Friday, 30 November 2007
Rape, it's a girl thing?
Reading the article "Most rapists are known to their victims", I am once again struck by how rape is a women's problem. The MCCF is going to give training to women and girls. Surely, if we want to deal with rape, it's the men who need training, not the women?
It's about poverty, it's about power
While I support the right to peaceful protest, I'm not in support of the demands of Hindraf.
It is problematic to ask for rights *as Indians*. This falls into the trap of believing that there is a difference between the Indian poor and marginalised, the Chinese, Orang Asli or Malay poor and marginalised and that plays into the hands of the elite.
It strengthens the ruling coalition. The Merdeka Centre reports that UMNO's support is rising. Is it because they have successfully portrayed themselves, again, as defenders of the Malays? If so, isn't a racialised demonstration only going to show the 'Malays' that they need to be defended?
I've been asked if this means I was against the fight for Black rights. The fight for Black rights was important, but as part of human rights - and remembering that although the system systematically discriminated against blacks, that the discrimination against blacks was still a way of ensuring the complicity of poor whites as well. Poor whites are allowed to feel that they have someone to oppress - it's the same with women, with supervisors on a factory floor etc. They are distracted into complicity with a ruling system that keeps them oppressed....
And this is the situation in Malaysia - if not more so. Malaysia has not just systematic discrimination, it also has race-based parties as its parties of Government. The official discourse is one of protecting one race against another - and it is this discourse that has kept BN in power for such a long time.
It isn't because the rights of Indians are not important. There *is* discrimination of Indians as Indians, particularly obvious when looking at deaths in police custody. But the Black rights movement shows how limited a race-based approach is - the more overt means of discrimination are no longer in place, and yet the Blacks still languish in prison in disproportionate numbers, same in poverty etc etc.
The only way to really address the problems faced by poor Indians (Samy, Ananda Krishnan and Tony Fernandes aren't worried about discrimination!), is to encourage them to look at their problems in a holistic manner - it isn't a race problem, it's a class and poverty problem. Estate workers suffer from poor wages - but look at the problems faced by Malay tobacco farmers especially since the ASEAN FTA introduction. We need to be overcoming the racial barriers, not giving the rich, powerful, multi-ethnic politicians and elite a reason to draw the poor to their 'racial' cause. It leads to the argument that only Malays can protect Malay interests, because those interests are threatened, not by the rich and powerful who negotiated ASEAN FTAs, but by the Indians and Chinese. And likewise for Indians, and Chinese.
The problem of poor Indians is not that they are Indians. Ananda Krishnan is an Indian. I don't think he suffers from discrimination. The problem is that they are poor. We are continually *told* that the reason is because they are Indian, whether it is from the point of view of being Indian (the Malays and Chinese do this to the Indian community) or from the point of view of a non-Indian (Indians are lazy, stupid, whatever).
But it really isn't. It's because they are poor. And as long as we see this as an Indian problem it will persist - it will persist after the dismantling of racial legislation. Because the problem is the system that discriminates, regardless of race, in favour of the rich. Again, ask the tobacco farmers of Kelantan, the fisherfolk of Penang, the rice farmers of KEdah. Of the supposed 'three' races in Malaysia today, the group with the LARGEST gap between rich and poor is the Malays.
The people who marched have real grievances. But they are playing into the hands of the elites by putting their grievances forward as race-based, not poverty-based. The Brits put into place the strategy of divide and rule, and this plays directly into that. It is not, ultimately, empowering. And it turns potential allies (poor Malays, Chinese) into enemies.
(Taken from correspondence with a colleague)
It is problematic to ask for rights *as Indians*. This falls into the trap of believing that there is a difference between the Indian poor and marginalised, the Chinese, Orang Asli or Malay poor and marginalised and that plays into the hands of the elite.
It strengthens the ruling coalition. The Merdeka Centre reports that UMNO's support is rising. Is it because they have successfully portrayed themselves, again, as defenders of the Malays? If so, isn't a racialised demonstration only going to show the 'Malays' that they need to be defended?
I've been asked if this means I was against the fight for Black rights. The fight for Black rights was important, but as part of human rights - and remembering that although the system systematically discriminated against blacks, that the discrimination against blacks was still a way of ensuring the complicity of poor whites as well. Poor whites are allowed to feel that they have someone to oppress - it's the same with women, with supervisors on a factory floor etc. They are distracted into complicity with a ruling system that keeps them oppressed....
And this is the situation in Malaysia - if not more so. Malaysia has not just systematic discrimination, it also has race-based parties as its parties of Government. The official discourse is one of protecting one race against another - and it is this discourse that has kept BN in power for such a long time.
It isn't because the rights of Indians are not important. There *is* discrimination of Indians as Indians, particularly obvious when looking at deaths in police custody. But the Black rights movement shows how limited a race-based approach is - the more overt means of discrimination are no longer in place, and yet the Blacks still languish in prison in disproportionate numbers, same in poverty etc etc.
