Brave New World (The Star)
22 August 2012
There are times we hail court decisions and there are times we find them bizarre. But if we ignore the incredible disparities in some court decisions, it is only at our own peril.
____________________________________
HOSLAN Hussein gets one year in jail for inaccurately chucking (he missed) his slippers at a judge. Noor Afizal Azizan gets a fine and zero jail time for raping a 13-year-old girl.
It boggles the mind. Hoslan’s sentence, in my view, was very harsh and over the top.
But even if one were to believe that the sanctity of the courts is so fragile that a punitively deterrent punishment is required for the flinging of footwear, it is impossible to ignore the incongruous disparity in the punishments meted out to these two men for crimes of such vastly different seriousness.
Much has been said about the judge’s unbelievable comment when sentencing Noor Afizal. Apparently being a national bowler with a bright future is enough to let you escape jail time for rape.
Actually, what is this “bright future” the judge is thinking about? The man is a child rapist; he confessed to it. He should not be allowed to represent the country in anything at all.
And in case you think there are mitigating issues in this case, namely that the sexual act was supposedly consensual, allow me to argue otherwise.
In this case, the girl was under the age of consent. This means the crime committed is statutory rape. The issue of consent does not even arise in such cases.
The reason for this is because we as a society have long ago determined that the young girls of our community deserve protection.
It does not matter in the slightest that children mature at different rates; what matters is that in general, this society believes that girls under the age of 16 are not yet ready to make decisions regarding their own sexual activity.
There are mental, psychological and also physiological elements to this need for protection.
The sexual act by itself could have implications for a child’s well-being, but a child from our society would surely be traumatised in the event that she got pregnant and had to face either childbirth or abortion.
Furthermore in immature bodies, the experience can also be seriously harmful physically.
I use the term “a child from our society” because I realise the age of consent will differ from nation to nation and culture to culture.
But in the case of statutory rape, there is no room for comparative anthropology. What matters is what we value for our girls.
I always believe that Malaysians care for our children. We want them to have a sound and safe childhood so that they can go to school and build a strong foundation for their future.
This is why we want to protect them for as long as possible, for it is this safety that helps to establish an environment where they can mature and flourish at a pace which we believe is healthy.
The judge in making his decision could not possibly have been thinking about this bigger picture. For if he had, he would have realised that his judgment was not only about Noor Afizan and the girl he violated, but also about all the girls in this country and our collective concern for them.
He has in effect dealt a blow to one of the few noble values that the people of this country universally accept — that our children should be cared for and be protected.
It was pointed out to me that Noor Afizal was NOT fined but the money he paid up was a surety. I regret this sloppy mistake but it does not detract from the main thesis that the judge made a decision which in my opinion was not appreciative as to WHY we have a Statutory Rape law in the first place.
azmi
Sunday, 26 August 2012
Thursday, 9 August 2012
Really, you can’t make it up
Going The Distance (Selangor Times)
10 August 2012
______________________________
Rais Yatim should be given a present from people like myself who write current affairs articles.
10 August 2012
______________________________
Rais Yatim should be given a present from people like myself who write current affairs articles.
Just when one is catching one’s breath after laughing
so hard at his suggestion to create a vigilante martial arts group to patrol our
streets, he then stumbles headlong into another controversy.
Well, to actually call it a controversy may be giving
the man too much credit. More like an embarrassing blooper.
We are talking of course about the government’s
recent efforts at organising the Merdeka celebrations. In particular the song
with lyrics written by Rais himself called “Janji Ditepati”.
Now, propaganda, especially during the Merdeka
celebrations, is nothing new for the current government. They have been doing it
for as long as I can remember. But never has the propaganda been so crude and so
self-serving.
The lyrics of the song, apart from having absolutely
no poetic value whatsoever, would have made Goebbels proud in the utterly
unsubtle espousing of the virtues of the Barisan government’s recent policies
and its hectoring demands for loyalty.
Our man in the Ministry of Information,
Communication and Culture, in a moment where I imagine that he fancied that
having a job with “culture” in its title means that he has some sort of
qualification to be “artistic”, has in one fell swoop soured our annual
celebrations of independence.
And the government needs all the help it can get to
whip up some sort of cheer this coming Aug 31. Felda stocks are falling; the
prosecution of Rafizi Ramli has backfired and even poor Lee Chong Wei can’t make
the ultimate sacrifice by having Rosmah hug him and a gold medal in front of the
world press.
Speaking of Chong Wei, I actually feel rather sorry for the
chap.
The fact of the matter is; he is simply not as good as Lin Dan. He
put up a good show however, particularly in the first and third sets, but if the
other man is better, well, he is more likely to beat you.
I do have one criticism though. And no, I am not going to savage the
poor fellow like M Manoharan did. I remember Mano as a kind gentleman and this
does not change that view, but by golly, for a politician, he was more than a
little naïve to so publicly say what he did.
The chap Chong Wei has lost already, no need to whack him for his
lack of style. It’s rather mean spirited.
One thing Mano said did ring a bell for me though: the millions of
ringgit promised Chong Wei if he had won. This mentality of giving huge amounts
of money to successful athletes seems to me to be a rather curious use of
resources.
