The long and the short of it

But what will happen, say, in 2057, 100 years after Merdeka, when the children and grandchildren of those three million pendatang -- who by then may number five million and hold Malaysian identity cards because they were born in Malaysia -- all want to vote as overseas voters although they had left the country a long time ago and never once went back to Malaysia?

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

There are those who oppose the Islamic criminal law of Hudud. When we ask them as to why they oppose Hudud they will reply that it is because under the Hudud law they cut off the hands of thieves. Hence Hudud is a very barbaric law. Rather than cut off the hands of thieves they should instead be killed with a bullet in the head like what they do to highway robbers and other thieves in China, corrupt officials and female robbers included.

Well, I suppose a bullet in the head is less barbaric than having to live with only one hand.

Let’s say for argument’s sake I argue: so what if they cut off the hands of thieves? Why are you so worried about that if you are not a thief? Aren’t you the ones who are complaining about the extremely high crime rate in Malaysia? Aren’t you the ones alleging that the police are not doing their job? Maybe we need a law such as Hudud to solve the serious crime problem that appears to be spinning out of control.

Only thieves should be worried about and oppose Hudud. If you are so opposed to Hudud then that can only mean one thing -- you are a thief. If you are not a thief then why are you so opposed to Hudud? And it appears like more non-Malays than Malays oppose Hudud. This can only mean that there are more non-Malay thieves than Malay thieves.

I suppose this statement makes as much sense as the statement that if you do not support Pakatan Rakyat then you must be a Barisan Nasional supporter (if you do not support Hudud then you must be a thief). There can be no other logical reason for you to not support Pakatan Rakyat just like there can be no other logical reason for you to not support Hudud.

Can you see that when we apply your same logic to another situation your logic no longer sounds logical?

And that is the problem with many of you. Your logic is not universal. It can be used only to support your prejudiced view but when applied to another argument it sounds real silly.

The Sedition Act and the Internal Security Act are draconian laws. Why are they draconian laws? Well, because these laws are used against the opposition, to stifle dissent, and to deny Malaysians their freedom of speech. Hence the Sedition Act and the Internal Security Act must be abolished. And if Pakatan Rakyat ever takes over the federal government this is one of the first things they must do -- abolish the Sedition Act and the Internal Security Act.

However, before they abolish these laws, they must first be used against those on the ‘other side’. Once those from the ‘other side’ have been dealt with only then should these laws be abolished.

In fact, if Pakatan Rakyat takes over, we should implement Hudud and use that law to cut off the hands of those crooks from the ruling party. Once all their hands have been cut off we can then abolish the Hudud law.

What are we fighting for? We are fighting for justice. And how do we get justice? We get justice by abolishing bad laws and by reforming the system. Should we do all that now? No, we do that only after we have taken revenge on our enemies. Is revenge justice? Yes, but only if taken against the other side, not if taken against our own people.

It is not fair that Malaysians who have left the country for longer than five years and have not returned to the country for at least 30 days over those five years are not allowed to vote as an overseas voter. Even if those Malaysians left the country 30 or 40 years ago and never once went back to Malaysia they should still be allowed to vote (as long as they still have an identity card, of course, because you need this to vote).

What happens if one million of the three million foreigners who now possess Malaysian identity cards go home to their original countries? Can they be allowed to vote as overseas voters? Your entitlement to vote depends on you possessing a Malaysian identity card. Hence if you have a Malaysian identity card then you are entitled to vote.

And what happens if these people had left Malaysia more than ten years ago and never once came back to Malaysia? Should they still be allowed to vote?

You may argue that they should not be allowed to vote because although they possess Malaysian identity cards they were not born in Malaysia. Ah, but then their children were. Their children possess Malaysian identity cards that show they were born in Malaysia although they left Malaysia ten years ago and now live in another country. So why can’t they be allowed to vote?

Back in 1957, when Malaya first gained independence, the Chinese and Indians came from China and India and were given Malaysian citizenship. Subsequently, the children of those ‘pendatang’ were born in the country. Hence the descendants of these pre-1957 immigrants are Malaysian born and should not be called ‘pendatang’.

Agreed, it is wrong to call the present generation Malaysians of Chinese and Indian descent ‘pendatang’. Their parents or grandparents may have been pendatang back in 1957. But the present crop of Malaysian-born Chinese and Indians are not pendatang and should not be treated as pendatang or called ‘pendatang’.

But what will happen, say, in 2057, 100 years after Merdeka, when the children and grandchildren of those three million pendatang -- who by then may number five million and hold Malaysian identity cards because they were born in Malaysia -- all want to vote as overseas voters although they had left the country a long time ago and never once went back to Malaysia?

