Do we have a Cabinet of change?

Brace New World (The Star)
4 July 2018

_________________________

INTERNAL party politics bore me. It’s like watching a particularly quarrelsome family next door. It has nothing to do with me and is at best a momentary distraction. So, I really could not care less if there were arguments within Pakatan Harapan regarding the number of ministerial posts each party got.

I am concerned however that the number of women in the Cabinet hardly make up 20%. Wasn’t there a promise of 30% women representation among policy makers?

That being the case, isn’t the Cabinet the primary policy maker? I don’t appreciate any fancy wordplay and political wheedling to get out of this important obligation.

There are those who disagree with quotas. I am not one of them. If it is done to achieve substantive equality and in a transparent manner, and if there is a sunset clause – that is to say all quotas will be abolished once parity is achieved – then I think it is a necessary measure to push-start an agenda, in this case gender equity.

With regard to the appointments in general, well, good luck, people, and get to work.

Amongst the new batch, I am glad to see Datuk Dr Mujahid Yusof Rawa in charge of religious matters. He has proven time and again that his is an inclusive and progressive view on how matters of faith should be dealt with.

I hope that he will be able to steer us away from the divisive, invasive, supremacist and intolerant religious narrative that the past government had been using.

However, I am most excited with Datuk Saifuddin Abdullah as the Foreign Affairs Minister. He has promised to ratify a whole slew of human rights treaties, which is long overdue.

Did you know we are not even party to the United Nations Convention Against Torture? What, we like torture?

If we do ratify a whole bunch of new treaties, then obviously it means I will have to change my syllabus! Some of my research students will also have to modify their work because they started writing under a regime that was quite indifferent to human rights.

Actually, come to think of it, Saifuddin is making my life difficult. Darn it.

My own selfishness aside, I am looking forward to seeing what changes all these new ministers are going to make. And I hope they do a very good job.

I say this because it is imperative they prove that this country can move away from the type of governance of the past and life will be better for everyone.

The Opposition at the moment appears to want to remain in the past. This can be seen by the selection of Datuk Seri Dr Ahmad Zahid Hamidi as president of Umno.

Obviously, Umno people like how the party has been operating, so they chose a person who has been key in that modus operandi.

Umno still has significant support amongst the Malay demographic as does PAS. So if the Opposition takes over in the next general election, we will be trudging back to the bad old days.

The ball is in the court of the new Pakatan Harapan government. It is up to the current leaders to show the nation that a new way of doing things will be good for all of us. That is the only sure way to ensure that GE14 does not become a mere blip, albeit a very grand blip, in this country’s history.

We need a credible opposition

Brave New World (The Star)
20 June 2018

___________________________

It may be too early to come to any conclusions, but I am wondering when we are going to get a proper opposition in Malaysia.

Apart from PAS, the parties which used to form the Federal Govern­ment and are now in opposition, are all trying to sort themselves out. One has to wonder what will come out of these deliberations.

Right off the bat, I don’t think that there can be any fundamental changes in the parties of the former Barisan Nasional.

This is particularly true of Umno.

Every single leader in that party is tainted by their association with the former prime minister.

And I don’t care how many whinging declarations of regret that one makes; these people were in the corridors of power during what could turn out to be one of the most disgustingly corrupt regimes ever; and they did nothing.

You can’t just blame some American beverage and then walk away from this car wreck.

Maybe a change in top leadership will be good enough for Umno members; they are after all the masters of denial.

But for the rest of the country, these folk are soiled goods and they won’t be able to be deemed in any way credible as an actual alternative to the government.

And what of the Barisan Nasional? Will they disband completely?

It sounds like this is a distinct possibility.

If this were to happen, then things will be very interesting indeed.

This is because apart from a few parties like Gerakan and Parti Sosialis Malaysia which are officially not race-based; most of the other peninsula parties not in Pakatan Harapan are either expressly race-based or ostensibly so.

I don’t buy into the loose talk that is floating around about how there is a possibility that these parties are going to open their doors to other ethnic groups. Being about one race is their raison d’etre.

