Debunking the modern feudal mindset

In a democracy, every citizen has equal opportunities to prosper, progress and determine the way he wants to live his life in accordance with the law. 

THERE was a period in human history where feudalism was the economic and political system in society.

Western Europe had a feudalistic system from the 8th century onwards, and during various periods in history, so did India, China, Japan, much of Asia, including Malaysia and even England.

The strong became Kings or nobles and the rest of the people were either peasants or serfs. The feudal mindset is steeped in a master-servant or lord-slave relationship. Analysing it closely, you will see that it is actually founded on economic and political strength. The wealthy and the powerful lords over the poor and weak. The master is not to be questioned or accounted for in anything, and he is held in continuous awe by the ordinary people.

Read more at https://www.thestar.com.my/opinion/columnists/through-many-windows/2019/05/05/debunking-the-modern-feudal-mindset#jiMw83ypHFIsWbLK.99

Lawyer Tommy Thomas for Attorney General ???

Does the Attorney general need to be a Malay or a Muslim ? Does he have to advise on Syariah law ?

 by GK Ganesan Kasinathan
[03 June 2018]

The nation is trundling towards a calamitous constitutional misunderstanding. Someone has to do something about it and set matters straight.

Let us identify what is happening.

A debate has begun to rage. It concerns the identity of the person who should be the next Attorney General. It is about constitutional provisions regarding what characteristics the Attorney General should have—and whether the current nominee, Mr. Tommy Thomas has them.

Two conflicting ideas

At the heart of the debate are two conflicting statements: the first is the altruistic proposition that certain quarters ‘have no objection at all to a non-Malay being nominated as AG.’ The second is an opposite argument. It is that the AG should be ‘in a position to advise the palace on Syariah matters.’ And the third proposition, being a conclusionary one, is the argument ‘... that therefore a judge, or a retired judge of the Court of Appeal or the Federal Court ought to be appointed as AG.’

These arguments are deeply flawed. Here are the reasons:

These arguments have no constitutional basis at all. In fact, the Federal Constitution says the opposite. Why is that?

The rakyat should be allowed to interpret the Constitution

The rakyat should take part in this debate. They should look at the Constitution and inform themselves of the important aspects of this confusion. They should be taught to interpret the Constitution. It is their right. Lawyers should not be the only ones telling people what the law is.

So let us look at the Constitution.

The starting point is Article 145.

Answer to the claim AG ‘must advise on Syariah law.’

The first and most important opposition to the Administration — and Mahathir — comes from the argument that the ‘AG must be able to advise the King on Syariah matters’. This demand contradicts Constitutional provisions.

This is because the Constitution exempts the AG from such a requirement. You will understand this readily, because the relevant part of Article 145(2), states: -

‘145(2): It shall be the duty of the [AG] to advise the [King] or the Cabinet or any Minister upon... legal matters, and to perform... duties of a legal character,... and to discharge the functions conferred on him by or under this Constitution or any other written law.

So what it says here is that the AG must discharge the duties that the Constitution asks him to. What power does the Constitution give him? That is explained by Art 145(3). It states: -

‘145(3): The [AG] shall have power, exercisable at his discretion, to institute, conduct or discontinue any proceedings for an offence, other than proceedings before a Syariah court, a native court or a court-martial.’

Clause 3 prohibits the AG from dealing with proceedings before Syariah Courts and Military Courts. As far as Syariah matters are concerned the AG has no role.

No one would disagree that the King must have the very best Syariah advisor—an expert. Were previous AGs experts on Syariah Law? Was Gani Patail an expert on Syariah law? Was Apandi? How come no one objected then?

So how can the AG be now compelled to perform a duty — or exercise a power — that the Constitution has taken away from him? Why is the AG now being asked to advise on something that the Constitution tells him is none of his business?

The person to advise the King on Syariah law cannot be a retired judge.

The fifth argument is that the nominee for the AG ‘must be either an existing or a retired Federal Court judge or a Court of Appeal judge; for, that way he can render legal advise on Syariah matters’.
This argument is a non-starter.

Again there is a clear instruction from the Constitution on this.

Apart from informing the AG what matters over which the AG has powers to act on, the Constitution goes one step further. Secular courts are non-Syariah courts: i.e. the Magistrate Courts, Sessions Courts, High Court, Court of Appeal and the Federal Courts: [Article 121 defines the secular courts].

The Constitution expressly removes from all secular courts any power that is only a Syariah Court can exercise. Clause (1A) says:-

‘The courts referred to in Clause (1) [read, ‘secular courts’] shall have no jurisdiction in respect of any matter within the jurisdiction of the Syariah courts.’

The Syariah judicial system works under a different set of laws. They have their own courts, their own judges, and their own lawyers. They are independent of the Judiciary. Therefore if Syariah law advice is needed, their Highnesses have ample Syariah resources at their disposal.

If so, how can candidates be chosen from the retired or existing list of the secular Federal Court or the Court of Appeal judges? From them have been removed the power to deal with Syariah matters. It stands to reason that they, no matter what race or religion they profess, would have had no formal legal training on Syariah law at all. So why ask to choose from a group who possess no Syariah knowledge at all?

So the argument that the AG ‘must be able to advise on Syariah matters’ argument is a red fish! It is simply not true.

What qualities must a candidate for an AG have?

The next question to ask oneself is, who can be appointed as the AG? Article 145(1) answers the question in this way: -

‘145(1): The Yang di-Pertuan Agong shall, on the advice of the Prime Minister, appoint a person who is qualified to be a judge of the Federal Court to be the Attorney General for the Federation.’
Note the phrase, ‘a person qualified to be a judge of the Federal Court’.

Who is that? That is explained in Article 123.

 It prescribes that a nominee for an AG must be (a) a citizen and (b) for the last 10 years before his appointment he shall have been ‘an advocate’; or ‘a member of the Judicial and Legal service’ (this differs from judges in the Courts - do not confuse them as one), or a mixture of both. It does not mean he must be a Federal Court or Court of Appeal Judge. He must only be one who is ‘qualified to be’ one.

From which pool would you choose your AG, given the choice?

As a matter of choice where would you choose the AG to come from?

Let us examine the pool of resources available to the Prime Minister.

Suppose there are about 1,800 lawyers in the AG’s Chambers [AGC]: that is about right. Suppose we assume that at least 500 AGC lawyers in AGC have crossed the ‘10 year practice’ mark (the numbers could be far lower]. Then at least 500 persons qualify to be the AG.

Now, the Malaysian Bar has ten times more lawyers than the AGC. It had, at the latest count, over 18,000 members. Of that number [I extrapolate] there are over 9,000 lawyers who qualify under this Art 123 — they have crossed the ‘10 years of continued practice’ requirement. They are all citizens.
Go now to the judiciary as a source. If you add the total number of judges in the Federal Court and the Court of Appeal that does not cross 45. A great proportion of those judges are from the AG’s Chambers: some say as high as 90%.

