Dissolve Perak State Assembly and hold state election

Perak Pakatan Rakyat Mentri Besar Datuk Seri Mohammad Nizar Jamaluddin is to have audience with the Sultan of Perak to seek the dissolution of the Perak State Assembly and to hold state election.

Returning to the voters of Perak to seek a clear-cut mandate for the government of the state is the most honourable and democratic manner to end the political crisis in the state.

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 4 February 2009, 3:36 pm and is filed under
Election
,
Pakatan Rakyat
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


How Indonesia’s Islamic Universities Are Different

By
Farish A Noor

Regardless of where you stand on the question of whether we are living in the age of Islamism, neo-Islamism or Post-Islamism, the fact remains that there is pretty much Islam all over the place at the moment; and much of this Islam is also going all over the place…

From the late 1970s onwards many a Muslim-majority state with a Muslim-majority government embarked on a host of projects intended to inculcate Islamic values, norms and standards in the daily lives of their people. In some cases, such as that of Malaysia, this inculcation of Islamic norms was at times at the expense of other faith communities and cultural minorities as well. From Morocco to Pakistan to Malaysia we witnessed the sudden surge of growth in the Islamic public sector: Shariah courts were raised to a level on par with secular civil courts; Islamic finance and banking was experimented with and implemented with gusto; Islamic think tanks, research centres and universities were funded lavishly and built all over the place. In time a network of Islamic universities and colleges was created worldwide, creating hundreds of thousands of graduates who later entered the public domain with the expectation that they will be given jobs.

The one country that resisted this headlong rush towards Islamisation was Indonesia, though that was partly due to the somewhat Islamophobic tendencies of its then leader Suharto and his coterie of Generals and business elite cronies.

Indonesia’s Islamic universities developed at their own pace, often under close state supervision but also under careful tutelage of Islamic intellectuals like Mukti Ali who was the Minister for Religious Affairs. Under the guidance of men like Mukti Ali, Indonesia developed Islamic universities where Islam was not taught, but rather researched. This was singularly unique in the Muslim world because the Indonesian government actually encouraged Muslim scholars to think objectively and critically about Islam and religion in general. In other words, rather than produce Islamist ideologues, the Islamic universities of Indonesia produced a generation of Muslim scholars who could objectively study -critically – their own religion.

The net result of this approach is seen and felt in Indonesia til today. At a time when Islamic universities worldwide are prone to ideology and politicising Islam, it is in Indonesia that we find Muslim scholars who are capable of questioning their own faith and what is done in the name of that faith.

The latest example of this came in the wake of the Indonesian Ulama Council (Majlis Ulama Indonesia, MUI) issuing a fatwa against those who elect not to vote at the upcoming elections this year. Indonesian democracy is still in its infancy following the downfall of Suharto in 1998, and already the country has witnessed a vibrant democracy in the making. But popular cynicism and anger towards the corruption of politicians and institutions like the police have also compelled millions of Indonesians not to vote, out of protest.

Now apparently not to vote is Haram, according to the MUI.

Here is where the Indonesian Muslim intellectuals have come into the fray. Among the first to question the validity and logic of the MUI fatwa is Professor Bachtiar Effendy, at Sharif Hidayatullah Islamic University, Jakarta. (Jakarta Post, 31 Jan 2009). Prof Bachtiar did not hesitate to point out the obvious: Firstly, where does it say in the Quran that people have to vote at all. Secondly, on what basis is vote-abstention haram. Thirdly, if vote abstention is Haram – as is alcoholism, drugs, rape and murder- then what is the correct Islamic punishment?

Wading into this legal mess that the MUI has created for itself, Prof Bachtiar was not shy of pointing out that senior members of the Indonesian Ulama Council are members of political parties themselves. The MUI fatwa committee chairman is a personal advisor to the PKB party, while its sec-gen is a member of the Golkar party. Questioning the motives and interests of the fatwa issued by the MUI, Prof Bachtiar reminded the MUI that no fatwa is legally binding and in the case of this particular fatwa there is precious little substantive ground for it to stand on.

Congratulations are due to Prof Bachtiar and scholars like him who are the products of Indonesia’s scientific and rational approach to Islamic studies. While Professors and lecturers of many other Islamic universities elsewhere dabble in issues such as ‘Islamic biology’ or scientific theories of Djinns and spirits, the Islamic scholars of Indonesia have shown that one can be a Muslim and a scientist at the same time. The rational spirit of social scientists like Ibn Khaldun lives on, in Indonesia…

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 4 February 2009, 12:03 pm and is filed under
Education
,
Farish Noor
,
Islam
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Dissolution of Perak Assembly – Signs grim

Signs of a dissolution of Perak State Assembly not good at all.

Datuk Seri Najib Razak has stepped up his campaign for an illegal and unconstitutional grab for power in Perak in utter disregard of the constitutional process and the mandate of the voters of Perak.

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 5 February 2009, 2:18 pm and is filed under
Constitution
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Najib should stop  illegal and unconstitutional power grab in Perak

The Prime Minister-in-waiting, Datuk Seri Najib Razak, who has taken over as Perak UMNO and Barisan Nasional leader, should stop the attempt at  the illegal and unconstitutional grab for power in Perak and respect  the constitutional process and the mandate of the people of Perak.

The Perak Pakatan Rakyat Mentri Besar Datuk Seri Mohammad Nizar Jamaluddin yesterday had an  audience with the Sultan of Perak, Sultan Azlan Shah  to seek the dissolution of the Perak State Assembly and to hold state election, as returning the mandate to the voters is the most honourable and democratic  manner to resolve the political crisis in Perak.

In his book
“Constitutional Monarchy, Rule of Law and Good Governance”

(2004)
, the former Lord President wrote:

“Under normal circumstances, it is taken for granted that the Yang di-Pertuan Agong would not withhold his consent to a request for dissolution of parliament. His role is purely formal.”

He also pointed out  that no sultan or agung had withheld consent to dissolve legislative body, except in Kelantan in 1977.

While the Sultan’s decision on the Mentri Besar’s request for dissolution of the Perak State Assembly is awaited, it is most improper  and unconstitutional for Najib to attempt  an illegal and unconstitutional grab for power in Perak state to frustrate the will and wishes of the people of Perak in the March general election last year.

This is because the Pakatan Rakyat state government in Perak continues as  a legitimate,  effective and functioning one, even if the Mentri Besar’s request for dissolution of the State Assembly is denied by the Sultan, and it is premature for Najib to talk about forming a new  Barisan Nasional state government in Perak.

Article 16(6) of the Perak State Constitution provides for the dissolution of the State Assembly with the consent of the Sultan or the mentri besar’s resignation if the mentri besar ceases to enjoy the confidence of the majority of the state assembly.

However, the determination of whether the Mentri Besar has lost the confidence of the majority of the state assembly could only be done by a vote of no confidence in the State Assembly, and not by a claim by Najib outside the State Assembly, especially when it is based on dubious and highly disputable grounds.

This is because Najib’s claim that the Barisan Nasional has the necessary numbers in the State Assembly to form the government has still to be proved  by way of a motion in the State Assembly.

Although Najib has engineered the defection of three Pakatan Rakyat state assembly persons, the Speaker of the Perak State Assembly had  declared their seats vacant and their claims to continue as State Assembly representatives are not recognised by the Speaker in the Assembly.

Excluding the three defectors,  there is at most a 28-28 tie between the Pakatan Rakyat and Barisan Nasional in the Perak State Assembly.

Until the Barisan Nasional can succeed in getting a vote of no confidence passed in the State Assembly, the Pakatan Rakyat Mentri Besar and state government should not be hindered from carrying out their tasks as the legitimate, effective and functioning state government.

I call on Najib to cease and desist from any attempt at illegal and unconstitutional grab of power in Perak State government in utter disregard of the constitutional process and the mandate of the people of Perak as this will be a very ominous start for the Najib premiership which is to begin next month when Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi steps down as the fifth Prime Minister of Malaysia.

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 5 February 2009, 8:47 am and is filed under
Najib Razak
,
Pakatan Rakyat
,
UMNO
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Constitutional scandal  of two Perak MBs – Abdullah should support dissolution and  state elections

The Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi is wrong when he
said
  that Pakatan Rakyat must now accept a new government in Perak just as Barisan Nasional had accepted the results of last year’s general election.

The comparison is totally inappropriate. In fact, he should be the last person to make such a statement if he is serious about national integrity and morality  in politics and public affairs which is  one of his  major promises and biggest failures of his premiership.

Abdullah cannot be unaware that there is a world of a difference between last year’s general election result and the  current political crisis in Perak engineered by Umno leaders.

Last year’s general election results were the outcome of the exercise of the constitutional and democratic rights of the people of Perak to elect the government of their choice, while the present attempt to oust the legitimate Pakatan Rakyat government by UMNO and Barisan Nasional is a most  unethical and opportunistic power-play frustrating the verdict of the voters in the March 8 general election last year.

If Abdullah is sincere and serious in wanting to  eradicate political corruption and introduce ethical and principled politics, which he had repeatedly professed publicly, he should  dissociate himself from the coup d’etat orchestrated  by Deputy Prime Minister and the new Perak Umno leader Datuk Seri  Najib Razak in the illegal and unconstitutional power grab in Perak through the defection of three and re-defection of one Perak state assembly person.

I call on Abdullah to support  the dissolution of Perak State Assembly and the holding of state elections to resolve the political crisis in Perak  and not to end his premiership with a constitutional scandal of two Mentri Besars in Perak.

Even if this is the only legacy of Abdullah in his five-year premiership, it will go a long way to strike a mortal blow at the bane of Malaysian politics – dishonest, unethical, immoral and money politics – and give meaning to the National Integrity Plan which he had launched with such fanfare five years ago but with so little results so far.