Firstly, it sends the wrong signal. It puts on the back burner the
desire to win for the sake of honour, for self, and perhaps for country
too.
In a competition like the Olympics, it rankles even more because it
is in principle at least a competition which is about honour not material
gain.
Unlike other competitions, there is no prize money to be won, just a
medal.
Furthermore if those who are willing to place so much money for one
swift moment of glory have so much to spare, wouldn’t it be better to put all
that ringgit in developing our sports in general?
Malaysia has a bigger population and more wealth than countries such
as Cameroon, Ivory Coast, Jamaica and Ghana. Yet they can succeed at events such
as the World Cup and the Olympics. What are we doing wrong?
I am no expert in sports, but it does not take much to see that if
our fastest 100 meter dash was run 20 years ago and has yet to be beaten; that
if our team of amateur footballers can qualify for the 1980 Olympics but now our
full pros struggle against Myanmar; something is not right.
I don’t see why the country can’t rise above corruption, narcissism,
nepotism, racism and plain incompetence, to create sportsmen and women in a
range of disciplines to stand up, be counted and take the fight to the rest of
the world.
That is the kind of thing that will help to make the nation as a
whole feel proud and happy to be Malaysian. Not some half-baked excuse of a
song.
Oddities in law
Brave New World (The Star)
8 August 2012
To the layman, what PKR’s Rafizi Ramli and former bank clerk Johari Mohamad did was for the greater public good when they exposed a scandal involving millions of ringgit which came from public coffers. So why prosecute them?
__________________________________________
IN the past two weeks a couple of legal oddities have come to light. The first is with regard to the Whistleblower Protection Act (WPA) and the second is with the University and University Colleges Act (UCCA).
The WPA has come into focus because of the arrest and charging of Rafizi Ramli and Johari Mohamad under the Banking and Financial Institutions Act (Bafia).
The question on many people’s mind is: Why are they being charged since what they did was to expose certain banking documents that uncovered the National Feedlot Centre scandal? In other words, shouldn’t these two men be protected by the WPA?
Let’s break down the legal situation in this case.
On the face of it, Rafizi and Johari did breach the Bafia. Rafizi exposed private banking documents and this is in contravention of section 97 of Bafia, while Johari is accused of aiding him and this falls foul of section 112.
To the layman, however, what they did was not for private gain but for the greater public good, exposing a scandal which involves millions of ringgit which came from public coffers. Why then should they be punished?
Now, here is where the legal oddity comes in. If we look at section 6 of the WPA, we find that a person can make a disclosure of information and he could be protected if that disclosure is not specifically prohibited by any written law. Rafizi’s disclosure is clearly prohibited by the Bafia.
Secondly, according to section 6 of the WPA, this disclosure ought to be made to an enforcement agency, which Rafizi did not do as he made the disclosure to the press.
Therefore, it does appear that the charging of these two men does not go against the letter of the law.
Whether it goes against the spirit of the law and of recent pronouncements made by the Government that they are against corruption, is another story altogether.
I would argue the section 6 provision that a disclosure must not be specifically prohibited by any law is problematic and should be removed from the WPA.
From my understanding, even if Rafizi had gone to an enforcement agency, for example the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission, he would still be unprotected as a whistle blower because the information he is disclosing to them is prohibited by the Bafia.
Yet, in this case, the uncovered information is important as it can help in the battle against corruption.
I submit that what is important is not whether the disclosure goes against any laws; what we should be focusing on is the effect of the disclosure.
That is to say, if the disclosure exposes a serious crime or evidence of corruption, then the fact that by disclosing the information the whistle blower is in breach of a law should not be a factor.
If the action of the whistle blower is for the public good, then this should be a defence against any law he may have broken.
Taking criminal law as an example: if I hit a man, then I have committed a crime. However, if I hit him because he would stab my mother if I did not, then I have a defence under the law.
With this in mind, it struck me as strange that the Attorney-General has seen it fit to prosecute Rafizi and Johari.
From my argument above, there is a shortcoming in the law, particularly the WPA.
What these two men did was in the public interest. There is no likelihood that the breach of the Bafia in this case is going to cause any serious implications.
After all, the only people who have anything to fear are the corrupt.
So, if there are concerns that foreigners won’t put their money in our banks, I would say they do not have anything to fear if they are not corrupt.
Now, to fix the WPA will take time. But surely, until that is done, the A-G can use his discretion to simply not prosecute these two men in this particular case. Does he not want to fight corruption?
The second legal oddity is a seeming contradiction in the UCCA.
The Deputy Minister for Higher Education pointed out that the amended UCCA allows university students to join political parties, yet at the same time it does not allow any party political activity on campus.
I agree with the Deputy Minister; this is a rather odd state of affairs. However, I don’t think it is the biggest issue with regard to the UCCA.
From my decades long experience with university students, joining a political party is not high on their list of priorities.
After all, what kind of political nerd are you to want to join a political party at the age of 19? The only thing you will experience from doing so is the loss of interest from the opposite sex.
No, from a political context what is more important is their general right to expression, assembly and association.