As a matter of choice, where would you choose the AG from? From the largest pool of 9,00 members, or a lesser pool of 500 lawyers from AG’s chambers, or from a smaller pool of 45 judges from the Judiciary— the latter of which is already under attack?

Equality of all candidates not matter of race

The sixth point is, the Constitution, which upholds equality as its central core (read Article 8 of the Constitution), does not prevent a non-Malay from being appointed an AG. If our forefathers thought it necessary, they would have inserted that proscription into the Constitution. Had they done it, that would have been against all known conventions of human rights. They have not. Our forebears were reasonable people. They saw this issue and catered for it. The framers of the Constitution were men of great foresight. So why manipulate that intent by specious arguments of non-existent ‘conventions,’ conventions which are against human rights?

So there is no racial restriction in the Constitution. So that argument too goes out of the window.

The King ‘shall appoint’

Clause (1) of Article 145 states that His Majesty the King ‘shall’ on the advice of the Prime Minister, appoint as AG a person proposed by the Prime Minister.

This is what it says: -

‘145(1): The yang di-Pertuan Agong shall, on the advice of the prime Minister, appoint a person who is qualified to be a judge of the Federal Court to be the Attorney General for the Federation.’
Note the word, ‘shall’. It is mandatory.

The binding nature of the Prime Minister’s proposal is buttressed by an explanatory clause in Art. 40(1A): It says:-

‘In in the exercise of his functions under this Constitution or federal law, where the Yang di-Pertuan Agong is to act in accordance with advice, on advice, or after considering advice, the Yang di-Pertuan Agong shall accept and act in accordance with such advice.’

The phrase ‘shall accept and act in accordance with such advice’ points to a mandatory requirement. There is a reason for this. The functioning of a valid government cannot be stultified by delay.
The Manifesto Point

The seventh argument is: ‘In appointing a non-Parliamentarian, Mahathir has departed from the Harapan manifesto that the AG shall be an MP.’

Many points answer this vacuous argument. The manifesto point is readily overcome.
Second, I have said elsewhere, the AG ought to be an MP answerable to the people, through parliament. I have suggested that the Constitution ought to be changed to effect that. The Committee for Institutional Reform is engaged in just that. Like the Council of Eminent Persons, they have had no rest. They are burning the candle at both ends. They are inundated with all manner of papers. They will suggest amendments—in good time.

But until that change is done, the law, as it stands, must be complied with. There is no countervailing argument against that. There is, fortunately, a Half-Way House solution. It is embedded into the Constitution. Art. 61 of the Constitution, which states, ‘(2) Either house of parliament may appoint as a member of any of its committees the [AG]... notwithstanding that he is not a member of that house.’ So, through this side-door, Parliament may, after it convenes, ask the AG to be appointed into its committees. The Committees may ask him to answer questions. In this way the current AG can be brought into Parliament’s deliberations. So these concerns are easily alleviated. So any allegation that ‘Harapan has breached its Manifesto’ is really no issue at all.

Parliament has a right to override the King on executive matters.

The King has executive authority over the Federation. That authority is, however, not absolute. It is subject to the dictates of Parliament: this is because Art 39 states:

‘The executive authority of the Federation shall be vested in the yang di- Pertuan Agong and exercisable... by him or by the Cabinet or any Minister authorised by the Cabinet, ... but parliament may by law confer executive functions on other persons.’

The AG's appointment, under the current law, is an exercise of executive authority. If the King does not act on the advice of the Prime Minister, the Constitution grants another route to Parliament. In matters of governance, the primacy Parliament is constitutionally entrenched. But Parliament has not been convened. That that time is not yet come. It will. But can we wait till then?
The power of the Conference of Rulers

The final argument in the opposition’s quiver is that the Conference of Rulers have an
absolute power to object to any suggestion of the Prime Minister. This is incorrect. True
it is that the Conference of Rulers have certain ‘discretionary’ powers.

Article 38 lays it out in great detail. They have a right to be consulted on certain matters. These are listed with some care: these deal with matters relating the appointment of the King, e.g., include any matter relating to the special position of the Malay rulers, the Islamic religion or the rights of Malays under Article 153 (Reservation of quotas in the services, permits etc. for Malays).

True also it is that that Art. 38(2)(c) states that the Conference of Rulers shall exercise its functions of consultation by —

‘... consenting or withholding consent to any law and making or giving advice on any appointment which under this Constitution requires the consent of the Conference or is to be made by or after consultation with the Conference’.

Some argue that Clause(6) gives the Conference of Rulers the right of carte blanche— blank cheque; that that it is ‘an absolute right’. This is what the relevant part of Clause(6) says —

‘... the members of the Conference of Rulers may act in their discretion in any proceedings relating to the following functions, that is to say... (c) consenting or withholding consent to any law and making or giving advice on any appointment which under this Constitution requires the consent of the Conference or is to be made by or after consultation with the Conference;

In constitutional theory, the personal prerogative of the monarch is said to contradict democracy.
On a proper reading of Clause 6, this personal power is not absolute. First, much of the strength of these prerogative power are diluted by constitutional principles. Second, other clauses in the Constitution severely limit that power. Third, the ‘right to consultation’ cannot mean an ‘absolute right to refuse.’ That is why the Constitution, with great care, has said, their Highnesses ‘may act in their discretion.’ This discretion is called ‘royal prerogative.’ Blackstone described it as the powers that ‘the king enjoys alone, in contradistinction to others, and not to those he enjoys in common with any of his subjects.’ So they are are ‘personal prerogatives.’

But the principles underlying the exercise of prerogatives have been uniformly accepted without contradiction across the world. It is for that reason such prerogatives are carefully circumscribed. The way the words in clause 6 are crafted is a call to exercise, in their Highnesses discretion, one of the most fundamental provisions of the Rule of Law: when a constitutional discretion is granted, it cannot be exercised arbitrarily. So the exercise of the ‘personal prerogative’ must seek to achieve the equality principle rooted as the basic fabric of the Constitution. It must be subject to transparency and good governance. It cannot be exercised arbitrarily. It cannot be exploited capriciously. Such a discretion must be exercised in a way that will aid democracy and uphold the Rule of Law. The words must be construed to comply with the spirit of the Constitution and the Will of the People.

Conclusion

Parliament is not in session. Not yet. Yet someone has to carry the burden of the AG. Charges have to be filed. People have to be hauled up before the courts. The Cabinet is busy answering a hundred, perhaps a thousand urgent calls upon its time. This amidst the urgent concern that economic matters should be dealt with alacrity.

Manifesto or no, Mahathir has to stop the haemorrhage. The Cabinet cannot hang about. Time is of the essence. Mahathir has to act now.

Those who delay the appointment of the AG are doing a great disservice to the toils of an elderly patriot trying to right a wayward ship.