Although the Sultan of Perak has rejected the application of the Perak Mentri Besar Datuk Seri Mohammad Nizar Jamaluddin for a dissolution of the State Assembly, Nizar  is still the legitimate Mentri Besar until he has been voted out by a “no confidence” motion in the Perak State Assembly.

Until such time, there is no vacancy in the post of Perak Mentri Besar.

Abdullah should advise Najib not to create a constitutional scandal of having two Mentri Besars in Perak and to fully respect the constitutional process and the people’s democratic right and mandate as expressed in last year’s general election – and the most democratic option  is to return the mandate to the voters of Perak in a state-wide election to elect a new state government of their choice.

                This entry was posted on Friday, 6 February 2009, 12:12 pm and is filed under
Abdullah Ahmad Badawi
,
Najib Razak
,
Pakatan Rakyat
,
Perak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Najib as PM – with his infamous pre-100 days, no need for first 100 days

New Prime Ministers have dazzled the people with bold promises and pledges of a new beginning in their first 100 days in office.

Both the two previous Prime Ministers, Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi and Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad, took full advantage of the power  and magic of their first 100 days in office, leveraging them into stunning general election victories in their first year in office – the unprecedented sweep of 91% parliamentary seats for Abdullah in the 2004 general election and the resounding victory for Mahathir in the 1982 general election.

For Datuk Seri Najib Razak, who will be the sixth Prime Minister after the Umno general assembly next month, his first 100 days would be overshadowed by his infamous pre-100 days, and featuring high on his pre-100 days list is undoubtedly the disgraceful and outrageous grab for Perak power, completely in disregard of the proper constitutional process and respect for the people’s mandate in the 2008 general election.

Malaysia has in the past 24 hours become an international laughing stock because of the  constitutional crisis in Perak producing  two Mentris Besar – the Pakatan Rakyat Mentri Besar  Datuk Seri Mohammad Nizar Jamaluddin who has never vacated office, and the  usurper  UMNO Mentri Besar Datuk Dr. Zambry Abdul Kadir.

In orchestrating the coup de’tat in Perak with the illegal and unconstitutional grab for power, when Nizar is still the legitimate, effective and functioning Mentri Besar, Najib has caused great harm and damage to  the system of democracy, the monarchy and the rule of law in Malaysia.

Unlike his five predecessors, Najib will be assuming the mantle of Prime Minister with the greatest public doubts about his credibility and legitimacy, with so many serious and unanswered allegations hounding  him to the highest office in Putrajaya.

Now he has piled up for himself another infamy – the trampling of the constitutional process and democratic rights of the people of Perak with the illegal and unconstitutional grab  for power resulting in Perak becoming a state with two Mentris Besar.

In doing so, Najib has aligned himself against democracy, national integrity, constitutional propriety and the will of the people of Perak.

There is nothing he could do in his first 100 days as Prime Minister which could mitigate the grave wrongs he had committed against democracy, national integrity and public confidence in the system of governance in Malaysia in his pre-100 days as Prime Minister – particularly his disgraceful role as the subverter of democracy in Perak.

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 7 February 2009, 6:34 pm and is filed under
Najib Razak
,
Pakatan Rakyat
,
Perak
,
UMNO
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Zambry  – prove he can be  Perak MB for all by getting legitimate mandate in a new general election

Datuk Dr. Zambry Abdul Kadir wants to be Mentri Besar for all in Perak.

Then let him prove it by getting a legitimate mandate from the people of Perak in a new state elections by dissolving the present Perak State Assembly.

Zambry is a mere usurper and cannot be regarded as a legitimate Mentri Besar to replace Datuk Seri Mohamad Nizar  Jamaluddin through an illegal and unconstitutional coup de’tat orchestrated by the Prime Minister-in-waiting Datuk Seri Najib Razak – until and unless he can  get a proper mandate through a Perak state elections.

It is of no help to Zambry to compare himself to Barack Obama who pledged to become President for all Americans – as no American doubt or question Obama’s legitimacy as US President in the way Zambry’s legitimacy as Perak Mentri Besar is questioned by the overwhelming majority of the people of Perak of all races.

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 8 February 2009, 3:07 pm and is filed under
Election
,
Perak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


DAP reaffirms support for PR to establish an alternative government

(Press Statement By DAP Secretary-General And MP for Bagan, Lim Guan Eng, In Petaling Jaya On 9.2.2009)

 DAP’s commitment towards a multi-racial, multi-religious and multi-cultural Malaysia is not only an article of faith but a deep conviction in Bangsa Malaysia. DAP is inclusive of all races and religions. We represent the interests and fight for the rights every Malaysian.

In the effort of being representative of all Malaysians, including both Malays and non-Malays, the party is willing to undertake a transformational process that may be painful but necessary. We have no alternative but to grow without compromising our basic principles.

DAP reaffirms support for Pakatan Rakyat(PR) to establish an alternative government that is democratic, people-centric and with an ethical leadership based on the 5 principles of freedom, justice, truth, social welfare and universal moral values. In this regard the DAP supports PKR de facto leader DSAI Anwar Ibrahim as the Parliamentary Opposition Leader and will remain so as no single leader has ever questioned this during internal meetings whether at the highest levels or otherwise.

The Pakatan Rakyat leadership has clearly endorsed a position that no individual party policy can be PR policy unless it is fully approved unanimously by all three parties. DAP’s position on hudud and Islamic state is crystal clear and regardless of whatever support for  both hudud and the establishment of an Islamic State, whether from PAS or PKR, this will not be PR policy as long as DAP does not agree to it.

Similarly DAP’s leadership has been consistently urging the government to enact an anti-hopping law even before the Perak crisis, and we have expressed support of our 28 MPs. As BN does not have a 2/3 parliamentary majority, the support of DAP’s 28 MPs will be required to effect any constitutional amendment for such an anti-hopping law.

As a democratic party, DAP policies can be changed in accordance with the wishes of its members. However until today there has been no request to question or disturb the basic framework of co-operation between the 3 parties of DAP, PAS and PKR that make up PR.

As the party secretary-general, I am duty-bound to execute these policies. However should any member wishes to change them, they are required to use proper party channels to do so and not use the BN-controlled media. I appeal to Sdr Karpal Singh as Chair of the DAP to use internal party channels should he wish to change these policies or even criticise my leadership.

                This entry was posted on Monday, 9 February 2009, 11:34 am and is filed under
DAP
,
Pakatan Rakyat
,
Perak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Shocked and hurt by Karpal’s statement – let the party resolve any differences internally

I am shocked and hurt by DAP National Chairman Sdr. Karpal Singh’s statement yesterday.

Malaysians are scandalized  that instead of uniting Malaysians to face the worst global economic crisis for eighty years, the Prime Minister-in-waiting Datuk Seri Najib Razak had  done the opposite – frittering  away further public confidence in engendering greater  national discord by engineering the Perak political crisis in the illegal and unconstitutional grab for power, resulting in the constitutional crisis of two Mentris Besar in Perak.

Perakians are outraged. Malaysians are outraged. The world looks on  in disbelief at the political insensitivity and indifference of the Prime Minister-in-waiting on the imperative  to restore  public confidence at this critical stage of the nation by giving top priority to uniting Malaysians, by  actively creating not only a Perak but  national political crisis.

The national economic crisis and the latest political crisis caused by Najib’s coup de’tat must be the topmost concern for all Malaysians.

Let the DAP resolve any differences internally as they should not be allowed to deflect efforts to resolve both the grave  economic and political crisis confronting Malaysians.

                This entry was posted on Monday, 9 February 2009, 1:20 pm and is filed under
DAP
,
Pakatan Rakyat
,
Perak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


The Monkey Handler

by
M. Bakri Musa

In the few months that he has before assuming office I would have expected Prime Minister-in-waiting Najib Razak to be focused on forming his new leadership team and formulating his major policies.  Instead there he was in Perak smirking with renegade state politicians who had crossed over to his Barisan coalition.  Najib looked like a mischievous monkey handler who had successfully enticed a couple of wily monyets from the neighbor’s coconut tree to his.

In these perilous times Najib is more a slimy backroom political operative consumed with concocting shady deals than a national leader ready to steer the nation through tough economic and other challenges.  This latest and unneeded upheaval in Perak only adds to Malaysia’s already muddled political climate, and comes at a time when the nation can ill afford this distraction.  Najib is oblivious of the evolving global economic disaster and its inevitable impact on Malaysia.

These handlers too behave like the monkeys they keep.  After finishing his latest act in Perak, Najib stayed away.  The monkey handler’s interest, like that of the monkeys they keep, was only in creating mischief.  Once that is achieved, then he is gone so as to avoid getting entangled.

Initially Najib had planned to join in the Chinese New Year celebration in Ipoh to soak in what he expected would be a sea of public applause to his latest monkey act.  Instead because of the unanticipated sea change in public mood, Najib wisely skipped the event.  At least he knew when and where he would no longer be welcomed.

Najib should remember that Abdullah Badawi rode into office with the highest approval ratings, and an untainted “Mr. Clean” image to boot.  Yet today, less than five years later, Abdullah is being pushed out of office, and his legacy is anything but clean.  Najib has yet to assume office and already his approval rating is under 50 percent, and his public image severely tainted by assorted sordid scandals.  His public portraits are now being used for stomping muddy shoes.  Rest assured that these are only the beginning.

A Chinese proverb has it that it takes three generations to destroy an enterprise.  The first starts it; the second builds on it; while the pampered third squanders it.  Najib Razak is determined to truncate that process.  He is set to destroy a once proud and successful organization – UMNO – which his late father was so instrumental in starting and building.

Najib will bring UMNO down with him, as prophesied by some ancient soothsayer’s “RAHMAN” theory of leadership.  The challenge is to ensure that UMNO’s inevitable implosion under Najib would not also take Malaysia down with it.