It would be churlish to say that the UCCA has not been improved by the recent amendments. For example, there is now a presumption that a student can join any group unless it is illegal or unless the university says they can’t. In the past, they could not join any organisation at all without the express permission of the university.
However, these improvements are rather shallow. Dig a little deeper and you will see that students can still be severely punished by the university for exercising their constitutional rights.
This is because the universities have disciplinary rules which do not respect the students’ constitutional rights. They all have very broad “offences” such as spoiling “the good name of the university” in their rule books.
So, if students take part in a perfectly legal demonstration for example, the university disciplinary board can still punish them for “spoiling the good name of the university”.
And this discipline board can really disrupt their lives. They can suspend or even expel a student with immediate effect.
This means that even if the student goes through the appeal process, he may have already wasted a semester or even longer.
The punishment takes effect before the appeal process can run its course.
Therefore, the university still has far too much power and seeing as it is unlikely they will temper this power with a respect for human rights and the Federal Constitution, the issue of the UCCA goes much further than whether a student can wave party political flags from his dorm window.
8 August 2012
To the layman, what PKR’s Rafizi Ramli and former bank clerk Johari Mohamad did was for the greater public good when they exposed a scandal involving millions of ringgit which came from public coffers. So why prosecute them?
__________________________________________
IN the past two weeks a couple of legal oddities have come to light. The first is with regard to the Whistleblower Protection Act (WPA) and the second is with the University and University Colleges Act (UCCA).
The WPA has come into focus because of the arrest and charging of Rafizi Ramli and Johari Mohamad under the Banking and Financial Institutions Act (Bafia).
The question on many people’s mind is: Why are they being charged since what they did was to expose certain banking documents that uncovered the National Feedlot Centre scandal? In other words, shouldn’t these two men be protected by the WPA?
Let’s break down the legal situation in this case.
On the face of it, Rafizi and Johari did breach the Bafia. Rafizi exposed private banking documents and this is in contravention of section 97 of Bafia, while Johari is accused of aiding him and this falls foul of section 112.
To the layman, however, what they did was not for private gain but for the greater public good, exposing a scandal which involves millions of ringgit which came from public coffers. Why then should they be punished?
Now, here is where the legal oddity comes in. If we look at section 6 of the WPA, we find that a person can make a disclosure of information and he could be protected if that disclosure is not specifically prohibited by any written law. Rafizi’s disclosure is clearly prohibited by the Bafia.
Secondly, according to section 6 of the WPA, this disclosure ought to be made to an enforcement agency, which Rafizi did not do as he made the disclosure to the press.
Therefore, it does appear that the charging of these two men does not go against the letter of the law.
Whether it goes against the spirit of the law and of recent pronouncements made by the Government that they are against corruption, is another story altogether.
I would argue the section 6 provision that a disclosure must not be specifically prohibited by any law is problematic and should be removed from the WPA.
From my understanding, even if Rafizi had gone to an enforcement agency, for example the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission, he would still be unprotected as a whistle blower because the information he is disclosing to them is prohibited by the Bafia.
Yet, in this case, the uncovered information is important as it can help in the battle against corruption.
I submit that what is important is not whether the disclosure goes against any laws; what we should be focusing on is the effect of the disclosure.
That is to say, if the disclosure exposes a serious crime or evidence of corruption, then the fact that by disclosing the information the whistle blower is in breach of a law should not be a factor.
If the action of the whistle blower is for the public good, then this should be a defence against any law he may have broken.
Taking criminal law as an example: if I hit a man, then I have committed a crime. However, if I hit him because he would stab my mother if I did not, then I have a defence under the law.
With this in mind, it struck me as strange that the Attorney-General has seen it fit to prosecute Rafizi and Johari.
From my argument above, there is a shortcoming in the law, particularly the WPA.
What these two men did was in the public interest. There is no likelihood that the breach of the Bafia in this case is going to cause any serious implications.
After all, the only people who have anything to fear are the corrupt.
So, if there are concerns that foreigners won’t put their money in our banks, I would say they do not have anything to fear if they are not corrupt.
Now, to fix the WPA will take time. But surely, until that is done, the A-G can use his discretion to simply not prosecute these two men in this particular case. Does he not want to fight corruption?
The second legal oddity is a seeming contradiction in the UCCA.
The Deputy Minister for Higher Education pointed out that the amended UCCA allows university students to join political parties, yet at the same time it does not allow any party political activity on campus.
I agree with the Deputy Minister; this is a rather odd state of affairs. However, I don’t think it is the biggest issue with regard to the UCCA.
From my decades long experience with university students, joining a political party is not high on their list of priorities.
After all, what kind of political nerd are you to want to join a political party at the age of 19? The only thing you will experience from doing so is the loss of interest from the opposite sex.
No, from a political context what is more important is their general right to expression, assembly and association.
It would be churlish to say that the UCCA has not been improved by the recent amendments. For example, there is now a presumption that a student can join any group unless it is illegal or unless the university says they can’t. In the past, they could not join any organisation at all without the express permission of the university.
However, these improvements are rather shallow. Dig a little deeper and you will see that students can still be severely punished by the university for exercising their constitutional rights.