These detractors are playing into the hands of the pilferers who have purloined billons from our coffers. They sit pretty, smiling from their strongholds. They think nothing will come upon them so long as they keep raising one constitutional crises after another, and trigger as much unease and delay as possible. That is why they are delaying the appointment of the AG. They wish to feel safe. They think the GE 14 is a pyrrhic victory. They feel they are untouchable.

They must be stopped.

As a nation we cannot sit idly by, while these detractors stultify the rakyat’s hard-won victory.
.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

GK Ganesan Kasinathan is a senior advocate  and solicitor practicing in Kuala Lumpur.

Raperas are more urgently needed now !

I have spoken and written many articles over the years where I tried to provoke the Rakyat into taking responsibility for the well being of the Nation.  I was deeply concerned that the general rakyat who are generally good and decent people were illusioned that they are helpless in shaping the destiny of the Nation.

Whatever the impetus was, I am glad that the Rakyat now know that they can change the government if they are determined to. I hope that this makes the politicians realize that the Rakyat’s mindset has changed. They no longer fear the powers that the politicians wield.

I would like to remind the Rakyat that while the Rakyat’s mindset and imagination with regards to politics may have changed, they must remember one thing - power still has a druggish effect on the politicians and their servants.  Hence, they must not assume that just because the baton has been passed to the member of parliaments and state assemblymen on the other side of the fence, all must necessarily be well - they are still politicians.

Hence, our focus should still remain the same - we want a stable, peaceful country where each of us and our children have the opportunity to prosper based on the efforts that we put into life. Every Malaysian has a right to feel safe, useful, appreciated as a citizen with a sense of belonging and respected as a human being.

While the some or most of the Rakyat may still be caught up with the elections that have ended, the Raperas must put on their thinking caps while being balanced by their compassionate hearts.

While some or most of the Rakyat may think that their responsibility has ended by casting their votes, Raperas must know that duties and responsibilities to ensure that this Nation progresses comprehensively continues. Raperas must be ever vigilant.

Believe me when I say this: most people are unable to free themselves from vested interests that may actually run counter to national interests. Do not for a second think that a change of government automatically means that human nature itself has changed.

While we must give the trust, the benefit of doubt and support the government of the day, the Rapera must be vigilant of the human nature which may only want to act in its own interests.

Let us together unite, as Malaysians, to ensure that the key institutions in our country are strengthened not to act against ordinary citizens but to empower them so that they are protected and assisted in their quest to contribute in making this nation greater.

I pray that we have a great journey ahead.

Peace !

Government: Uphold Rule of Law.

I am comforted by the assurances given by the Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad that the rule of law will be uphold.

Our country has established rules, procedures and regulation to govern matters. This is especially important now since its a historic moment where a new government is in place. It is very important that at the very outset the new Governement clearly shows its commitment to upholding the rule of law which forms a fundamental part of its oath of governance.

At the same time, the new government should also ensure that necessary action is taken against any malicious news that is being spread to cause uneasiness, strife and doubt in the country.

The elections are over. It is time to govern in the interest of the Nation in accordance with the rule of law.

Peace !

What system of governance: Theocracy, democracy or secular?

SEPT 19 — To me, and I repeat, to me, it is not about being obsessed with the label of “secular” or “Islamic” country though I do not have serious problems with people using the term. I try to understand what they are actually saying as the substance is more important than the label. 

My position is clear: I do not support oppressive regimes or ideas whether they are labelled “secular” or “Islamic”. To be clear, I do not support a “secular system” that is anti religion as that is oppressive of a person’s faith. Likewise I do not support an “Islamic system” that takes away the professed Muslim’s inherent right to serve Allah as he understands it from the Quran as that is equally oppressive of faith. 

In any case, I believe the practice of one’s faith or religion should not be allowed to affect national security, general public order, peace and harmony in the country or deny the basic fundamental rights and liberties of other citizens guaranteed under our Federal Constitution. 

A theocratic state is often understood to be a political State which is founded on a particular religion. A theocracy may be defined as a form of government which defers not to civil development of law, but to an interpretation of the ‘will of a God’ as set out in religious scripture and authorities. 

In realistic terms, therefore, it will be ruled by a few men who will interpret the religious scriptures in the name of God for the rest of the populace. The clergy and religious leaders will be dominant under such a political structure. Human political history suggests the earliest forms of government are theocratic probably because a reference to a “divine” source was necessary to impose law and order then. 

Since theocrats believe they rule by divine sanction and are implementing the divine will, it is doubtful if they will brook any dissent to their views. 

Hence, any criticism of the government may be construed as criticising the religion and going against God. A study of the State-Church relationship in Christian political history will bear out this point. In other words, theocracy would naturally be anti-thesis to democracy which is a political structure that allows for consideration of diverse views and for leadership opportunities by ordinary citizens. Criticism of government policies in a democracy is considered a fundamental right and duty of a concerned citizen. Democrats welcome criticism, theocrats do not.

In modern times, the two ‘pure’ theocractic political structures are probably the Vatican and Iran though there are “quasi theocratic” states such as Saudi Arabia, Mauritania, Afghanistan, Sudan and so on. 

Secularism, as I understand it, is a political system that is neutral to organised religion and it makes a conscious separation of those mandated to run the state from religious dignitaries and religious institutions. A secular state is not anti religion as is often misunderstood in our country — probably confused with the political system known as ‘State atheism” which promotes atheism as a state policy. I do not support state atheism because of its obvious denial of the freedom of faith as theocracy is equally guilty of.

Just as there are various degrees of democracies and theocracies, there too are various degrees of secularist political systems. Unlike theocracies which are dictated by religious personalities, the degree of democratic and secularist practices are determined by the people. It may be tweaked to adapt as situations changes.  

So, if we look at the substance beyond the labels, we see these are political systems and modes of governance with their own unique features, values and consequences on the governed. The real question that citizens ought to ask is: What degree of control and in what areas do they want the government to have on them? In other words, how much freedom are they willing or should give up for the greater good of the nation?

I believe our answer lies in the Federal Constitution of Malaysia and in the interpretation of its articles. Clearly, we are not a theocratic state as the country has never been governed by clerics. We are a parliamentary democracy with many features of a secular state as is generally understood. Due to the political reality that the majority of the citizens (voters) are Muslims, there are attempts by several religious leaders and their supporters to gradually turn Malaysia into an “Islamic theocratic” state as understood by them. I hope I am wrong but I detect this trend is increasing.

Even though Article 3(1) provides that Islam is the religion of the Federation it also states that other religions may be practised in peace and harmony in any part of the Federation.  

The Federation is obviously made up of 13 states and three federal territories. How we interpret the words “Islam is the religion of the Federation” will determine to what extent religious dignitaries will influence the governance of the Federation and hence on the liberty of the people. 

I believe this point is very important to be remembered, especially by Judges when they are confronted with such an issue before them. To me, the wording of Article 3(1) is clear the constitution never intended for the country to evolve politically into an “Islamic theocratic State”. 

