Long live the Rome Statute! Long live idiocy?

April 10, 2019

Opinion  |  Azly Rahman

Published: 7 Apr 2019, 10:11 am  |  Modified: 7 Apr 2019, 10:11 am

https://www.malaysiakini.com/columns/471215

 

COMMENT | Long live the Rome Statute! Long live Idiocy! What kind of government and society shall we be? From a cashless society we want to be a moral-less society, in a world plagued with genocide and the disease of violent ideologies.

The Pakatan Harapan government’s U-turns on the International Convention on the Elimination of Racism and Discrimination (ICERD) and now the Rome Statute signify our entry in our own Age of Mass Ignorance. If opposing war, genocide, crimes against humanity is opposed, we have a government that needs to be deposed.

Rome Statute as peace document

In Malaysia, will all the rallies against Israeli atrocities, Rohingya massacres, & bombing of churches & mosques be banned? Seems that the more we want to have flying cars and a cashless society, the more we show ignorance on issues of war, aggression, and global morality.

The Rome Statute is about stopping the rise of global fascism. What part of it does this PH government not understand? So shallow is our education system’s curriculum on race relations and global issues this idiocy on Rome Statute needs to be exposed?

From a self-proclaimed Asian tiger roaring in the UN condemning aggression, we have become a country mouse dying of ignorance of crimes against humanity. Most ridiculous arguments on “threatening Malay rights” are used to justify the defence of our ignorance on global issues!

They say ignorance is bliss. In Malaysia, on the Rome Statute issue, ignorance is blessed. Will our diplomats now abstain from voting on global aggressions, in order to respect the rights of kampong warriors? Insane!

In matters of universal human rights and global peace, no race or nation should be stupefied by its own leaders and rulers. What are we teaching our children? That it’s OK to discriminate and to condone war crimes? I thought the “lawmakers” in the PH government are more globally conscious? Are they falling now into a deep state of unconsciousness?

Resist mass idiocy

Committing to the principles of justice vis-a-viz international human rights in regards to the ICERD, the violation of human rights in Malaysia as in the recent missing person cases, and to the Rome Statute, is a no brainer.

The most ridiculous logic we hear is that if you oppose war crimes, enforced disappearances, aggression, and genocide, your power as a national government will be challenged, and that the bangsa, agama, and negara will be in danger.

There are principles crafted by the UN that are universal. There are those that are culturally-relative. But not the ICERD nor the Rome Statute. These are human principles that are meant to have us evolve into peaceful global citizens, by condemning mass murder and genocide.

Bebalism or incurable idiocy is what’s governing the new consciousness when it comes to speaking up against human rights injustices. Why is Pakatan Harapan losing the very principles that attracted people to vote for them? Insincerity? Hypocrisy? Idiocy?

As one who has been teaching global issues for years, it will be embarrassing to tell my students how idiotic Malaysia is. O’ Malays, revolt against any attempt by your leaders who attempt to spread ignorance and fear through issues of race and religion.

Hitler mounted ridiculous arguments on race, crafting falsehood to turn it into truth, creating fascism, committing war crimes. Kingdoms that survive on the power of ignorance cannot last long, in an age wherein power and wealth are challenged and eventually get destroyed.

The PH government seems to be surrendering to those wishing to see chaos take root. Did the people vote for cowardice? It has been my argument that education must address issues of polarization, class-based poverty, ecological destruction, and religious extremism.

Utterly shameful and gutless it is for a country claiming to be progressive and a promoter of regional peace, and advocating the global principle of “prosper thy neighbor”. What does opposing genocide, enforced disappearances, aggression, and war got to do with challenging “agama, bangsa, negara?” Are we going mad now?

A few leaders of the Pakatan said that those who criticized the prime minster and the PH government for pulling out of the Rome Statute are cowards who cannot be trusted. How is that logical?

Is the withdrawal due to confusion? Or cowardice? Why allow the tantrum of one man to deny the expression of the people of a nation? It is a basic expression of opposing violence as a global community, aspiring to be cosmopolitan citizens rather than trapped in the prison-nation-state of communalism, post-industrialism, ghetto-ism, and kampong-ism, is it not?

What must we do for the next generation to get out of this intellectual quagmire and the structuring of mass bebalisma?

We must turn to education as the only means for a sustainable personal, social, and cultural progress. Governments, monarchy, and those in power via whatever ideology come and go. But education should set us free.

