit?”

“Ha! Ha! Ha! I paid my money so I can ask for presents, not some wisecracks.”

“Ooohhh. That’s not very nice, is it, little boy? But never mind … what would you like?”

“Well, for starters, I want to be able to grow up and know that if ever I had a heart attack, I could go to a specialist government hospital where part of the bill is covered by my tax money.

“I want to know that it is not only the rich who can afford top-notch medical care. It would be good that public money will be used for an institution that does research into heart care, and that the people of this country can have access to that heart care if they need it.

“I don’t want some money-hungry private corporation to control this institution. Medical treatment is a human right, not a privilege of the rich.”

“Are you sure you don’t want a bicycle?”

“Oh yes, I would like a bicycle. And I would like the freedom to ride that bicycle wherever I want. And if I want to wear a special T-shirt with a group of friends and ride from state to state making demands that the poor of this nation need to be cared for, then I should be allowed to do that, too.

“That’s correct, Santa. No police roadblock, no harassment, no arson attack. And most definitely no cry that the youth of this country can have no say in what they think is right. Just because a person is young does not mean he does not have the right to express himself.”

“But, little boy, you are going to turn the youth of the country into rebels!”

“Listen, you old elf, I think you’ve been listening to that cop from Selangor. Let me tell you something. It is miles better having a youthful population that cares for something other than making a few bucks so they can modify their little kap cai bikes and go racing along Jalan TAR every Friday night.

“Maybe, just maybe, the future of this country depends on young people developing a social conscience and the courage to express it.

“Maybe, just maybe, we could do well to have a nation of caring thinkers instead of a nation of obedient sheep. Have you thought of that, tubby? Huh? Huh?”

“Okay, little boy. I think that’s enough from you now. Off you go.”

“Oh no, I have more.”

“Oh, dear Lord, give me strength. All right, just one more.”

“I want an intelligent policy on HIV testing; a voluntary one that includes counselling and education.

“Not some forced programme where a bureaucrat hands you a piece of paper over a counter and says, ‘Here is your result. You are HIV positive. Better don’t get married’.

“I want proper sex education in schools where all issues are dealt with. Pregnancy, STD, preventive measures, all that kind of stuff.”

“Little boy, all the schoolchildren will be romping behind the bike sheds if we do that!”

“What makes you think they are not as it is? Look, if you want to put in a moral or religious component in the course, by all means do it.

“Remind them of all that ‘not before there’s a ring on your finger’ stuff. No harm if you do. But if you don’t have proper lessons, then those who will, will do so dangerously.”

“Oh, very well. Can you go now please, little boy. I can’t feel my legs.”

“Okay. Oh, one more thing ...”

“WHAT?”

“Can I have a Mitsubishi Lancer Evo. It’s ... er ... for my dad. Merry Christmas, Santa!”

The buck stops at the state

2008-12-19T17:20:00.000-08:00

Brave New World (The Star)
December 11, 2008

"The Bukit Antarabangsa landslide need not have happened. Laws to safeguard our hills are already in the statute books, only they were not invoked."

_______________________

In the midst of yet another landslide tragedy, much has been said. The past Selangor Government vehemently denies any responsibility, while the present one says that scores of hillside developments were given the green light by the former.

Experts chip in about the possible causes and the best ways to prevent such disasters from happening again.

High-ranking politicians make statements about stopping any future projects while they go on walkabouts to show their concern.

None of this talk is going to bring back the departed or lessen the pain of those left behind. But the issue must be dealt with so that it is not repeated. We have had such disasters before, and it would appear that we have learnt nothing from them.

My question is simply this: Why should we have hillside housing anyway?

I have read about some developers saying there is a shortage of flat land upon which to build. I am not sure if this is a good enough reason.

From what I can see, be it on the slopes of Ulu Klang or the hills of Batu Ferringhi, no hillside development project is of the low-cost variety. The poor, the dispossessed, the urban settlers are surely the ones most in need of housing. Yet there are no low-cost flats looking down at us from above.

It seems to me that when homes are built on high land, they are built for the wealthy. This means the houses and apartments cost more and the developers reap higher profits. The reason to build in the hills therefore appears to be based on economic gain and not some sort of virtuous desire to house the homeless.