There is no way their rank and file, especially those of Umno, will accept any sort of opening up.

They’ll be in conniptions at the thought of their Malay-ness being infiltrated by others.

Besides which right-thinking non-Malay will want to join that lot anyway?

So, what we will have are opposition parties which are largely mono-racial against a multiracial government.

This can be even more dramatic and stark if Umno and PAS stop all their flirting and finally consummate their relationship.

If they were to do that then they could be a very powerful force indeed. Between them, they received about half of the popular vote.

If this were to happen then you will have the main opposition being a coalition (or who knows, maybe a brand new party) along racial and religious lines.

Racism doesn’t deserve an audience

Brave New World (The Star)
6 June 2018

______________________

I had a topic all laid out for this week’s article. I was going to give a dire warning full of snide asides about the danger of becoming so enamoured with the new Govern­ment that we slip back into the grovelling feudalistic people that we have such a tendency to be.

This is evidenced by the unbelievably sycophantic proposal to campaign for a Nobel Peace Prize for the new old Prime Minister.

Man, I could have written half an article just on that bit of silliness alone.

But as always in Malaysian politics, things change in a heartbeat.

Before I could say “Stop all this nonsense about buying Mat Sabu a new car”, bang, the Attorney General (AG) issue blew up.

Now, far smarter people have said their piece on this issue and so it would be a folly for me to add my rather inferior two cents’ worth.

So to quickly summarise: Tommy Thomas is the person that the Government would like to appoint as the new AG.

His name is Tommy Thomas and not Tommy bin Thomas, so he is not Malay. Neither is he Muslim.

The King was reluctant to appoint him. And some say the AG must be Malay Muslim.

The law is quite clear on this.

There is nothing in the Consti­tution that says the AG must be of any particular race or religion.

The King’s power to appoint the AG is under advisement from the Executive, which means that with all due respect he has no discretion in this matter and he must follow the advice of the Cabinet.

And now we hear that His Majesty has done just that.

So, why do I go on about this? What’s the big deal? The big deal is that the arguments used against Thomas have been primarily along racial and religious lines.

It is a timely reminder that even though we have a new Government, the same voices that harp on race and religion are still there and they will keep doing so.

This is not going to change for some time.

So what then can the new Govern­ment do? Some people have suggested that the Government pander to these types for the sake of maintaining the peace and not giving these people the fuel for their racist and supremacist views. I disagree.

I think the new Government must display fortitude and will, and stick to their guns.

It should continue to appoint the people that it wants based purely on merit and the belief that those chosen are the best ones to do the job.

Anyway, as I was saying, it is important for the Government to choose the right person for the job, and not place ethnicity or faith into the equation (except where expressly required by the Constitution).

And it is important for these people to take the trust placed in them seriously and for them to do a good job.

Racial and religious sentiments are the tools of those bereft of ideas.

If the Government can show that the country is progressing economically, that it punishes the criminals and makes life better for everyone, then no matter how loud some may screech, most Malaysians, whom I believe are able to discern what is important and what is not, will not pay these screechers any heed.

With the strength of conviction, honesty and integrity, make the country better with good choices.

Do this and the racists will lose their audience.

A must-do list for Dr Maszlee

Brave New World (The Star)
23 May 2018

__________________________

I WAS informed by my editor that a few months ago I had said publicly that if Pakatan Harapan won, I would give them a two-week honeymoon before laying into them.

I hate it when people use your own words against you. Besides, I didn’t expect them to win, did I? Anyway, it has been exactly two weeks now, so let us begin.

But wait, there’s really not much to say at this point. These chaps haven’t started work properly, what with the new ministers having been sworn in just a couple of days ago.

Oh well, how about a few suggestions then. Twelve years ago, I started writing for this paper by penning an open letter to Datuk Seri Mustapa Mohamed, who was then the newly appointed education minister.

To be fair to the former minister, he actually responded to that article and took the trouble to try to fix things. But as was wont in the previous administration (how sweet it is to say “previous” administration), he was given a different portfolio.