The only way to really address the problems faced by poor Indians (Samy, Ananda Krishnan and Tony Fernandes aren't worried about discrimination!), is to encourage them to look at their problems in a holistic manner - it isn't a race problem, it's a class and poverty problem. Estate workers suffer from poor wages - but look at the problems faced by Malay tobacco farmers especially since the ASEAN FTA introduction. We need to be overcoming the racial barriers, not giving the rich, powerful, multi-ethnic politicians and elite a reason to draw the poor to their 'racial' cause. It leads to the argument that only Malays can protect Malay interests, because those interests are threatened, not by the rich and powerful who negotiated ASEAN FTAs, but by the Indians and Chinese. And likewise for Indians, and Chinese.
The problem of poor Indians is not that they are Indians. Ananda Krishnan is an Indian. I don't think he suffers from discrimination. The problem is that they are poor. We are continually *told* that the reason is because they are Indian, whether it is from the point of view of being Indian (the Malays and Chinese do this to the Indian community) or from the point of view of a non-Indian (Indians are lazy, stupid, whatever).
But it really isn't. It's because they are poor. And as long as we see this as an Indian problem it will persist - it will persist after the dismantling of racial legislation. Because the problem is the system that discriminates, regardless of race, in favour of the rich. Again, ask the tobacco farmers of Kelantan, the fisherfolk of Penang, the rice farmers of KEdah. Of the supposed 'three' races in Malaysia today, the group with the LARGEST gap between rich and poor is the Malays.
The people who marched have real grievances. But they are playing into the hands of the elites by putting their grievances forward as race-based, not poverty-based. The Brits put into place the strategy of divide and rule, and this plays directly into that. It is not, ultimately, empowering. And it turns potential allies (poor Malays, Chinese) into enemies.
(Taken from correspondence with a colleague)
Monday, 26 November 2007
Bad for business?
Once again, the centre of KL was closed off for a mass demonstration. And once again, shopkeepers suffered. Both of these is true.
But are demonstrations bad for business?
I was amused, after the Bersih demo, to read how one 7-11 that had stayed open was inundated with shoppers buying cold drinks - and this was presented as being bad for business! Nevertheless, chances are that demonstrators are not going to be buying clothes or souvenirs. Businesses dealing in items other than food, drink and maybe umbrellas suffered.
But why?
On the same day as the Bersih demonstration in KL, there was a rally of much the same size in central Melbourne. As with the Bersih rally, it was well-organised and policed by volunteers. But it was also policed by the police. Rather than time-consuming roadblocks, police diverted traffic away from the route of the march. They kept the protesters on their pre-determined route, and largely off the sidewalks. Shops and shoppers remained open and active - suffering the minor inconvenience of a leaflet thrust in their faces.
This begs the question - why are Malaysian demonstrations bad for business? It appears to me that tear gas and water cannons, demonstrations were police and demonstrators face off, rather than are facilitators, these demonstrations are, indeed, bad for business.
WHich means that the problem is not one of demonstrations being bad for business. Bad policing of demonstrations is bad for business. Instead of confronting demonstrators with riot police and roadblocks, use the police to keep order in a peaceful manner. LEt the demonstrators onto the streets, keep them off the sidewalks. Beforehand discuss the least disruptive route for the demonstration, taking into account the political needs of the demonstrators. And work with the organisers for a peaceful, prosperous march for all.
But are demonstrations bad for business?
I was amused, after the Bersih demo, to read how one 7-11 that had stayed open was inundated with shoppers buying cold drinks - and this was presented as being bad for business! Nevertheless, chances are that demonstrators are not going to be buying clothes or souvenirs. Businesses dealing in items other than food, drink and maybe umbrellas suffered.
But why?
On the same day as the Bersih demonstration in KL, there was a rally of much the same size in central Melbourne. As with the Bersih rally, it was well-organised and policed by volunteers. But it was also policed by the police. Rather than time-consuming roadblocks, police diverted traffic away from the route of the march. They kept the protesters on their pre-determined route, and largely off the sidewalks. Shops and shoppers remained open and active - suffering the minor inconvenience of a leaflet thrust in their faces.
This begs the question - why are Malaysian demonstrations bad for business? It appears to me that tear gas and water cannons, demonstrations were police and demonstrators face off, rather than are facilitators, these demonstrations are, indeed, bad for business.
WHich means that the problem is not one of demonstrations being bad for business. Bad policing of demonstrations is bad for business. Instead of confronting demonstrators with riot police and roadblocks, use the police to keep order in a peaceful manner. LEt the demonstrators onto the streets, keep them off the sidewalks. Beforehand discuss the least disruptive route for the demonstration, taking into account the political needs of the demonstrators. And work with the organisers for a peaceful, prosperous march for all.