The highlands are important to us for many reasons. They provide a water catchment area and thus are vital for our water supply. This ability to absorb rain water also means that they play a role in flood prevention.

Furthermore, it is harder for soil erosion to occur (which can then lead to inland water pollution) if our hills are dense with vegetation.

We ought to remember also that the world’s climate is changing. Our weather patterns are not the same as they used to be. There is strong evidence to suggest that although our average annual rainfall remains constant, the intensity of our rainfall has changed. This means that when it rains, it does so in intense bursts in such volume that it poses a greater risk than ever before. Uncovered hill land is becoming more and more vulnerable.

So why should we allow our highlands to be destroyed, for whatever reason? And considering the human cost of such development, can we honestly say it is worth it?

I suggest that it is not. Any development on our hills in the future must only be allowed if it is absolutely necessary. We have the laws to control it if the state governments so wish to invoke them.

The Land Conservation Act gives tremendous power to the state governments to declare land as hill land and to control or prevent completely any sort of development on it. The Town and Country Planning Act empowers the local planning authorities to designate certain areas as being off limits to development.

The power is there, it is up to the governments involved to use it.

And if it doesn’t use it, or is negligent in its use of it, then it should be held liable. Ouster clauses which absolve local authorities of any legal responsibility like those found in the Street Drainage and Building Act have to be done away with.

It is simply not good enough to point fingers at the developers. It is true that they are the ones who would like to build wherever they can make a dollar. They are motivated by profit; that is the nature of the beast.

But what ought to be remembered is that we the people did not elect them. We elected our state and federal governments, and one of their jobs is to ensure that any sort of development does not harm us.

The developers can only do what they are allowed to do. They do not dictate the type of development we should have. At least, they should not be dictating it. It is our elected officials and the local authorities who determine this.

Is it too much to ask that they live up to that responsibility so that we don’t have to read any more stories of needless deaths? I certainly don’t think so.

Yoga ban and faith control

2008-12-19T17:18:00.000-08:00

Brave New World (The Star)
November 27, 2008

"You can’t control what another believes because no fellow human being can truly tell what is going on in the mind of another."

______________________________

I don't like yoga. With all due respect to yoga practitioners out there, I always found it a little wimpy. I mean, yeah, it’s a great party trick to be able to bend over backwards and look like Linda Blair in The Exorcist but, really, is that going to help me lug two suitcases up four flights of steps? I don’t think so.

Be that as it may, I do practise a bit of yoga. In between sets for my abdominal workout, I do a yoga thing.

I am not sure what it is called in yoga terms, but if I had to name it, I would call it “small hummingbird reaching for the moon”, and it’s great because it stretches out my ageing back.

I’ve been doing it for years and I must say that in all that time, not once did I get an urge to build a shrine to Vishnu in my dining room.

I’ve also lit an incense stick and stuck it in a pile of sand in front of a stone Buddha. And I’ve sung hymns in an abbey for two years’ worth of Wednesdays.

Neither activity made me want to be a Buddhist or join the Church of England. They were after all merely physical acts. What goes on in my mind and in my heart are completely different things.

And no one can tell me what my faith is or is not.

This brings me to the National Fatwa Council and its declaration that yoga is forbidden because it has Hindu elements in it which can cause poor simple Muslims to lose their fragile faith while sitting in the lotus position.

A lot has been said about this issue already and I don’t wish to add to the numerous points made on the legal effects of the declaration or its theological basis.

Instead I wish to point out that it is actually quite ludicrous to try to control that most private and intangible human trait: faith.

You can’t control what another believes because no fellow human being can truly tell what is going on in the mind of another.

And yet there are some who insist on trying. And so, because you can’t tell what goes on in a person spiritually, you try to control the surface issue, the physical manifestation of what you deem to be reflective of faith.

This obsession with form is not only shallow; it is also counter-productive. It breeds a mentality of “if I do the ‘right actions’, then I’m doing the right thing”.

It’s the kind of thinking that creates some horrible everyday blasphemies like people muttering “halal, ya?” after they accept a bribe.

As though the physical utterance of the right word is enough to blank out the intangible wrongness of the act.

