Now, boys, just settle down

Brave New World (The Star)
24 July 2008

"The teacher has to rein in the unruly few or the lesson cannot start and the whole class, nay, even school, will suffer."

____________________

Good morning, boys. Good morning. Settle down, settle down. Now, it’s been a tough couple of weeks for us and as your class teacher, I think we should go over a few things.

We have been the premier school in the country for the past 50 years, but a few unpleasant incidents recently have put that position at risk.

If we don’t get our act together, we may lose our hallowed position.

Therefore, before we begin our history lesson, there are a few matters I would like to discuss with you.

First off, our head prefect, Mr Hamid, can you stand up, please? Well, it seems that you have ...

You there, yes, you, the boy at the back. Can you please stop making that obscene gesture with your hands? No, you can’t say you are just tapping your right hand with your left. That is an obscene gesture. Keep it up and I’ll give you six strokes.

Now, where was I? Oh yes, Mr Hamid. It seems that you caused a massive traffic jam at the school gates. Your prefects were stopping everybody and checking their badges and their bags. Do you realise that you caused a great deal of problems?

Boys were late to class and even teachers were late because of your overzealous behaviour. Mr Tan the Maths master was furious because half his class missed their calculus exam.

What did you say? You were concerned about the security of the school because you thought our rival school was going to cause trouble at your prefects’ meeting? And where, pray tell, did you get this intelligence?

Oh, you heard it on the grapevine? Well, the next time you choose to listen to plants, please check with me first before you go disrupting our school day.

Second on the list is our debating team. Gentlemen, please join me in a round of applause for the hard work of our team captain, Mr Chik.

He put up a courageous display against a debater who had miles more experience than him. Bravo, Mr Chik, a brave effort indeed.

Brave but futile, I’m afraid. Mr Chik, I have spoken to the debate master and he told me that you hardly did any research.

Listen, my boy, you can’t beat the opposition by making personal attacks on their past.

You have to put over your point clearly; otherwise you’ll just look foolish.

And one more thing; for the next debate, please bring a handkerchief.

All right, now it is time to discuss some academic matters. I have just marked your General Paper test and I was quite shocked with some of your answers.

Mr Ibrahim, stand up, please. Young man, I read your essay on government scholarships and it was very passionate and fiery but you can’t just make things up.

There is nowhere in the Constitution that says that all scholarships are reserved for Malays.

It says that reservations of a proportion of scholarships for Malays may be made by the King. It does not say every single sen is for one group or another.

Don’t argue with me, boy! You got it all wrong. All you have to do is read the blinking thing.

What do you mean you did read it? What did you see exactly when you read it?

Perhaps I should send you to the school nurse. I think you need glasses.

One last thing; as you all know, half the boys in this school stay in the hostel.

It has come to my attention that the day boys have been teasing the hostel boys by questioning, how can I put it, their ... manliness.

This behaviour has got to stop. It is childish and undignified. It also reflects an obsession with matters sexual that borders on the unhealthy.

The next time you get the urge to speculate about another person’s private life, may I suggest you play some rugby and let the exertions raise your minds from the gutter?

Very well then, I trust the events of the past few weeks have taught you all a lesson and the debacles that have so embarrassed us will not be repeated.

We can now begin our history lesson. Would you be so kind as to take out your textbooks and turn to page ...

For the last time, boy, stop making that gesture! You have had your warning, and seeing as how you are too uncouth to show the slightest bit of remorse and repentance, I shall see you after class.

Let’s see whether you can keep doing that with your hands once I’ve caned them raw.

Now, where was I? Oh yes, please open your books to page 46 ...

Who knows what’s true anymore?

Brave New World (The Star)
26 June 2008

"The accusations made over the past couple of weeks are merely symptomatic of a justice system on the verge of collapse. We are in desperate need of a revamp of the justice system, and we the people should keep demanding for it."

