Azmi Sharom on the 12th General Election

News Clips (Malaysiakini)
27 February 2008

Malaysiakini's 2008 Election Special with law lecturer Dr Azmi Sharom

____________________

Camera: Maran Perianen
Editing: Indrani Kopal

(Original link: Azmi Sharom on the 12th General Election)

Don’t Be Afraid of Open Debate

Brave New World (The Star)
21 February 2008

"Ideas are meant to be put through the crucible of debate; otherwise, they will never develop and never change."

____________________

Last week, it was announced that our next general election would be on March 8. About two weeks ago, 11 books were banned. Both things are related because they both are about the ability of Malaysians to make a choice.

And freedom, ultimately, is about the ability to make choices.

The 11 banned books are all about Islam. Some are arguments against Islam and some are what have been dubbed “liberal” interpretations of Islam.

Of all these books, I have read only one and that is Islam & Pluralisme. It is a collection of essays translated and edited by Al-Mustaqeem Mahmood Radhi.

Personally, I found the essays fascinating. They generally argue that pluralism exists in Islam and this can be seen in Quranic verses as well as in the actions of the Prophet Mohamed.

The underlying principle of those who support pluralism is the acceptance that all religions at their heart attempt to bring their followers closer to God.

With this as a core idea, it follows that all faiths must be given equal respect. This is an ideology of peace. It is an ideology of understanding and inclusiveness. It is the antithesis of exclusivity and arrogant bigotry.

It escapes me how a book that proposes such ideals can be banned. The only conclusion I can come to is that those in authority disagree with pluralism and they want to make sure that the Malaysian public are not privy to any arguments for it.

It boils down to what is basically the tyranny of thought: we disagree with these ideas and we will jolly well do all in our power to prevent you from reading about them.

Obviously, this stand against pluralism has its roots in dogma and, equally obviously, those who want the book banned are of the opinion that pluralism, or at least pluralism as suggested by this book, is un-Islamic.

It is their right to hold such an opinion, but to deny citizens the freedom to explore other opinions is not only authoritarian; it is also an insult to the intelligence of Malaysians.

Ideas are meant to be put through the crucible of debate; otherwise, they will never develop and never change. And the stagnation of ideas will ultimately mean the stagnation of human progress. This is why the banning of books is so destructive.

Regardless of what these books may contain, no matter how vile one feels their contents are, the only way to oppose it is by intelligent debate.

If an idea is bad, destroy it intellectually, or risk seeing it grow silently underground. And if you can’t destroy it intellectually, then perhaps it is time to re-examine your own world-view.

At the end of the day, banning books is stealing from us the right to make informed choices. Informed choices are also what elections are about.

Without the necessary information on all the political parties and candidates being made available to the voters, without full disclosure of the incumbent government’s record being done, elections become farcical.

Thank heavens for the Internet. It has given an avenue for Net-linked citizens to find out about events and ideas that may not be available in the more traditional media.

However, those who do not have access to cyberspace are still beholden to the usual sources of information. And these sources are in turn beholden to the incumbent government through restrictive laws (coincidentally the same laws that are used to ban books).

We are a democracy, true enough, but we are an infantile democracy. And the primary reason for this puerile state of affairs is mainly the lack of truly open debate in politics.

This, coupled with general cynicism about issues such as gerrymandering, has led to many citizens being totally disdainful of the entire election process. Personally, I think this is a defeatist view and I shall be voting in this election if I am able.

The Hardest Choice is Usually the Right One

Brave New World (The Star)
24 January 2008

"Education should not be about getting good pass rates; it is about challenging and stretching the minds of our young people."

____________________

Every day we make decisions. Most are pretty easy, for example, choosing what to have for lunch. Unless, of course, you are making an office group lunch decision. That would require professional negotiators.

Other decisions are harder though, especially those where the benefits won’t accrue for a long time and may in fact cause hardship for the decision maker in the short term. Two recent events got me to thinking along these lines.

First was the Bali Action Plan on Climate Change, and second the recent decision by the Ministry of Education to dumb down the literature component in the Form Five Bahasa Malaysia paper.