Our Cultural Burden

If not for his family and political pedigrees, Najib Razak would today be like thousands of other Malays with similar qualifications, nothing more than a midlevel functionary in the civil service or one of the many Government-linked companies.

He was just old enough when his father died to benefit from the generosities and tributes of a nation in need to express them in gratitude to a great patriot that was his father.  Remembering the father’s many great deeds, the nation could not do enough for his son; hence Najib meteoric rise.

The dilemma with having your path smoothed out for you is that once you reach the top, there is no one there to grease the trail ahead.  From then on you are on your own, and you ill prepared for it.

It is our cultural tradition that such generosities and tributes are showered almost exclusively upon the first-born son.  The assumption is that he is the carrier of the father’s traits.  This of course is not unique to Malay culture; nor is there a biological basis to that assumption.

I wish we had not been a slave to our culture.  By all means shower our gratitude to the late Tun Razak’s family, but then let us be more prudent and choose the smartest or most promising from among his five children to groom, not necessarily only the first born.

Tun Razak’s other sons are way head and shoulders above Najib.  The youngest, Nazir, is a banker.  Even though he is not a politician, nonetheless his public utterances reflect not only a first-rate mind but also someone very much aware of the many challenges facing our nation.  He has also put forth novel ideas on solving them.  Unfortunately, Najib is culturally constrained from taking advice from his youngest brother Nazir.

Last year Nazir suggested granting amnesty to corrupt individuals in return for their confessions and making good their loot, prior to implementing tougher laws.  To say that it was a radical idea would be an understatement but on reflection, there is considerable merit to his suggestion.  At the very least we would get a measure of the magnitude of the problem and its infinite variations.  That could help us design better laws and ways to combat the scourge.

Recently Nazir chastised the leadership for not going beyond orthodox fiscal stimulus and monetary measures to meet the current economic crisis.  He suggested re-examining the New Economic Policy, with particular reference to minimizing its drag on the economy.  He also called for greater collaborations with the emerging giant economies in the region, specifically China, India and the Middle East.  Most of all I like his idea of attracting foreign talents, especially into the education sector.

These are the kinds of innovative thinking we yearn from our leaders, not their endless monkeying around with fence-hopping politicians.  In chastising the “leadership,” Nazir has shown that he is not constrained by our cultural norms; he has in effect criticized his oldest brother’s leadership.

Monkey Story

There was this story of a peddler of hats who one day fell asleep under a tree in the heat of the day.  When he woke up, his hats were all gone except for the one on his head.  On looking up he saw the monkeys in the tree with hats.  The peddler tried all manner of tricks to induce those monkeys to part with their newfound toys, but to no avail.  In disgust he threw his hat to the ground and stomped off.  In the finest “monkey see, monkey do” mode, the apes did the same, and that was how the peddler recovered his merchandise.

A generation later it was the peddler’s son who fell asleep under the same tree.  He too lost his hats to the monkeys.  Remembering the lesson imparted from his father, the young man threw his hat to the ground.  At which point the monkeys laughed at him.  “You are not getting your hats back,” they scoffed, “we learned your trick from our parents!”

When Najib enticed those monkeys of politics to Barisan, he stole a play from Anwar Ibrahim’s game book.  Anwar may rightly feel flattered by Najib’s imitating, or more correctly, aping.  However, like the hat-peddler’s son, Najib may have learned his lesson well but what he may not realize is that those political monkeys too had learned their lessons!  They are making a monkey of Najib.

When you have a bunch of monkeys and an equally mischievous as well as irresponsible handler, there is no telling what lasting damage they could inflict.  It is time to let Najib out of his monkey business and free those monyet under his keep to once again roam the jungle where they belong.  If out of habit they still hang around us waiting for their bananas and making a pest of themselves, then we should kill a rooster or two.  That would scare away those monkeys.

                This entry was posted on Monday, 9 February 2009, 11:27 am and is filed under
Bakri Musa
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


RPK: Anwar, Kit Siang and Hadi should quit

The Star

Tuesday February 10, 2009

PORT KLANG: Blogger Raja Petra Kamarudin has called for the resignations of three senior Opposition leaders for the loss of the Perak Pakatan Rakyat government to Barisan Nasional.

Pakatan de facto leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim, DAP adviser Lim Kit Siang and PAS president Datuk Seri Abdul Hadi Awang should resign and accept collective responsibility for the loss, he said at a Chap Goh Mei celebration at the Kuan Soon temple grounds in Pandamaran here.

When asked whether it was a leadership crisis, he said it was just bad leadership, with bad decisions and the three senior politicians were out of touch with the people on the ground.

“It is time for them to stop the blame game. Move aside and give the position to the younger generation that are more able.”

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 10 February 2009, 1:42 pm and is filed under
Pakatan Rakyat
,
Perak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Blind Loyalty? Re-Reading the Taj-us Salatin of Buchara al-Jauhari

By
 Farish A. Noor

As if it was not bad enough that Malaysia has been overrun by an outbreak of frogs – like a scene from some Biblical catastrophe – we now have to stomach the spectacle of humbug heroes and demagogues as well.

One is deeply distressed to read reports of conservative politicians and their followers crying for revenge against those whom they accuse of having offended the fragile sensibilities of the monarchs. According to one such report, Umno deputy Youth chief Khairy Jamaluddin had asked his followers, referring to Perak Menteri Besar Datuk Seri Mohammad Nizar Jamaluddin, “In the old days, what did we do to those who commit treason?”

The crowd replied, “Kill him!”

Khairy then said they should only ask for Nizar “to be banished”.

Not being a legal expert, I am uncertain of the gravity of the actions of the abovementioned individual. From my own untutored perspective it appeared more like an invitation to violence than anything else. But being a historian myself I am struck by the first part of Khairy’s question, i.e. the phrase: “In the old days …”

The past is never simple

Now that the past has been brought up, the historian in me is compelled to respond by first reiterating that there has never been and will never be a simple, essentialised, linear past. The past is as complex as the present, and there are as many strains and currents of history that have been forgotten and marginalised as there are liminal presences that we remain unaware of.

To suggest somehow that “in the past” those who were found guilty of treason were due for severe punishment – death, in fact, according to Khairy’s followers – is obfuscating the facts. We need to also ask the attendant questions: Who has committed the alleged act of treason, against whom, and why? After all, Nelson Mandela was found guilty of treason and sedition too, for he openly challenged the authority of the racist apartheid state. Likewise the founding leaders of this nation of ours – men such as Dr Burhanuddin al-Helmy, Ibrahim Yaakob, and Ahmad Boestaman – were likewise accused of treason and sedition as they struggled against British colonial rule.

On the subject of the relationship between the Malay monarchs and their subjects however, there has also been a lot written in the past that we ought to revisit in the present. The reason for this is that there has been this tendency to see and understand the relations between rulers and the ruled in purely one-sided terms favouring the rulers. Was this always the case? Was there ever a time when power relations in Malay-Muslim society were understood and configured differently?

I think so, and to demonstrate just that I would like to revisit the writings of Imam Buchara al-Jauhari, the scholar who pioneered what can justly be described as the beginnings of Malay-Muslim political theory.

Historic Malay-Muslim scholarship

During the bad old days of Western colonialism in Malaya, Western Orientalist scholars were keen to diminish the value of Malay-Muslim scholarship and to reduce important works of philosophy as mere fairy tales and fables. Not true.

There were texts written by scholars such as the
Taj-us Salatin, Mahkota Segala Raja-Raja
 (1) (The Crown of Kings) of Buchara al-Jauhari (written in 1603 in Aceh); and the
Bustan as-Salatin fi Dhikr al-Awwalin wal-Akhirin
(The Garden of Kings and the Beginning and End of All Things) of Sheikh Nuruddin (written in 1638). These provide ample proof of the extent which Islamic scholars were already beginning to consider questions relating to the spiritual covenant between God and humankind, as well as the socio-political contract which bound ruler to subject.

These Muslim scholars were neither detached from nor indifferent to the nature of the political space they were penetrating. Indeed, not only were they aware of the political nature of the terrain they were operating in; their very mode of entry was itself political in terms of its strategic approach. By working both within and against the official ideology of the feudal system, Islamic scholars such as al-Jauhari and Sheikh Nuruddin played a crucial role indeed. Their attempt was to mould the wayward rulers into the ideal image of the Islamic ruler as God’s vicegerent on earth and defender of the community.

Nearly half a century before Thomas Hobbes’ Leviathan would be published in England (2), Al-Jauhari’s Taj-us Salatin (1603) was already spelling out the duties and responsibilities of the ruler and the role of the court and the laws to restrict the king’s powers. As Taufik Abdullah notes, the function of Islamic texts such as the Taj-us Salatin is clear: it sets out the parameters and guidelines for good government in Islamic terms. It thus inevitably reduces the ruler to the status of God’s servant on earth. Furthermore, it places great emphasis on the role of the pengawal raja, the raja’s advisors, ministers and ulama to ensure that the ruler does not veer off the right path.(3)

What is radically different about the narrative of Al-Jauhari’s Taj-us Salatin when compared to most pre-Islamic feudal propaganda is that it reorganises the worldview of the feudal system in an unmistakable way. In many pro-feudal texts, loyalty is demanded and expected from the rakyat as the right of the ruler. The Taj-us Salatin, however, demands the loyalty of all subjects to the supreme power of omniscient and omnipotent God, thus distracting both loyalty and attention from the rajas themselves.