Not the illusion of knowledge and wisdom. Not the installing of fear. These will not. They will turn the masses into people who continue to support leaders who are now on trial for corruption.

Educate for peace

Students need to be taught how to develop critical thinking and apply those skills in evaluating international systems, environmental issues, and human rights. We need to help them demonstrate the global dimensions of crucial contemporary issues, so that they could develop relational and rational thinking on how to study and think about global problems and relationships of war and conflict and how to address them and find peaceful solutions.

The urgent educational agenda is also to focus on global issues and how human rights, political-economy, ecological destruction, issues of power, wealth, powerlessness are all inter-related contributors to war and peace.

Students need to be taught to recognize the interdependence of the individual and the community in creating the challenges and opportunities in a global society through the examination of sustainability, human rights and peace and conflict. This is necessary so that when they become leaders and rulers, they will not be ridiculous, and not become people with money and power, but with no soul and morals.

Right now, this government is beginning to be a huge mess, unable to stand for the very basic principles of human rights, bowing down to some ridiculous tantrum not worth entertaining. What in the name of global sanity did Malaysians vote for?

---

AZLY RAHMAN is an educator, academic, international columnist, and author of seven books available here. He holds a doctorate in international education development and Master’s degrees in six areas: education, international affairs, peace studies communication, fiction and non-fiction writing. He is a member of the Kappa Delta Pi International Honour Society in Education. Twitter @azlyrahman. More writings here.

The views expressed here are those of the author/contributor and do not necessarily represent the views of Malaysiakini.

 

 

Race, religion and rhetoric ramp up in ‘New Malaysia’

March 31,2019

30 March 2019

Author: Harris Zainul, Institute of Strategic and International Studies Malaysiahttps://www.eastasiaforum.org/2019/03/30/race-religion-and-rhetoric-ramp-up-in-new-malaysia/

After recouping the Semenyih state legislative assembly seat, it comes as little surprise that the United Malays National Organisation (UMNO) and the Pan-Malaysian Islamic Party (PAS) are finally formalising their cooperation. The implication of this is that political discourse will only regress further to the right. The hardening of racial and religious divides on the back of perceived Malay-Muslim victimhood is another consequence.

 

Any legislation the Pakatan Harapan (PH) government introduces will be scrutinised through racially-tinted lenses. Policies perceived as affecting the interests of Malay-Muslims can expect stronger challenges from now on. At best this would come at the cost of significantly increased political effort to pass much-needed reforms — at worst, it could see an increase in the wielding of vetoes.

In this new political landscape, UMNO are no longer shackled by the Barisan Nasional consociational model of power-sharing and PAS are free to up the stakes rhetorically. This collaboration will demand even more exclusivist policies when it comes to the Malay-Muslim agenda.

For UMNO and PAS this formalised collaboration also lends credence to its preferred narrative. They can argue that Malay privilege and the special position of Islam are only upheld through mutual cooperation of the Malay-Muslim political parties on one hand and the broad unwavering support of the Malay-Muslim electorate on the other.

By presenting an image of Malay-Muslim interests being under siege by the other parties, UMNO and PAS can expediently position themselves as defenders of everything ‘Malay and Islam’ in an attempt to consolidate votes on racial and religious grounds.

Not novel in Malaysian politics, they mirror the same sense of impending victimhood as the Democratic Action Party (DAP), a largely ethnically Chinese political party now part of the PH coalition. The DAP pushed the appointments of non-Malay-Muslims to the key positions of Attorney-General, Chief Justice, Law Minister and Finance Minister.

The political calculations for this are obvious.

Malay-Muslims constitute the largest voting bloc in Malaysia but no one political party has a significant majority over another. The Malay electorate in the 2018 election were split 25–30 per cent in favour of PH, 35–40 per cent towards UMNO–Barisan and 30–33 per cent to PAS.

Also as Article 113(2) of the Constitution states, any re-delineation of constituencies is only permissible after 8 years. The constituencies allegedly delineated along racial lines just before the 2018 election will remain so until the next election. Up for grabs then will be 134 out of the total 222 federal constituencies in Malaysia that have Malay majorities.

Coupled with the reality that the non-Malay electorate had almost completely repudiated UMNO and Barisan Nasional (BN) in the previous general election, this cements the case for UMNO to collaborate with PAS and jointly attempt to capture the Malay-Muslim vote.