____________________

What a messy couple of weeks it has been. First, Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim is accused (yet again) of the type of love that dare not speak its name. Then out of nowhere, a private eye comes out with a statutory declaration implying that the Deputy Prime Minister was involved in the murder case of Altantuya Shaariibuu.

The very next day, the same fellow retracts his original statutory declaration and replaces it with a new one that completely leaves out any mention of the DPM. Apparently, he was coerced into making the first one.

I was asked the other day who I believed. Whose story is true?

My answer was “How the blinking heck should I know?” I am not any of the people mentioned above. I am not their friend or relative, and I was not present at any of the places where all these things were supposed to have happened.

And most of us don’t know either. That is not to say that the chattering does not stop. In fact, the chattering has got very noisy indeed.

Some are so disgusted by all these claims, counter-claims, accusations and counter-accusations that they have withdrawn in a hissy huff.

Others relish the new developments, coming up with theories and conspiracies that boggle the mind.

The Prime Minister then steps in and says all this must stop. All the second-guessing and rumour mongering is akin to treachery and is bad for the nation. The truth must not be clouded by perceptions.

Ah, the truth, the sweet, sweet truth. That is the real issue here, isn’t it?

While some refuse to give all the dirty political manoeuvrings the time of day and others add grease to its wheels, neither have mentioned the all-so-obvious – the reason this kind of garbage can occur and the reason it gets discussed so much is because we don’t know whom to trust any more. We are not confident that the truth will ever be uncovered.

However, all this hullabaloo surrounding the accusations is merely symptomatic of a justice system on the verge of collapse.

If we had a police force whom we knew with almost 100% certainty would serve the law and not the executive; if we could believe that every single judge was utterly independent of any outside influence; if we could place hand on heart and say that the Public Prosecutor would prosecute without fear or favour; then we would have a sound justice system.

And if that were the case, all these issues would be sorted out via due process and in good time. And all the conspiracies would be confined to the fringes rather than be in the mainstream of debate.

This debacle must not be taken at face value. It must be treated as what it really is – a loss of trust in the institutions of justice.

So, instead of hiding in the comfort of Astro TV or wallowing in the who-did-what-to-whom, we should instead be focused on finding a cure to the real problem. We are in desperate need of a revamp of the justice system.

This is something that we the people should keep on demanding.

And the Prime Minister should also take heed that it is well and good to tell the people to listen to the truth, but after years of judicial scandal; a police force that appears governed by the executive and not by the rule of law; an Attorney-General’s Chambers that is beholden to the political demands of the nation’s leaders; and a press muzzled by repressive laws with a government that is not afraid to use them; it is not a simple matter of not wanting to listen to the truth.

It is a matter of not ever being confident just what the truth is.

Is the Government serious or not?

Brave New World (The Star)
26 June 2008

"Making the judicial appointment process more transparent and accountable and having true separation of powers will be our main safeguard against tyranny."

____________________



In April, the Prime Minister made a speech at a dinner organised by the Bar Council and the Government. In it, he promised that there would be established a Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC) made up of “primary stakeholders” to shortlist nominees for judges.


This was to make the judicial appointment process more transparent and accountable and thus ensure that the judiciary could once more be trusted.


Earlier this month, the Royal Commission set up to investigate the Lingam tapes came out with its report and, apart from confirming the veracity of the video and condemning the damage done to the judiciary by those named by senior lawyer V.K. Lingam in their devious ploys at determining which judge was promoted, the Commission suggested that a JAC be established and that its recommendations should be taken heed of by the Prime Minister, who could reject its views only in the most extreme of circumstances.


I didn’t write about these two developments earlier because, being Malaysian, cynicism runs in my veins and I wanted to see whether any real developments would happen. Not just talk.


Personally, I would like to see the Prime Minister, as the head of the Executive, having nothing at all to do with the appointment and promotion of judges. Only in that way can there be true separation of powers, our main safeguard against tyranny.


In that sense, the Royal Commission’s suggestion was a little mild for my liking. Having said that, it is still a million times better than the system that we have now – a system where the Prime Minister has the final say, and the appointment and promotion of judges is done arbitrarily.