The emphasis on maintaining the ruler’s just conduct is not merely empty rhetoric or religious homily either. Al-Jauhari devotes several chapters on instructing the courtiers, advisors and servants of the ruler as well. In case the ruler should be in any doubt as to what kind of advisor he should seek, al-Jauhari clearly spells out the Islamic credentials that the ruler ought to look for in his staff:

“Dalam kitab Sifat As-Salatin, hendaklah yang raja itu sentiasa rindukan sahabat akan orang yang berpengetahuan dan orang yang berdiri pada pekerjaan ugama, dan sediakala bertanyakan daripada mereka itu pekerjaan ugama, dan peri orang berugama, dan diingatkan segala perkataan mereka itu.” (4)

These Islamic credentials are of crucial importance. For Al-Jauhari they serve as a safety check by ensuring that the loyalty and obedience of the courtiers is to God before the ruler. The duties of these advisors include the need to educate the king and to instruct future monarchs; the need to present all information that the ruler may require in detail and without fear; and the need to reproach the ruler if and when he or she transgresses the law. (5) For the first time in the history of the traditional feudal universe, the discursive territory of the ruling ideology was being opened up to new participants. The site of political activity was extended beyond the person of the ruler himself to include the courtiers, commanders, qadis, shiekhs and advisors of the court:

“Maka hendaklah raja yang kehendaknya mengerjakan adil dan memelihara akan beberapa orang yang demikian perinya dan pekertinya banyak bawanya dan kurang tanmanya dan keras ugamanya diserahkan raja segala orang itu dalam negeri supaya melihat mereka itu baik dan jahat negerinya, dan mendengar khabar pekerti segala menterinya, dan mengetahui perbuatan segala hulubalang dan hambanya, dan tahu pekerjaan rakyat negeri itu semuanya, dan disampaikan segala khabar itu kepada raja dengan sempurnanya. Maka seharusnyalah akan segala-gala raja-raja memeliharakan berapa orang yang demikian.” (6)

All of these demands are articulated via an Islamic ethical discourse which focuses the subjects’ attention upon their moral and political obligations primarily to God, and no longer the king solely. Should the ruler transgress the rules that God has laid down before him, he immediately forfeits his authority to rule (“erti-nya hilanglah daulat (raja) daripada sebab aniaya” (7)). The end result is a state of chaos and disorder that, by a strange twist, anticipates the Hobbesian account of the state of nature in the Leviathan that would be written half a century later.

A ruler’s place

Al-Jauhari has thus put the ruler in his place. The survival and prosperity of the realm depends upon whether the ruler rules according to the dictates of his faith and abides by its laws, which are, of course, the laws of God. Failure to do so leads to moral degradation, despair, and eventually, total chaos and destruction.

While symbolic power is allowed to remain in the hand of the ruler, the true centre of attention is thus relocated on a higher metaphysical level, beyond the reach of rakyat and rajas alike. It is clear that for Al-Jauhari it is God, and not the ruler, who is truly supreme and that it is God’s will and commandments that are to be obeyed and followed before the raja’s:

“Hendaklah segala hamba raja itu terlebih takut kepada Allah taala daripada takut akan rajanya, dan terlebih harap akan kurnia Allah taala daripada harap akan rajanya.” (8)

A ruler’s attributes

Amidst all this, the ruler is humbled and reduced to being the mere symbolic instrument of God’s will on earth. But even as a symbol of God’s will on earth, the ruler, for Al-Jauhari, is still required to possess and develop certain attributes and characteristics that are the prerequisites for the office of the leader of the community. Among these are piety, charity, fairness and truthfulness. Quoting the Kitab Fadhail al-Muluk, Al-Jauhari warns that the absence of any of these attributes immediately robs the ruler of his credentials:

“Sesungguhnya Allah Taala menitahkan akan adil dan ihsan. Bermula kehendak daripada adil itu kebenaran juga dalam segala pekerjaan dan segala perkataan; dan kehendak daripada ihsan itu kebajikan juga dalam segala pekerjaan dan perbuatan dan perkataan; dan keadaan kedua peri ini daripada sekalian manusia baik adanya daripada segala raja-raja itu terbaik; dan tari’la-lah kedua peri dan barang siapa daripada raja-raja yang tiada dua peri ini padanya tiada dapat dibilang raja adanya.” (9)

Bound thus by the code of law and the demands placed upon him by the faith and his role as the leader of the community, the raja has come to be an appendage to God. By placing the raja at the head of the state as the leader of the community, Al-Jauhari has also placed the burden of maintaining the image of religion on the ruler as well. Al-Jauhari affords the ruler no special privileges on account of his status as raja. Furthermore, Al-Jauhari insists that any ruler should come under particularly heavy scrutiny as he is meant to be the living embodiment of the law he is meant to protect. So great is the responsibility of the ruler that Al-Jauhari doesn’t even afford him the luxury of food and sleep as he undertakes his task of government:

“Maka harus-ah yang raja itu kurang makan dan kurang tidur dan jangan menurutkan hawa nafsu supaya dapat mengerjakan ia pekerjaan kerajaan yang maha sukar mengadakan dengan sebenarnya.” (10)

 But such mortal rajas were also liable to fail in their tasks, and the Taj-us Salatin takes seriously the very real possibility that any ruler may occasionally commit an indiscretion. It prescribes the appropriate measures to remedy them without allowing for instances of divine mercy and intervention or even the sympathy of revisionist court historians. The ruler who fails in his duties and does not care for his subjects is told in no uncertain terms that his chances for eternal salvation are low indeed:

“Barang siapa daripada raja-raja yang tiada kasihankan rakyat itu diharamkan Allah Taala atas syurga.” (11)

 And in cases where the raja has clearly gone beyond acceptable religious norms and standards, Al-Jauhari’s answer is clear: he is no longer the ruler of his people, but their enemy. (12) Citing the story of Moses and his fight against the fir’aun (pharaoh) as an epic precedent befitting the status of the royal subject he is addressing, Al-Jauhari commends the act of rebellion against any tyrannical ruler. By doing so he has prescribed a formula for legitimate disobedience, while remaining faithful to the tenets of Islam and the principles of Islamic law. For Malay-Muslim scholars like Al-Jauhari, Islam was both a discourse of legitimisation as well as a discourse of delegitimisation whenever it needed to be.

Re-reading the Taj-us Salatin today should remind us that in “the old days” (to quote a politician educated at Oxford) the Malay-Muslims were far more advanced in their thinking when it came to the question of power-relations between rulers and their subjects. The image of the docile, subservient Malay subject who is blindly loyal to his master may be of some comfort to right-wing politicians bent on developing a cult of worship around themselves. The same image certainly helped to maintain the racist politics of the colonial era too. But the Malays “in the old days” and today are far more intelligent and independent minded than some of our politicians give them credit for. Having insulted their intelligence today, try not to insult their past and history too, for heaven’s sake.

Endnotes:

(1) Taufik Abdullah has noted that the Taj-us-Salatin, written by Buchara al-Jauhari in 1603 in Aceh is probably one of the most original Malay-Islamic texts to be found. Although eclectic in its composition, it was an indigenous piece of work, not a translation of Arabic, Persian or Indian texts. Its influence was felt as far as the courts of Surakarta and Yogyakarta in Java. (Abdullah, pg. 41).

(2) It must be noted that Thomas Hobbes’ Leviathan was only available in England in 1651. He began work on the text while in exile in France in 1640-41. Al-Jauhari’s Taj-us Salatin was composed and completed by 1603 in Aceh, North Sumatra.

(3) The very first chapter of the Taj-us Salatin already begins with the universal declaration of the equality of mankind as creatures and representatives of God on earth. Its Islamic credentials can be found in the way that it draws examples from Islamic and Semitic history in order to illustrate the proper conduct of Muslim rulers. Citing the example of the prophet Muhammad as the exemplar ruler bar none (Chapter 10), the Taj-us Salatin notes down the necessary characteristics and obligations of the just Muslim ruler. These include the need to ensure the prosperity and livelihood of his people; to protect his people from all manner of calamities (from poor government, abuse of power to invasions from abroad); to ensure the stability and prosperity of the country; to protect those who cannot protect themselves such as the poor, the disabled, widows and orphans, etc.; and to ensure that he chooses good advisors and listens to their counsel. (Bukhair [Buchara] al-Jauhari, Taj-us Salatin [1603], edited by Khalid Hussain, Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka, Kuala Lumpur, 1966.)

(4) Translation: “And it is written in the Qitab Sifat As-Salatin that the ruler should always seek the company of those who are knowledgeable, and those who are engaged in matters of religion, and he should seek their instruction in all religious duties, and enquire about the characteristics of the pious, and remember what is taught to him.” (pg 75)

(5) Ibid pp 71-74.

(6) Translation: “And therefore it is necessary for the ruler who wishes to rule justly to have several advisors around him whose characteristics are their dedication, lack of greed and strength in their religious devotions; and they are to be sent to all corners of the realm so that they may see all that is good and bad about it, (and they) must relate the reports from his ministers, and know of the deeds of his commanders as well as his servants, and know of the work of all his subjects; and all this must be conveyed without fail. Therefore the ruler must cultivate such a reliable staff around him.”(pg 72)

(7) Translation: “This means that he (the ruler) has lost his right to sovereignty due to his cruelty.” (pg 73)

(8) Translation: “And all the servants of the king must first of all place their fear in God almighty above all else and before their king, and they must also hope for the bounty of God almighty rather than their king.” (Hussain, pg 150)

(9) Translation: “Verily, Allah taala has demanded (us to be) fair and charitable. For from fairness comes truthfulness in all our deeds and all our words; and from charity comes kindness in all our labour and all our work and all our deeds; and these two virtues are found in all of mankind though in the ruler they are found most of all; and these two virtues, if they are not found in the ruler, then it cannot be said that the ruler is truly a ruler at all.” (pg 67)

(10) Translation: “And therefore the ruler should eat less and sleep less, and the ruler should never submit to his desires, so that he may be able to perform his duties of kingship which are such a great burdensome responsibility unto him.” (pg 71)

(11) Translation: “And whichever king who fails to show pity to his subjects, Allah taala has forbidden him from entering heaven.” (pg 70)

(12)  AC Milner has noted that the in the Taj-us Salatin is the famous injunction: “Because the king is wrong, he has turned his face from Allah, those who deviate from Allah’s law and reject the syariah are enemies of Allah and Allah’s prophet. It is obligatory for us to treat the enemies of Allah as our enemies.” This, in effect, is probably one of the first attempts to give an Islamic license to revolt against one’s ruler in the kerajaan era, by turning a revolt into a holy war. (Milner, 1983, pg 26)

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 11 February 2009, 9:32 pm and is filed under
Farish Noor
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Jeopardising the nation

10 Feb 09

By
Clive Kessler

The Nut Graph

“All great historical events happen twice — the first time as tragedy and the second, at times, as an unnecessary tragedy.”