In contrast, PH is constrained by its positioning as a multiracial coalition and by DAP supremo Lim Kit Siang warning that his party will leave the newfound coalition if the ideals of ‘New Malaysia’ are abandoned. The DAP commands 42 out of 125 of PH’s seats in the Dewan Rakyat, making up almost a third of their strength.

There is also the risk that even slight flirtation with any Malay-Muslim political exclusivism could come at the expense of PH’s non-Malay vote base. This stood at 95 per cent of Chinese voters and 70–75 per cent of Indian voters in the 2018 election.

Temptations to flirt with Malay political exclusivism will only rise further as UMNO and PAS increase the stakes and rhetoric. PH ought to refrain from knee-jerk reactions to appease the Malay electorate that play into the hands of UMNO–PAS. Instead, PH should understand that Cameron Highlands and Semenyih have always been traditional BN strongholds and not read too much into the results.

As of now it remains uncertain how successful the UMNO–PAS collaboration will be, and whether it poses a genuine threat to PH. In the meantime, PH should view the current racial and religious groundswell as a manifestation of the Malays’ insecurities, and perhaps, how things have not changed for the better since the 2018 election.

The unfortunate fact is that while GDP and foreign direct investment numbers matter to some in urban bubbles, it means little to many at the grassroots if it does not improve more direct ‘bread and butter’ issues such as high living costs, stagnant wages and low employment opportunities.

Without meaningfully addressing this, the sense of victimhood felt by the Malay-Muslims will only amplify, making it no wild stretch of imagination for the Malay swing electorate to revert to the familiarity of UMNO and PAS in the next elections.

There lies the foundation of any counter-narrative PH can offer to the electorate. This counter-narrative also needs to be coupled with nation-building initiatives to undermine the racial and religious bravado propped up by UMNO and PAS that seeks to appeal to the baser instincts of race and religion.

It would be unrealistic to expect PH to turn the tide around overnight. But with the elation of the May 2018 election victory quickly fading, PH would be wise to ignore the cacophony. It should focus on its mandate, remembering that there can be no legitimate government in Malaysia if it merely represents one ethnic group.

Harris Zainul is a researcher of economics, trade and regional integration at the Institute of Strategic and International Studies (ISIS) Malaysia.

Experts: ‘Social contract’ never in the Constitution

March 24,2019

http://www.thestar.com.my

• by fatimah zainal and clarissa chung

PETALING JAYA: The term “social contract” does not appear in the Federal Constitution and its misuse by some in society is worrying, say experts.

Moderation advocate Mohamed Tawfik Ismail said there was no such phrase as a “social contract” during the drafting of the Federal Constitution.

He said while the Constitution sought to address three issues, which were non-Malays’ citizenship, the national language and the special position of the Malays, it did not explicitly outline a social contract.

Muhamad Tawfik is the son of former de­­pu­­ty prime mi­­nis­ter Tun Dr Ismail Abdul Rahman, who was part of the delegation sent to London to negotiate terms of independence for Malaya.

He said the phrase was in fact coined by the late politician-cum-journalist Tan Sri Abdullah KOK Lanas Ahmad in 1986, which almost 30 years after independence.

Abdullah had in a speech in Singapore said that the “political system of Malay dominance was born out of the sacrosanct social contract which preceded national indepen­dence”.

As such, Abdullah urged that the Malaysian political system preserve the Malay position and meet Malay expectations.

Setting things straight: (from left) Mohamed Tawfik, Dr Lim and Dr Shad speaking at the forum at Universiti Malaya.

Since then, Abdullah’s definition of “social contract” has been appropriated by politicians.

“People have been talking about the social contract as though it was a real thing but Abdullah is a politician all the way.

“(Social contract) is actually a fiction.

“As far as the political parties are concerned, I can safely say that not one MP has defended the Constitution as they should and as they have sworn to do,” Mohamed Tawfik said at a forum titled “Social Contract and Its Relevancy in Contemporary Malaysia” at Universiti Malaya yesterday.

Public policy analyst Dr Lim Teck Ghee said Abdullah’s notion of a “social contract” was often repeated by Barisan Nasional and their supporters, and had now become an unquestionable truth in public consciousness.

Abdullah, he said, was more concerned about continuing the National Economic Policy, which was reaching its end in 1990.