Regarding the Prime Minister’s speech, although I did not feel the need to give him a standing ovation as the Bar did, I was optimistically cautious. After all, the independence of the judiciary was one of the waves that made up the political tsunami of March 8.


No right thinking premier indeed would not take note of this fact and take the necessary steps to give the people what they want.


And for a while at least, it looked like the Prime Minister was on the road to doing just that.


He appointed Datuk Zaid Ibrahim (who was not even selected to stand for election – maybe because of the liberal sounds he makes) as a senator and made him the de facto Law Minister. Zaid then promised not only a JAC but also to return Article 121 to its original form.


Article 121, for those of you who have never slept through a Constitutional Law lecture, is about judicial power. It used to be that the Judiciary determined its own jurisdiction, i.e. what cases it could, and could not, hear.


Article 121 was amended in 1988 to give that power to Parliament. So now Parliament has the power to tell the Judiciary what sort of cases it can judge. Not exactly a ringing endorsement for the separation of powers.


Then last Saturday, it was reported that the proposed JAC Zaid tabled before the Cabinet had been “put on hold”. The newspaper report was full of coy statements by the Law Minister when faced with the question of whether the Prime Minister was truly committed to the idea.


Well, I’m not in government and I don’t have to be coy. If the Prime Minister and his Cabinet were committed to the idea of a clean, fair and independent judiciary, we should be making substantial steps forward with the proposal by Zaid being made open to the public for further debate before it is sent to the Attorney-General’s Chambers to be made into a Bill.


As it is, it all seems to be in limbo. Just what is it about the proposal that the Prime Minister and his Cabinet dislike? Is it the fact that one man does not hold all the power anymore? Could it be the idea that the loss of the ability to twist the judiciary around the fingers of the Executive is so shocking that it can’t be endured?


Frankly, I think that is the only reason for this plan to be “put on hold”. The Government wants to control the Judiciary. It doesn’t want an independent bench. It doesn’t want the citizens of this country to enjoy the security of a competent court whose powers are separate and safe from the political machinations of the Executive and the Legislature.


If a JAC made up of reputable “primary stakeholders”, and not by toadying civil servants and politicians, is not established, and if Article 121 is not returned to its original form, then whatever shred of credibility this government may have will be destroyed.


The Cabinet will have to decide. Does it want to “renew the public’s trust in the nation’s Judiciary”, or is its hunger for dominance and total control over the three branches of government so ravenous that it can’t see beyond the short term?


Does the Cabinet not realise that by taking away from the people what is rightfully theirs, it is merely digging its own grave?

Suffer the Children ... of Some

Brave New World (The Star)
12 June 2008

"Without exotic foreign holidays, life will no longer be the same."

____________________

The sun was setting as the Proton Perdana crunched up the gravel driveway of the bungalow on Jalan Kia Peng. The man sitting in the back seat was oblivious to the gentle glow of dusk that bathed the large well-manicured gardens.

His heart felt heavy and his stomach was knotted.

He was going to break their hearts and there was no way out.

“We are here, sir.”

The voice of the driver shook him out of his deep thoughts. With a barely audible grunt of thanks, he stepped out and with leaden feet walked towards the door.

Before he reached it, the huge oak edifices swung open. A small woman in a blue uniform retrieved his suitcase and collected his shoes as he slipped them off. He hardly noticed her, either.

From within the house, there were sounds of a loud X Box game in progress and young children shouting. The man walked into the living room. Expensive Italian furniture was arranged around a 40-inch plasma TV, its sleek modernity a stark contrast to the gaudiness of the sofas and armchairs.

A boy and a girl were transfixed by the screen, watching monsters get beheaded. A woman lounged in an armchair, her diamonds glittering.

“Listen, everybody, I must speak to you,” said the man.

“Not now, Papa, we are reaching level five,” said the boy.

“No, now,” said the man.