It does not take much for a person to go to temple or church or mosque and carry out all the rituals. But such acts without the prerequisite emotional content of the rituals do not make you pious.

Just as performing things with roots in religions different from your own – the bersanding ceremony for example – without the corresponding emotional and spiritual content does not mean you are deviating from your faith.

This being the case, why bother trying to control a person’s actions? Perhaps it is the only way to try to assert authority, to force your perceived relevance onto others. If this is so, then it is a most futile effort.

I am not suggesting that there is no space for the fatwa councils of this country. There will always be people who want to get guidance from figures they believe are better qualified than themselves. Even in personal matters like faith. This is fine, but such bodies ought not to have the power to control how people choose to live their lives.

It is one thing for an authority figure to give advice; it is quite another for that same body to have the power to make rulings that have the effect of legislation, especially when it is not elected.

There is a sub-text to this episode and it concerns the recent calls by the ex- and current chief justices for the merging of Islamic law and civil law or the merging of the syariah courts and the civil courts. I do not think this is a good idea.

I have argued elsewhere that the emotive nature of any theologically based law and the exclusivity of such systems are not appropriate for a fundamentally democratic society.

Time and time again, I have heard the repeated argument that only those who are “qualified” can speak about Islamic law.

In a country where all its people should have a right to speak about matters that affect their lives, regardless of their education, this to me is an unacceptable approach to law-making.

However, my point here is that this recent declaration on yoga, which to my eyes reflects a terribly narrow world-view and a superficial understanding of this matter of faith, is made not by some obscure group. It was made by the National Fatwa Council.

This council is a part of officialdom and in the event that our Constitution is fundamentally changed to allow our civil and Islamic legal systems to be merged, the council’s voice will be a most prominent one in the hybrid system that is formed.

That is all the more reason then that this proposed merger is not allowed to happen.

A blunderbuss of a law

2008-12-19T17:17:00.000-08:00

Brave New World (The Star)
November 13, 2008

"Section 8B of the Internal Security Act says that the Home Minister’s decision cannot be questioned, but there are cases where courts have found ways around it."

________________________

I do solemnly promise you, the reader, that I will not mention in this article anything about the American presidential election.

Yes, this is terribly parochial of me, but I think there has been quite enough discussion about you-know-who winning you-know-what. Besides, there are only so many jokes one can make by comparing the American presidency and the PKNS general manager’s post.

Now that that is out of the way, I want to tell you an amazing story. On Sunday night, I was aimlessly wandering the streets of Petaling Jaya, as you do, when I was met with a remarkable sight.

Jalan Timur was completely deserted. This was around nine at night, and usually the road would be full of suburbanites going around their suburbanite business. But instead, there was an eerie silence.

The only people there were some policemen, and they looked at me suspiciously as I crossed and re-crossed the road, skipping with joy at the lack of life-threatening vehicles. I thought that this was a recent innovation of the Selangor government – to make Jalan Timur a pedestrian zone. How environmentally friendly.

Later, I realised that there was an “illegal assembly” outside Amcorp Mall and the police had arrested a whole bunch of people and chased away an even bigger bunch of people who had gathered there to celebrate the first anniversary of the Bersih Rally.

Actually, according to the law, any grouping of three people can be deemed an illegal assembly. That means if I were skipping on Jalan Timur with two pals, we could theoretically be arrested as well. Rather silly, isn’t it?

Especially in the light of Article 10 of the Constitution which guarantees the right to assemble peaceably without arms. How do we then reconcile Article 10 with the Police Act which has that “three people can be an illegal assembly” rule?

Well, the Constitution does say that Parliament can make laws that restrict public assemblies if it is for national security or public order. And to empower the police to protect our “national security” and “public order”, we have the Police Act.

I suppose there is a need to control assemblies. After all, if there are thousands and thousands of people wandering around Petaling Jaya skipping and waving banners and such, then there will be traffic jams and other such inconveniences.

However, in the practice of this power, surely the police have to do so keeping in mind that we have a right to assemble, and any restriction on that right has to be for “national security” and “public order” reasons.

Were the people assembling near Jalan Timur carrying weapons? Were they violent? Were they a threat to national security? Were they disturbing public order?