Education was handed to some chap whom I remember very little about, except that when I had a chance to meet with him and speak about academic freedom, his eyes took on the look of a man thinking about lunch.

Now we have Dr Maszlee Malik as the new Education Minister. It has been a bit of a bumpy ride for him since the announcement that he was the Pakatan candidate for the post.

There was a petition against him because he was deemed by some to be an inappropriate choice. This was due primarily to allegations that he had supported controversial Muslim preacher Dr Zakir Naik.

Dr Maszlee has since come out to say that he did not support the content of what Dr Zakir said. Instead, the support was for Dr Zakir’s freedom of expression, which Dr Mazlee pointed out is something everyone has, regardless of creed.

Well then, that’s cool. Frankly, I don’t know what sort of person Dr Maszlee is. I have never met him and despite our newfound fervour in the democratic process, let us not forget that an elected government has a pretty broad mandate to make its own decisions.

We may not like it although we have the right to criticise it. But at the end of the day, unless the government’s decision is unlawful, we can’t stop it.

What is done is done and the proof, as they say, is in the pudding. I will now direct the rest of this article to Dr Maszlee.

In my letter to Mustapa, I was very polite (well, as polite as I could be) because the previous administration was quite heavily into protocol and the like. I don’t think I have to be so with the new lot – at least for the time being, before they get used to power. So, here goes:

Hey dude, it’s nice to see a fellow academic get into government. Don’t let us down now. I’ve been reading the stuff you said you were going to do. It looks pretty good so far.

I am not sure how you intend to make school fun for kids though. It sounds a bit vague and New-Agey to me and as far as I can tell, the only thing that kids find fun is fun. Then again, I am sure that there is some sort of Nordic study you are aware of that suggests methods to make school a pleasure for our children.

What I really want to discuss is our universities. You mentioned repealing the Universities and Uni­versity Colleges Act because it stifles academic freedom.

This is true, but perhaps some amendments are all you need. The Act, as I am sure you know, is largely a dull document, full of bureaucratic details about the nature of a university. But it’s necessary stuff.

The things that are truly awful are the restrictions on our students’ freedom of assembly, association and expression. These provisions must be seen to.

But even that is not enough. Our young people get in trouble with the universities for simply asserting their rights not based on the Act per se, but via the individual rules that the universities have.

These are appalling regulations seemingly drafted by a bitter fascist trapped in a windowless grey government building who finds pleasure in punishing youths.

Therefore, it is not enough to bring the Act in line with human rights. The university discipline rules, too, must toe the line as established by the Constitution.

Apart from freeing our young minds, we must empower them to take responsibility for their lives and fates. For this, may I suggest that we return the power of students to form actual unions.

Scrap the pathetic and toothless “student councils” that exist now and bring back the unions of old (your new boss should remember those because he got rid of them).

A union with financial autonomy and the power to actually make a difference will ensure that the student body is independent and in a position to determine the way it is governed and treated by the university administration.

Speaking of university administration, it is time to take a serious look at the Student Affairs Depart­ments, which should be purely about student welfare and nothing else.

If we treat students like adults, we will get adult graduates.

Oh, academics must be treated like adults too. Please have a look at the repulsive Statutory Bodies (Discipline and Surcharge) Act. You know, the one that says that academics can’t criticise the government or even praise it without first getting permission. The one which the odious “Aku Janji” is based upon. The one that I have been breaking all my professional life. That has to be scrapped.

Right, I must be caught up in the excitement of the times. This is the longest article I have written in a long time. I guess not fearing arrest does that to you. Anyway Maszlee (I can call you Maszlee right?), good luck and remember, we’ll be watching.

Tasting the power of true democracy

Brave New World (The Star)
11 May 2018

___________________________

IT is 4pm on May 10 as I write this. I have turned off my phone as it has been incessantly buzzing for the past 24 hours. Moments ago, different groups of friends were calling with invitations to watch the swearing-in of the new Prime Minister. It feels as if there is a strong desire to gather, to celebrate.