The Constitution also accords various fundamental liberties which I would argue generally supersedes religious positions. It is the duty of the government and the courts to uphold these fundamental rights despite any personal inclinations, if any. I admit this is a tricky and sensitive area but has to be addressed with courage, knowledge and sincerity, nevertheless. I have said many times before in certain cases where Muslim judges may find themselves in a conflict of conscience situation, then they should honourably recuse themselves from hearing the matter. 

With respect, I believe our courts have erred when they made an artificial distinction between faith and religion as if religion is completely independent of the requirement of faith. Such an artificial distinction is often made when Article 11(1) on the freedom to practise and profess a religion comes up for consideration. The other area which will determine the direction our political system of governance will be heading is on the interpretation of the word “precepts of Islam” as used in the Constitution.  I hope to touch on this area in the future, God willing. 

In the meantime I pray that our political leaders understand and are aware of these developments.

* Jahaberdeen Mohamed Yunoos is a senior lawyer and founder of Rapera, a movement that encourages thinking  and compassionate citizens. He can be reached at rapera.jay@gmail.

** This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail Online.

- See more at: http://www.themalaymailonline.com/what-you-think/article/what-system-of-governance-theocracy-democracy-or-secular-jaharberdeen-moham#sthash.O7dXujaa.dpuf

Rapera Reviews 2013 on various issues with Dr Azmi Sharom

You can click on the link here :

http://www.mobtv.my/talkshow-4557.html

Peace !

A New Era of Democracy or Same Mediocrity ???

The first parliamentary sitting after the 13th General Elections begins on 24th June 2013 and ends on 18th July 2013.

For many years, the Rakyat did not know what was going on in Parliament except that the Yang Berhormats were are "busy debating and passing laws" in the "interest of the Rakyat".

After 2008 elections, THEY experimented with live telecast of the Parliamentary debates and that was when the Rakyats realised that some of the Yang Berhormats are not necessarily "Yang Bersopan" nor "Yang Berkebolehan". The Rakyat, I think were shocked at the low level of debates and sometimes at the speed with which some important bills are passed without debate. That was when I think THEY decided to stop live telecasting the Parliamentary debates. (who are "THEY" who decide anyway?)

I would like a TV station dedicated to live telecasting the parliamentary debates - apa yang nak di malu atau di sembunyi? It is just like a CCTV at work where the boss monitors the workers. SO, why cannot the Rakyat who can vote for them to get into Parliament not see and follow what they are doing there?

If live telecast of parliamentary sittings and debates are not allowed, the Rakyat will make an adverse inference - MPs are scared the people will know they are not performing.

My hope is that Parliament functions for the best interest of the Rakyat and the Nation. Partisan politics should be kept outside the door of the hall when the MPs walk into it. Leave the political campaigning and party whacking out.

The Rakyat hopes to see the Government and the Opposition engage in debates intelligently based on facts and statistics. The rules of the game should be fair and this should be ensured by the Speaker. Members bills should be given due regard and not dismissed outright.

The Rakyat will like to see the BN Government propose good bills and policies and, the Opposition to behave as a responsible opposition. Occasions where the interest of the Rakyat demands that both parties support bills tabled by either party should be readily grabbed.

Let us not turn parliamentary sittings into  a circus of mediocrity.

I wish all the MPs happy sitting and may you be true to the voters who voted you in.

Salam.

Sidang Media: Pilihanraya Bebas Keganasan

Hari ini pada pukul 3 petang team Rapera bersama dengan lebih kurang 30 NGO-NGO, peguam-peguam, dan individu-individu berkumpul untuk menyatakan hasrat mereka supaya PRU 13 ini bebas daripada keganasan.

Berikut adalah antara saranan-saranan yang dipersembahkan pada sidang media tersebut:

Disebabkan kesedaran ini serta kecintaan kita pada Negara, kami menyarankan perkara-perkara berikut:-

·        agar calon-calon lebih bertanggungjawab dan menapis ucapan mereka supaya tidak menyentuh perkara-perkara yang berbaur perkauman, agama, peribadi yang tiada kaitan untuk menjatuhkan pihak lain. Ia adalah untuk mengelakkan perselisihan dan politik keganasan berlaku akibat sikap tidak berpuas hati sesetengah pihak lain.

·        Calon-calon harus menampakkan etika dan bertanding dalam suasana sihat tanpa mewujudkan kebencian dalam diri penyokong mereka terhadap calon lain yang bertanding,  sekali gus mengelakkan unsur keganasan.

·        Calon-calon juga harus bertanggung jawab dalam memimpin dan menasihati penyokong-penyokong mereka supaya beradab dan tidak sesekali mencetuskan sebarang provokasi.

·        Kami juga menyarankan supaya dalam pilihan raya ini Islam tidak dipolitikkan sehingga boleh mencetuskan perpecahan diantara rakyat Muslim. Perpecahan dan pergaduhan diantara masyarakat Melayu adalah merbahaya untuk kestabilan negera kerana mereka merupakan populasi yang tertinggi di Negara ini. Sebarang keretakan serius dalam masyarakat Melayu akan memberi kesan buruk kepada Negara amnya.

·        Calon-calon juga diingatkan supaya tidak menghina atau membuat sesuatu yang boleh ditafsir sebagai percubaan untuk meruntuhkan institusi Rakyat yang bertanggunjawab terhadap keamanan Negara seperti Agensi Penguatkuasaan PDRM, SPR, Barisan pertahanan Negara dan lain-lain. Ini adalah penting untuk mengelak sebarang keganasan selepas keputusan pilihanraya diumumkan.

·        Kami menyeru supaya calon-calon fokus kepada isu-isu dan perkara-perkara yang dapat mendatangkan manfaat kepada Rakyat dan Negara daripada membangkitkan isu-isu yang bertujuan untuk menanam perasaan kebencian.

·        Kami difahamkan bahawa agensi penguatkuasa keselamatan negara sudah bersiap sedia untuk memantau dan melakukan segala sesuatu yang dibenarkan oleh undang-undang Negara untuk menjaga keselamatan Rakyat amnya. Kami menyokong penuh usaha pasukan keselamatan untuk menjalankan tanggungjawab mereka.

·        Kami juga menyarankan pihak penguatkuasa keselamatan mengambil langkah-langkah awal untuk menepis sebarang rancangan untuk mencetuskan kekecohan jika terdapat intelligence reports dan bertindak dengan tegas dalam lingkungan undang-undang Negara.

·        Pihak SPR juga telah mengeluarkan panduan mengenai etika berkempen dan tatacara kelakuan penyokong. Harap calon-calon baca dan amalkannya.

·        Kami menyeru supaya semua calon-calon membuat kenyataan rasmi mengutuk sebarang keganasan politik serta sebarang tingkah laku intimidasi terhadap sesiapa.