The recent UN climate change meeting in Bali produced an action plan which had serious implications for developing countries.

In a nutshell, international climate change laws require developed countries to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions to 5% below 1990 levels by 2012. Developing countries only have a general obligation to reduce their emissions.

In international law, general obligations usually mean you don’t have to do very much at all. However, the Bali Action Plan has proposed that developing countries take measurable action to do their bit in fighting global warming. These activities are also to be monitored.

Therefore, our efforts will now be assessed and scrutinised. Although this falls short of an actual target on greenhouse gas reduction, it does mean that it will be harder to get away with doing nothing at all.

Malaysia has agreed to this Action Plan, and now it is up to our Government to take the necessary measures to live up to it. Already, the Department of Environment has planned to establish a multi-departmental body to look into measures to mitigate the effects of climate change.

This is an important step. Climate change is happening, and the effects are being felt by us right now.

For example, climate change has not affected the average rainfall in our country, but it has affected the intensity of rainfall. That is to say, we get the same amount of rain but it tends to come in more concentrated downpours. The most obvious repercussion of this is flooding.

We thus have to make sure that the citizens of this nation do not suffer any more than we need to by taking into our planning considerations the various possible effects of climate change.

But according to the plan, we have to do more. We also have to seriously start reducing our own greenhouse gas emissions. These types of action will undoubtedly be unpopular among some quarters, but the Government must take the necessary steps regardless.

It must have the moral courage to do the right thing, even though any benefits that we may get from such action won’t be felt until the current crop of ministers are dead, or at least out of office.

Combating climate change is vital because the future of our children is at stake. Ensuring that our education system is as good as it can be is vital also for the same reason.

The decision by the Education Ministry to introduce “pop culture” books into the syllabus of Form Five Bahasa Malaysia, at the expense of books by our National Laureates (because they are supposedly too difficult), is doing a great disservice to our children.

The Malay language literati have been up in arms at this decision – and rightly so – because they find it an insult to our language and our literary giants.

I agree. And it also shows very poor decision-making. When faced with the problem of students being unable to comprehend “more difficult work”, the answer is not to make the work easier because that would be lowering educational standards.

Sure, you might get a better pass rate, but at what cost? Education should not be about getting good pass rates; it is about challenging and stretching the minds of our young people.

Without this mental challenge we will be producing a generation of ignoramuses and this cannot possibly be good for the country.

As harsh as this may sound, exams are created to separate those who are academically inclined and those who are not. Making sure everybody passes means that that distinction can’t be made, and this in the long run would mean the wrong people would be doing the wrong thing.

There is no shame in not getting the right kinds of grades in order to move on academically. Some of our kids are that way inclined, and some are not. For those who are not, opportunities must be given to them to find their own path.

I work at the end of the academic chain and, believe me, if a student comes in when he should not be there, he suffers, his fellow students suffer, the lecturers suffer, the institution suffers and, ultimately, the nation suffers.

It’s so easy to just say “Let’s make the literature component simple so it won’t be tough on the kids”. It’s hard to say “Let’s make sure our teaching is better and more innovative so that these kids can understand”.

It’s easy to say “Let’s just keep on doing what we are doing and develop our economy like there’s no tomorrow”. It’s hard to say “Let’s make sure we don’t develop at the expense of tomorrow”.

We are faced with decisions constantly. We have to make choices where the easy one may be awfully tempting. But often, it is the hardest choice which is the right one.

What's Dear to the Malaysian Heart

Malaysia Today (unpublished Brave New World)
08 January 2008

"It would appear that sexual indiscretion is a concept that repulses us on a basic level whereas financial misdeeds are too distant, too impersonal, for the same kind of righteousness to flare."

____________________

I’ve really got to thank Chua Soi Lek. The number of jokes that have been zipping around for the past week or so has been amazing. My personal favourite is about the new Ministry of Health warning on packets of contraceptives. Brilliant stuff (e-mail me if you haven’t heard it).

Personally, I could not care less that he has resigned. After all Barisan Nasional politicians are not exactly an endangered species. There are loads of them lurking about and to replace one is not a problem. Furthermore, they look and behave very much like each other in my opinion. Rather like zebras.