Monday, 12 November 2007
From Bangkok
By Siew Eng:
I had my own adventure of sorts in Bangkok.
When I arrived a little after 2pm at the embassy, I was surprised to find people outside since I didn't think there was anything organised there. They were from Thai NGOs, showing solidarity with us - lovely, ain't it? They told me they had just submitted a letter to the embassy and we exchanged information briefly.
Then the embassy security guard, whom I had taken to be "okay" because he was smiling and carrying a bunch of yellow carnations presented to him by the Thais, also asked for my name, which I gave readily, thinking that the embassy should know that at least one Malaysian was there.
(Yeah, I'm naive that way.)
A second later, he told it to someone else, who jotted it down.
Yep, Special Branch.
I would expect harassment from our own force, but had thought the Thai police more clued in to democratic rights (coup notwithstanding), since they have been allowing anti-coup protests.
Nope. Same mould as ours.
And here's a damn big disadvantage when it comes to protesting in Thailand - I had no way of holding to account the Special Branch officer who took down my name. I kept saying, "Why is he taking down my name?" "Have I committed a crime?" "If the Malaysian embassy wants my name, I'll give it to them; this is none of the Thai police's business"...all water off the duck's back. Only the "friendly" security guard understood what I was saying but even he could not answer me. I was getting rather agitated to the point that my new Thai friend asked whether I was okay when I had finished my tirade.
Well, I wasn't. I was upset that I had to face harassment from the Thai police, who also took pictures of me. There were about 10 of them and four in plainclothes (btw, I have come to the conclusion that SBs have a universal look - properly combed closely cropped hair, ruddy face, heavy-set body, pot belly, steel-tipped boots...and when it comes to Thai SBs - a Pathunam amulet-pendant around their thick necks).
Our points made, our pictures taken, I thanked my new Thai friends for being there. I must admit I would not have relished facing the Thai police/SBs on my own and vowed from then on that the only demonstrating I would do would be on my own turf. At least at home, I can READ their bloody name tags.
I left for Chaktuchak after that, thinking I could get more "eyes" on my placard - salah strategi; everyone there (including me :-) had eyes only on the many goods on sale.
However, it was not a total loss as I met a friendly Thai shopkeeper who could speak English well (thank you, god!) and we chatted about politics (he admires Mahathir (!) except for what he did to Anwar), my placard (he was shocked that we get only a fortnight's notice for the polls) and compared Thai and Malaysian police. The lovely man affirmed my indignation at the Thai police's noting of my name, saying the very words I had uttered at them, "Why? It's none of their business!"
Of course, I bought some stuff from his store after that (discounted for me on top of the sale price) and promised to bring my Malaysian friends there whenever they come to visit.
So that was two heart-warming encounters with the generally lovely Thai people and one unpleasant brush with the Thai police.
I was lucky.
I had my own adventure of sorts in Bangkok.
When I arrived a little after 2pm at the embassy, I was surprised to find people outside since I didn't think there was anything organised there. They were from Thai NGOs, showing solidarity with us - lovely, ain't it? They told me they had just submitted a letter to the embassy and we exchanged information briefly.
Then the embassy security guard, whom I had taken to be "okay" because he was smiling and carrying a bunch of yellow carnations presented to him by the Thais, also asked for my name, which I gave readily, thinking that the embassy should know that at least one Malaysian was there.
(Yeah, I'm naive that way.)
A second later, he told it to someone else, who jotted it down.
Yep, Special Branch.
I would expect harassment from our own force, but had thought the Thai police more clued in to democratic rights (coup notwithstanding), since they have been allowing anti-coup protests.
Nope. Same mould as ours.
And here's a damn big disadvantage when it comes to protesting in Thailand - I had no way of holding to account the Special Branch officer who took down my name. I kept saying, "Why is he taking down my name?" "Have I committed a crime?" "If the Malaysian embassy wants my name, I'll give it to them; this is none of the Thai police's business"...all water off the duck's back. Only the "friendly" security guard understood what I was saying but even he could not answer me. I was getting rather agitated to the point that my new Thai friend asked whether I was okay when I had finished my tirade.
Well, I wasn't. I was upset that I had to face harassment from the Thai police, who also took pictures of me. There were about 10 of them and four in plainclothes (btw, I have come to the conclusion that SBs have a universal look - properly combed closely cropped hair, ruddy face, heavy-set body, pot belly, steel-tipped boots...and when it comes to Thai SBs - a Pathunam amulet-pendant around their thick necks).
Our points made, our pictures taken, I thanked my new Thai friends for being there. I must admit I would not have relished facing the Thai police/SBs on my own and vowed from then on that the only demonstrating I would do would be on my own turf. At least at home, I can READ their bloody name tags.