Akhir sekali, kita yang hadir disini yakin bahawa kesemua Rakyat Malaysia mahukan satu proses pilihanraya yang bebas daripada keganasan. Terima kasih juga kepada semua rapera-rapera yang telah berkerja keras dalam masa yang begitu suntuk untuk menjayakan sidang media ini.

Salam

Aftermath of Bersih 3.0 and The Mirror

How could I not follow Bersih 3.0 when my guys and gals from MobTV.My have so bravely gone to get live coverage for the people of Malaysia? It is after all a group of NGOs – all non-partisan – trying to exercise their right of free speech and freedom of assembly as enshrined in the constitution. Dato’ Ambiga, the co-Chairperson of Bersih and the steering committee, promised a peaceful rally. 

Rapera is all for peaceful expressions of views or even dissent by thinking and responsible citizens. However, Rapera is unambiguously against violence among its citizens. 

Around about 1pm, when I had to go off from the Bersih event, I was happy to note that the event was peaceful and almost carnival like. I was pleased, at that moment that my worst fears of confrontation had been proven wrong. I was confident that the Bersih crowd will not go beyond the barricades that was erected around Dataran Merdeka (DM). 

However, as events unfolded subsequently, my fears were unfortunately proven correct – political parties and several irresponsible quarters hijacked the Bersih event and turned it into of Malaysia’s most violent and shameful exercise of freedom of assembly.  This is why I had always held  that it is not politicians that can save the Nation but savior citizens or Raperas.

You can just youtube to see the shameful behaviours by some of our citizens, whom, I would say should be prosecuted under the law for their irresponsible and violent behaviours. At the same time, the behaviours of any police officers who had been over zealous in exercising their power should also be investigated. If this does not happen, there will be these accusations: Firstly, that politicians are exempted from the law. Secondly, that there are agent provocateurs arranged by Barisan Nasional and hence they are not prosecuted. Thirdly, that there is selective cover-up.  

Many I met seem to believe that PKR has simply hijacked the event in the most irresponsible way and are contributory to the violence and rioting that ensued. This has to be verified by PKR itself. Many people I 

know already perceive PKR as a party that would do anything to wrestle political power.

 Politicians and political parties should have just stayed out and let it be an NGO event.

In retrospect I wonder if all these unwanted events would have occurred if the Datuk Bandar had simply not interfered with Bersih’s intention to sit-in at the Dataran. I had voiced the view before that Bersih 3.0 is unstoppable and so the most logical thing for the authorities to do would be to simply provide police protection for the sit-in and for them to facilitate the event. The moment I heard that DBKL took the position that DM was off limits for Bersih 3.0, I was concerned that this may be a catalyst for disaster.  In fact, I was of the view that even the “occupydataran” by the students should have police or DBKL protection instead of the opposition they had experienced. These are after all college kids learning to exercise their right of expression, even though they may not be correct on the issue.  Such “training” if properly “guided” may make them mature Raperas in the future.  However, old methods of exercising authority seem to die hard. My views too seem to have fallen on deaf ears or “dinosaurous” ears!

On another perspective, one must also ask why was there such a huge turnout? How and why did so many people turn up for the event? On one hand, it is heart warming to note that more and more Rakyats are beginning to learn that they cannot depend on ANY politician but on themselves.

Hence, if I am the ruling party, I would not be automatically defensive. I will embrace the Rakyat’s interest in the well being of their Nation. On the other hand, if I am the Opposition, I will not automatically gloat and think that I have the support of the people. I will be wary of the way I serve in politics. This and other such events could very well be a sign that the Rakyat seriously do not trust politicians anymore, which is a good thing. This is, in my view, taking back control of the destiny of our home, our Nation.

Freedom of expression and assembly aside, the sanctity of the law must also be protected. There is simply no excuse for any irresponsible persons to destroy or to cause to destroy or incite anyone to destroy public property which, we must remember, belongs to the Rakyat. I believe that the genuine Bersih folks are peaceful. Hence, the urgency of prosecuting the culprits who have marred the exercise of a fundamental constitutional right.

May peace always prevail among us.

NEXT: Bersih 3.0 and A Cleric (God Willing)

Is the Registrar of Societies Anti - Rakyat ???

Every Rakyat has the duty to serve the country in the best way they know how.

There are many ways by which the Rakyat can contribute to the Nation instead of being indifferent bystanders. They can get together to achieve certain social or national objectives through non-political forums and associations by forming an NGO. However, the registration of the NGO has to be approved by a very powerful person called the Registrar of Societies.

This one person, the Registrar can determine whether the Rakyat is allowed to participate actively in the development of his own country or not. The impression is that it is almost difficult to get certain NGOs to be registered.

Likewise, it is the right of every Rakyat to be active in the political activity of the Nation. They have the right to form political parties. Once again, whether or not the Rakyat can form political parties and shape the politics of the Nation will depend on the discretion of this one powerful person called the Registrar of Societies.

The question is: is the Registrar exercising his powers pro-Rakyat or anti-Rakyat?

Hassan Ali, Raid on Pubs and UPSI Demo

GoAnimate.com: Has%21%26+%40%23i%2C+raids+on+Pubs+and+UPSI+Demo by calebforever


Like it? Create your own at GoAnimate.com. It's free and fun!

Peace !

JULY 9 - The Day Malaysians are tested

On this blog, I have on 2nd July 2011 appealed to ALL parties who were planning to march on 9th July not to do so. I was concerned about security and safety of the marchers based on information that I have.

Now it seems to me that the marching tomorrow will take place by various quarters. I am sure the majority of those who are going to march tomorrow are sincere and have thier own stand to express.

We live in a democracy and it is not uncommon to assemble and walk peacefully to express a point in the interest of the Nation.

Malaysians with differing opinions will be marching AND it is important to remember that it is a march by FELLOW MALAYSIANS.

We may differ in our views but we are Malaysians. We love this country of ours and we want the best for each other.

We are not each others' enemies.

I hope that the enforencement authorities will keep in mind that these are Malaysians. Among the group may be children, old people and women.

It will be a test day of how we treat each other - with love and respect or aggressive obsession with politics and authority.

To those who insist on marching tomorrow irregardless of what T-Shirts they wear or what group they represent, I wish them a safe outing and bring along with you the sense of humanity.

Peace !

Bersih, UMNO Youth and Perkasa - call off street demonstrations if you care for the People !!!

No citizen in their right sense of mind will object to the campaign for free and fair elections. Bersih had its aim in the 8 points that it wanted to hand over to the Yang Di Pertuan Agung through the memorandum. This memorandum could very well have been delivered to the palace by just four or five Bersih representatives. But of course Bersih wanted to create as much awareness as possible among the citizens and hence the peaceful walk thorugh the streets of Kuala Lumpur. This is understandable. They wanted to exercise the democratic right of peaceful assembly and freedom of expression. All noble aims.

