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.
Friday, 25 February 2011
Saturday, 15 January 2011
Social mores change with time
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.
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.
Thursday, 30 December 2010
Balanced worldview via history
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.
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
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.
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.
Wednesday, 17 November 2010
Sore need for plurality in law
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.
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.
Tuesday, 16 November 2010
Perfectly legal, but not necessarily good
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.
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
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