It’s funny though that it takes a lurid video to make this resignation happen (incidentally, I haven’t seen said video, primarily because the sight of middle aged men getting it on is likely to give me nightmares). It appears that sex scandals are the thing to get politicians into serious trouble.

I mean outrageous mismanagement of public funds like the Port Klang Free Zone fiasco, where land worth 95 million ringgit in 1999 was bought in 2002 by the Port Klang Authority, a government agency, for 1.08 billion, seems to have been forgotten. Sure there was a cursory investigation by the Public Accounts Committee, but as yet there is no answer to the basic question of how land can jump ten times in price over three years, and how the PKA can be so imprudent as to pay that price. The PKA has been chaired by MCA politicians for almost twenty years. But since they all have kept their pants on or at least have not been video taped with their pants off, no heads rolled.

It is the same overseas too. Bill Clinton was impeached because he had a thing for girls with big hair (which reminds me of my Canadian African pal who said Clinton had such bad taste in women that if he were to put on a big wig, Bill would hit on him too). And yet when George W Bush lied to the nation about Iraq’s supposed weapons of mass destruction, sending the nation to war causing the deaths of thousands of Americans and Iraqis, nothing happened to him. Semen stains on an intern’s dress obviously carry more weight than blood on a president’s hands.

What is it about people that something as petty as sex gets them all hot and bothered? Sorry, let me rephrase that. Why does sordid sex get people all angry and righteous when other types of scandals don’t? At least not to the point that politicians lose their job. Our Puritanism seems to be reserved for the squalid as opposed to the kinds off issues which affect us all, like the less titillating matter of the PKFZ.

Perhaps we are only able to feel upset over an issue when it is something we can understand on a gut level as opposed to a more intellectual level. If this is the case, it would appear that sexual indiscretion is a concept that repulses us on a basic level whereas financial misdeeds are too distant, too impersonal, for the same kind of righteousness to flare.

Shouldn’t public matters be more of a concern than private matters? I appreciate the argument that Chua is setting a bad example to our youth and all that, although because I am not his wife, I frankly can’t be bothered about what he does in his spare time. I am however bothered about our eroding fundamental liberties, detention without trial, misuse of public funds, corruption, an ailing judiciary, the loss of our secular democracy, abuse of power and leadership driven by political expediency. Call me crazy, but I think these things are more vital then a copulating codger.

Chua is definitely no saint. He is definitely no hero either, as some might want us to believe. He is just some old guy who could not keep his John Thomas in check. That’s all, nothing more, nothing less, and if we want to crucify him for being ham sap, there are many others, the corrupt, the incompetent and the wicked, who deserve the same.

Nothing New in New Year

Brave New World (The Star)
27 December 2007

"It should suggest progress but over time, the magic of the new year has waned."

____________________

For a long time now I have disliked the New Year. I enjoy New Year's Day. After all, it’s a public holiday and public holidays are wonderful things.

It’s New Year's Eve that I don’t like. The jollity and counting down the seconds all feel a bit false. “C’mon have a good time, it’s New Year's Eve!” It may be New Year's Eve to you mate, but to me it’s Monday night.

I didn’t always feel this way. Many, many years ago when I was a small boy, New Year Eve was a big deal.

It was the night before a new year. Imagine that, a brand spanking New Year, shiny and fresh, pregnant with promise.

I would stay up till midnight eager to watch the birth of nineteen whatever it was. I don’t know what I was hoping for – something magical, I guess. It was as though the New Year brought us closer to a brighter future, one with flying cars.

But over time, every New Year started to feel just like the old one. The same old problems, and not a personal jet pack to be found. 2008 appears to be no different. Sometimes I think we are stuck in time.

New years suggest progress, but there is scant evidence of this around, at least politically. When the Prime Minister came into power, he promised more openness in government. And this supposed openness has been touted by his people as a sign of a maturing democracy. Indeed there was a brief period when things were looking rather hopeful on that front.

However, his government needs to work harder on this.