Lim said the “social contract” phrase was never used by the Merdeka leaders and members of the Reid Commission, which was the body responsible for drafting the Constitution prior to Independence.

“The great majority of Malays accept the social contract as part of the Constitution.

“That’s a reality which unfortunately the Malay intellectuals, leaders and Rulers have to push back against.

“The political reality is that if the non­-Malays make a concerted effort to demystify the social contract alone by themselves, they would not be able to do it and they would suffer setbacks,” he said.

Lim recommended to replace racially­-based entitlements, handouts and subsidies that favour the rich or upper class with needs-based, race-blind programmes that benefit the B40, which includes Malays too.

“The Malays no longer need the handicap. They have exceeded standards and expectations,” he said.

He added that perhaps this handicap could be given to other more economically disadvantaged communities.

Constitutional law expert Emeritus Prof Datuk Dr Shad Saleem Faruqi said while the phrase “social contract” was not in the Constitution, what is more important is to fulfil its negotiated compromises.

Prof Shad urged that government policies must be aligned with Article 153 of the Constitution which has the spirit of affirmative action.

He said while the Constitution had provisions for the special position of Malays, it was “hedged in by limitations”.

“It is not across the board, it applies only in four areas: federal public service positions, federal scholarships, federal trade or business licences and tertiary education enrollment.

“The Constitution has a very important outline for affirmative action that can’t be denied.

“There are many communities still left behind, so we must review the workings of our affirmative action policy, for the orang asli, women or anyone who has been left behind so they can benefit from constitutional protection,” Prof Shad said.

He addressed some misconceptions about the Constitution, and explained that the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination does not contravene Article 153.

He also said the Constitution actually stipulated that federal posts were open to all races, barring a few exceptions.

“Recent talk that we can’t have non-Malays as Chief Justice, Attorney General and the Finance Minister, is very naughty and very dishonest.

“It has no connection with the Constitution,” Prof Shad said.

He urged Malaysians to improve their constitutional literacy. “In some respects if there was better know­ledge of the Constitution, we would have a much more peaceful and pleasant country.

“What’s happening now is politicians going around spreading their venom and people tend to believe them. This is made worse by social media,” he said.

 

Mujahid Yusof Rawa is a clown

 

https://www.malaysiakini.com/columns/467368

By THAYAPARAN– Commander (Rtd) of the Royal Malaysian Navy. A retired barrister-at-law, he is one of the founding members of the National Patriots Association.

 

Enough of beating up on a marginalised community. Does it make you feel strong and powerful? Do you know you endanger their lives and safety every time you attack them?”

– Ambiga Sreenevasan

COMMENT I have one question for Mujahid Yusof Rawa. If the LGBT “practices” are illegal, why isn’t the government rounding up LGBT people and incarcerating them? Mujahid asked this question of his critics before and babbled on about how these people have not committed any crime – “I have explained that (it cannot be done) unless they have committed a crime,”

However, we know that in Malaysia, if you are from the LGBT community – and Muslim – you will be whipped if your “practices” are discovered – “Two women convicted for attempting sexual relations will be fined and caned, a prosecutor said today, in a rare case against same-sex couples in the country.”

In a piece I wrote about the road to a theocratic state, I asked Mujahid to keep his mouth shut when it came to these issues, instead of playing to the far right crowd – “And no Mujahid, I do not want you to arrest them. I want you to keep your mouth shut about them, and instead create a counter-narrative that Harapan’s Islam is about promoting a first class education for your brethren, weeding out corruption in the political and religious class, ensuring the healthcare system is one of the best in the region, and ensuring a plurality of Islamic voices, so young people do not join extremist groups that pose a danger to the citizens of this country.”

Obviously, he did not take my advice. Instead, Mujahid has done what the Umno regime did before, which is demonise human rights groups, like Sisters in Islam and the WAO for standing up for the rights of disenfranchised citizens of this country in the recent woman’s right march, which he found offensive because it included the rights of the LGBT community.

I have never believed that Mujahid was a reformer like he claimed he was. His allies, who included many prominent non-Malay supporters, held Mujahid as an example of the kind of Islamic moderation this country would have if ever Harapan came into power. We now know that for the lie it was.