The sombre tone of his voice cut through the shrill screams from the video game. The children and the woman looked to the man, their normal indifference suddenly replaced by unfamiliar concern.

Seating himself, the man leaned on his elbows and stared at the floor.

In a voice quivering with barely suppressed emotion, he started to speak.

“Darling, children, I am afraid we can’t go to Orlando Disneyland this year.”

“Where are we going then?” asked the girl. “England? Europe?”

“We can only go to somewhere in Asean.”

The gasps from the family just about drowned out the crack in his voice as he finished his sentence. Then the barrage of questions started. Why? What happened? How can this be?

As the voices rose to a crescendo, the man snapped, tears running down his face as he screamed, “The oil price has gone up and we can’t go on holidays around the world any more!”

“But, darling,” said the woman, “I already told the girls I would bring back for them oranges from Florida. How can I face them in Carcosa at our high tea tomorrow?”

“Papa, you promised Disneyland. I hate you! I hate you!” shrieked the boy as he stormed out of the room.

“Wait, boy!” he called out. “You must try to understand. The whole nation is suffering. We must make sacrifices. It is for the good of the country and for the future.”

But it was too late; the boy had already disappeared into his bedroom. Soon, the sound of heavy rap played at full volume could be heard.

“Oh, darling. Think about the children. How are they going to face their friends at the international school? Where are we going to go on holiday?”

The man wiped away his tears of frustration and held his head as he thought of what to say.

Suddenly, he looked up and with a smile bordering on the maniacal, he said: “What about Singapore? Or we can even go local. Let’s go to A Famosa in Malacca. It’s fun, they have a theme park and an animal and cowboy show. Malaysia Truly Asia! Heh heh heh ...”

His laugh petered out as the girl and the woman stared at him icily, slicing through his forced jollity.

For the longest while, nothing was said. Then the rap music abruptly stopped. The three looked up as the boy walked back to them.

“I understand sacrifice, Papa. And I think I have the solution,” he said.

The family stared at him, hope shining in their eyes. “We can all go to Hong Kong Disneyland!” he exclaimed excitedly.

The man broke down again and buried his face in his hands. Between his gasping sobs, he cried,

“Oh, my son, my poor, poor boy. Don’t you know? Hong Kong is not in Asean.”

“Arrrgghhh!” the boy screamed and ran back to his room, wailing, “I hate you! I hate my life! I want to die!”

The girl, unable to bear the pain any longer, stood up. She loomed over the broken shell that was her father and said, “I know we all have to suffer because of the oil price, Papa. But why do WE have to suffer SO MUCH?” Then she too stalked away.

The man stared into the middle distance.

His pain was almost too much to endure. The only sound in the room was the clinking of his wife’s diamonds as her bosom heaved with racking sobs.

It barely smothered the sound of his shattering heart, for without their exotic foreign holidays, life would never be the same again.

Of Dilbert and Bulldogs

Brave New World (The Star)
29 May 2008

"All the players in the legal profession must work together to come up with a well thought-out and reasoned solution to ensure our lawyers are of the best possible quality."

____________________

There is a Dilbert cartoon in which the pointy-haired boss accuses a worker of all sorts of shortcomings. Then he ends his tirade by saying that she is also unable to take criticism.

This naturally puts the poor employee in a difficult position. She wants to defend herself but if she did so, she would confirm her boss’ analysis.

I feel like that hapless employee after reading Justice Gopal Sri Ram’s tirade against local law graduates. I am a lecturer in a local university and if I were to support my school, I would look defensive.

Yet, I can’t just let this go by. So allow me to try to address the criticism as objectively as possible.

If the reporting was accurate, the judge was pretty vicious. But then, one does not expect anything less from the judiciary’s bulldog (I use the term “bulldog” as a metaphor for tenacious toughness; no canine contempt intended).

His Lordship’s main criticism, as I see it, is that our graduates are not prepared for the real world of practice. There is more than a grain of truth in that statement. However, before we start to gun down local universities, let us understand just what it is universities are supposed to and not supposed to do.