If the answer to all these questions are no, then surely their constitutional right should trump any power the Police Act may give our men and women in blue.

This appears to me to be a case of following the letter of the law, but not the spirit. Fortunately, there are those who are not so shallow in their thinking.

I am speaking, of course, about Justice Syed Ahmad Helmy Syed Ahmad. He had ordered the release of Raja Petra Kamarudin, declaring the detention order made against him by Home Minister Syed Hamid Albar as unlawful, as it was done beyond the ambit of the Internal Security Act which gave the minister such powers.

Is this judgment correct? Section 8B of the Internal Security Act does say that the minister’s decision cannot be questioned. This is known as an ouster clause, where the court’s power to review a governmental decision is taken away from it.

Well, there are cases where courts have found ways around ouster clauses and the reason they do this is that surely it can’t be intended that a minister should have total and unfettered power.

For example, the use of the ISA is supposed to be only about national security.

If a minister chooses to detain men with long hair because their gorgeous locks are deemed a threat to national security as they make women jealous and therefore are likely to sulk and thus grinding national productivity to a halt, must a judge sit idly by and allow such a ludicrous act on the part of the minister?

Most judges in the past have done just that. They have refused to question the minister’s exercise of power under section 8 of the ISA. Justice Syed Ahmad Helmy bucked the trend and all expectations by deciding otherwise.

And I think his judgment is in all likelihood (it is not yet published so I have not read it in full) legally sound.

The ISA is an awful blunderbuss of a law and to allow anyone the ability to use it with complete discretion is simply making a bad situation worse. The law should be repealed; there is no room for potentially unending detention without trial in a civilised country.

But until that happens, the courts must be a place where one can turn to to ensure that whatever detentions that do occur are not done on grounds beyond the intentions of the Act.

We need a reformer

2008-12-19T17:16:00.000-08:00

Brave New World (The Star)
October 30, 2008

"He is someone who is brave enough to stand up to the more extreme elements in his party, who has proven that he has strong principles of justice and democracy and is courageous enough to stand by them regardless of how the political winds may blow."

_______________________

Sometimes, a change in leadership is a good thing. Take Tottenham Hotspur, for example. They have made their worst start to a season since the days football was played using the head of a sheep. Then suddenly, Harry Redknapp becomes the new manager and they win their first league game in 10 tries.

It was the same when Juande Ramos became the new boss last year. They won the Carling Cup after winning nothing for nine years.

It soon petered out, though, and the same could happen with Harry “Houdini” Redknapp. A change could mean better things or it could mean a moment of excitement followed by the same old, same old.

Perhaps it is the prospect of change that keeps people here interested in things like the Umno elections.

Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak looks like he is on the way to becoming the new Umno president and by convention (but not by law) will then probably become the new Prime Minister soon after.

Is this going to be the beginning of a new phase in Malaysian politics and governance?

I doubt it. Looking at the recent behaviour of the executive, it seems they are doing the same things they have been doing for years. March 8 does not seem to have made them any more sensitive to what bothers the Malaysian people.

Two things pop into mind.

First is the appointment of the new Chief Justice. Now, it was quite obvious that when Tan Sri Zaki Azmi made his meteoric rise in the judiciary from being former Umno lawyer to Supreme Court judge to President of the Court of Appeal, something was definitely afoot.

It could be that he is the finest of fellows, cut as he is from the cloth of Azmi Mohamed (Lord President 1968-1974, when our judiciary was respected and independent), and I am in no way suggesting otherwise.

However, considering his history and the history of our executive having such an influence on our judiciary, it is undeniable that his elevation would raise more than just eyebrows.

However, I had thought that after March 8, the executive would be a wee bit circumspect when the time came to advising the King on who should be the new Chief Justice.

I had thought that the people’s anger at the recent scandals with regard to the judiciary (which I believe was one of the issues affecting the polls outcome) would have woken the executive up to the fact that we would ideally like to see a more independent method of choosing the top judge.

Then there is the matter of a local Malay language daily and its publication of a short story about the assassination of a “fictitious” MP which, in my opinion, is little more than a thinly veiled incitement to committing violence on Teresa Kok.

There are so many laws that can be used against such an appalling act of irresponsibility on the part of the paper for publishing such a story, but all it gets is a “warning”, whatever that might be.