Obviously, he did not take my advice. Instead, Mujahid has done what the UMNO regime did before, which is demonise human rights groups, like Sisters in Islam and the WAO for standing up for the rights of disenfranchised citizens of this country in the recent woman’s right march, which he found offensive because it included the rights of the LGBT community.

I have never believed that Mujahid was a reformer like he claimed he was. His allies, who included many prominent non-Malay supporters, held Mujahid as an example of the kind of Islamic moderation this country would have if ever Harapan came into power. We now know that for the lie it was.

Mujahid is a big proponent of the Racial and Religious Hatred Act, and Harapan seems enamoured of hate speech laws. But you can bet your last ringgit these laws would be used to safeguard the religion of the state and not crack down on hate speech that happens in social media. Marginalised communities like the LGBT community, who are routinely savaged by some Harapan supporters, will, of course, be exempt from these laws.

Want to know what real hate speech is? Read the comments on social media, describing the community in the most hateful language. Then compare those comments with the actions of the state and federal governments when it comes to this community. Bullies, especially those who weaponise religion and culture, always target the marginalised in communities before working up the courage to move on to bigger targets.

Consider what Mujahid said: “I am shocked by the actions of a handful of people today who abuse the democratic space to defend practices that are against the Islamic teachings.”

This is the kind of slimy double talk religious operatives engage in. Forget the fact that so-called moderate Muslims like Mujahid have always been accused by the Islamic far right of abusing the democratic space to go against the teachings of Islam (or their version of it). But since when do the teachings of Islam determine how our public spaces are used in this country? Is it in our Federal Constitution?

There are colonial-era laws against specific sexual practices involving same sex individuals, but where in our Constitution does it say we cannot use our democratic space to voice out issues that go against Islam? Harapan is attempting to blur the line between criticising Islam and insulting Islam, but this is exactly what the UMNO regime did, and religious operatives like Mujahid were telling non-Malays and Muslims to speak up instead of ignoring the corruption of the state and Islam.

I get that we cannot “insult Islam” and could get up to 10 years imprisonment for this, but is the Harapan regime’s policy that we cannot use our democratic space to go against the teachings of Islam, even if such teachings go against our constitutional rights? Is this official Harapan policy? Where are all the non-Malay political operatives who were speaking out against this kind of discrimination before May 9?

Mujahid also said that it was up to the Home Ministry to take action against the organisers of the rally for holding a rally without a permit. How many times, when the Harapan regime was the opposition, did they hold rallies without permits, and political operatives like Mujahid encouraged people to attend those rallies because it was our democratic and constitutional right?

I guess when people accuse PAS and UMNO of being hypocrites, we may as well add Mujahid to the list.

Hew Wai Weng, in an article last year for the New Mandala, discussed the ‘Himpunan Kebangkitan Ummah’ (Ummah Awakening Gathering), noting: “The new Religious Affairs Minister Mujahid Rawa was criticised for ‘not defending Zakir Naik’ and ‘compromised on LGBT issues’. PAS leaders tried, through these criticisms, to portray a more ‘Islamic’ image compared with Pakatan’s Muslim leaders.”

Which is why, like an insecure person in a position of political and social power, Mujahid always has to display his religious and racial bona fides, because he is in a coalition which loudly proclaimed they were the progressive coalition of Malaysia.

Furthermore, he belongs to a moderate “Islamic” party – Amanah – which gets a lot of love from easily fooled non-Muslims, but which has, so far, merely conformed to the religious narratives of the Malay far right.

For most so-called progressives and the Malay right which supports Harapan, specifically the Bersatu faction, this is a non-issue. These people hate the LGBT community and understand their speech will always be protected by the state. Nobody cares that this is a government which claims to want to protect the constitutional rights of all citizens, but has no problem using religion to suppress the voice and rights of those it considers politically expendable.

How toxic is Harapan’s Islamic agenda? Well, you have someone who has been sentenced to 10 years in jail for insulting Islam and nobody in the Harapan political establishment has spoken out about it, excluding the always forthright Latheefa Koya.

Now, you have a minster in the Harapan regime attempting to hoodwink Malaysians into believing our democratic spaces can only be used for those issues which do not go against the teachings of Islam. Mujahid Rawa’s Islamic state of play is only going to get more toxic, and so far there is nobody in Harapan willing to confront it.

S THAYAPARAN is Commander (Rtd) of the Royal Malaysian Navy. A retired barrister-at-law, he is one of the founding members of the National Patriots Association.