(A witticism offered with apologies to both Hegel and Marx)

WHATEVER the impertinence, a comment by a not totally clueless outsider who holds Malaysia close in his attachments on the present constitutional crisis in Perak and its national political implications may prove useful and instructive.

Tough legal questions have been raised already with no simple answers. They are questions that serious Malaysian citizens are worried, and have the right to be concerned, about. I am too. Those questions need not be repeated here.

If I were the Sultan

Instead I shall compound my impertinence. Were I, however improbably, to have found myself in the position of the Sultan of Perak on 5 Feb 2009, I would have been strongly tempted — in good conscience and out of an impeccable sense of duty and for the best possible reasons — to have acted just as he did.

But I pray I would have resisted that temptation. I hope that, however tricky that different course might prove in the immediate and short term, I would have allowed the fate of a democratically elected government, under a system of constitutional monarchy, to be decided by the people in one of two ways.

Either on the floor of the people’s house by their own recently elected representatives, or else, if for some reason that was not feasible or acceptable, at an election that might explicitly test public opinion on the question. That way, the newly elected house, whether controlled by the Barisan Nasional or the Pakatan Rakyat, would authoritatively be that of the people’s, with whom modern democratic sovereignty originates.

Whether, as Ruler, I might have forced some resolution of the question on the floor of the house or acceded to the menteri besar’s request for a dissolution and new elections, the prospect in either case would have been one of an immediately heightened political temperature.

Either course would soon have seen mass public demonstrations of allegiance on both sides and, in their train, huge potential problems in maintaining civil peace and public order. That much is undeniable.

Any conscientious ruler or head of state would have to be deeply concerned at such a prospect.

As for the former option, I may be among the few surviving attentive witnesses to a similar episode long ago: the so-called “20 Aug 1968” peristiwa in Kelantan. Then, some half dozen or more PAS state assemblypersons were to have defected and sided with Umno at a sitting of the state assembly in the old Balai Besar in the palace precinct in Kota Baru. It did not happen.

The PAS government of Kelantan was not toppled. The frogs did not jump. They stayed under the sheltering tempurung of the party in whose name they had been elected.

But I still recall the very tense and at times frightening atmosphere as I travelled by motorcycle, through police and army roadblocks, the 25 miles from Bachok to Kota Baru and the roiling, ever-growing crowds that, along with me, were converging ominously there on that fateful morning.

These are not matters to be trifled with nor risks to be taken lightly — least of all by a constitutional head of state with a proper sense of public responsibility and duty. So avoiding that fearful possibility would have been a great temptation, and a not ignoble one. But it is a temptation that I hope I might have resisted. Why?

Learning from Australia

In Australia in 1975, the Governor-General Sir John Kerr chose to act similarly in a similar situation. He insisted on exercising his personal discretion that, as he understood the situation, his constitutional “reserve powers” entitled him to wield. He dismissed a government that arguably still had a majority within the people’s elected house of parliament.

The result was unfortunate, to say the least. It poisoned Australian politics, public culture, and (dare one say it?) the very soul of the nation for a generation. Its effects have not fully worn off away even now.

Malaysia could now be at risk of a similar outcome. I hope not but fear so.

For that reason, a test in the state assembly or snap polls would have been preferable whatever the costs and however messy the shorter-term practicalities of maintaining public order. As a matter of long-term public and national policy, that would have been better than a measure that substituted something else for the verdict of popular will.

In Australia it is now widely recognised that, if the government was not to have fallen on its own, it should not have been peremptorily dismissed. And if it was doomed to fall, as well it may have been, it should have been allowed to do so in the natural course of democratic events, through democratic processes. The impatience to force the issue may have saved a few days or weeks of delay but it plagued the nation with its consequences for thirty years until the matter began to be put decently to rest.

It was not a good deal. Not for anyone. Not for the ousted Prime Minister Gough Whitlam. Not for his successor Malcolm Fraser who never overcame the “legitimacy deficit” that his manner of coming to power caused him. Not for Kerr who went into exile and died amidst widespread ignominy and contempt. Not for Australia, which was made to live for a generation under the shadow of what was widely seen as a quasi- or pseudo-constitutionalist coup against constitutionalism.  And not, therefore, for constitutional principle and process itself.

That is an outcome and fate that Malaysia, I hope, will avoid. The lesson is there already to be learnt from others. The same price need not be paid again.

Malaysia these days has other urgent needs and priorities. It does not need, now to be paid exorbitantly on its own account, this distraction or these afflictions. The lesson is available free, there to be taken “ready off-the-shelf”, from Canberra.

Former Lord President Tun Mohamed Suffian Hashim repeatedly insisted in his foundational written texts that in Malaysia, the constitution and nothing but the constitution is “the supreme law of the land”. Malaysia cannot afford to see constitutional principles imperilled, and constitutional processes jeopardised — not even out of an understandable impatience, or a conscientious determination, to see the urgent political and practical problems of the day speedily resolved.

Clive S Kessler is Emeritus Professor of Sociology and Anthropology at the School of Social Science and International Studies at the University

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 11 February 2009, 8:26 am and is filed under
Election
,
Perak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Karpal agrees on top priority – the two impending  by-elections in Bukit Gantang and Bukit Selambau

Karpal Singh and I, together with Dr. Chen Man Hin, had a hour-long frank, forthright and fruitful discussion last night.

We agreed that the present top priority is to ensure a decisive and overwhelming victory for Pakatan Rakyat in the two forthcoming by-elections in Bukit Gantang parliamentary constituency in Perak and the Bukit Selembau state assembly constituency in Kedah to send a clear and unmistakable message to the Prime Minister, Abdullah Ahmad Badawi and the Prime Minister-in-waiting Najib Razak that the illegal and unconstitutional grab for power in Perak is completely unacceptable as it has further undermined national unity and public confidence when the country should be girding to face the world’s worst economic crisis in 80 years.

There are no fundamental differences in our political objectives and principles as our political relationships go back four decades.

Any differences will be resolved within the party.

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 11 February 2009, 12:46 pm and is filed under
DAP
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Patriotism and Hate-Speeches are Different Things

 By
Farish A. Noor

Nothing stirs the humbug soup better than spurious talk of patriotism and loyalty. The saddest thing of all is that more often than not whenever there is the rallying call to demonstrate one’s patriotism and to show one’s love for the nation, it comes from the most narrow-minded, chauvinistic and intolerant quarters of society.

This was demonstrated in Malaysia recently when political differences between the ruling National Front coalition led by the UMNO party and the opposition People’s Alliance (Pakatan Rakyat) spilled out onto the streets. In the wake of the take-over of the state assembly of the state of Perak by the National Front, several politicians of the People’s Alliance – including veteran opposition politicians like Karpal Singh of the Democratic Action Party and the former Chief Minister of the state Nizar Jamaluddin – cried foul over the means that were used to wrestle control of the state assembly from their hands. Complicating matters was the role of the Sultan of Perak who chose not to dissolve the Perak Assembly but instead allow for a new National Front-led state government in a matter of days.

Now from the wider perspective of world politics, the goings-on in the state of Perak somewhere in North Malaysia may not have even registered a blip on the international news radar. Indeed, years from now the historian may write on the episode and sum it up in one sentence, as an instance of power changing hands in a controversial manner.

But what is alarming was the reaction of the Youth Wing of the UMNO party that reacted to the protests of the opposition party leaders by condemning them for having the temerity to question the process and the role of the Sultan in the debacle.

Among the leaders of the UMNO Youth Wing who were present to further complicate the situation was Khairy Jamaluddin, son-in-law of the Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi who is stepping down from his post as Prime Minister by March this year. Speaking before a crowd of his loyal fans and supporters, Khairy was reported to have asked them “in the past, what did we do to traitors?” – to which they replied “Kill them!”

That chants for death and vengeance can be made in public like this and at a demonstration led by a politician said to have been educated at Oxford suggests that Malaysian politics has reached a new low of late. For a country that once aspired to attain ‘first world status’ and a ‘first world mentality’ – to quote Prime Minister Badawi, father-in-law to Khairy himself – there seems little to suggest that Malaysian politics today has evolved any further than the sorry standards of Bantuland.

When right-wing conservative politicians lead rallies that end with chants for death and retribution, we know that the normative operational rules of democratic politics have been breached and that we are now on a different playing field altogether. One is reminded of the hate-speeches of the Nazis and Fascists of Germany and Italy who likewise claimed the values of Patriotism and love of the nation as exclusively theirs; and who decried and condemned their opponents as the enemies of the state, worthy of banishment, exile, persecution, imprisonment and ultimately death.

Likewise we have seen the same sorry state of affairs in many an other failed state and dysfunctional polity where the democratic process is all but redundant and the rule of law usurped by the might of thugs and squads of goondas instead. Indonesia and the Philippines during the era of Suharto and Marcos witnessed the use of such right-wing stormtroopers who hounded the political enemies of their paymasters; and who were later responsible for a host of attacks, killings and disappearances. In Pakistan, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto contributed to the slide in law and order when he too created his own para-military force to serve the interests of himself and his party; but which ultimately helped only to erode even further the credibility of the state and the process of law in the country.