This is because the universities have disciplinary rules which do not respect the students’ constitutional rights. They all have very broad “offences” such as spoiling “the good name of the university” in their rule books.
So, if students take part in a perfectly legal demonstration for example, the university disciplinary board can still punish them for “spoiling the good name of the university”.
And this discipline board can really disrupt their lives. They can suspend or even expel a student with immediate effect.
This means that even if the student goes through the appeal process, he may have already wasted a semester or even longer.
The punishment takes effect before the appeal process can run its course.
Therefore, the university still has far too much power and seeing as it is unlikely they will temper this power with a respect for human rights and the Federal Constitution, the issue of the UCCA goes much further than whether a student can wave party political flags from his dorm window.
Monday, 30 July 2012
Scripts for Tinseltown
Going the Distance (Selangor Times)
27 July 2012
_________________________________
Hollywood, having run out of ideas, has turned to Malaysia for inspiration. Below are two potential blockbuster movies which draw their plots from the pages of Malaysia’s newspapers.
Austin
Powers and Dr Yes-No The nefarious Dr Yes-No is a villain of eel like
slipperiness. He has the amazing ability of saying totally contradictory things
in order to further his own cause.
Hence the name Yes-No.
He is able to write a heartfelt thesis on the evils of detention without trial and then spin around faster than a speeding bullet to support detention without trial.
Truly he is an incredible character and a worthy opponent to Austin Powers, the international man of mystery.
In this latest instalment of the Austin Powers franchise, Austin and his new sidekick Miss Pinky Bottoms, have to battle Dr Yes-No and his wicked plan to take over the world. Can Austin stop him?
It will be difficult for although Austin Powers has the skills to perfectly execute his famous judo chop, and Miss Pinky Bottoms is pretty handy with her customised pink escrima sticks, they will be faced with an army of highly trained martial artists.
Under the guise of doing community service, Dr Yes-No recruits martial artists from all over the world to fight crime.
It all begins swimmingly as patrols of men and women in matching gis and bare feet march the streets to protect the innocent.
Soon, they are everywhere. In housing estates, shopping malls, car parks, office buildings, industrial areas, fishing ponds and even government complexes.
People feel so much safer when they know they are a karate chop or a taekwondo kick away from safety.
However, with the public’s confidence at a high, and with the police all taking long leave seeing as their job is being done for them for free, the true nature of Dr Yes-No’s plot becomes apparent.
His army runs amok, taking over city after city. No one can withstand their highly skilled unarmed combat skills and before long Dr Yes-No is in control of everything. Can Austin and Pinky stop him?
You can find out in December 2012 at a cinema near you.
Mission Impossible V: The Impossible Mission Ethan Hunt (Tom Cruise) is faced with his most impossible Impossible Mission ever in this fourth sequel of the hit series.
Moving away from the high octane formula of the first four movies, this one goes for something cerebral, more in line with Mr Cruise’s aging body.
Ethan is on a well-deserved holiday in the Bahamas when he gets a package. He opens it to find a DVD of Battlefield earth.
He puts it on and instead of seeing John Travolta in dreadlocks; he hears a familiar voice with a familiar offer. His mission if he chooses to accept it will not be to thwart some megalomaniac. No, it is much, much harder.
He has to attempt to make the Malaysian National Harmony Act something totally different from the Malaysian Sedition Act.
Somehow, he will have to make a law which stifles free speech and makes a mockery of democratic principles look as though it does not stifle free speech and make a mockery of democratic principles.
Not only that, he would have to convince people that a legal system which has been blatantly picking and choosing upon whom they will impose the Sedition Act, would not do the exact same thing with the National Harmony Act.
In the past four MI movies, we see Ethan Hunt struggling with and finally overcoming the unfeasibly difficult odds placed before him.
This time we will see him wonder whether he should even try.
Will he or won’t he? Mission Impossible V: The Impossible Mission opens on Election Day, so we can’t be sure when you will get the answer.
27 July 2012
_________________________________
Hollywood, having run out of ideas, has turned to Malaysia for inspiration. Below are two potential blockbuster movies which draw their plots from the pages of Malaysia’s newspapers.
Austin
Powers and Dr Yes-No The nefarious Dr Yes-No is a villain of eel like
slipperiness. He has the amazing ability of saying totally contradictory things
in order to further his own cause.Hence the name Yes-No.
He is able to write a heartfelt thesis on the evils of detention without trial and then spin around faster than a speeding bullet to support detention without trial.
Truly he is an incredible character and a worthy opponent to Austin Powers, the international man of mystery.
In this latest instalment of the Austin Powers franchise, Austin and his new sidekick Miss Pinky Bottoms, have to battle Dr Yes-No and his wicked plan to take over the world. Can Austin stop him?
It will be difficult for although Austin Powers has the skills to perfectly execute his famous judo chop, and Miss Pinky Bottoms is pretty handy with her customised pink escrima sticks, they will be faced with an army of highly trained martial artists.
Under the guise of doing community service, Dr Yes-No recruits martial artists from all over the world to fight crime.
It all begins swimmingly as patrols of men and women in matching gis and bare feet march the streets to protect the innocent.