The views expressed here are those of the author/contributor and do not necessarily represent the views of Malaysiakini.

The ticking time bomb of Hatred

March 17,2019

by Dr. Sharifah Munirah Alatas

http://www.freemalaysiatoday. com

March 17, 2019 8:00 AM

In just twenty-four hours, the world is aghast, again.

Human brutality instigated by religious and ethnic hatred has resurfaced. A cynic would say this has been going on for centuries, so what else is new?

The difference is, that in the last 30 years, the internet has played a key role. The ease and speed in the dissemination of racist and bigoted ideology have allowed hateful ideology to spread anonymously.

Both the Christchurch mosque massacres are a human catastrophe, but it is not unexpected. It reveals that we humans continue in our ignorance, sinister manipulation and arrogance.

The despicable actions of modern terrorists are responses to the rhetoric and hate speeches of our leaders. They too use the internet to spread their hate speech, both covertly and openly.

Lately, Malaysia’s leadership has been slipping into the same cauldron. The race and religious rhetoric continues to divide Malaysian society.

We may read umpteen times, that “deep down in every Malaysian, we are really a peaceful, harmonious people”. This may be true.

However, in the months after May 9, 2018, perceptions have changed again. Malaysians are bombarded by racial and religious rhetoric from the leadership.

“Rhetoric and insincerity have no place in post-GE14 Malaysia. The main takeaway from the Christchurch terrorist act is that the ticking time bomb was wired by political rhetoric and self-serving leaders in the first place. The result is a growing global polarisation between nations, religions and ethnicities.”–Sharifah Munirah Alatas

Mantras like “upholding the special rights of the Malays”, “threats to Islam”, “DAP is in control”, etc. are platforms onto which both PH and the opposition have latched. The real issues of governance and reforms, have once again been sidelined.

Using the ethereal notion of “threat” as a smokescreen, Malaysian politics has been reduced to a dangerous and manipulative divide-and-rule game.

The Christchurch gunman acted on these very cliches. It is a global phenomenon. Malaysians should decide once and for all, if we want to continue down this path. Our leaders have to wake up and smell the teh tarik.

Both Muslims and non-Muslims in Malaysia are bracing themselves for a verbal retaliation to the Christchurch massacre.

Already, a few “educated” academics claim that Malaysian politicians and muftis will start the narrative that “Muslims must ready themselves for the glorious jihad”; that mosque sermons will be slanted for “the ongoing war with the kafirs”.

Recently, a piece of this nature was circulated on social media. The article appealed for Muslims to be introspective and to ask if the shooting is the result of the Muslims’ own arrogance and extremist tendencies.

The question was contextualised within the argument that Muslims globally are rather silent on the IS and other Muslim terrorist killings.

The logic is that, we (Muslims) have no moral right in our indignation of white supremacist terrorism because our “own backyard is strewn with garbage”. This is not only objectionable but grossly ineffective.

In 2010, leading Pakistani clerics published fatwas, endorsed by Al-Azhar University, that condemn terrorism, indiscriminate violence and the unlawfulness of imposing Islam on others.

In 2008, about 6,000 Indian Muslim clerics approved a fatwa against terrorism at a conference in Hyderabad. This fatwa was termed “The Hyderabad Declaration”.

In 2010 the Islamic Supreme Council of Canada issued a fatwa against terrorism, signed by 20 North American imams. That same year, a major international conference convened in Mardin, Turkey. It issued a declaration to dismiss a 14th century fatwa by Ibn Taymiyyah which was used to justify terrorism.

In 2005, Malaysia’s own Sheikh Muhammad Afifi Al-Akiti published a fatwa condemning the targeting of innocents by terrorists. This was in response to the London bombings.

In 2004, the “Amman Message” was declared. It affirmed the validity of all eight schools of thought, including Sunni, Shia, Ibadi, Ash’arism and Sufism. The Amman Message also declared the impermissibility of takfir (declaring another Muslim to be an apostate).

In 2003, the Saudi Arabian Council of Senior Scholars issued a fatwa concerning suicide bombings and terrorism. It reiterated that those who commit these acts are contravening Islamic law.

There is an irresponsible attitude by some, as if to suggest that the actions of the Christchurch terrorist can be justified.