Is Malaysia heading down the path of these countries too, then? Well thus far it can be surmised that an education at Oxford – sponsored or self-financed – certainly does not serve as a guarantee of a democratic outlook or a mature mindset. Had this been the behaviour of spotty teenagers suffering from hormonal imbalance, one could have dismissed the demonstrations in Perak as a case of stupid boys doing what stupid boys do. But this was a demonstration organised by a political party, led by an aspiring politician, who was savvy enough to realise the full import and gravity of the words he uttered, and cognisant of the emotional effect they were bound to have.

Hate speech is hate speech, even if it is cloaked in the guise of a misguided patriotism. The pressing need at the moment is for Malaysians to reclaim the value and meaning of patriotism again, and not let it be defined solely by those who equate patriotism with love of themselves, their party or their political interests. Should that come to pass, then hope will surely be lost.

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 12 February 2009, 9:20 pm and is filed under
Farish Noor
,
Perak
,
UMNO
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Rulers can be sued – are judges, lawyers, law professors/lecturers to be charged for treason?

The police
questioned
 DAP National Chairman Karpal Singh for two hours yesterday in connection with 89 reports which had been lodged against him nationwide for being disrespectful to the Sultan of Perak over the most simple proposition – that rulers in Malaysia’s system of constitutional monarchy can be taken to court in their official capacities.

This is the height of nonsense in the police and the Home Ministry!

Are all the law professors and  lecturers in the Malaysian universities and colleges going to be questioned by the police for the crime of treason for  teaching their students that rulers can be sued in court for their official capacities?

Are all the judges and the lawyers in the country going to be charged for treason for holding that rulers can be sued in their official capacities?

The Home Minister, Datuk Seri Syed Hamid Albar and  the Inspector-General of  Police, Tan Sri Musa Hassan should be fully aware of this simple legal proposition or they are simply not fit to continue for a single second in   their high positions and in Hamid’s case, everyone must wonder how he got his law qualifications in the first place!

Why then are Hamid and Musa condoning and pandering to such criminal activities in lodging  false police reports against Karpal, which under section 182 of the Penal Code,  are  crimes, as the offence of “false information, with intent to cause a public servant to use his lawful power to the injury of another person”, is liable on conviction to a penalty of six months’ jail, RM2,000 fine or both.

All the 89 persons who had lodged police reports against Karpal had committed the offence of giving false information under Section 182, and the police should have opened investigations to prosecute them, instead of questioning Karpal.

The “illegitimate” MCA Perak State Exco member, Dr. Mah Hang Soon is one of the 89 who should be investigated by the police and prosecuted under the Penal Code, for he had joined the Umno and Umno Youth extremists in  lodging a false report against Karpal in his capacity as Perak MCA Youth leader.

The illegitimate MCA Perak Exco member and the other 88 who had lodged false reports against Karpal cannot be such simpletons that they do not know the law that rulers in Malaysia can be taken to court in their  official capacities.

If they still have doubts, the illegitimate MCA Perak Exco member and the other miscreants need only refer to the article by Dr. Shad Faruqi, Professor of Law at UiTM, in the Star yesterday,
“Legal turmoil over Perak defections”
 where he concluded:

Treason: Opinions are being expressed that to defy the Sultan and to threaten to go to court for defence of one’s legal rights amount to treason and a ground for deprivation of citizenship. There are fundamental misunderstandings here.

From day one of Merdeka, the King and the Sultans were open to civil suit for their official actions. They were only immune personally. In 1993 even the personal immunity was taken away.

In sum it is not a violation of the Constitution to resort to the courts to seek an authoritative opinion on one’s rights and duties. Where else does one go, what else does one do, if one has a claim?

Ignorance of the law is however  no defence for the commission of any crime.  It may go to mitigation, and only if Dr. Mah and the other 88 are prepared to immediately admit remorse and withdraw their false reports forthwith.

Hamid and Musa have again made Malaysia into an international laughing stock. When are they going to make immediate amends?

If Hamid and Musa are not prepared to take immediate action against the 89 (including Dr. Mah) by opening police investigation papers against them, is the Attorney-General Tan Sri Gani Patail who is currently overseas, prepared to restore public confidence in the impartiality and professionalism of the law enforcement agencies by instituting criminal prosecutions against the 89 troublemakers the first thing he returns to his duties?

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 12 February 2009, 3:28 pm and is filed under
DAP
,
Judiciary
,
Law & Order
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Sultans Must Read Their Subjects Well

By
M. Bakri Musa

The current tussle between the Sultan of Perak and his Pakatan Chief Minister is not the first, nor will it be the last, such crises in the country.

Contrary to the assertions of constitutional scholars and legal practitioners, this is not a legal issue.  Its solution does not lie with the court system.  Nor does it require of us to return to the old feudal ways of blind loyalty to the sultan, as some traditionalist would wish.

I am not surprised that Sultan Raja Azlan, a former chief justice, would view this as a legal matter.  However, the reputation and salvation of Raja Azlan specifically, and that of the institution of sultans generally, would require of him to look beyond the law for a solution.  Anything less and he would risk our country degenerating into another Thailand, cursed with endless constitutional and political crises.  Coming as it is during these trying economic times, it would also be a major distraction, one we could do without.

The continued relevance and indeed survival of our sultans depend on their ability to read the rakyats’ mood correctly, not on some cultural traditions, court precedents, or political expedience.

Lessons From The Past

Past experiences have shown that it was rare for the sultans to emerge from these political crises with their reputations enhanced, or the institution of royalty strengthened.  Even when the sultans emerged as heroes, they exposed their blemishes.  Raja Azlan needs to be extra diligent to make this episode the exception.  Thus far it has not been promising.

Consider the Malayan Union fiasco in 1946.  The sultans meekly agreed to the British “suggestion” of turning the country into a dominion.  Whether it was British perfidy or the sultans’ stupidity, the result was the same.  The price tag too was modest:  piddling pensions and perfunctory visits to Buckingham Palace for the sultans.  As a sweetener, just in case, they were awarded the knighthood of some medieval English order.

Fortunately their subjects, then almost exclusively Malays, were not as meek, or easily hoodwinked and cheaply bought.  Under the leadership of the late Datuk Onn, the Malay masses, on the pretext of paying homage, descended upon the palace in Kota Baru where the rulers had gathered.  They effectively prevented the sultans from leaving the premise to ratify the agreement with the new British governor, effectively scuttling the treaty.  Thus ended the brief and naked British power grab.

It was also a devastatingly effective demonstration of the halus (refined) ways of our culture.  Fortunately the sultans correctly read the subtle message from their rakyats.  Good thing too, for had it not been for those village peasants intervening, our sultans would today be reduced to the status of the Sultan of Sulu.  Today’s highflying sultans must be reminded of this – and often – lest they forget, as they are wont to.

Less than a decade later with the Federation of Malaya replacing the Malayan Union, and with the sultans securely ensconced in their palaces, this delicate balance between the ruler and the ruled would once again be tested, this time in the negotiations for independence.  It turned out that our sultans were less than enthusiastic with the idea, at least initially.  Not an unreasonable posture, considering the fate of their brother hereditary rulers in independent India and Indonesia.

Fortunately the sultans again correctly read the rakyats’ mood.  After all, the pro-independence Alliance coalition scored a near unanimous victory in the 1955 general elections.  Despite that, those rulers did not give in easily.  They demanded – and received – assurances that their royal status would be enhanced.  Indeed the Reid Commission tasked with drafting a constitution for the new nation codified the role of the sultans beyond their being mere feudal heads of their respective states.

The new constitution provided for a new national body, The Council of Rulers, headed by a “King” to be chosen from among his brother rulers.  Unlike real kings however, the new Agong would, apart from being “elected,” have a limited tenure of only five years – unheard of for any royalty anywhere.  Further, this Council would have veto authority on legislations passed by the bicameral (House and Senate) Parliament.

Functionally this Council of Rulers would thus be a Third House of Parliament, a miniature House of Lords but with an exclusive membership of only nine sultans.  This enhanced status of the sultans also satisfied the Malay masses, feeding their vanity patriotism of Ketuanan Melayu.

With their now elevated status and considerably more generous civil allowances, our royal families soon acquired regal tastes beyond what they could have imagined in their kampong days.  Now they compare themselves not to the Sultan of Sulu but the Queen of England and oil-rich Middle Eastern potentates.  Actually, closer to the Arab potentates!  Our sultans lack the social finesse and regal restraint of Windsor Castle but have all the excesses and vulgarities of the House of Saud.

Time has a way of eroding the wisdom acquired from earlier experiences.  Royal excesses soon knew no bounds; it would only be a matter of time when the sultans would clash with the elected leaders.  By mid 1980s the sultans would face an adversary in the person of Prime Minister Mahathir, a leader whose heritage and upbringing would put him not in the least in awe of things royal.

On taking on the sultans, Mahathir precipitated a severe constitutional crisis.  He prevailed but the price was high.  Mahathir had to unleash his hound dogs in the mainstream media to uncover every royal transgression, venal and minor, real and imagined, in order to discredit the sultans.  It was not pretty.

While Mahathir effectively clipped the wings of these highflying sultans, they could still fly high and far.  Barred from meddling in political matters, they found a lucrative niche in commerce.  With that they could acquire the latest luxury jets to fly to their favorite distant casinos.

Political Tsunami Impacted the Sultans

Things would have remained the same, with the royals indulging their newfound wealth, had it not been for the political tsunami that swept Malaysia in the March 2008 election.  Sensing a leadership vacuum with the Barisan coalition now crippled, the sultans began flexing their muscles.  Pakatan leaders, uncertain of their new role, did not quite know how to handle these newly assertive sultans.  By default and fearful of appearing to challenge the Malay sultans, Pakatan state leaders readily gave way to the sultans in Perak, Kedah and Selangor.