You can’t have your cake and eat it too. Greater openness will mean dissent, will mean conflict, and will mean the outpouring of anger. You just have to deal with it. And dealing with it does not mean the use of the ISA.

Neither does there appear to be any intellectual progress. The recent fiasco regarding the use of the word Allah by a Catholic newsletter, culminating in the effective ban on the publication, reflects a thinking that is mind numbingly infantile.

There is the false declaration that Allah is a Muslim word to be used only by Muslims. There was no attempt by the powers that be to answer publicly to the fact that the word is Arabic and means literally The God. “Al” means “the” and “Lah” means “God”.

Furthermore, the Abrahamic religions all have the same root language. This being the case, it is not correct to say that Allah as a word is exclusive to Muslims.

Linguistic quibbles aside, what gets to me is the presumption that Malaysian Muslims will get confused if they were to ever get a hold of this Catholic newsletter and see the word Allah in it.

For one thing, it is not as if this newsletter is on sale openly. It can’t be anyway because there are laws preventing the producers from doing so.

For another thing, I think that a Muslim who may chance upon a copy would probably be able to tell that this is a Christian publication. The references to Jesus being the son of God and that sort of thing would probably give it away.

It’s a new year, but we are still plodding along in the same old way. Living in a stunted democracy where to expect intelligent discourse from those who wield the reins of power seems too much to hope for. Rather like waiting for flying cars and personal jet packs.

An Ill-advised Choice

Brave New World (The Star)
13 December 2007

"We need to examine and improve the appointment system of judges. This has to be done by a Royal Commission that is totally impeccable."

____________________

At the time of writing, Tottenham Hotspurs are languishing in 16th place in the English Premier League. For a team so full of talented goal scorers, this is a very sad place to be indeed.

Even in this miserable season, we have scored more goals than almost anyone. Unfortunately we also let in more goals than almost anyone.

A lot of hope was placed on Juande Ramos, the ex-coach of Sevilla, when he replaced Martin Jol a few months ago. (That was a sorry episode in Spurs history – Jol should not have been dismissed in the manner he was, but that is another story).

That hope is now teetering a little bit. Sure, we have qualified for the next round of the UEFA Cup, but our league results are ordinary at best and dismal at worst (losing 2-3 to Birmingham when we were leading, for God’s sake!).

It is always the case that when a new boss comes in, hopes are raised that there will be positive changes.

Ramos arrived at White Hart Lane with the amazing reputation of shaping Sevilla, a moderate team in the Spanish Primera Liga, into two-time UEFA Cup champions. Last year, he even got them into the Champions League.

His skill – and this made Spurs fans drool – was that he was able to maintain Sevilla’s attacking flair while at the same time shoring up their defence.

We have plenty of attacking flair – Robbie Keane is an Irish terrier, Jermaine Defoe a wonderful little poacher, and Dmitar Berbatov, when he is actually aware he is on the pitch, produces magic.

Our defence, on the other hand, especially without the injured Ledley King, kind of flaps about.

However, even with such an awesome reputation, Ramos has not produced the miracle that Spurs seem to need. One has to be patient, I suppose. After all, he has proven himself in Spain.

Unlike Zaki Azmi, the new Court of Appeal president. As a judge, he has proven himself not at all. He was appointed to the Federal Court in September and now, a scant three months later, he is heading the second highest court in the land.

It is all rather bizarre, especially in the light of recent events like the Lingam tapes and the judiciary facing a crisis of confidence. Now, for all we know, Nazri Aziz MP might be correct when he says that Zaki Azmi is a jolly good fellow, who is as straight as they come.

But I am afraid this is just not quite good enough in this day and age. Especially when one considers the intimate links that Zaki has with the ruling party.

At a time when executive interference with the judiciary is such a sore point, the person who is chosen to head the Court of Appeal, and very possibly to head the entire judiciary when the present Chief Justice retires in about a year’s time, was the legal adviser, chairman of the election committee and deputy chairman of the disciplinary board of the main party in the Cabinet.

At this stage of the Malaysian judiciary’s history, his appointment strikes me as, at the very best, a rather ill-advised choice. It is hardly the sort of choice to instil confidence in the impartiality of the judiciary.