I left for Chaktuchak after that, thinking I could get more "eyes" on my placard - salah strategi; everyone there (including me :-) had eyes only on the many goods on sale.
However, it was not a total loss as I met a friendly Thai shopkeeper who could speak English well (thank you, god!) and we chatted about politics (he admires Mahathir (!) except for what he did to Anwar), my placard (he was shocked that we get only a fortnight's notice for the polls) and compared Thai and Malaysian police. The lovely man affirmed my indignation at the Thai police's noting of my name, saying the very words I had uttered at them, "Why? It's none of their business!"
Of course, I bought some stuff from his store after that (discounted for me on top of the sale price) and promised to bring my Malaysian friends there whenever they come to visit.
So that was two heart-warming encounters with the generally lovely Thai people and one unpleasant brush with the Thai police.
I was lucky.
Sunday, 11 November 2007
The Islamist aftermath
As I alluded to in my commentary to the events on Saturday, I was a bit miffed when Harakahdaily.net temporarily stated that PAS had managed to get 100,000 people out onto the streets.
This seems to be a bit of a larger problem, where Saturday was seen (by some) as part of an Islamist agenda. See here, for an example. So far refutations of this point of view aren't being accepted by the moderator.
I don't think that this is merely a problem for moderates/ liberals/ non-Muslims. It's a problem for PAS, if they are seen to be unreliable partners in the pro-democracy movement. It is a problem that has been mentioned in connection with the Anti-ISA Movement, that the political parties, PAS in particular, only getting involved in activities if they can control or take credit for them, not if they support the broader aim of ISA repeal. It dampened NGO enthusiasm for working with political parties in the post-Reformasi period. Let's hope this isn't repeated, and that Bersih is seen for what it is - a multi-racial, multi-religious coalition bringing together people from across Malaysian society to campaign for greater democracy, accountability and transparency.
This seems to be a bit of a larger problem, where Saturday was seen (by some) as part of an Islamist agenda. See here, for an example. So far refutations of this point of view aren't being accepted by the moderator.
I don't think that this is merely a problem for moderates/ liberals/ non-Muslims. It's a problem for PAS, if they are seen to be unreliable partners in the pro-democracy movement. It is a problem that has been mentioned in connection with the Anti-ISA Movement, that the political parties, PAS in particular, only getting involved in activities if they can control or take credit for them, not if they support the broader aim of ISA repeal. It dampened NGO enthusiasm for working with political parties in the post-Reformasi period. Let's hope this isn't repeated, and that Bersih is seen for what it is - a multi-racial, multi-religious coalition bringing together people from across Malaysian society to campaign for greater democracy, accountability and transparency.
Suaram update
This is the latest from Suaram:
Latest updates: 11 November 2007
Total number of arrests 34 – all released by 11pm; several more injured
When the final 10 of those arrested were released by the police at approximately 11pm last night (10 November 2007), the total count of arrests during the BERSIH rally was 34.
In SUARAM’s previous update at 9pm, 10 November 2007, there was a list of 24 names of those who were released and 5 who were still held. In addition to that list, SUARAM obtained names of 5 more individuals, who were still being held at that time.
Those who were released by the police as before 9pm:
1. Salleh Puteh
2. Muhammad Haji Yaakub
3. Mariel Fong
4. Hasnah Hashim
5. Mohd. Asri Ahmad
6. Mohd. Farouk Hussin
7. Daud Samad
8. Raja Salim @ Raja Daud Raja Abdullah
9. Khairul Anuar Safsie
10. Khairul Amirin Safsie
11. Ahmad Asmadi Adnan
12. Haji Hamid Baharuddin
13. Rawandi Repini
14. Sufian Manas
15. Haji Sulaiman Ahmad
16. Mohd. Harif Fathilah
17. Azhar Yusuf
18. Zamrol Majid
19. Shaharul Anuar Abdul Ghani
20. Mohd. Abdul Rahman Ariffin
21. Mohd. Salim Yesman
22. Abdul Rahman Mat Lodin
23. Khairul Salleh Ahmad
24. Nazrullah Ahmad
Those who were released at approximately 11pm:
25. Taib Abdullah
26. Ishak Othman
27. Mohd. Shafie Ismail
28. Mohd. Nazrin Nasir
29. Abisalam
30. Abdullah Ariffin*
31. Yahya Mohd. Nor*
32. Mohd. Rifiu*
33. Nawi Abdullah*
34. Fauzi Awang*
* Names obtained by SUARAM after 9pm, therefore was not in the previous update.
In addition to the arrests there were also individuals reported to be injured and sent to hospital. One individual, identified as Aleyasak Hamid, suffered from a broken leg and was sent to the General Hospital, Kuala Lumpur (Hospital Kuala Lumpur).
Saturday, 10 November 2007
Police reckon 245 arrested?
