Natural justice and unnatural fear

Pak Bui

“Teoh Beng Hock is no different from millions of ordinary Malaysians. This country must treasure their lives and contributions, just as the Federal Constitution must ensure their fundamental rights and their right to live.

“Nobody’s life should suffer deprivation and be snatched away, in the land one was born (in). Nobody should experience any form (of) institutional torture and violence, just as the respect for the dignity of life and the protection of human rights is the benchmark of a nation’s greatness,” said Teoh Lee Lan, sister of the late Teoh Beng Hock, in an open letter from her family to the Prime Minister (PM) Najib Razak.

“This (by-election) is bigger than Teoh Beng Hock, this is about the future of Malaysia, the future of all of us, the future of our next generation. Don’t gamble away our future. The opposition cannot govern this country,” said PM Najib Razak, at an afternoon tea party at SJK (C) Labis, while trying to win Chinese votes for BN, leading up to the by-election in Tenang, Johor.

The voice of conscience

We all possess an inner voice that tells us certain things are right and wrong. We ignore our conscience at our peril. Some Malaysians, including Najib, have kept their conscience so distant that they have convinced themselves they can do as they please.

But even if we suppress our inner voice, other Malaysians still live by their conscience. This is why Umno and Barisan Nasional (BN) suffered unprecedented losses in the 12^th general election in 2008.

“Each man’s death diminishes me, for I am involved in mankind,” wrote John Donne nearly four centuries ago. All Malaysians ought to feel some loss for Teoh Beng Hock’s unjust death, after interrogation and torture by the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission or MACC.

There is nothing “bigger” than the death of a blameless young Malaysian. He had committed no crime, but had been summoned as an MACC ‘witness’. He had merely been another young idealist, trying to improve the lives of others.

That Najib thinks a by-election is “bigger” than the lives of ordinary Malaysians, is a sign of his political cynicism and self-interested world view. He cannot see past the importance of Umno staying in power, in order to protect himself, his wife and his decaying party.

The utilitarian argument

Najib and others like him might think that a Royal Commission of Inquiry (RCI) into Teoh’s death would be damaging to the MACC. The MACC and other so-called ‘Malay’ institutions like the police and the civil service perform the tasks dictated by Najib and Umno.

Therefore, any move to penalise the MACC for Teoh’s death, according to Umno’s world view, would be harmful to Umno’s interests, and would have terrible knock-on effects in terms of further diminshing Umno’s support.

This is a routine use of utilitarianism. This ethical principle holds that our actions should be guided by the consequences or results of the actions. According to this tenet, an ethical action is one that contributes to the greatest happiness of the greatest number of people, or causes least unhappiness to the smallest number of people.

Any action, no matter how abhorrent, can be excused by the utilitarian principle. Nazis killed millions of Jews, Gypsies and Slavs in the last century, but this can be excused by the ‘happiness’ it brought to the greater majority of Germans in the Third Reich. Eugenics might dispose of babies born with disabilities, but this is all in favour of the greater good. And so on, so the argument goes.

The categorical imperative

Immanuel Kant takes a different position. He argues that all ethical actions of people of good will must be guided by our free will, and by the principle that we can expect, or will, others to behave in the same way.

This is called the categorical imperative. ‘Imperative’ is a command or statement that our ethical actions are subject to a moral duty, because we are creatures of rational, free will. The command is ‘categorical’ because the action does not depend on any foreseen reward or punishment, but is an end in itself: it is the right thing to do. Kant argues that all human beings in possession of rationality and autonomous free will ought to be expected to honour the same duty.

A classic example is keeping a promise one has made. Keeping the promise is a moral duty, one that we can reasonably expect all of our fellow members of humanity to perform. It is not a means to an end, but is an end in itself.

The philosophy of Kant, Rawls and others, has given rise to the legal principle of ‘natural justice’. This states that laws governing all citizens have a basis in a universal moral code. The imposition of laws that affect the life, limb and reputation of any member of our shared humanity must follow a reasonable, proper and transparent set of steps, or ‘procedural fairness’.

The steps outlined in natural justice or ‘procedural fairness’ include providing a ‘fair hearing’ to each citizen subject to the laws, a lack of bias, the laying out of evidence to support a legal decision, and an inquiry that is fair and seen to be fair.

Najib and the BN have failed the principles of natural justice in Teoh Beng Hock’s death, and countless other deaths in custody.

Any government that shows contempt of natural law, any government that is devoid of conscience, will eventually be replaced. Eventually, voters will see to it that they do not gamble with their future, unlike the past generations who have gambled on BN for half a century – and lost.