Let me make myself clear, I am in no way suggesting Zaki is less than honest. I don’t know him. But that is the point.

As a citizen, I should be given the necessary information to have some sort of inkling as to why Zaki was chosen over many far more senior judges. (As he has been a judge for only three months, this means that almost everyone on the bench is his senior.)

Just what are the qualities that make him so well suited for this important post? Of course, the selection of judges in this country is shrouded in secrecy, and it is unlikely we will ever find out.

What this appointment has shown is that the judicial system in our country desperately needs an overhaul. The Royal Commission that has been promised us should be given the authority to look at the entire system and not be limited to just the Lingam tapes issue.

In particular, we need to examine and improve the appointment system of judges.

It goes without saying that this has to be done by a Royal Commission that is totally impeccable lest the debacle that we find ourselves in just continues.

The Ballot Box and Protests

Brave New World (The Star)
29 November 2007

"For democracy to have any sort of meaning, it must be part of our lives every day ."

____________________

Kuala Lumpur has been a busy place of late. Roads closed, people marching around, sometimes in colour-coordinated outfits. It all made our capital that much more hectic and more colourful than usual.

Politicians too have been more hectic and colourful than usual.

The common thread of comments from members of the ruling party is that all these protesters are merely tools of the Opposition and, besides, we are a democracy and you can always let your feelings be known at the ballot box. Why take to the streets? It is not our way.

Allow me to deal with these two points: the ballot box and the idea that protesting is not “our way”.

Let’s look at the ballot box first. Every four of five years, it rises up from its resting place and it is supposedly all the democracy we need.

This is a bit of a silly idea because democracy is not like some mythical beast that slumbers for years and then rears its head every now and then to be fed.

Democracy, if it is to have any sort of meaning, must be part of our lives every day.

If one were to think that the ballot box is the be-all and end-all of democracy, then one is playing a zero-sum game.

It’s all or nothing, either you are with us or against us.

This is an oversimplification of George Bush proportions.

It is not just opposition people who engage with the Government. Ordinary people and civil society want to have a say, too.

Furthermore, there are people who support or even like most of what the ruling party does but disagree with some of its decisions. Surely, they have the right to voice their concerns?

That right of dissent is a vital component in a democracy, as it helps to ensure that governments are aware that their responsibility and culpability to citizens is something that exists all the time.

The question is how that dissent should be expressed.

Yes, the ballot box is one way but it is pretty much an all-or-nothing method of dissent.

One example of its downside is the slow registration process.

I know of young people who have registered to vote for months and yet their names still do not appear in the register.

Just how difficult is it to place someone on the electoral roll?

In this age of computers and MyKad, it should be a matter of hours or at the most days. Not months.

Furthermore, I can’t see the logic of having some large parliamentary seats with many voters and some tiny ones with very few.

The division of constituencies is such that in the last general election, on average the ruling party needed 16,000 votes to get a seat while the opposition parties needed 180,000 votes for each of their seats.

Another method of dissent is through the press. An argument against a dissenting press is that a totally free press is dangerous and the people are not ready for it.

Well, no one is saying that the press has to be totally free. Everybody is bound by laws.

The issue in question is the extent of repression that those laws exert.

As long as the Printing Presses and Publications Act exists, we can say that our press, despite good intentions, is on a short leash.

How much coverage can you give to dissenting voices when the object of those voices’ anger could whip away your licence to publish at any time?

What other methods are available then to show dissent? Handing in politely worded documents to the powers that be is all well and good, but sometimes an issue is so big that people want to express themselves.

They want to come together in a show of solidarity and to make as big an impact as possible.

For example, when US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice turned up, there were people in the streets.

Maybe what is really meant is that opposing the government on the streets is not “our way”.

But then didn’t Umno organise demonstrations against the Malayan Union? That was opposing the government, wasn’t it?

Oh yes, that was in a different situation. There were no ballot boxes and the press was controlled by the British.

A democracy needs dissent. It needs a free press; it needs people to express themselves.

Anything less is disrespecting our inalienable and fundamental freedoms.