Universities are academic institutions and, as such, we provide academic training. We are not really vocational schools that provide the sort of practical training the judge is calling for.

Having said that, there is a slight case of schizophrenia on our part. The law courses in Malaysia last four years, and the final year is a sort of “professional” year in which you study the more practice-oriented subjects, like procedure and professional practice.

Yet, at the same time, the “academic” ethos is still part of the package so perhaps we are not as practice-oriented as we could be.

In Britain, this problem does not exist because the academic and the vocational training aspects are quite distinct. You do three years of undergraduate study and if you pass, you get your LLB. Then the vocational training is provided for when you take the course for either the bar exams or the solicitors’ exams.

The universities are thus left with ensuring academic quality and the Bar and solicitor schools deal with the practical aspects of the profession.

Now, if we are to improve matters and make our graduates more prepared for practice, there are three options that I can see.

The first is to make the entire course less academic and more practical. I can’t agree with this. The Bachelor of Laws degree (the LLB) is not merely to train practising lawyers. It is about the teaching of the law and the appreciation of the law.

It is about the training of the mind, to think and to analyse in a particular way. I believe there is value in that.

Another alternative is to make just the final year much more practical. This is a tempting possibility and one that could succeed with the necessary consultations and with the proper funding and staffing.

The final possibility is the one that is being put forward by the Government now, and that is to have a common Bar exam with its own syllabus. This proposal has yet to take solid form so we don’t know what it will entail.

In principle, I see no problem with a common Bar exam. My concern is one of trust. The closest equivalent we have had to a common Bar exam is the Certificate of Legal Practice (CLP) exam that foreign or external degree graduates without a Bar or solicitors’ qualification have to sit for.

The CLP is not without its problems. There are far too many scandals associated with it and far too many serious criticisms aimed at it.

There are many weaknesses in our law schools, let me be the first to admit to that. However, any problems that we have and any attempts at improving them are in our hands.

Despite our problems, at the very least, I know that a student passes on his or her merit. Exam scripts are sent to external assessors comprising both local and foreign academics and practitioners to ensure fairness and quality.

And in my 18 years of teaching, there has never been a whiff of any monkeying around with quotas and other such suspicions that are, perhaps unfairly, thrown at the CLP.

The CLP experience leaves me concerned. Therefore, until and unless I am convinced of the soundness of the common Bar exam, I am inclined towards improving matters by fixing the existing system in local universities.

It is easy for industry to place the blame for everything on universities.

“Your graduates can’t speak English,” they say. To which my answer is “Yes, that’s right, they came to us speaking like blinking Richard Attenborough and after four years under our tutelage, we destroyed all their language skills”.

And to come back to the main criticism levelled at us: “Your graduates don’t know anything about practice”.

OK, sure, like I said earlier, there is some truth in that. However, the responsibility does not lie with us alone. Surely, a lot of the aspects of practice are to be taught in the nine-month chambering period.

This is the time spent by a law graduate in a law firm learning the ropes before they can be called to the Bar. Why is there no barrage of attack on that aspect of a law graduate’s training?

There is a lot that local universities can do to improve things and we must accept criticisms in the right spirit. But this must be a collaborative effort. All the players in the legal profession must work together to come up with a well-thought-out and reasoned solution in ensuring that our lawyers are of the best possible quality.

And we must do this as rationally and as inclusively as possible, even with bulldogs nipping at our heels.

What Does Sedition Mean?

Brave New World (The Star)
15 May 2008

"The Sedition Act is very open-ended and perhaps it should be done away with. Just what sedition is appears to be in the eye of the beholder."

____________________

Sedition! What does it mean? The word has been floating around for the past couple of weeks.

Raja Petra the (in) famous blogger of Malaysia Today is being charged with sedition and Karpal Singh the (in)famous MP is being threatened with the charge of sedition.

Raja Petra’s charge is based on an article he wrote about the Altantuya murder and Karpal was supposedly being seditious when he questioned the limits of the Sultan of Perak’s constitutional powers.