The Star Online reported that the police said *245* people had their statements recorded. I don't think this is true! Harakah is saying that 42 were detained, Suaram has 29 (24 released, 5 still in detention).
There are still people in detention, so please keep those letters coming in. If possible cc to suaram@suaram.net. The names of the five still in detention are:
1. Taib Abdullah
2. Ishak B. Othman
3. Mohd. Shafie Ismail
4. Mohd. Nazrin Nasir
5. Abisalam
There are still people in detention, so please keep those letters coming in. If possible cc to suaram@suaram.net. The names of the five still in detention are:
1. Taib Abdullah
2. Ishak B. Othman
3. Mohd. Shafie Ismail
4. Mohd. Nazrin Nasir
5. Abisalam
Take action!
Urgent appeal: 10 November 2007
At least 20 arrested in peaceful rally for free and fair elections
At least 20 persons, including women, were reported to have been arrested during a peaceful rally this afternoon (10 November 2007) in Kuala Lumpur. They are currently being held at IPK Jalan Hang Tuah.
The rally calling for free and fair elections in Malaysia was organised by BERSIH, a coalition of over 70 civil society groups and political parties, including SUARAM. The organisers had applied for a police permit on 3 November 2007 but their application was rejected by the police.
The arbitrary arrests by the police during the rally is a gross violation of Article 10 of the Federal Constitution, which is the highest law in the country, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR).
Despite the fact that the organisers have given assurances that it will take all measures to ensure peace and public order, the police still attempted to stop the rally even before it even started by setting up roadblocks in several locations near the venue and arrested 20 persons who were merely exercising their Constitutional rights to demand for free and fair elections.
So far, 15 names of those arrested have been obtained. They are:
1. Salleh Puteh (Male)
2. Anuar Abdul Ghani (Male)
3. Muhammad Haji Yaakub (Male)
4. Mariel Fong (Female)
5. Hasnah Hashim (Female)
6. Raja Salim (Male)
7. Asri (Male)
8. Mohd. Afrarouk Hussin (Male)
9. Daud Samad (Male)
10. Yahya Mohd Nor (Male)
11. Wan Zulkifli (Male)
12. Mohd. Mohd. Awu (Male)
13. Zainal Abidin Haji Abdullah (Male)
14. Elias Raja Daud Raja Abdullah (Male)
15. Mohd Ehsan Mokhtar (Male)
Actions needed
Please send letters to the Prime Minister and the Inspector-General of Police to register your strongest condemnation towards the utter disrespect for Malaysians' fundamental rights to freedom of assembly and to demand for the release of all those arrested.
Your letters should be sent to:
1. Tan Sri Musa Hassan
Inspector-General of Police
Ibu Pejabat Polis Diraja Malaysia
Bukit Aman
50560 Kuala Lumpur.
Tel: +603 2262 6222
Fax: +603 2273 9602
2. Dato' Seri Abdullah bin Haji Ahmad Badawi
Prime Minister and Minister of Internal Security
Prime Minister's Office Malaysia
Perdana Putra Building,
Federal Government Administrative Centre,
62502 PUTRAJAYA,
Selangor, Malaysia.
Tel: + 60 3 8888 6000
Fax: + 60 3 8888 3444
Cc:
1. Ibu Pejabat Polis Kontinjen Kuala Lumpur
Polis Diraja Malaysia
Jalan Hang Tuah
51100 Kuala Lumpur
Tel: 03-21460522, 03-2485522
Faks: 03-20726786
CPO: Datuk Zul Hasnan Najib Baharudin
2. Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (SUHAKAM)
Tingkat 29, Menara Tun Razak Jalan Raja Laut 50350Kuala Lumpur.Tel: 03-26125600
Fax: 03-26125620
Chaiman: Tan Sri Abu Talib Othman
3. Attorney General of Malaysia. Aras 1-8, Block C3, Parcel C Pusat Pentadbiran Kerajaan Persekutuan 62512 PutrajayaTel: 03-88855000
Fax: 03-88889378
Email: ag@agc.gov.my
AG of Malaysia: Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail
---
SAMPLE LETTER
[Letterhead of organisation]
10 November 2007
Tan Sri Musa Hassan
Inspector-General of Police
Ibu Pejabat Polis Diraja Malaysia
Bukit Aman
50560 Kuala Lumpur.
Tel: +603 2262 6222
Fax: +603 2273 9602
Dear Sir,
Peaceful demonstrators arbitrarily and unlawfully arrested by police; release them immediately
We are writing to you to register our strongest condemnation and protest against the arbitrary and unlawful arrests of at least 20 citizens who were participating in a peaceful rally in Dataran Merdeka this afternoon (10 November 2007).