Yet, as much as I never shy away from a party, today I feel a need for solitude, and oddly enough for a shallow person, a moment of reflection.

For the past few months, I have said time and again I did not think Pakatan Harapan could win. Or to be more accurate, I saw no way Barisan Nasional could lose.

The odds were simply too stacked in its favour although I was certain Pakatan would win the popular vote.

Indeed, the recent redrawing of electoral boundaries would have made it impossible for Pakatan to win a sufficient number of seats to form a government.

For that to occur, I thought morosely to myself, it would need the people of this country, all the people in this country, to shift away from the perceptions one has of Pakatan.

That rural and semi-urban voters cannot be sufficiently moved by large national issues to abandon their comfort zones; that is to say, a party promising continuity and racially based protection.

And the perception that voters in Sabah and Sarawak are only concerned about their own state politics and will thus make choices based purely on those considerations.

Even as May 9 wound down and the results started coming in, I still held fast to my convictions. It was close, true, but then so was the last general election. Wait and see, I kept saying to myself and to anyone who asked if there was a change in the offing. Perhaps I did not want to allow myself to hope.

It is no secret that I believe in a change of government. It is dangerous for one group to be in power for too long.

Peaceful transitions ensure greater accountability and this is the only way to bring forth positive changes in legislation and governance.

Sure, there are risks, but it is better to risk voting in a poor government than to never experience change at all; for those who have held the reins for so very long are loath to change the status quo.

But perhaps more importantly, I felt change was necessary because of my unshakeable belief in true democracy. And in the right of us, the people, to determine our own futures, our own fates. And we Malaysians have never really done this.

We have never tasted the power that a democracy is meant to give us. To hold in our hands the fate of our nation by selecting one group of potential leaders over another.

We needed to use this power, to truly feel this power, in order to appreciate it and through that, to appreciate our freedom.

And the night wore on. Hour after hour, I sat in front of my television watching the results roll in.

The mobile phone was hot in my hand as websites continuously updated the latest counts. It was all unofficial of course. The Election Commission was ponderous in issuing its final declaration of the winners.

And those unofficial results were shocking. The first 100 seats or so were neck and neck, but then one side started to pull away – further and further, until it became clear that something extraordinary was going to happen.

Finally the EC relented. It started releasing official figures and these did not contradict what had come before.

It was undeniable, we were facing history. I was witnessing history. In my sarong, in my living room, I was experiencing history.

I turned to my son beside me and said to him I couldn’t believe what was happening. He must have sensed something in my voice because as I reached out to him, he held my hand as if to comfort me.

I hugged him as we were the only two awake in the house and then he smiled and said he was going to bed. Alone, I looked out onto the balcony.

How many years have I wanted this, been fighting for this? I should be outside screaming my elation. But instead I just felt numb. The moment felt more than extraordinary, it felt strange, alien.

Moving into a mode I am used to, I turned the channel to watch Tottenham Hotspur play badly. Eventually, still unsure of my feelings, I too went to bed.

This morning, after a mere three hours’ sleep, I woke up. And like so many of us blessed and cursed by smartphones, I reached for my device to check my messages.

There was one from an older colleague. There were no words, just a video. I touched the screen and the first few notes of my national anthem started to play.

I couldn’t help myself. The tears rolled down my face and I cried like a newborn baby... which in a way, I suppose I was.

In GE14, nobody is ordinary

Brave New World (The Star)
25 April 2018

_________________________

I OFTEN get asked this question: “What can ordinary folk do to protect our democracy?”

My answer is usually along these lines: “Firstly, nobody is ordinary; everybody is weird. Secondly, do whatever you can.” I usually then mutter under my breath, “What democracy?”

Anyway, the second half of the answer is not as idiotic as it may appear. It’s general because what we can do depends on so many things.

On an ordinary day, we are usually thinking about what to have for lunch, so we do nothing except plan our meal. But sometimes extraordinary things occur.