The situation however has changed. The events of past weeks have shown that Bersih's 8 points have received almost maximum publicity around the country. Blogs, newspapers and even the national television have publicised Bersih's objectives and much discussion have been aroused. People are aware. bersih's aim of creating awarenss have been achieved. Bersih has even succeded in getting all sorts of reactions from the public - political and apolitical. 

Bersih's constant aim was to have a peaceful march through the city of Kuala Lumpur. The emphasis being on PEACEFUL.

In reaction to Bersih, both UMNO Youth and Perkasa have announced that they too will walk through the streets to show their strength.  Both of these entities have numbers too. The Bar Council's entry into the "foray" has not helped to ease the tension but lead to further misunderstandings and "aggressive" reactions.

Somehow or other, the situation in and around Kuala Lumpur has been unnecessrily tense and worrisome these past few days and promises to become worse.

I have met and talked to almost all sides involved and to many ordinary, apolitical citizens.  I have had discussions with some of those responsible for the security of the Nation. I am convinced that the situation currently does not permit a street march. It is now too dangerous.

This is not the time to point fingers to apportion blame.

This is not the time to state who is responsible for the current security threat that we are faced with.

This is the time to understand that a street march planned for July 9 is indeed a security threat.

This is the time to act responsibly and to recognise the citizen's right to security and peace.  The right to peaceful assembly and freedom of expression has to temporarily take a back seat because the security situation does not permit it.

If Bersih organisers truly believe that they had noble aims, which many quarters think so, then this is the time to be consistent and do the noble act - call off the July 9 street march in the interest of peace and security. 

UMNO Youth being part of the very Barisan Nasional Government which should be responsible for the security of the Nation should immediately announce that they will NOT be walking through the streets on July 9.

I make the same appeal to my brothers and sisters in Perkasa - demi keamanan Negara dan cinta kepada rakyat, batalkan sahaja rancangan untuk berdemo pada July 9. Biarlah menjadi NGO yang menunjukkan contoh yang baik yang mampu mengutamakan keamanan negara dan kesejahteraan Rakyat jelata.

I also appeal to all the other NGOs, including Pekida to do the right thing - do not walk the streets on July 9 in groups. I make the same appeal to all Raperas.

We should NOT be ashamed to do the right thing even if it means changing our plans, swallowing our pride or egos or even temporarily suspending one of our democratic rights.

May Peace be with you all and may God guide you all to do the wise thing.

Rethinking the myth of “consensus of the majority” - Part 2 : Politics and Democracy

Politics and Democracy

Democracy we say is the government of the people, by the people for the people. It is, we boast, a system that allows the people to form a government and run it by consensus. We say it is a majority rule government. Does that “majority” include you and me and the 15 year old child who does know where to get the money to go to school?

I have written extensively on the weakness and myth of the party system in a democracy on this blog and elsewhere, especially on the need for a radical reform of the political culture. Any system is workable only if the general culture is useful and positive. Where the general culture is primitive, the system becomes a tool of an elitist few. In a democracy, the party system too is controlled by the select few who determine who rise and fall as leaders. In other words, you are presented with the candidates to choose from. Most likely, these candidates rise in the party not through competency or ability but through money and patronage.

Many also vote along party lines without caring to analyse the long term consequences to their own future and the Nation. Due to various factors, including apathy, many do not really know why or whom they have voted.  Many more do not even vote thinking that it is a useless exercise without realising that by not voting, they too have made a decision which will impact the future of the nation. In such a scenario, the myth of the so-called majority government in a democracy formed by consensus of the People is clearly evident.

In a democracy, the effective competition for votes is largely confined to established parties even though there is a new trend around the world where independents are gaining greater acceptance by the voters. In the USA, for example, it is largely confined to Republican and Democratic, in UK it is Conservative and Labour while in Malaysia it is PAS and UMNO. Other parties that exist may align to any of these established parties. They get together by consensus among the top leaders of the respective parties and the general body of members generally accept the “consensus” which is then presented to the public as a “coalition consensus”. (Please note that in reality, the decisions are actually made by a few party officials)

Party consensus prevents party members from voicing and struggling for what is right if it is against party interests. In many instances, if you analyse, you will find that such party consensus has caused tremendous injustice and cruelty to mankind. You will find for example, political parties unashamedly diving citizens along racial and religious lines while at the same time they may utter that we are all “children of God”. Minorities are treated as if they do not exit on earth. Consensus allows seemingly “good” people to do evil things. When they hold power, evil values may be enacted as laws.

Elected representatives, either in Parliament or in State Assembly have the power to pass laws that affect the  ordinary citizen's life. Again, in the Parliament and the State Assembly, the laws are passed by the consensus of the majority. The issue is: have the representatives passed the laws in the interest of the Nation or for party  or vested interests? Even a bad or evil law is still law if passed. Did the voter also consent to bad laws to be passed when they voted? Is it not then the implicit responsibility of the representatives to seek the consent of their constituents? After all, they can make time to knock on every door to canvass for votes during election time. The truth of the matter is that many ordinary citizens do not know what laws are passed. The respective elected representatives also do not make it a point to explain the draft bills to their respective constituencies. Hence, the so called democratic consensus under our system is illusory and a myth. It is in fact power wielding by an elitist few under the guise of consensus.

Many ordinary citizens also fail to observe how the wealth of the Nation is distributed or they may have resigned themselves to accept it as a matter of fact beyond their control (where then is the consensus if this is so?). Is it a mere coincidence of talent that most of the wealth is in the hands of those who are either related to or aligned to those who hold political power? If indeed democracy is the government of the people, by the people for the people by consensus, did the People consent to the wealth being distributed to the leaders’ relatives and friends?

Where is the justice when we have the bulk of the wealth of the nation in the hands of the few whence we have the majority of the People struggling to have their families’ ends met? In this manner, the myth of consensus has visited cruelties on many ordinary families because the Nation’s resources have been cunningly and deceitfully taken away from them. While I bask in my RM6 million bungalow, you are struggling to pay the loan of your middle cost or low cost house! Obviously, they think their children deserve it more than yours or mine. I have merely given an example which is merely the tip of the iceberg!!!

To me, if indeed consensus is real and not a myth, based on the wealth that our country possessed, we should today have completely free education for all who want to study up to tertiary level. However, today almost every young adult is saddled with a study loan even before they begin to work! Is this not cruel? I can go on listing the things that could have been put in place if indeed consensus was real and not a myth, but I leave it to you to add the list on this blog.

The myth of consensus in politics is not understood by many because of the sophistication with which it is managed and engineered. It is also very intertwined with economic control of the Nation’s wealth. I dare say that it is an art beyond the comprehension of the average citizen. Politics is a sophisticated game of information and perception management swinging the citizens’ emotions between fear and hope. In politics, People in general are made to perceive that they are part of the consensus.

Why did you vote?

Many fail to realize that democracy today has been relegated to casting your votes at the ballot box. Once you vote, you have practiced democracy! By consensus, we seem to have agreed that once a person is elected as an MP or State Assemblyman, he has the mandate to do what he or his party pleases.