Soon, they are everywhere. In housing estates, shopping malls, car parks, office buildings, industrial areas, fishing ponds and even government complexes.
People feel so much safer when they know they are a karate chop or a taekwondo kick away from safety.
However, with the public’s confidence at a high, and with the police all taking long leave seeing as their job is being done for them for free, the true nature of Dr Yes-No’s plot becomes apparent.
His army runs amok, taking over city after city. No one can withstand their highly skilled unarmed combat skills and before long Dr Yes-No is in control of everything. Can Austin and Pinky stop him?
You can find out in December 2012 at a cinema near you.
Mission Impossible V: The Impossible Mission Ethan Hunt (Tom Cruise) is faced with his most impossible Impossible Mission ever in this fourth sequel of the hit series.
Moving away from the high octane formula of the first four movies, this one goes for something cerebral, more in line with Mr Cruise’s aging body.
Ethan is on a well-deserved holiday in the Bahamas when he gets a package. He opens it to find a DVD of Battlefield earth.
He puts it on and instead of seeing John Travolta in dreadlocks; he hears a familiar voice with a familiar offer. His mission if he chooses to accept it will not be to thwart some megalomaniac. No, it is much, much harder.
He has to attempt to make the Malaysian National Harmony Act something totally different from the Malaysian Sedition Act.
Somehow, he will have to make a law which stifles free speech and makes a mockery of democratic principles look as though it does not stifle free speech and make a mockery of democratic principles.
Not only that, he would have to convince people that a legal system which has been blatantly picking and choosing upon whom they will impose the Sedition Act, would not do the exact same thing with the National Harmony Act.
In the past four MI movies, we see Ethan Hunt struggling with and finally overcoming the unfeasibly difficult odds placed before him.
This time we will see him wonder whether he should even try.
Will he or won’t he? Mission Impossible V: The Impossible Mission opens on Election Day, so we can’t be sure when you will get the answer.
Tuesday, 24 July 2012
Stop playing race game
Brave New World (The Star)
25 July 2012
The country has changed so much since 1969 that to keep using the argument that we are on the verge of race war is rather obsolete.
____________________________________
I WAS wondering when it was going to happen; when certain quarters were going to dust off that old chestnut of May 13, 1969, and use it as a political tool.
It all seems terribly coincidental that as the general election draws nearer, suddenly race riots get inserted into political speech, and a movie about May 13 is apparently waiting to be released.
The country has changed so much since 1969 that to keep using the argument that we are on the verge of race war is rather obsolete.
Let’s look at some facts. Firstly, the vast majority of the Malaysian population were not even born in 1969.
This means that first-hand knowledge of that terrible time is simply not part of most of us. Without that emotional connection, I believe that younger Malaysians are willing to question the feasibility of such a thing happening again.
And really, could it? In 1969, the politics of the nation was so very clearly divided along racial lines. The Opposition was not united as it is today. PAS won 12 seats, DAP 13 and Gerakan 8.
They were not part of a coalition and each stood on its own, therefore it was possible to play the race game because, in Kuala Lumpur and Selangor in particular, the Opposition had the face of “the other”.
Today, with the Pakatan coalition in existence, the Opposition is a much more complex animal. If the Opposition wins, how can the race card be played when two of the component parties are so predominantly Malay?
Let’s take a look at recent events that has got some powerful people’s knickers in a twist.
In particular the Bersih demonstrations of 2007, 2011 and 2012. The demographics of these events were multi-ethnic and became even more multi-ethnic with each progressive one.
By the time of this year’s Bersih demonstration, the make-up of the people who took part was much closer to the make-up of the country as a whole. However, the predominant ethnic group was still Malay.
This goes to show that the political divide, not of political parties but of ordinary citizens, can no longer be conveniently divided along ethnic lines.
Significant numbers of Malaysians, regardless of their background, can be united when they have a common political goal, in this case clean and fair elections.
Furthermore, ethnic Malays can be vocally unhappy with the status quo. In the present-day scenario, it is ridiculous to say that the politics in Malaysia is simply a matter of Malays versus Non-Malays.
And let us look at the 2008 elections. The results were unprecedented and surprised most people. I remember that night very well, as the results became clear that Barisan had lost their two-thirds majority and five state governments.
I decided to drive around Kuala Lumpur, just to see what would happen. And what happened? Nothing.
The streets were quiet. No celebratory parties, no processions, no fireworks; nothing.
The Opposition and their supporters on the streets were as muted as the Barisan and their supporters.
No gloating, no taunting, no excuses at all to provoke a reaction from the supporters of the powers-that-be.
I am certain that if a similar result is achieved in the next elections, the same would happen. There will be no provocation from the opposition and their supporters.
That is not to say there will not be any trouble. Recent events in this country have proven that there are gangs of thugs who are willing to be violent for political purposes.
The thing is though, I believe that the Malaysian public are not going to rise to the bait.
I fervently hope we will show them that we are better than them, we are nobler than them and they are nothing but hooligans with delusions of grandeur.
No, the danger that faces this country will not come from race riots.
If we have trouble in Malaysia, it will be if there is a prolonged disrespect for true democratic principles.