So far, 15 names of those arrested have been obtained. They are:
1. Salleh Puteh (Male)
2. Anuar Abdul Ghani (Male)
3. Muhammad Haji Yaakub (Male)
4. Mariel Fong (Female)
5. Hasnah Hashim (Female)
6. Raja Salim (Male)
7. Asri (Male)
8. Mohd. Afrarouk Hussin (Male)
9. Daud Samad (Male)
10. Yahya Mohd Nor (Male)
11. Wan Zulkifli (Male)
12. Mohd. Mohd. Awu (Male)
13. Zainal Abidin Haji Abdullah (Male)
14. Elias Raja Daud Raja Abdullah (Male)
15. Mohd Ehsan Mokhtar (Male)
The arbitrary arrests by the police during the rally is a gross violation of Article 10 of the Federal Constitution, which is the highest law in the country, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR).
Despite the fact that the organisers have given assurances that it will take all measures to ensure peace and public order, the police still attempted to stop the rally even before it even started by setting up roadblocks in several locations near the venue and arrested at least 20 peaceful demonstrators who were merely exercising their Constitutional rights to demand for free and fair elections.
With such a blatant disregard for its own citizens' fundamental rights, we question the legitimacy of Malaysia as a member of the United Nations Human Rights Council.
We therefore demand that all those arrested by the police be released immediately.
Thank you for your attention.
Sincerely yours,
[Name]
CC:
Dato' Seri Abdullah bin Haji Ahmad Badawi
Prime Minister and Minister of Internal Security
Prime Minister's Office Malaysia
Perdana Putra Building,
Federal Government Administrative Centre,
62502 PUTRAJAYA,
Selangor, Malaysia.
Tel: + 60 3 8888 6000
Fax: + 60 3 8888 3444
Ibu Pejabat Polis Kontinjen Kuala Lumpur
Polis Diraja Malaysia
Jalan Hang Tuah
51100 Kuala Lumpur
Tel: 03-21460522, 03-2485522
Faks: 03-20726786
CPO: Datuk Zul Hasnan Najib Baharudin
Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (SUHAKAM)
Tingkat 29, Menara Tun Razak Jalan Raja Laut 50350Kuala Lumpur.Tel: 03-26125600
Fax: 03-26125620
Chaiman: Tan Sri Abu Talib Othman
Attorney General of Malaysia. Aras 1-8, Block C3, Parcel C Pusat Pentadbiran Kerajaan Persekutuan 62512 PutrajayaTel: 03-88855000
Fax: 03-88889378
Email: ag@agc.gov.my
AG of Malaysia: Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail
At least 20 arrested in peaceful rally for free and fair elections
At least 20 persons, including women, were reported to have been arrested during a peaceful rally this afternoon (10 November 2007) in Kuala Lumpur. They are currently being held at IPK Jalan Hang Tuah.
The rally calling for free and fair elections in Malaysia was organised by BERSIH, a coalition of over 70 civil society groups and political parties, including SUARAM. The organisers had applied for a police permit on 3 November 2007 but their application was rejected by the police.
The arbitrary arrests by the police during the rally is a gross violation of Article 10 of the Federal Constitution, which is the highest law in the country, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR).
Despite the fact that the organisers have given assurances that it will take all measures to ensure peace and public order, the police still attempted to stop the rally even before it even started by setting up roadblocks in several locations near the venue and arrested 20 persons who were merely exercising their Constitutional rights to demand for free and fair elections.
So far, 15 names of those arrested have been obtained. They are:
1. Salleh Puteh (Male)
2. Anuar Abdul Ghani (Male)
3. Muhammad Haji Yaakub (Male)
4. Mariel Fong (Female)
5. Hasnah Hashim (Female)
6. Raja Salim (Male)
7. Asri (Male)
8. Mohd. Afrarouk Hussin (Male)
9. Daud Samad (Male)
10. Yahya Mohd Nor (Male)
11. Wan Zulkifli (Male)
12. Mohd. Mohd. Awu (Male)
13. Zainal Abidin Haji Abdullah (Male)
14. Elias Raja Daud Raja Abdullah (Male)
15. Mohd Ehsan Mokhtar (Male)
Actions needed
Please send letters to the Prime Minister and the Inspector-General of Police to register your strongest condemnation towards the utter disrespect for Malaysians' fundamental rights to freedom of assembly and to demand for the release of all those arrested.
Your letters should be sent to:
1. Tan Sri Musa Hassan
Inspector-General of Police
Ibu Pejabat Polis Diraja Malaysia
Bukit Aman
50560 Kuala Lumpur.
Tel: +603 2262 6222
Fax: +603 2273 9602
2. Dato' Seri Abdullah bin Haji Ahmad Badawi
Prime Minister and Minister of Internal Security
Prime Minister's Office Malaysia
Perdana Putra Building,
Federal Government Administrative Centre,
62502 PUTRAJAYA,
Selangor, Malaysia.