So if you care about the issues being propounded and there is a demo going on, by all means, lend your support. Go out there. After all, it is our right to assemble peacefully.

At the moment we are approaching an extraordinary time. GE14 is around the corner. I have always said that if we value our democracy, we must fully utilise whatever is available to us and make sure our democracy lives (even if it may be on some serious life support).

So the least we can do is vote.

People have died to have the vote, and to not use it when there is a chance to do so seems rather odd to me. I don’t really believe that there should be compulsory voting, but that is because I don’t really like anything compulsory.

But refraining from voting seems counter-productive to me.

Especially when the condition of our democracy is so fragile. If we don’t use our right, there is always the chance we will lose it.

And besides, voting is not merely about choosing our leaders. It is the only peaceful method to ensure that the policies, laws and governance that we want (or as close to what we want as possible) can be implemented by the people that we want (or the ones we dislike least).

In other words, elections empower us to determine the direction our lives take. If you are unable to do so, what it means is that you are little more than a slave or a serf. Voting therefore is also about our dignity.

So, come election day, I hope as many of us go out there and vote. And we should encourage as many of our friends and relatives to vote too.

But there is more that you can do. This general election may be a very close one. The competition is fierce and you have PAS floating all over the place as a vote splitter. This means that there will be marginal seats aplenty. Each vote therefore counts.

And more importantly, each vote has to be counted properly and any sort of hanky-panky not allowed.

Here is where “ordinary folk” can play a massive part. Anyone can be a polling and counting agent (PACA).

With a bit of training, you can be the eyes and ears on the ground to ensure that GE14 is indeed clean.

Anyone can then be a very vital part of the democratic process and a protector of democracy.

So, in reply to the question “What can ordinary folk do?”, the answer is, “Plenty”.

Our rights deserve a broader perspective

Brave New World (The Star)
11 April 2018

_____________________________

THE anti-fake news law has already been much criticised for its vagueness and broadness and, due to that, its potential to be a potent threat to free speech and the freedom of the press.

I won’t therefore add to that line of argument.

Neither would I dwell on the disingenuous argument that anyone who does not support the new Act supports fake news. That is too facile to dignify with a response.

I would like, however, to state that I find it difficult to justify the law from a legal perspective. The Constitution states that Parliament may make laws that restrict free speech if the purpose is to protect national security, public order and morals.

There is a reason the Constitution lists the circumstances in which freedom of speech and expression may be curtailed by Parliament.

Without some sort of limitation on the powers of the legislature, freedom of expression is merely illusory.

Our freedoms cannot be justifiably reduced based on political hot air. There has to be much more than that.

Furthermore, looking further afield, international law sets the standard regarding laws that restrict our rights. It says that there ought to be a presumption of freedom.

In other words, freedom is deemed as the ideal and anything that limits it has to be properly justified.

In my view, this has not occurred with regard to the Anti-Fake News Act.

Staying on the topic of international standards, it is also stated that any law that controls speech has to be proportional. Considering we have laws aplenty that can control the so-called fake news (namely the Sedition Act, Defamation Act, Penal Code and Communications and Multimedia Act, to name a few), what we have here is a case of overkill and definitely not proportional.

Another thing I want to look at is the move by the Registrar of Societies (RoS) to temporarily disband Parti Pribumi Bersatu. This is not the first time that an opposition party has trouble getting official recognition.

It took a decade and a court battle for Parti Sosialis Malaysia to be registered with the RoS as a political party.

After that, the Election Commission had an issue with the party’s logo. The clenched fist symbol – widely used to represent socialism – “has connotations of violence”, it seems.

Again, I refer to international standards. Of course, it is perfectly all right to have some sort of administrative measure to register societies and the like. However, if these measures are improperly conducted, then there is strong argument to say that it is breaching the right of association.

Unreasonable bureaucracy and delay is deemed as an unacceptable curb on this freedom.

There you have it. These two developments, in my opinion, breach the Constitution and international law. And these are things that we ought to be concerned about.