If the election process is not transparent and fair, if the result of a clean election is not respected, then and only then should we start to worry.
25 July 2012
The country has changed so much since 1969 that to keep using the argument that we are on the verge of race war is rather obsolete.
____________________________________
I WAS wondering when it was going to happen; when certain quarters were going to dust off that old chestnut of May 13, 1969, and use it as a political tool.
It all seems terribly coincidental that as the general election draws nearer, suddenly race riots get inserted into political speech, and a movie about May 13 is apparently waiting to be released.
The country has changed so much since 1969 that to keep using the argument that we are on the verge of race war is rather obsolete.
Let’s look at some facts. Firstly, the vast majority of the Malaysian population were not even born in 1969.
This means that first-hand knowledge of that terrible time is simply not part of most of us. Without that emotional connection, I believe that younger Malaysians are willing to question the feasibility of such a thing happening again.
And really, could it? In 1969, the politics of the nation was so very clearly divided along racial lines. The Opposition was not united as it is today. PAS won 12 seats, DAP 13 and Gerakan 8.
They were not part of a coalition and each stood on its own, therefore it was possible to play the race game because, in Kuala Lumpur and Selangor in particular, the Opposition had the face of “the other”.
Today, with the Pakatan coalition in existence, the Opposition is a much more complex animal. If the Opposition wins, how can the race card be played when two of the component parties are so predominantly Malay?
Let’s take a look at recent events that has got some powerful people’s knickers in a twist.
In particular the Bersih demonstrations of 2007, 2011 and 2012. The demographics of these events were multi-ethnic and became even more multi-ethnic with each progressive one.
By the time of this year’s Bersih demonstration, the make-up of the people who took part was much closer to the make-up of the country as a whole. However, the predominant ethnic group was still Malay.
This goes to show that the political divide, not of political parties but of ordinary citizens, can no longer be conveniently divided along ethnic lines.
Significant numbers of Malaysians, regardless of their background, can be united when they have a common political goal, in this case clean and fair elections.
Furthermore, ethnic Malays can be vocally unhappy with the status quo. In the present-day scenario, it is ridiculous to say that the politics in Malaysia is simply a matter of Malays versus Non-Malays.
And let us look at the 2008 elections. The results were unprecedented and surprised most people. I remember that night very well, as the results became clear that Barisan had lost their two-thirds majority and five state governments.
I decided to drive around Kuala Lumpur, just to see what would happen. And what happened? Nothing.
The streets were quiet. No celebratory parties, no processions, no fireworks; nothing.
The Opposition and their supporters on the streets were as muted as the Barisan and their supporters.
No gloating, no taunting, no excuses at all to provoke a reaction from the supporters of the powers-that-be.
I am certain that if a similar result is achieved in the next elections, the same would happen. There will be no provocation from the opposition and their supporters.
That is not to say there will not be any trouble. Recent events in this country have proven that there are gangs of thugs who are willing to be violent for political purposes.
The thing is though, I believe that the Malaysian public are not going to rise to the bait.
I fervently hope we will show them that we are better than them, we are nobler than them and they are nothing but hooligans with delusions of grandeur.
No, the danger that faces this country will not come from race riots.
If we have trouble in Malaysia, it will be if there is a prolonged disrespect for true democratic principles.
If the election process is not transparent and fair, if the result of a clean election is not respected, then and only then should we start to worry.
Thursday, 12 July 2012
Interesting read on the monarchy
Brave New World (The Star)
12 July 2012
Although the book ‘Ampun Tuanku’ can be critical, it does so in a constructive manner with an underlying theme that suggests the monarchy has a role to play in Malaysian society and with greater thought and wisdom, this role can be a positive one.
_____________________________________
ZAID Ibrahim’s book Ampun Tuanku is a challenge. Not in the sense that it is a difficult read. On the contrary, it is a very easy book to go through because Zaid writes in a conversational style.
Perhaps a little too conversational as sometimes he sounds like an old dude repeating himself.
But that little gripe aside, considering the complexity of the topic, this is in no way a “heavy” work and is surprisingly accessible.
No, this latest book from Zaid is a challenge on two fronts. Firstly, it challenges many preconceptions as to the role of the monarchy in Malaysia. This is an intellectual challenge and it is personal to the reader.
The second challenge is to the nation as a whole.
Dealing as it does with the touchy subject of Malaysia’s royalty and their role in a constitutional government, it would be interesting to see whether there is sufficient maturity in our populace to take the book as what it is, a thoughtful, legally argued and respectful analysis of one of the oddest (some would say unique) institutions in the world.
In the light of how this country seems to be so anti-intellectual, where decisions are made by policy makers founded on base instinctual responses as opposed to intellectual rigour, it would be interesting to see if Ampun Tuanku will evoke the Neanderthal reaction we have come to expect in Malaysia when people are faced with ideas they disagree with.
That, however, is a problem for another day. The purpose of this article is to examine some of the arguments made by Zaid.
It ought to be pointed out here that the book is at pains to maintain a respect for the institution of the monarchy.
It is critical at times but it is all done strictly within the confines of the idea that we live in a constitutional monarchy and there is never any hint that this should change.