Now don’t get me wrong, I abhor the Printing Presses and Publications Act and I am not advocating its use against any paper, even one that behaves so badly.

However, the hypocrisy shown in that episode is appalling.

It would appear therefore that at least where the ruling party is concerned, it is business as usual in the area of politics and governance in Malaysia.

Would a change in Umno leadership alter that?

For that to happen, it would require a new top man who is a reformer; someone who is brave enough to stand up to the more extreme elements in his party; a person who has proven that he has strong principles of justice and democracy and is courageous enough to stand by them regardless of how the political winds may blow.

Just smoke and mirrors

2008-12-19T17:14:00.000-08:00

Brave New World (The Star)
October 16, 2008

"There are similarities between the world financial crisis and the possibility of Malaysians joining Barisan Nasional without having to join one of the component parties."

______________________

There is a strange parallel between what is happening to the world economy and what is happening here at home.

In recent days, it has been announced that a bailout deal measured in the trillions is being arranged by several governments in the world to help their ailing banks.

Also in recent days, it was announced that there is a possibility for Malaysians to join Barisan Nasional without having to join one of the component parties.

These two separate events strike me as being very similar. Both are attempts to fix a bad situation but neither is dealing with the key issue.

Firstly, let us look at the financial crisis. It all started with the banks. They were simply lending too much money, in particular to home buyers.

Money was being borrowed by people who could not afford to borrow that much and when they could not pay, the banks started to crumble.

This had a domino effect on others because the banks then could not lend to businesses and the latter’s survival started to be threatened too.

In this increasingly shrinking world, it did not take long for an event that started in America to spread the world over. Especially since America is such an economic powerhouse and what happens in their economy affects the world economy.

To give a simple example, if an American importer can’t pay his debts because he can’t get a loan, the foreign company that sold the goods to the American importer could suffer a disastrous loss.

Coming back to our shores, it is clear that the Barisan leadership has finally realised that some of us may be a wee bit tired of racial politics.

And yet, these very same people may actually be fond of Barisan and would like to be part of it. Which is a bit like saying I am a vegetarian but I like hanging out in steakhouses.

Be that as it may, let us assume there are such people out there. Well, it has now been proposed that they can join Barisan directly.

This is not to say that Barisan is moving towards becoming a single multi-racial party as opposed to being a coalition of largely race-based parties. The Prime Minister has said this is not so.

The proposal is merely giving the opportunity to individuals to be part of the ruling coalition.

Their non-racial views will then have a platform and the race-based parties in turn can explain to them what their worldview is.

The governments involved in the mega financial bailout and our very own Barisan are both merely covering the cracks in the wall with paper.

If we look at the banking crisis, the root cause was that banks were being too greedy.

They lent money like it was going out of style in order to reap the interest.

Behaving like the basest of gluttons, they ignored the basic rule of banking, which was to only lend to those who could pay.

And while things were going well, they patted themselves on their fat backs with huge bonuses and the like.

Bailing them out now may stop the world from sliding into a great depression like in the 1930s (the surge in the stock market prices suggests it may do just that) but unless the banks themselves are stopped from acting in such an irresponsible manner in the future, these same problems can arise again.

It is the same with the proposal of direct entry into Barisan.

Apart from the fact that there are many unanswered questions (for example, if Mr X were to join Barisan directly, can he become Prime Minister?), the crux of the matter is this: the powerful players in Barisan are still racially driven.

They have made representing their own ethnic group their raison d’être.

Until and unless this changes, for example by the complete disbanding of the Barisan component parties and the creation of a single BN multi-racial party (as suggested by Gerakan last year), direct membership is merely a superficial exercise in trying to appear more inclusive and less racially-based then they really are.

As it stands, many in the Barisan, like Datuk Ahmad Shabery Cheek, have shown that they consider the existence of their own race-based party as being of paramount importance. I am sure many think in the same way.

Therefore, if an individual is really concerned about the creation of a Malaysia which does not use race as part of its modus operandi, would he or she want to join a group in which such thinking is still so prominent?

It is all well and good to try to improve affairs when things go wrong, both in the world financial sector and our local political scene, but unless the heart of the matter is dealt with, all we have is just smoke and mirrors.