Sometimes we need to look short term, such as over the next two months leading to the coming general election. Sometimes we need to look long term, say 30 years down the road. And sometimes we need to balance between short-term and long-term goals.

When the government came out with its education policy it looked short term and not long term. And now, many years down the road, we are paying for this short-sighted and short-term strategy.

But the damage has been done. It is not going to be that easy to rectify things. It may take a whole generation to correct our mistakes of the past -- and even then only if we are prepared to bite the bullet and are prepared to suffer the high casualty rate.

Are we prepared to allow the Malays to become casualties in the interest of a better education system based on meritocracy? Neither Najib Tun Razak nor Anwar Ibrahim would dare say ‘yes’ to this question.

Things are going to get worse before they become better. The cure may be as painful as the disease. But I am sure neither Barisan Nasional nor Pakatan Rakyat would be prepared to take the risk of a political fallout out if they try to change the education system and see Malays fall by the wayside because they are just not good enough.

It is like promising no taxation and promising to give all the oil money back to the states. How would we finance the country? No doubt that type of promise is going to help win votes. But what do you do after you win the votes?

To make money we need to plant oil palm trees. To plant oil palm trees we need to burn down the forests. When we burn down the forests we create an ecological problem. So we don’t burn down the forests to prevent an ecological problem. But since we don’t burn down the forests we can’t plant oil palm trees. And because we can’t plant oil palm trees we can’t make money.

Life is full of vicious cycles. And Malaysia can win the gold medal in vicious cycles if that happened to be an event in the Olympic games.

*****************************************

Use of Sedition Act is wrong

Yin Shao Loong, The Malaysian Insider

Bar Council president Lim Chee Wee stated that the Sedition Act should be used on Ibrahim Ali because the latter had advocated the burning of bibles.

Even though Lim acknowledged that the Bar holds that the law should be repealed, it should nonetheless be used against Ibrahim if the government is charging opposition leaders such as Karpal Singh under it.

Burning any book as a political act is vulgar, uncultured and should be condemned. Invoking the use of a draconian law to punish book burning, or incitement to burn books, is a capitulation to authoritarianism.

By taking this stance, Lim and the Bar he leads have undermined any claim to principled opposition to the Sedition Act. Their rationale is akin to those who proposed maintaining the Internal Security Act (ISA) so it could be used one last time against the puppet master of Operation Lallang.

Even if Lim’s intent was to underline how the present government selectively enforces the law, his argument was poorly chosen because it was based on the logic that two wrongs would make a right.

The Sedition Act has been a convenient and objectionable tool of authoritarian power in Malaysia due to its broad applicability against anything that could be construed as raising ill-will or hostility within society or against the authorities.

Anyone can claim they had feelings of ill-will or hostility raised by someone’s statement or action, proceed to file a police report, and have someone investigated for sedition. Of course, the odds of successful prosecution would improve if the accused happened to be someone not favoured by the government.

Historically, sedition was associated with absolutist monarchies. Undemocratic governments criminalise sedition because they fear dissent will destabilise authority based on force, heredity or property. The rule of the few over the many requires some form of institutionalised discrimination, fear and suppression of criticism.

Democracies incorporate criticism into their system of government and allow the many to use their votes to initiate peaceful, orderly changes in government.

As long as I have known it, the Bar Council has stood for the principled movement towards full-fledged constitutional democracy in Malaysia. Supporting the use of the Sedition Act is a backward step contrary to human rights.

Lim has already noted that any book-burning act or incitement to such act can be prosecuted under those sections of the Penal Code that deal with abetment and trespass.

Additionally, sections 298 and 298A of the Penal Code deal with acts designed to cause hurt on religious grounds, section 504 covers intentional insult with intent to provoke a breach of the peace, and section 505 refers to statements promoting public mischief.

It is reasonable to file a police report, or call for laws to be employed, where the actions in question are criminal, excluding those legitimate forms of dissent criminalised by the Sedition Act, ISA, Printing Presses and Publications Act, and so forth.

One group of citizens is opposing the barbaric act of book burning by inviting people to join in reading holy books — any books, in fact — under the trees at KLCC park on Sunday.

Others have filed a police report against Ibrahim, citing many of the Penal Code sections referred to above, but without recourse to the Sedition Act or any of its repressive bedfellows.

These are civilised means of opposing an uncivilised act.

If we want to move Malaysia out of the shadow of authoritarianism we cannot condone the very methods of authoritarianism. This means that race-baiting, repressive laws and impunity must be abandoned in favour of principled debate, peaceful protest, accountability and reform.