On a general level, Zaid explores the legal limits of the monarchy as well as the leadership role that it can play in a society that is multi-ethnic and multi-religious.
In this way, although the book can be critical, it does so in a constructive manner with an underlying theme that suggests the monarchy has a role to play in Malaysian society and with greater thought and wisdom, this role can be a positive one.
For me, the most interesting issue that he raises is the discretionary powers of the Sultan or the Yang di-Pertuan Agong. A brief perusal of the Federal Constitution will reveal that there are actually very few situations where the royals have any real power.
Almost all of their decisions are to be made under advice of the Government.
“Under advice” in the context of our Constitution means that they must follow what the Government tells them to do.
One of the few seemingly absolute discretions that they appear to have is the appointment of the Prime Minister (at Federal level) and the Mentri Besar (at the state level).
I have always thought this power was pretty clear and the only limitation is that the King or the Sultan makes his choice based on his perception as to which individual will have the confidence of the House.
Zaid goes further than this and he contends that the decision made by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong or the Sultan cannot be based solely on his prerogative and his idea as to who will hold the confidence of the House, but must be based on what the members of the House themselves say.
In other words, if one group has the clear majority and they have selected a leader among themselves, then the ruler has no choice but to pick that individual to be either the PM or the MB.
Zaid argues that the only time when the Yang di-Pertuan Agong or Sultan can use his own judgment is when there is a situation of a hung Parliament or state legislature. Anything else would make a mockery of the democratic system which we uphold.
Like I said, he challenges perceptions for his view is subtly different from the one I have held for many years, and I must admit that there is coherence to his argument.
He does this throughout the book and it must be said that it is timely.
Our current political situation is different from anything we have faced before.
The upcoming elections may see a Parliament and the various state legislatures looking like something we are not used to, with majorities being razor thin.
It is even more important, therefore, that everyone, royal and commoner alike, understands thoroughly the powers and the limitations of the powers of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong and Sultan as their role then becomes crucial to the democratic nature and future of the nation.
12 July 2012
Although the book ‘Ampun Tuanku’ can be critical, it does so in a constructive manner with an underlying theme that suggests the monarchy has a role to play in Malaysian society and with greater thought and wisdom, this role can be a positive one.
_____________________________________
ZAID Ibrahim’s book Ampun Tuanku is a challenge. Not in the sense that it is a difficult read. On the contrary, it is a very easy book to go through because Zaid writes in a conversational style.
Perhaps a little too conversational as sometimes he sounds like an old dude repeating himself.
But that little gripe aside, considering the complexity of the topic, this is in no way a “heavy” work and is surprisingly accessible.
No, this latest book from Zaid is a challenge on two fronts. Firstly, it challenges many preconceptions as to the role of the monarchy in Malaysia. This is an intellectual challenge and it is personal to the reader.
The second challenge is to the nation as a whole.
Dealing as it does with the touchy subject of Malaysia’s royalty and their role in a constitutional government, it would be interesting to see whether there is sufficient maturity in our populace to take the book as what it is, a thoughtful, legally argued and respectful analysis of one of the oddest (some would say unique) institutions in the world.
In the light of how this country seems to be so anti-intellectual, where decisions are made by policy makers founded on base instinctual responses as opposed to intellectual rigour, it would be interesting to see if Ampun Tuanku will evoke the Neanderthal reaction we have come to expect in Malaysia when people are faced with ideas they disagree with.
That, however, is a problem for another day. The purpose of this article is to examine some of the arguments made by Zaid.
It ought to be pointed out here that the book is at pains to maintain a respect for the institution of the monarchy.
It is critical at times but it is all done strictly within the confines of the idea that we live in a constitutional monarchy and there is never any hint that this should change.
On a general level, Zaid explores the legal limits of the monarchy as well as the leadership role that it can play in a society that is multi-ethnic and multi-religious.
In this way, although the book can be critical, it does so in a constructive manner with an underlying theme that suggests the monarchy has a role to play in Malaysian society and with greater thought and wisdom, this role can be a positive one.
For me, the most interesting issue that he raises is the discretionary powers of the Sultan or the Yang di-Pertuan Agong. A brief perusal of the Federal Constitution will reveal that there are actually very few situations where the royals have any real power.
Almost all of their decisions are to be made under advice of the Government.
“Under advice” in the context of our Constitution means that they must follow what the Government tells them to do.
One of the few seemingly absolute discretions that they appear to have is the appointment of the Prime Minister (at Federal level) and the Mentri Besar (at the state level).
I have always thought this power was pretty clear and the only limitation is that the King or the Sultan makes his choice based on his perception as to which individual will have the confidence of the House.
Zaid goes further than this and he contends that the decision made by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong or the Sultan cannot be based solely on his prerogative and his idea as to who will hold the confidence of the House, but must be based on what the members of the House themselves say.
In other words, if one group has the clear majority and they have selected a leader among themselves, then the ruler has no choice but to pick that individual to be either the PM or the MB.
Zaid argues that the only time when the Yang di-Pertuan Agong or Sultan can use his own judgment is when there is a situation of a hung Parliament or state legislature. Anything else would make a mockery of the democratic system which we uphold.