When you voted, did you give a blank cheque to the candidate to do what he or his party pleases or did you have something else on your mind? If so, what recourse do you have as a voter to oust or punish him if he breaches your mandate? These are matters which even the political scientists have not sorted out because most people seem to have accepted the system as it is. Since merdeka, I have not heard of any seminars or forums to address this issue! Hence, political thought in this country remains puerile and status quo.  With the greatest of respect, I note that even those political scientists in this country who analyse such things do so within the framework of the existing model which we inherited from our colonial masters or from those who graduate from syllabuses crafted by our colonial masters. This being the case, there will not be any radical improvements, maybe just cosmetic or short term.

When you analyse the workings of the so-called democratic system in this country you will conclude this: that every citizen has delegated the absolute right to the elected “representatives” to do as they or their party pleases during the duration of their term. You give them the absolute political power to shape your life. I say “absolute right” because our society has not put in place any user friendly counter measure for the ordinary voter to have recourse to in the event there is a breach of mandate. You just have to wait for the next election by which time; you will be successfully manipulated to repeat the error. (Yes, I do not have confidence in the majority of the voters to think or to care as yet.)

I have often said that the voters are like rats in a maze that has only three exits. The rats think they are struggling to find the exit and that they are making a choice of which exit. They do not know that the choices have already been made for them. Like the rats, voters never pause to think that maybe they want to redesign the maze or even do away with it. Unfortunately, many who think they are thinking outside the box are actually still within the box but in a different corner.

The truth of the matter is this: democracy gives you the illusion of the consensus of the People. Hence, it is a myth and not a fact.

Peace !

Rethinking the myth of “consensus of the majority” - Part 3: Religion

Parti Keadilan Rakyat's Party Elections marred with lack of electoral security?

People are now referring to PKR as Parti Kian Runtuh. Quite a number I have met who once had hopes for PKR as a reform party are now thoroughly disappointed and have raised many credible questions.

One such question is being raised by Haris Ibrahim, a well known social activist who had actively campaigned for Pakatan Rakyat during the last General Elections. This question involves the legitimacy of the Party elections in the light of ballot papers floating around in the thousands! Haris asks:

"And if so, how then did I, who have no role to play in this electoral process, and the informant who had in his possession at least 100 of the same and  claimed to have access to more than 1,000, come to be in possession of these if the central election committee have the ballot papers intended for use in all 4 weekend elections secured under lock and key?"

He legitimately asks the question of electoral security. If past ballot papers ( as allegedly described by Saifudin Nasution) can float around, what guarantee is there that future ballot papers are not floating around too?

Does this not tamper with "free and fair elections" that the PKR brader is so fond of flaunting around?

To add further credence to the doubt that the public is forming about the "freeness and fairness" of PKR party elections, it is reported that Datuk Zaid Ibrahim has pulled out of the Deputy President race! According to Malaysian Insider, Zaid Ibrahim pulled out of the race citing the party election's as "not transparent and fair".

With such a move, can the public be faulted in thinking that PKR has finally shown its true colours and for whom it really stands for? To date, not a sound from the unchallenged PKR President on these marred elections!!!

Peace !

Are we being sacrificied by our apathy?

There are too many dangerously disturbing things that are occurring around us and yet we have decided to remain apathetic. Many reasons why we decide to act like that. it does not affect us. It is someone else's problem. They are the minority and therefore they can be sacrificed.

My experience and observation in life has taught me that if you are apathetic to injustice done to others, it will visit you and your family one day.

It will destroy society in the long run.

Remember, remaining apathetic and indifferent is a decision NOT to act.

A friend of mine sent me this email which I would like to share with the Raperas.

Insight into Decision Making - Good One


"A group of children were playing near two railway tracks.

Only one child played on the disused track and the rest are playing on the operational track.

The train is coming and you are just beside the track interchange.
You can make the train change its course to the disused track and save most
of the kids.

However that would also mean the lone child playing by the disused track
would be sacrificed or would you rather let the train go its way?

Let's take a pause to think what kind of decision we could make.......

Most people might choose to divert the course of the train and sacrifice
only one child.

You might think the same way I guess.

To save most of the children at the expense of only one child was a rational decision but most people would make the decision morally and emotionally.
But have you ever thought that the child choosing to play on the disused
track had in fact made the right decision to play at a safe place?

Nevertheless, he had to be sacrificed because of his ignorant friends who
chose to play where the danger was.

This kind of dilemma happens around us everyday.
In the office, community, in politics and especially in a democratic society,
the minority is often sacrificed for the interest of the majority
no matter how foolish or ignorant the majority are and how farsighted and knowledgeable the minority are. The child who chose not to play with the
rest on the operational track was sidelined.

And in the case he was sacrificed no one would shed a tear for him.

The great critic Leo Velski Julian who told the story said he would not try
to change the course of the train because he believed that the kids playing on the operational track should have known very well that track was still
in use and that they should have run away if they heard the train's sirens..

If the train was diverted that lonely child would definitely die because he never thought the train could come over to that track! Moreover that track was not in use probably because it was not safe.

If the train was diverted to the track we could put the lives of all passengers on board at stake!

And in your attempt to save a few kids by sacrificing one child you might end up sacrificing hundreds of people to save these few kids.

While we are all aware that life is full of tough decisions that need to be made
we may not realize that hasty decisions may not always be the right one.

'Remember that what's right isn't always popular... and what's popular isn't always right.'

Everybody makes mistakes, that's why they put erasers on pencils".

Peace !

ISA : Necessary Preventive Powers that any self-respecting Government should have.

This article was written by someone as a response to Tun Dr Mahathir's article on ISA on Che Det's blog.

ISA : Necessary Preventive Powers that any self-respecting Government should have.

by Ceylonese Lawyer

The nations that tout themselves with the most advanced of civilizations and who claim to have achieved the greatest degree of civility seem to be unable to let go of what they would regard as - the ultimate weapon- the nuclear bomb. The cold war is over. There is no enemy with missiles pointed at their civilian centers. Yet not a single leader in Western Europe or North America is prepared to say - that the time has come to destroy these weapons which may harm persons who have not been found guilty on a beyond reasonable doubt standard.

Perhaps they feel that the security of their people necessitates the retention of such an array of weaponry, despite the fact that its need has diminished and that its dangers have grown.

In our context, the danger of this nation being undermined by acts of instigation is real. These acts can, when viewed singularly be regarded as innocent enough- standing on a cow's head so what. But a combination of these acts coupled with the actions and reactions that follow will have as their probable consequence the fanning of racial and religious sensitivities. The momentum that such a spiral could gather would be so great and the results would be so horrifying that one can in hindsight even wonder how did something seemingly so innocent have caused such harm, pain and destruction. Who would have thought that a single assassination would plunge the world into World War I, who would have thought that a group of angry young men would force their way into government and pave the way to World War II as Nazis and facists, who would have thought that one of the two nations formed by a religous community - Pakistan would be plunged into an ever deepening darkness, who would have thought that the innocent socialist philosophies of a simple man would lead a nation to the killing fields.