But were they being seditious? According to the dictionary definition of sedition, it means words or actions that cause people to rebel against their leaders.

It’s awfully vague, isn’t it? What does “rebel” mean, for instance? Well, looking back into my trusty dictionary, I find that it means to stop giving allegiance to an established government.

Gasp! By that definition, voting against the Government makes you a rebel. Being an Opposition member makes you a rebel. Criticising the Government makes you a rebel.

But wait. Reading on, there is the implication that rebellion means armed struggle. Phew! For a moment there, I thought we were living in a country where close to 50% of the electorate are awful rebels.

However, let’s go back to Raja Petra and Karpal Singh. Their so-called sedition is not dependent on the definition of the Oxford Paperback Dictionary. Instead, we must look to the Sedition Act 1948 (revised in 1969).

Well, 1948. That’s a long time ago. We were not independent then. The Brits were in control. So what we have here is a Brit-made law used initially to control the teeming masses of Malaya from rebelling against the colonial masters.

Gosh. I would have thought such a horrid reminder of the nasty British and their bullying ways would have been done away with as soon as we gained independence.

I guess the Government feels that it still has its uses. Like defending the honour of royalty (as in the Karpal case) or putting them in jail (if Raja Petra, a member of the Selangor royal family, is convicted). Oh, the sweet irony.

Anyway, the Act gives a much more detailed definition than my dictionary. It’s not much clearer, mind you, just more detailed. Since I am lazy, I’ll just paraphrase the relevant parts of the act here.

Sedition means:

(a) To make people hate or feel contempt or disaffection against any ruler or government;

(b) To excite people into changing any legally established matter other than by lawful means;

(c) To make people hate, feel contempt for or feel disaffection against the administration of justice in the country;

(d) To raise discontent or disaffection among the people of the country;

(e) To promote feelings of ill-will and hostility between different races or classes of the population of Malaysia; or

(f) To question the provisions in the Constitution regarding citizenship, Bahasa Malaysia as the national language, the special position of Malays and the sovereignty of the rulers.

However, your words and actions are not seditious if they were:

(a) Intended to show that a ruler has made a mistake;

(b) To constructively show that the government has made mistakes or is in some way defective in law-making and the administration of justice (with the exception of the listed matters in paragraph (f) above);

(c) To make changes in the country through lawful means (with the exception of the listed matters in paragraph (f) above) and to identify, with the intention of removing, any matter that will raise feeling of ill will between the various ethnic groups.

This is the law as it stands. It is not a verbatim reproduction of the Act because, believe me, if you think what I wrote is boring, the actual Act will drive you to tears.

Arguments will be made on both sides to determine if sedition has occurred, and if the case goes to court, then it is up to the wisdom of the judge to decide.

Meanwhile, since we are all intelligent citizens of a democratic country, I see no harm in examining the so-called seditious acts of these two fellows, and seeing if they fit into the definition provided for by this old colonial law.

While you are at it, you may want to see if anyone else has been uttering seditious words. It could be fun. For example, the next time someone questions your citizenship, you can always scream: “Sedition! Sedition!”

The law is very open-ended and perhaps it should be done away with. Just what sedition is appears to be in the eye of the beholder, and this is not a particularly ideal situation.

After all, one person’s sedition is another person’s practice of the democratic right of free speech.

What’s the Party Got to Do With It?

Brave New World (The Star)
1 May 2008

"To separate the personal from the professional is a hard thing to do. But ethics and professionalism demand it."

____________________

The other day, a friend of mine asked me to write a blurb for his new book. It is an honour of course to be asked to do that. A demanding honour, because you have to read an entire book and then try to write about it in one paragraph, but it is an honour nonetheless.

But what if the book is really crap? What do you do? After all, this is your friend you are talking about, and he has asked you to help him by endorsing his work. How do you deal with having to do something unpleasant to someone you like?

Alternatively, sometimes you have to do something positive for someone you personally can’t stand. To separate the personal from the professional is a hard thing to do. But ethics and professionalism demand it.