Even in states where Barisan did not lose, as in Trengganu, the sultan there was not shy in asserting himself.  In no uncertain terms and without any hint of subtlety the Sultan of Trengganu rebuffed the UMNO leadership and succeeded in having an individual more to his liking to be the new chief minister.  Prime Minister Abdullah was impotent; his candidate was summarily rejected by the sultan.

Not to be outdone, a few months later the Sultan of Perak intervened in the micro management of the state over the transfer of a junior functionary in the religious department, on the pretext that matters pertaining to Islam are the exclusive preserve of the sultan.  His claim was not challenged.

Nature abhors a vacuum; a weakened Barisan and as yet uncertain Pakatan Rakyat created this opportunity for the sultans to reassert themselves.

What surprised me is that this power grab is being led by a sultan who is generally acknowledged as the most enlightened of the lot, having served as the nation’s chief justice and who has as his crown prince an intellect schooled in the finest universities of the West.  That they chose to revert to their feudal past given the slightest chance was a great disappointment.

This power struggle between the sultans and the political elite, and among the political leaders, would not interest me except that it deeply polarizes Malaysians.  That this polarization transcends race is no consolation.

After over half a century of dominant one-party rule, the country unsurprisingly has difficulty adjusting to the possibility of a minority or even change in government.  This adjustment is most difficult on current leaders.  Things would have been difficult even if the sultans were to play their constitutionally assigned role of honest brokers, but with their trying to reassert themselves, it makes for a combustible combination.

The other consequence to this power struggle is that the institution of sultan will never again be the same.  The oxymoronic expression of ousted Perak Mentri Besar Nizar Jamaluddin, “Patek menyembah memohon derhaka!” (roughly translated, “Pardon me for my peasant insurrection!”) will now be part of our lexicon.  More significantly, his Jebat-like stance has all the makings of a modern day Malay heroism.  This powerful imagery is now indelibly etched in our Malay psyche.

It is not the sight of citizens giving the Perak crown prince the middle finger that stunned me rather that this was done so openly, spontaneously, and in-your-face style.  The sultan’s website (put up initially to demonstrate a royal family very much in tune with its Internet savvy citizens) had to be deactivated as it was quickly filled with shocking insults.  Even former Prime Minister Mahathir felt compelled to condemn those attacks.

It matters not; the genie is now out of the bottle.  The sultans are now no longer what they once were.  I do not lament this; I just hope that the sultans recognize this sea change in their subjects.

Nor do I miss the days of a strong and dominant government.  That would be good only if the leaders were fair, honest and competent.  Saddam Hussein’s government was strong and dominant; look at the devastations it created.

Canada has a tradition for minority governments, and its citizens are not at all ill served by that.  Indeed there is considerable merit in having a divided or minority government.  That would be the most effective system of checks and balances.

With a deeply polarized citizenry, the days of a supra majority government are gone.  It is for this reason we must have an institution like the sultan that can act as an honest broker so as to maintain political neutrality and stability.  Now that too is gone. That is what disappoints me most with this latest political crisis in Perak.

If a sultan as enlightened as Raja Azlan could not disentangle himself from this political morass, we have little hope that the other sultans would be any better.

There is a silver lining to all this.  Thanks to Nizar’s Jebat-like stance of “Patek menyembah mohon derhaka!” Malaysia will never degenerate into an absolute monarchy.  In times like this, we have to savor such blessings!

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 12 February 2009, 11:36 am and is filed under
Bakri Musa
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Bukit Gantang/Selambau by-elections on April 7 – another example of craven subservience of Election Commission to serve Umno interests

The Election Commission has provided another example of its craven subservience to serve Umno interests in fixing the simultaneous nomination and polling dates for the Bukit Gantang parliamentary seat in Perak and the Bukit Selambau state assembly seat in Kedah on March 29 and April 7 respectively.

Clearly, the fractious and internecine Umno party elections until March 28 had been the primary  consideration of the  Election Commission when deciding on the two by-election dates, so that the by-election campaign for the two constituencies will be held after the Umno party elections and Datuk Seri Najib Razak has officially taken over UMNO and become the sixth Prime Minister of Malaysia.

But these are the very considerations which an independent and self-respecting   Election Commission has no business to take into account when fixing election dates, as it has only reinforced strong public perceptions that the Election Commission is a mere Umno tool at the beck-and-call of the top Umno leadership.

The Election Commission has made dubious history in the fixing of the election dates for the Bukit Gantang and Bukit Selambau by-elections, stretching to the constitutional limit of the 60 days when they should be filled from the date of vacancy.

The by-elections of the Bukit Gantang and Bukit Selambau constituencies will be held on the 57th day from their vacancy, as compared to the 27th day for the Permatang Pauh by-election and the 51st day for the Kuala Terengganu by-election.

In his six weeks as the new Election Commission Chairman  Tan Sri Abdul Aziz  Mohd Yusof had taken two decisions which have further undermined public confidence in the independence, professionalism and integrity of the Election Commission as they clearly serve Umno’s political agenda – the unconstitutional rejection of the Perak Speaker’s decision on the resignation of two PKR state assemblymen/executive councilors resulting in two state assembly vacancies (facilitating Najib’s illegal and unconstitutional grab for power in Perak) and today’s decision to fix the by-election dates calculated to best serve the political interests of Umno.

The Election Commission should reconsider to fix earlier by-election dates to demonstrate that it is not beholden to any political party’s dictates – even coming from Umno!

                This entry was posted on Friday, 13 February 2009, 1:34 pm and is filed under
Election
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Zambry – dissolve State Assembly or go down in history as the infamous “illegitimate Perak MB” and dragging with him Najib

Datuk Zambry Abdul Kadir should cut the Gordian knot of the Perak political crisis by agreeing to the dissolution of the Perak State Assembly or he will go down in history as the infamous “illegitimate Perak Mentri Besar” and dragging with him Najib Razak.

If Zambry is a democrat and believes that he has the mandate from the voters of Perak to be Mentri Besar, he should not have any qualm  in opting for the only decent, honest and honourable solution to the political crisis – dissolution of the Perak State Assembly to return the mandate to the Perak voters to elect the Mentri Besar and government of their choice.

Zambry should know better than anyone that the illegal and unconstitutional power grab orchestrated by the Prime Minister-in-waiting, Datuk Seri Najib Razak, is a great disservice to the cause of the healthy growth of parliamentary democracy in the country.

This is because Zambry should have realized by now that he has no credibility and legitimacy whatsoever as the Perak Mentri Besar among the people of Perak and Malaysia – which explains why he had such a short fuse in his first media conference as the illegitimate Mentri Besar of Perak on Tuesday.

Najib might have thought that with the  toppling of the Pakatan Rakyat state government and the undemocratic power grab in Perak, he has achieved a great coup which will redound to his credit in the UMNO general assembly next month when he is formally anointed Umno President and the sixth Prime Minister of Malaysia.

But he cannot be more wrong. Times have changed.  Najib’s calculations might be right if such an undemocratic coup d’etat  had been orchestrated in the past half-century, but in the era of the information age, where the people are not only exposed to more information but have higher expectations about accountability, transparency, rule of law, democracy and good governance, the illegal and unconstitutional power grab like the one orchestrated by Najib in Perak is completely unacceptable.

Najib is going to pay a very heavy price as he would be forfeiting the  privileges of  his  First Hundred Days when he takes over as the sixth Prime Minister of Malaysia, for his every word and action as the new Prime Minister will come under the dark cloud because of  his  undemocratic, illegal and unconstitutional coup d’etat in Perak.

The
recent opinion poll by Merdeka Centre that 74% of Perak voters
 felt that the state assembly should be dissolved to pave way for elections while 76% of voters felt that “the people, through elections” should decide on forming the Perak state government sends out clear and unmistakable messages of the people.

The choice is in the hands of Zambry, whether he wants to go down in history as the infamous “illegitimate Perak Mentri Besar” dragging Najib along with him or whether he is prepared to subordinate personal interests to the higher interests of Perak and democracy by agreeing to the dissolution of the Perak State Assembly to end the political crisis in Perak, which will also release Najib from the millstone of the illegal and unconstitutional power grab in Perak.

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 14 February 2009, 12:17 pm and is filed under
Constitution
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


A Betrayal of People’s Trust in Perak – Party Hopping in Perak

By

Dr Toh Kin Woon

The Edge Business Weekly

At the time of writing this article, I learned from the electronic media that 3 State Assemblypersons from the Pakatan Rakyat (PR) in the Perak State Legislative Assembly have resigned from their respective parties. 2 of them resigned from Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR) while the third left the Democratic Action Party (DAP). According to the Deputy Prime Minister, Dato Seri Najib Tun Abdul Razak, these 3 will be ‘Barisan Nasional (BN) friendly’ independents in the State Legislative Assembly. By this is meant that they will support the BN, even though they are ‘independents’. Their so-called independence is not so independent after all! Meanwhile, the State Assemblyperson from the constituency of Bota, who earlier announced his resignation from UMNO to join PKR, has now returned to UMNO. With these shifts, the number of seats held by the PR has now been reduced from 31, all popularly elected by the people in the last General Election, to 28. The BN still keeps its original 28, with the remaining 3 having declared themselves as so-called independents.

His Majesty the Sultan’s Decision

Confronted with this new balance of forces, the Menteri Besar (MB) from the PR has rightly called on His Majesty the Sultan of Perak to dissolve the Assembly so that fresh elections can be called to resolve the impasse.. But His Majesty rejected the MB’s call. Instead, he has consented to appoint a leader of the BN, which has all but one of its assemblypersons from UMNO, to be the new MB. In fact, the new MB has already been sworn in. This decision of His Majesty the Sultan is likely to cause widespread
frustration and disappointment among his subjects in Perak and people in the rest of the country. If public opinion polls are anything to go by, an overwhelming majority of the people would like fresh elections to be called. They would like the power to decide who, from which political party, should represent them in the State Legislative Assembly, be returned to them. By not giving the royal assent to dissolve the Perak State Legislative Assembly, as requested by the Menteri Besar from the PR, His Royal Highness has denied the people their right to choose their representatives to the Assembly. Some legal experts have also argued that the MB from PR cannot be asked to step down until a motion of no-confidence has been passed in the State Legislative Assembly against him and his government. Many precedents have confirmed this legal view.