Likewise if we reflect on May 13th or any other such event, it is difficult to pin point a cause, which is so definitive in character and purpose that it may be regarded as a crime. Yet the presence of such a combination of harmful ingredients necessitates action by any self-respecting government. ISA gives the government that power. This is not a power that can be relegated to a Court. A Court can act when there are criminal charges that may be proven on a prima facie basis and then on a beyond reasonable doubt standard. But when a nation is confronted with a latent threat, the power and the responsibility falls to its democratically elected government to exercise the ultimate power -ISA. That government then stands accountable to Parliament. But as a Government duly elected it has a solemn to prevent the untold harm that may otherwise unfold. As a democratic nation the government will be judged by its actions its honesty and its ability to hold its own in the court of public opinion.

As fate would have it, when the power of ISA is exercised and the threat is extinguished people can with hindsight contend cynically that the power was abused or that the harm was contrived and was never real. This is the burden of duty that a government will have to shoulder. We have to face the fact that when faced with a latent threat to security, the only way to prove to the world that the threat exists is to allow it to fester, to grow and to manifest itself. But can we chance that. What may seem to be an innocent enough caricature, sarcasm of rulers and religion can have untold consequences.

As a citizen, I am mindful of the peace that we enjoy and which we cherish and I would like my government to have at its disposal an instrument that will enable it to intervene and halt a threat to the peace. I would want my government to be able to do so without having to convince some judge that the threat is real. I voted for my government not the judiciary. When faced with such a threat it is my government I turn to. Look around us - can we not see how hard it is to build a peace and how easy it is to tear it asunder. There a nations in this world today that are not even the shadow of their former selves, there are nations who have become ungovernable and we now have a new jargon - "failed states". I suppose at that point there would be evidence beyond reasonable doubt that instigation had been a foot.

I don't know about the others - but I don't want my government to wait until then to realize that something is wrong.

Why throw sand into People’s Rice Bowl???

People are already having a tough time earning a living in these tough times.

The whole day yesterday was a loss of business day for all those businesses in Jalan Tunku Abdul Rahman, Jalan Tun Perak, Jalan Masjid India and roads adjoining them. All these because people who do not have businesses there decided to have a senseless street demonstration.

Of course many Malay businesses lost their chance to earn a decent day’s wages because Jalan Masjid India and surrounding areas are mainly Malay business enterprises. I cannot imagine PAS would condone this act of disrupting other people’s businesses as “Islamic”. Rujuk kitab mana bang???

Many I spoke to cannot understand what that demo-crazy was all about. Neither do I. What were they REALLY demonstrating about and why do it the way it was done? I thought the Government was reviewing the ISA and that feedbacks from responsible quarters of the public are sought.

This time around, many do not believe that the demonstration was about the ISA. ISA was just the convenient platform, the expedient issue.

Really, if you have to demonstrate on matters such as these, could not that be done in a confined area like a stadium? I really think we have to designate a stadium and a day especially for “public demonstrations”. We have to cease unnecessarily disturbing the peace and order of other people. They have work to do. They have employees and families to support.

Try not to let your “right to demonstrate” affect other people’s “right to earn a livelihood and peaceful living”.

We cannot keep tolerating politicians who practice manipulocracy keep on troubling the People in the name of democracy. It is sad how these people manipulate the sincere (and some, ignorant) masses to achieve their hidden agenda, even if it harmful to the people.

The cunning and cruel thing about the practice of manipulocracy is this: the real organizers hide behind thick walls while the small participants get arrested.

I just saw TV3. Apparently, some leader of a business society in Jalan Masjid India is giving a memorandum against demonstrations around Jalan Masjid to the Prime Minister. A friend suggested to me that it is more appropriate to give it to the Opposition Leader. Well.

Peace!

PS: This article has nothing to with my stand on the ISA. It is something that has to go in its current form.

Gangsterism, Politics and People-bullying (“GPP phenomenon”

Gangsterism, Politics and People-bullying which I call the “GPP phenomenon” is not something new in human history. Let us not be mistaken about it. It has been around since time immemorial in various shapes and shades.

The GPP phenomenon has to do with power and wealth. There are always that few in society that can never be content with the basic power to live – they want godly power. That is that power to influence and control other human beings, to achieve “glory” to be “immortalized” to be remembered and often praised even after death. “godly” power. He wants to lead the pack where he thinks they should be heading.

Wealth and power go hand in glove. There are always that few in society that can never be content with the wealth to survive – they want more. They want to be able to “stand above the crowd”, to that that financial string that can make others do their bidding, if possible turn them into loyal, unthinking slaves.

Power and wealth alone is never enough for the narcissistic leader. He needs to have that tool of fear. That tool to intimidate, even hurt those who would dare challenge his leadership at the head of the herd. The fear factor always works most of the time – though not all the time.

But remember, the GPP phenomenon only affects a few. The MAJORITY of the people are normal and mentally able to live lives as decent human beings should.

As I said, this is nothing new in history. Study European, Chinese, Indian or even Malayan history, and you find this GPP phenomenon at work. During the royal leadership period in history, you find the Kings and the King’s men bullying ordinary citizens who were mostly peasants and made to remain so. We called these the feudal mentality deeply ingrained in the minds of the peasants that their destiny lies in the hands of the Kings and the Kings’ men. Did the MAJORITY remain silent?

For a very long while they did remain silent. This did not mean that they were unaware what was going on. They felt and were hurt by the bullying, the demeaning of their existence, the rape of their children in various ways by the elitist in power and their crony wealthy abettors. Human beings have a breaking point as history as shown again and again.

One day, the silent majority rose. They decided they do not want to play the game set by the elitist anymore. Enough of humiliation. The people wanted their dignity as human beings back. In Europe came the French Revolution with the unthinkable beheading of the King. The rise of people power spread all over Europe such that the Czar of Russia was correctly concerned. Even the powerful Czars could not survive the wrath of the ordinary citizens when they rose.

Even way, way before that, you had the Pharoahs of Egypt. Where are they and their families now? How developed is Egypt?

Eventually, politicians replaced Kings and became Kings unto to themselves. Like the Kings before them, they stole and raped the nations they were supposed to lead in the name of law and the People. They ensured that wealth only moved among the circle of their family and cronies. For the people, they threw bread crumbs. The GPP phenomenon affects them severely. They take the people for fools and a doormat to sustain themselves in power and wealth.

Again, study history and you find the silent majority, the people rise to say enough is enough. There has been many peaceful means of completely changing the political landscape. It is just a question of how much pain and humiliation the politicians can cause the people before the People decide to throw all of them out to be replaced by TOTALLY new leaders from the PEOPLE. This is the historical wheel that can never be changed.

PEACE.