Like I said, he challenges perceptions for his view is subtly different from the one I have held for many years, and I must admit that there is coherence to his argument.
He does this throughout the book and it must be said that it is timely.
Our current political situation is different from anything we have faced before.
The upcoming elections may see a Parliament and the various state legislatures looking like something we are not used to, with majorities being razor thin.
It is even more important, therefore, that everyone, royal and commoner alike, understands thoroughly the powers and the limitations of the powers of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong and Sultan as their role then becomes crucial to the democratic nature and future of the nation.
Sunday, 1 July 2012
Misrule worse than no rule
Brave New World (The Star)
28 June 2012
Can someone be charged for an offence when at the material time there was no offence?
________________________________
NIK Raina Nik Abdul Aziz is accused of committing a crime, the “crime” being the distribution of a book which the Federal Territory Islamic Religious Department (Jawi) does not like.
If the sentence above sounds a bit odd, that is because it is.
Nik Raina is a manager in a bookstore. She is not an owner of a bookstore, she is an employee.
Therefore, she does not have any say with regard to what book is being sold. She just manages the shop, as her job title entails.
Now she is being charged in the Syariah Court for distributing a banned book.
But it is a book, it must be said here, that at the time of the supposed offence was not actually banned.
Therefore, it was not illegal to sell the book at the time.
Jawi raided the shop she was working in on May 23. Copies of the book were confiscated during the raid. The book was effectively deemed illegal on June 14.
So, on what grounds was Jawi confiscating the books? It is not based on the law, that is for sure, because no law was passed banning it until 22 days after the raid.
The only reason that can exist is that Jawi disapproved of this book and took it upon itself to take action even though there was no legal ground upon which it could do so. In other words, they didn’t like the book so they decided to raid a shop and take the book.
Does this sound odd to you? Does it sound like the action of a despotic state? It does to me.
How can a person be charged for an offence when at the time of the so-called wrongful act, there was no offence? You can’t possibly do that to a person.
There are constitutional provisions against such things. It is known as protection from retrospective legislation.
In other words, if you decide to make it illegal to wear yellow today, you can’t charge someone for wearing yellow yesterday. To do so would lead to an incredible injustice and the complete breakdown of the rule of law.
Now, because Jawi is an Islamic body, there are some who believe they are above criticism. I beg to differ; it is because they are a religious entity that they must be open to criticism, especially if they behave in a way that is unjust.
This is because as a religious agency they have an even greater responsibility to not tarnish their actions with acts of cruelty, meanness and vindictiveness. For by doing so they demean the very faith that they are supposed to be upholding.
But that is by the by. Any agency, be it religious or secular, has no right to treat people in this way.
They have no right to seize private property on their whim, and they have no right to charge someone for a crime that does not exist.
That is the bottom line. If we allow anyone to do so, we are simply throwing away our democracy and the protection that the rule of law provides us.
28 June 2012
Can someone be charged for an offence when at the material time there was no offence?
________________________________
NIK Raina Nik Abdul Aziz is accused of committing a crime, the “crime” being the distribution of a book which the Federal Territory Islamic Religious Department (Jawi) does not like.
If the sentence above sounds a bit odd, that is because it is.
Nik Raina is a manager in a bookstore. She is not an owner of a bookstore, she is an employee.
Therefore, she does not have any say with regard to what book is being sold. She just manages the shop, as her job title entails.
Now she is being charged in the Syariah Court for distributing a banned book.
But it is a book, it must be said here, that at the time of the supposed offence was not actually banned.
Therefore, it was not illegal to sell the book at the time.
Jawi raided the shop she was working in on May 23. Copies of the book were confiscated during the raid. The book was effectively deemed illegal on June 14.
So, on what grounds was Jawi confiscating the books? It is not based on the law, that is for sure, because no law was passed banning it until 22 days after the raid.
The only reason that can exist is that Jawi disapproved of this book and took it upon itself to take action even though there was no legal ground upon which it could do so. In other words, they didn’t like the book so they decided to raid a shop and take the book.
Does this sound odd to you? Does it sound like the action of a despotic state? It does to me.
How can a person be charged for an offence when at the time of the so-called wrongful act, there was no offence? You can’t possibly do that to a person.
There are constitutional provisions against such things. It is known as protection from retrospective legislation.
In other words, if you decide to make it illegal to wear yellow today, you can’t charge someone for wearing yellow yesterday. To do so would lead to an incredible injustice and the complete breakdown of the rule of law.
Now, because Jawi is an Islamic body, there are some who believe they are above criticism. I beg to differ; it is because they are a religious entity that they must be open to criticism, especially if they behave in a way that is unjust.
This is because as a religious agency they have an even greater responsibility to not tarnish their actions with acts of cruelty, meanness and vindictiveness. For by doing so they demean the very faith that they are supposed to be upholding.
But that is by the by. Any agency, be it religious or secular, has no right to treat people in this way.
They have no right to seize private property on their whim, and they have no right to charge someone for a crime that does not exist.
That is the bottom line. If we allow anyone to do so, we are simply throwing away our democracy and the protection that the rule of law provides us.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