Should we have such an Act?

2008-12-19T17:11:00.000-08:00

Brave New World (The Star)
Friday October 3, 2008

"A Race Relations Act will have to take into consideration certain articles entrenched in the Constitution as well as ensure that mature public dialogue is not stifled."

____________________________

A Race Relations Act is in the works, it would appear. How nice; a law to help the different races have relations. It is still early days yet.

There isn’t a draft to examine, so any discussion will have to be based on more general issues regarding the implications of such a law.

Unity, Culture, Arts and Heritage Minister Datuk Seri Shafie Apdal has made it clear that the Government has studied similar laws on race relations in other countries and is now in the process of developing our own.

I would like to take this opportunity to raise some concerns.

Firstly, race relations laws like the one they have in the UK is more about ensuring that there is no discrimination on the basis of race with regard to matters such as employment, education and the like.

It’s not a bad thing. In fact, it’s a pretty good thing.

If a person feels he is being treated unfairly at work because of his ethnicity, then it is good to have a law to help him get justice.

I have always advocated such a law, especially when told about how, in the private sector, certain races are supposedly not given the time of day.

However, if this is the purpose of the Act, then the principle will have to be applied across the board, in the private as well as public sector.

Is this going to happen? Fat chance.

The Constitution allows for quotas to be set in the public sector for bumiputras and I doubt that the Government of the day is going to do away with those provisions.

If this is the case, then any legal requirement for fair treatment becomes a farce.

Surely, the Government is not so silly as to mean a law for equal treatment then.

What is left? Maybe it will simply be a law to prevent people from saying nasty things to others based on race and, perhaps, religion. A law to stop hate speech.

Again, this is not necessarily a bad thing. But then we must look at the matter in the context of Malaysia.

Do we have similar laws along the same vein? Yes, we do. It’s called the Sedition Act.

Why the need for a new law then?

Furthermore, any law would be used according to the discretion of the powers that be.

I am very uncertain as to whether such a law would be used fairly.

I am worried that some comments would be deemed more hateful than others depending on whom it is aimed at.

After all, we can see in recent times how a blogger’s comments were deemed so inflammatory that he deserved to be locked up without trial, and yet, a politician can say hateful things and no law is used against him.

He gets a slap on the wrist and goes on with his jolly little life.

Also, just what is going to be defined as “hate speech”?

I suppose some things are obvious.

Associating certain races with certain porcine mammals should be in there.

But what about legitimate discussions? Will these be included as well?

Let us look at one battle cry that has been raised in recent times. According to some people (and they run the whole gamut from two-bit politicians to so-called academics), the Malays and their precious rights are being challenged. (Tellingly, details are never provided.)

Now, legally, these “rights” (they are privileges actually, not rights) can be found in Articles 152 and 153 of the Constitution.

Article 152 is about Bahasa Malaysia being the official language and 153 is the power given to the Yang di-Pertuan Agong to set quotas in matters of public service, education, permits and licences for bumiputras.

One thing I want to make clear here is that Article 153 gives the King a discretionary power, and it has to be done to a level which he deems reasonable.

What does “reasonable” mean? This is a subjective term, and common sense would dictate that it can be open for discussion.

What if this new proposed law deemed such discussions to be “hate speech” or causing a “breakdown in race relations”?

It would mean another nail in the coffin of Malaysian civil liberties.

I must admit I am writing purely on conjecture.

But in countries where a race relations law exists, they more often that not have a strong foundation in human rights. We don’t.

It could very well mean a further erosion of the precious few rights of expression that we do have.

To summarise, my main concerns are three-fold: an equal opportunities law will not work in a legal system with an institutionalised system of discrimination; the application of laws in this country does not appear to be fair; and there is always the possibility that a Malaysian Race Relations Act will serve only to chip away the few chances we have at any sort of mature public dialogue.

We have problems in this country. Perhaps the way forward is to openly debate such matters in an intelligent fashion.

It is not speech which causes problems after all; it is the irresponsible few who threaten people with violence and fire bombs who are the real threat.

And we have laws aplenty to deal with such elements.

That is, if those laws are ever used against the real perpetrators.