Tel: + 60 3 8888 6000
Fax: + 60 3 8888 3444
Cc:
1. Ibu Pejabat Polis Kontinjen Kuala Lumpur
Polis Diraja Malaysia
Jalan Hang Tuah
51100 Kuala Lumpur
Tel: 03-21460522, 03-2485522
Faks: 03-20726786
CPO: Datuk Zul Hasnan Najib Baharudin
2. Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (SUHAKAM)
Tingkat 29, Menara Tun Razak Jalan Raja Laut 50350Kuala Lumpur.Tel: 03-26125600
Fax: 03-26125620
Chaiman: Tan Sri Abu Talib Othman
3. Attorney General of Malaysia. Aras 1-8, Block C3, Parcel C Pusat Pentadbiran Kerajaan Persekutuan 62512 PutrajayaTel: 03-88855000
Fax: 03-88889378
Email: ag@agc.gov.my
AG of Malaysia: Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail
---
SAMPLE LETTER
[Letterhead of organisation]
10 November 2007
Tan Sri Musa Hassan
Inspector-General of Police
Ibu Pejabat Polis Diraja Malaysia
Bukit Aman
50560 Kuala Lumpur.
Tel: +603 2262 6222
Fax: +603 2273 9602
Dear Sir,
Peaceful demonstrators arbitrarily and unlawfully arrested by police; release them immediately
We are writing to you to register our strongest condemnation and protest against the arbitrary and unlawful arrests of at least 20 citizens who were participating in a peaceful rally in Dataran Merdeka this afternoon (10 November 2007).
So far, 15 names of those arrested have been obtained. They are:
1. Salleh Puteh (Male)
2. Anuar Abdul Ghani (Male)
3. Muhammad Haji Yaakub (Male)
4. Mariel Fong (Female)
5. Hasnah Hashim (Female)
6. Raja Salim (Male)
7. Asri (Male)
8. Mohd. Afrarouk Hussin (Male)
9. Daud Samad (Male)
10. Yahya Mohd Nor (Male)
11. Wan Zulkifli (Male)
12. Mohd. Mohd. Awu (Male)
13. Zainal Abidin Haji Abdullah (Male)
14. Elias Raja Daud Raja Abdullah (Male)
15. Mohd Ehsan Mokhtar (Male)
The arbitrary arrests by the police during the rally is a gross violation of Article 10 of the Federal Constitution, which is the highest law in the country, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR).
Despite the fact that the organisers have given assurances that it will take all measures to ensure peace and public order, the police still attempted to stop the rally even before it even started by setting up roadblocks in several locations near the venue and arrested at least 20 peaceful demonstrators who were merely exercising their Constitutional rights to demand for free and fair elections.
With such a blatant disregard for its own citizens' fundamental rights, we question the legitimacy of Malaysia as a member of the United Nations Human Rights Council.
We therefore demand that all those arrested by the police be released immediately.
Thank you for your attention.
Sincerely yours,
[Name]
CC:
Dato' Seri Abdullah bin Haji Ahmad Badawi
Prime Minister and Minister of Internal Security
Prime Minister's Office Malaysia
Perdana Putra Building,
Federal Government Administrative Centre,
62502 PUTRAJAYA,
Selangor, Malaysia.
Tel: + 60 3 8888 6000
Fax: + 60 3 8888 3444
Ibu Pejabat Polis Kontinjen Kuala Lumpur
Polis Diraja Malaysia
Jalan Hang Tuah
51100 Kuala Lumpur
Tel: 03-21460522, 03-2485522
Faks: 03-20726786
CPO: Datuk Zul Hasnan Najib Baharudin
Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (SUHAKAM)
Tingkat 29, Menara Tun Razak Jalan Raja Laut 50350Kuala Lumpur.Tel: 03-26125600
Fax: 03-26125620
Chaiman: Tan Sri Abu Talib Othman
Attorney General of Malaysia. Aras 1-8, Block C3, Parcel C Pusat Pentadbiran Kerajaan Persekutuan 62512 PutrajayaTel: 03-88855000
Fax: 03-88889378
Email: ag@agc.gov.my
AG of Malaysia: Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail
Those detained...
Mkini is still difficult to access, as is Malaysia Today, but Suaram is publishing the names of those detained, as yet:
(And Harakah are now reporting that Bersih, not PAS, gathered 100,000, so I'm mildly happier!).
1. Salleh b. Puteh
2. Anuar b. Abdul Ghani
3. Muhammad b. Haji Yaakub.
That's it so far....
Photos at: http://rockybru.blogspot.com/2007/11/yellow-day.html(And Harakah are now reporting that Bersih, not PAS, gathered 100,000, so I'm mildly happier!).
And it goes...
Everything seems clear, although getting some messages that the police want to clamp down, though not sure where. Might be some people gathering at PAS hq, but unconfirmed. PAS are claiming *they* brought out 100,000 (!) people, and that over 30 have been detained.