Public intellectuals and academics should be responsible in their tasks. They should be above sensationalism for cheap publicity. Politicians must not get involved in rhetorical racial and religious discourse, aimed at voter manipulation.

All of us should wake up from our slumber and realise that we are all to blame for the current dire straits we find ourselves in. Stop the finger-pointing. Admit to mistakes, and work together in overcoming society’s challenges.

Ego has no place. Race and religion should never be used as a political tool. Mass political behaviour, being what it is, finds comfort in collective grievances. Use these grievances to unite, not to divide.

Politicians and religious leaders should stop their puppet performances. Academics and public intellectuals should get over their egos and write the truth.

Rhetoric and insincerity have no place in post-GE14 Malaysia. The main takeaway from the Christchurch terrorist act is that the ticking time bomb was wired by political rhetoric and self-serving leaders in the first place. The result is a growing global polarisation between nations, religions and ethnicities.

Let us start to work together, amidst our diversity. This is not a rhetorical appeal.

The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of FMT.

Malaysia: Living in a Time of Jittery Politics

March 14, 2019

By  Dr. Sharifah Munirah Alatas

https://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/opinion/2019/03/12/politics-of-identity-is-ruining-democracy/

We live in an era of jittery politics. Established democracies like Britain, France and the US are facing historic political crises.

Malaysia has hopped onto the same bandwagon. The essence of the crisis in Malaysia’s democracy today is the inability of the government to address deep divisions in society. These divisions are exacerbated by the digital revolution. Information is dispersed at lightning speed, and the mix of verifiable and fake news has already become destructive.

Across class and geographical divisions, emotions are stirred, negative feelings are amplified and disdain simmers. The people are frustrated. A discerning electorate is healthy for democracy, but our brand of democracy has become a runaway train.

Since May 9, 2018, Malaysians have been coping with inertia, mixed signals and policy retractions (U-turns) from Putrajaya.

The failures of Pakatan Harapan (PH) seem to outweigh its successes. For these successes, however, we should actively highlight, and applaud them.

First, more space has opened up for public expression and assembly. The mood here is less of self-censorship, and more towards speaking one’s mind. This is a significant achievement for Malaysians in general, and democracy in particular.

Second, , as a Malaysian who believes in justice and inclusivity, I am happy that PH acceded to the Rome Statute. As expected, there are trouble-makers who feel otherwise. They are convinced that PH is out to undermine the “relevance” of the Malay race and royalty. It is obvious these critics feel it is their right to “be above the law”.

Deputy Defense Minister Liew Chin Tong

Third, there is the emergence of a new “brand” of ministers, specifically those who are putting their tertiary education to productive use. A very good example is Deputy Defence Minister Liew Chin Tong (a graduate from the Australian National University).

Liew recently wrote a column in a mainstream newspaper, but it was unlike anything I regularly read from our political leaders.

His conceptualisation of the UMNO-PAS realignment and a possible breakup of Barisan Nasional (BN) had a creative intellectual twist to it.

Liew was also pragmatic in his thoughts. Very few would dismiss him as a “cloudy mind in an ivory tower”. Liew’s application of the “scorched earth policy” to current Malaysian opposition politics demonstrates critical thinking, which Malaysian society hungers for in our leadership.

It is clear that there is a glimmer of hope in a few of our new generation of leaders. Most of what we are used to are rhetorical, rambling politicians who want to be heard for the sound of their voice, and not the quality of their minds.

We need more leaders like Liew who will continue to nurture a sense of pride among the public. This is necessary for a healthy, functioning democracy.

However, Malaysia’s democracy is skewed. A conceptual contradiction exists in the structure of Malaysian politics.

On the one hand, the system champions political parties which represent the peoples’ aspirations. Our wishes are exercised through fair and frequent elections. The ordinary citizen feels empowered. We are able to elect who we think are committed and dedicated to speak on our behalf. Our requests are often presented in parliamentary sittings.

On the other hand, the parties that these elected individuals belong to have platforms that are premised on undemocratic values. Many of these values are neither inclusive nor pluralistic.

There are two important characteristics of democracy. One, elections provide an opportunity to the people to change the present government. Two, it is based on the principle that the people have a say in who governs, with the objective of serving them.

It is the second characteristic that has exposed contradictions in the post-GE 14 political development. There is a fatal misfiring of what we believe democracy should be and what it actually is, Malaysian-style.