In Malaysian politics, this does not seem to be the case. There is confusion on the difference between party political interests and the interests of society. And the best interest of society is what good governance is about.

Take Penang, for example. The Tourism Minister has decided to dissolve the Penang Tourism Action Council (PTAC) and reconstitute a new one. The difference between the two is that the new PTAC has no state government representative.

It appears that the Tourism Ministry will only work with the state government if the latter is in Barisan Nasional hands. This was illustrated during the minister’s visit to Penang a little while ago when there was no involvement with the state government at all.

It would seem, therefore, that the PTAC and the Tourism Ministry want to have nothing to do with the state authorities.

So now the state Cabinet has a tourism portfolio and the Federal Government has the PTAC. I am not sure how having two tourism bodies not working in tandem is going to help Penang.

Perhaps the minister has a cunning plan to somehow make it all work. Or perhaps this is just a way of putting Barisan Nasional interests above the country’s interests by making sure that the DAP state government faces as many obstacles as possible.

After all, when the tourism players get confused as to which body they have to turn to, it would be very convenient to lay the blame on the “incompetent” state exco.

I should not be surprised, really. The minister is the same person who defended the stopping of oil royalty payments to Terengganu when the state fell into PAS hands by saying that the situation was equivalent to not being nice to a lover who has rejected you. A very personal analogy for a very public issue.

Further down south, there is a big hoo-ha about the First Wives Club, or Balkis or whatever it is called. While the legality of the transfer of Balkis funds and the request to disband it are debated, it would be interesting to wonder why they did such a thing in the first place.

Balkis, a body consisting of the wives of the Selangor state exco members, has the primary objective of doing community work. All very noble, certainly.

However, I did not realise that you had to be the wife of a Barisan Nasional state exco member in order to do good work. If that was the case, then perhaps it should have been made clear that this organisation was limited only to Barisan wives.

But then when one’s husband has been boasting about expunging the Opposition from the state completely, it is easy to forget that in a democracy, political parties win and they also can lose.

It all looks very childish to me. Like the spoilt kid who takes away the ball when his team is trailing.

Balkis is a charitable organisation. It is supposed to be peopled by the wives of Selangor legislators. The institution is what is important, not the people who make it up.

If the new bunch of wives can’t do the job properly, expose them and shame them and maybe that will cause the downfall of their husbands. Then your own handsome men can come back and you can continue where you left off.

Institutions should not be confused with the personalities that people them. Those who by the rules of the institution could be there are the ones who should be there. Unless otherwise stated, their political affiliations should not matter.

Back up the North-South Expressway, we see this confusion affecting the appointment of Datuk Lee Kah Choon, ex-Gerakan strongman, as director of the Penang Development Corporation and the executive chairman of InvestPenang.

Both are bodies concerned with the economic development of Penang and both are under the control of the state government. A great hue and cry rose up from both sides of the political divide.

The ex-president of Gerakan foamed in the mouth as he normally does, and even the mighty Lion of Jelutong (or wherever he is now) raised his mighty head to roar disapproval.

Lee is working for the state government (albeit he is getting paid nothing), and that makes him a servant of the people.

Sure, the state government is now run by the DAP, but this does not detract from the fact that his new job is to serve the people of Penang.

Just because his political affiliation differs from that of the ruling party, it does not mean he should not be allowed to do the work he is entrusted with.

If that were the case, all the state government civil servants in the five Pakatan Rakyat states who are Umno, MIC or MCA members should resign because their political views differ from those of their new bosses.

What Lim Guan Eng is doing is risky. Not because Lee is an ex-Gerakan man, but because he is unproven in the field of economic development. That should be the people’s concern.

The right thing to do in this country is to see everyone working for the interests of the nation in tandem.

Politics is one thing and it is an important thing. It is a creature borne of necessity in large modern societies, and it is through politics that we choose our leaders.

But cheap politicking should have nothing to do with the way we run the country.