Rights and liberties

Yes, many of you were probably wondering why of late the tone of my articles have been different. Why don’t I write about corruption and the sexual misconduct of government leaders like I used to? Well, there is a time for that and there is a time to talk about a coherent opposition if we seriously want to see a change of government. And now is the time to talk about a coherent opposition so that we can realise our dreams of seeing a change of government.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

What do you understand regarding rights and liberties? I know each of us has a different understanding of rights and liberties and many are still grappling with the issue and are trying to come to terms with what are rights and liberties and what are actually the reverse of this.

If, for instance, your neighbour breaks into your home with a gang of four, robs you, gang-rapes your wife and forces you and all your children to watch, and then murders your entire family, would this not also be considered his right and liberty?

I mean, in his mind and that of his gang, you are an enemy (because, although you are a Malaysian-born Chinese, you have an American citizenship) and your country, the United States, has just attacked a Muslim country and the mullahs of that country have issued afatwah that spilling American blood is halal (kosher). So, all they are doing is to uphold their religious beliefs and since Malaysia has declared itself an Islamic country then the needs of Islam comes first.

We, of course, have to now talk about morality and the laws of the land. No doubt, the hypothetical scenario above makes absolute sense from the jihadist point of view. But then we need to also take into consideration the issue of morality and the laws of the land.

Morally, it is wrong to rob, rape and murder, never mind what your religious beliefs may be and never mind what you may perceive as the religiously-correct thing to do. These are universally accepted moral values and which must override religious considerations. But then what if you strongly believe that religion must instead override universal moral values and not vice versa? Don’t you have a right to practice your religious beliefs even though they may violate universally accepted moral values?

This is a debate that has split the religionists and the moralists since time immemorial and was why the term ‘moral relativism’ was coined. Moral relativism is basically the concept of morals being relative -- relative to time, region, norms of that particular society, religious values, and so on.

For example, hundreds of years ago, baptising pagan babies and then bashing their heads against a rock to send them straight to heaven was morally correct. Even the Pope thought it was a great way to save the souls of pagan babies: meaning, doing them a great favour.

Okay, now we come to the laws of the land. What if the laws of the land say that you have freedom of choice? Does this freedom of choice extend to all and sundry or are certain things excluded? For example, when there is a contradiction between the laws of the land and religious laws, which overrides which? And what happens when the third factor, moral values, contradicts both the laws of the land as well as religious laws? Which of the three would apply?

As you can see, this is not an easy problem to solve. We have moral values, religious values, and the laws of the land. And sometimes not all three are on the same page. So what values do we adopt? Do we use our conscience as our guide (moral values)? Do we look to God for the answer (religious values)? Or do we become law-abiding citizens (follow the laws of the land)?

The laws of the land are not always morally or religiously correct. For example, detention without trial is legal in Malaysia. That is a law passed by Parliament. So what’s wrong if the government detains you without trial on mere suspicion that you may (or may not) have done something wrong or, even if you have not done anything wrong yet, you may (or may not) be planning to do something wrong in the future (and the ISA is a preventive law so it is legally correct to detain you on mere suspicion that you may or may not be planning to do something wrong in future).

Okay, we can argue that both moral and religious values are opposed to detention without trial as well as preventive detention. We don’t care what the law says. Anyway, the law is an ass, as the saying goes. So we must oppose the ISA on grounds that it is both morally and religiously wrong.

But would this not make you an immoral person? You have no respect for the law that has been passed by Parliament. And Parliament has the power to pass laws. And the party that wins the majority seats in an election gets to form the government and decides its policies. And, since the voters have given the mandate to the government, are you not morally wrong in not respecting the wishes of the voters?

In short, it is morally wrong for you to oppose the government that does things through the proper legal process when they have received the mandate from the voters to do so, even if what the government does is wrong. Can you, the minority, oppose the will of the majority? If the answer is ‘yes’, then democracy is morally and religiously wrong? But is it?

So, there are two contradicting moral values here. One is your interpretation of what is moral based on universal moral values, or based on religious values, and the other is the moral value regarding the legitimate right of the government to pass laws (even bad laws) in Parliament. So, whose moral values take precedence: your morals values or the moral values of the voters who gave the government the mandate to pass bad laws in Parliament?

Not an easy puzzle to figure out, is it?

And this is why we face difficulties in galvanising a coherent opposition front. Some of us look at things from the point of view of universal moral values. Some apply religious values. And some respect the laws of the land (if not the country would suffer anarchy and mob rule) even if those laws are draconian and repressive until such a time when Parliament repeals those laws though the proper legal process.

I apply universal moral values even if my values may oppose religious values or the laws of the land. This may make me a bad Muslim (heretic, apostate, etc.) or an anarchist (who does not respect the law of the land). So be it. If it is wrong from the universal moral value point of view then I will oppose if even if religion or the law of the land endorses it. And I strongly believe that the opposition front, too, has to agree on and adopt universal moral values as its platform for reforms. If not we will never see a coherent opposition front.

Are the opposition leaders brave enough to do this? If they are not then the opposition will always remain the opposition and will never get to form the federal government. That is the long and short of it all. The opposition will never win the confidence of the voters if each of the parties in the opposition front speaks on different pages. They must all speak on the same page.

Yes, many of you were probably wondering why of late the tone of my articles have been different. Why don’t I write about corruption and the sexual misconduct of government leaders like I used to? Well, there is a time for that and there is a time to talk about a coherent opposition if we seriously want to see a change of government. And now is the time to talk about a coherent opposition so that we can realise our dreams of seeing a change of government.

And are you, the readers of Malaysia Today, also ready to talk about this? Or are you only interested in reading articles about the sleaze of those who walk in the corridors of power? I can do that as well but rest assured that that is not going to help see a change in government or else it would have happened back in March 2008.