The contradictions exist because of the scourge of identity politics. It is fuelled by an ideology of religious and racial supremacy. Nobody is to blame for this but our political and intellectual leadership.

PH’s loss in Cameron Highlands and Semenyih demonstrates how Malaysians are easily manipulated. It also reveals that our political and intellectual intelligentsia permitted it to happen.

Notwithstanding that economic conditions form the basis of all other grievances harboured by Malaysians today, the Semenyih by-election exposed a stark reality. It proved that race, religion and nepotism serve as our ultimate value system.

We are used to BN’s identity politics, and I do not wish to elaborate on it. However, the choice of the PH candidate in Semenyih was shocking, to say the least. Aiman Zainali was unsuitable. The excuse for why he lost was that he is inexperienced. It may be a “kind” way to accept defeat, but it is not the democratic way. The choice of Aiman lacked vision, and was totally dismissive of what the people wanted. This is undemocratic.

Semenyih residents are plagued with traffic congestion, narrow roads, flash floods, a lack of efficient public transport, inept government doctors and overcrowded government clinics. There are too many eating stalls indiscriminately set up everywhere, blocking traffic, not to mention the perpetual stench of rotting wasted food in the drains.

During the campaign period, Aiman spoke to reporters a few times and his statements were flashed on many occasions. He spewed the usual rhetoric, that he would “focus on local issues”, he has “local links” and that the “Semenyih residents here are my friends”. He even said that he has no problem interacting with them.

Again, skewed democracy. Aiman did not interact with Semenyih residents at all. Before his candidacy, we knew nothing of him. Semenyih residents like me are totally ignorant of this young man. This is the main reason voters were ticked off.

The more serious question is, why pretend to be a democratic country if basic democratic values are not upheld?

Aiman was not picked because of his tight bond with “the locals”. Neither was he chosen because of his knowledge of what his constituents required.

Most, if not all voters who abstained on March 2 were convinced he was chosen because he was “the son-in-law”. Nepotism is certainly not a democratic value. This form of identity politics dismisses meritocracy from the equation.

Instead racism, bigotry, cronyism and gender-insensitivity are upheld. Exclusive political alliances on both sides of Malaysia’s political divide will lead to backwardness. The seeds of this have already been sown.

What I have written here is neither a doomsday analysis nor peachy optimism. We have to give the PH government more time.

But, I hope we are not giving them more time to hang themselves. In all societies, education is the screw that will either make or break a civilisation. More Malaysians have to keep harping on this like a broken record.

Where are the voices of academics in our universities? There are so many of us, yet we race to dabble in ranking exercises, useless research and robotic teaching methods.

Minister Maszlee Malik’s task is gargantuan, but he must start making drastic policy reforms. These reforms should be couched in a new ideological narrative.

First and foremost, we need to re-learn what democracy really is. We are no longer in a transitional period from colonialism to independence. The democratic discourse then was alive and fiery.

It seems we have forgotten the true democracy that is embodied in the Rukun Negara. Instead, we focus on “ketuanan Melayu”, Bumiputera rights and protection of Islam as our democratic values.

From kindergarten right up till tertiary education, our youth must be indoctrinated with the values enshrined in the Rukun Negara.

Only then will they understand the true nature of multi-culturalism and living in peace amidst diversity. They will not succumb to rhetoric.

This reformed ideological narrative should condemn racial, religious and sectarian discourse. Reforms should be implemented, that are bold enough to upset racial supremacists.

The government should not be afraid to “rock the boat” if they believe it is the morally sincere and socially-beneficial thing to do. Make a decisive policy change with respect to vernacular schools, for instance.

The bold ban on smoking is one such policy move that society will learn to appreciate in time. Make a decisive policy decision on the UEC. Stop wasting time and resources on discussions in new committees. A wealth of information already exists in books, researched articles and social media.

Malaysians will value less a “Hari Akademia”, and more promotion criteria for university lecturers, based on intellectual merit. Show the public that the government has guts to take a definite stand.

Ultimately, Malaysians need to see that PH is ashamed of the poor quality of our educators. After all, scholars are significant movers of societal change.

Political leaders can learn a lot from these intellectuals. Our education ministry should revamp its policy, with the goal of producing future intellectuals.

In 20 years, we could strive to produce 5. In the last 60 years, can we currently boast of 5?

The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of FMT.

242 Shares

214