Why Such Misdemeanour among the Party Hoppers?

Hopping from one party to another, dubbed as turncoatism in the Philippines, has happened frequently in Malaysia. Often, those who jump from one party to another do not have the decency to resign to allow for by-elections to be called. Perhaps, they are discouraged from doing so as the law in Malaysia does not allow a sitting member of the legislature who resigns to contest an election until 5 years later. But by not resigning his or her legislative position after quitting the party under whose banner a state assemblyperson was elected, he or she has committed several major errors. One is to betray the trust of the people who elected him or her. The other is to deny the people’s right of evaluating the action of the legislator and the party that enticed him or her over, as well as who should represent them in the legislature. Often, some legislators forget that the legislature they sit in is called in some countries as the House of Representatives, that is, they are representatives of the people. But, why do some legislators hop from one party to another, one might ask? One is political opportunism. They jump because of pecuniary gains offered by the party, usually the ruling or would be the ruling party, should he or she cross over to it. The party that lures them to cross over might have promised them a high position in the government or even lots of cash. It could also be that their shift of allegiance is the result of a bargain not to pursue an action against the hopping legislator, who has been charged or is under investigation for a criminal offence. Some hop because of irreconcilable differences with some of their old party leaders. These differences could be personal, or due to the hoppers being by-passed for senior positions in the government. There are the odd cases, however, of people leaving because they could no longer agree with the political principles, positions and practices of their colleagues in the party from which they have resigned. These people leave their party over principles and not for opportunistic or personal reasons.

The Essence of Democracy

Among the reasons, it is the party hopping for personal monetary or political gains on the part of the hopper, and gaining state power on the part of the party that lures them over, that is most despicable. People generally despise such behaviour, both on the part of the party that lures the hoppers and the hoppers themselves. What has happened in Perak was a case of the BN luring a few PR State Assemblypersons to cross over to its fold in order to gain control of the state government. This is clearly a very undemocratic way to gain power, for democracy, in its classical meaning, is “rule by the people”. In an effort to explain how it is technically possible for the people to rule, Joseph Schumpeter came up with his pathbreaking empirical and procedural definition of democracy, or more precisely the democratic method, as “that institutional arrangement for arriving at political decisions in which individuals acquire the power to decide by means of a competitive struggle for the people’s vote.” So seeking the people’s votes or support to gain state power is the key essence of democracy, and not by way of luring elected representatives to jump ship.

How Can We Stop Unprincipled Party Hopping?

Luring is one thing. The legislators targeted must not be so easily lured. One way to achieve this is for political parties to strengthen their political programmes and ideology and take steps to ensure that their members, especially those who seek elected legislative office, not only subscribe but are committed to them. A good example of a party with a strong ideological base is PAS. We may not agree with its ideology, but it has to be acknowledged that all who have joined PAS are committed to fighting for the party’s cause. This explains why the PAS government managed to survive in Kelantan, despite having the slimmest of slim majority of only one during the latter part of its tenure from 2004 to 2008. I am sure attempts must have been made then to get a few of its state assemblypersons to leave, yet none of the PAS representatives took the bait. This was because they were all ideologically committed to the cause of PAS. To reduce crossovers, political parties must, therefore, have a strong ideology, which must then be inculcated in the party’s leaders and members. The socialist parties of yesteryears used to have a strong ideological base, too. Party members chosen to contest for elections must also have strong ethics and morals. If they have, they will know that betraying the party for opportunistic reasons is both immoral and unethical, even if it is not yet illegal. Another way is to have an anti-hopping law, which makes party hopping illegal. This is not likely as long as the BN is in control of the Federal Government. Still another way is for the people to send a strong message of disapproval to the party that has frustrated and denied them their choice of the party or coalition they have elected to govern. The BN has, in this instance, denied the people of Perak their choice of PR as the party to govern them. The BN must be told in no uncertain terms that this action is undemocratic, unethical and immoral. Those who have jumped and betrayed them for personal gains must also be rejected. I am sure and confident that this is what the people are going to do and will do in the next General Election.

(The author is currently a visiting research fellow under the Asian Public Intellectuals’ Senior Fellowship at the University of the Philippines in Diliman and the Ateneo de Manila University)

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 15 February 2009, 6:42 pm and is filed under
Perak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Forum – “Perak Coup D’etat: What Say You?”

Public Forum : “Perak Coup D’etat : What Say You?”

Date : 17th Feb 2009 (Tuesday)

Time : 8:00pm

Venue : Dewan Hamzah, Majlis Perbandaran Klang, Klang

Speakers : Ngeh Koo Ham

                 A. Sivanesan

                 Lim Kit Siang

                 Khalid Samad

                 Dr. Dzulkifli Ahmad

                 Haris Ibrahim

                 Charles Santiago

Organiser: Office of Klang Member of Parliament

Please contact Yap (016-2026300) / Sarah (016-6267797) for any enquiries.

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 15 February 2009, 5:32 pm and is filed under
Constitution
,
Perak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Privacy and Our Political Culture

By
Farish A. Noor

Politics, we must remember, is something that takes place in the public domain. And it is in that public domain that politicians are judged for their actions, good and bad, right and wrong. The worth of a politician and his/her standing depends entirely on his/her conduct in the execution of the responsibilities that have been entrusted upon them by the public who voted them into office. And if they fail in the execution of those duties, then we the public have every justifiable right to demand an explanation from them. In the final analysis, it is we the public who determine the fate of the politicians we elect to represent us, and never vice-versa.

Politics, however, has its limits and the frontier of the political ends where the private domain begins. Politicians are human beings and it would be the mistake of the public to assume and expect our politicians to behave in a manner that is extraordinary by public standards. For that simple reason the public also has no right to expect politicians to be and remain politicians every hour, every day and every year of their lives; for politicians too have every right to be human and to have the privacy that we expect for ourselves. In the same way that we hope and wish that our elected representatives will defend the privacy of our lives, so should we extend that very same right to them, for they too are ultimately citizens like the rest of us.

It is therefore sad, to say the least, that the level of Malaysian politics and political culture has descended to a new low with the latest revelation of yet another sex scandal that involves a democratically elected state assemblywoman serving in the state government of Selangor, Ms Elizabeth Wong. This comes not too long after another sordid scandal involving another politician – Chua Soi Lek – who was likewise scandalised by revelations of his private life being made public. In both cases one can only assume that the motivation behind this intrusion into the private domain was political in nature.

Much has already been written about the two cases and the facts remain unclear over what actually happened in the case of the unfortunate Ms Wong, so I will not dwell upon that here.

My contention however is this: When will we Malaysians come to understand and accept the fact that living in a modern plural constitutional democracy means having to respect the private space and private lives of all citizens, be they politicians or shopkeepers? Political motivations aside, the core of the matter is that another Malaysian citizen has had her private space intruded into and has been personally violated in the most abusive and despicable manner. This is something that no-one should relish, not even for the worst of our enemies. When it happens to a politician whose commitment to democracy and human rights is well known to all, then our sense of moral outrage should be all the greater.

Let us remind ourselves of the simple fact that the private lives of the victims in question have been without any taint whatsoever. Ms Wong is an adult woman who is capable of making decisions and choices of her own, and like any of us she is entitled to live her private life in the manner she sees fit. No crime has been committed, no public funds embezzled, no state secrets revealed and no Mongolian models blown to bits. The pathetic demonstration of moral outrage on the part of some conservative quarters should therefore be exposed for what it is: an instance of gross hypocrisy and double-standards at their most vile.

In the wake of the elections of March 2008, Malaysian society has demonstrated our desire for change, and for a new politics that befits and mirrors the new Malaysia we live in. This was the clearest call ever for a new political culture where feudalism, corruption, nepotism, hypocrisy and double standards are done away with once and for all. We are sick and tired of the vacuous moral claims of those who speak of morality and religion on the one hand, while robbing the state and eroding our fundamental human rights at the same time.

Defending the private lives and private spaces of our politicians is therefore part and parcel of the process to regain and defend the private domain of all Malaysians, where we may live, love, pray, hope and strive for the betterment of ourselves and the fulfilment of our destinies in peace. It is that fundamental right that entitles us to be what we are. No human being should be denied that privacy for the loss of that privacy entails the loss of something greater: the loss of the right simply to be what we are. The entire democratic process and democratic endeavour rests on that.

For now however, it is our moral obligation to rally in support for a fellow Malaysian whose right to privacy has been violated. Let us not be indecisive here, for we clearly know who has been the victim. For those whose lives have been violated thus, one can only imagine the personal anguish they must be going through.

History books tell us that when King Charles the First faced his penultimate judgement, he was robbed of all his rights and dignity. King Charles was known to be a man who stuttered and faltered whenever he spoke; but at that defining moment of his life when his very existence was at stake, he delivered what was said to be the most eloquent speeches he ever gave; which til today ranks as one of the most beautiful and elegant pieces of prose in the English language.

Each and every one of us will sooner or later face such a defining moment in our lives, when our mettle will be tested and when we will finally realise who and what we are and what resources we possess. Perhaps this is the defining moment for Ms Wong. We hope that she will meet this challenge with the dignity that she possesses, and emerge stronger. So chin up, Elizabeth; and keep a smile on your face. Don’t let the detractors get you down. The struggle for a better Malaysia has just begun, and there is still a long road ahead.

                This entry was posted on Monday, 16 February 2009, 10:45 pm and is filed under
Politics
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.