First impartial estimate puts it nearer 15,000....
First impartial estimate puts it nearer 15,000....
Central Market clear...
Got a message that says that Central Market is clear, everyone has dispersed, and the atmosphere there is quite relaxed.... not sure if that's true of everywhere, can't get through to the sites!
Confirmation that all is clear, but now just waiting for updates on those arrested, will let you know as I do.... (5.25pm).
Confirmation that all is clear, but now just waiting for updates on those arrested, will let you know as I do.... (5.25pm).
20 down, 9,980 to go?
It seems 20 people have been arrested, according to Harakah daily, and the memo has been delivered. Al J and Reuters are covering it, but not with the blow-by-blow accounts of the local media (duh!).
And it seems that someone, at least, has been hurt by the tear gas. Not sure how badly.
And it seems that someone, at least, has been hurt by the tear gas. Not sure how badly.
Pockets of peace, pockets of trouble
It seems that in some areas, outside the Istana for eg, things are going peacefully. But in other areas there is trouble. 13 people have been arrested, it seems, in Jln TAR and around SOGO, according to the latest Harakah daily reports, blogged on MT.
4.24pm: MT is now down, but if you can get onto Harakah Daily, you can see the live stream.... and hear the chants. Amazing job by the Bersih organisers!
4.24pm: MT is now down, but if you can get onto Harakah Daily, you can see the live stream.... and hear the chants. Amazing job by the Bersih organisers!
Friday, 9 November 2007
FRU moving in
From the MT blog (I think the RPK via handphone), a total of 9 arrests, and the FRU dispersing people at Jln Melayu.
4.08 pm: The area around the Istana is clearing peacefully, thanks to the volunteers.
4.08 pm: The area around the Istana is clearing peacefully, thanks to the volunteers.
MT blog - 3 arrested
The Malaysia Today blog is saying that 3 people have been arrested. No further details, 3.45pm.
3.56 pm - Two more arrested.
There's live tv coverage online at http://webtv.pas.org.my/, if you can connect. Mkini is better now, but Harakah is on-again, off-again.
3.56 pm - Two more arrested.
There's live tv coverage online at http://webtv.pas.org.my/, if you can connect. Mkini is better now, but Harakah is on-again, off-again.
Mkini is back...
and saying that a 7-person delegation is going up to the Istana to hand in the memorandum, waiting on Anwar who is stuck in traffic. 40,000 people, held away from the Istana by FRU.
How many???
Harakah daily had been more modest in its estimates than Mkini had been, but they're now saying 50,000 people!! It was raining, the rain has stopped, and a delegation is still trying to get to the Istana.
My latest sms works with that - says people are walking straight to the Istana, in individual trickles... seeing what happened at Masjid Jamek as a Bersih-organised diversion. It seems there's also a stand-off happening at Dataran Merdeka itself.
If you're bored, or a Michael Jackson fan, see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G4ycaduE_D4.
My latest sms works with that - says people are walking straight to the Istana, in individual trickles... seeing what happened at Masjid Jamek as a Bersih-organised diversion. It seems there's also a stand-off happening at Dataran Merdeka itself.
If you're bored, or a Michael Jackson fan, see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G4ycaduE_D4.
Unknown source
Not sure who this is from, but some buses have been stopped and ordered to turn back at the Gombak Toll, at 1.30pm. Mkini reports about 2,000 people there.
Latest Mkini report, before site seems to have gone down, was that 10,000 people were marching into Dataran Merdeka, taking two different routes. Was trying to access full story, and now can't get anything :(.
Latest Mkini report, before site seems to have gone down, was that 10,000 people were marching into Dataran Merdeka, taking two different routes. Was trying to access full story, and now can't get anything :(.
More tear gas.
The reports I'm getting on sms don't tally with what's up on Malaysiakini, but it seems more tear gas has been fired, and the crowd pushed out of Jamek station, with 'in out' tactics.
Tear gas! Update 3
The crowd has been tear-gassed, retreated to Masjid Jamek/ Burger King. Msian time: 2.37pm
Moving forward, pushing back, Rally post 2
The crowd is surging forward towards Dataran Merdeka, pushing back the FRU. It sounds hectic there, but the FRU is moving back. Not sure how many people are there. 2.24pm Malaysian time - not even time for the rally to start yet!
Bersih Rally 1pm - First update
Two things. First, the Bersih.org website is erratic. There are problems accessing it. And if you can get onto the main page, it's difficult to get into any of the inside pages.
Second, an sms that says that there are road blocks, with the police checking car boots. They stopped a girl with a yellow wrist band. There are helicopters buzzing and FRU and police at corridor between Central Market and McDonalds. There are five policemen sitting at BauBau cafe (in the Central Market Annexe).
It seems that the KTM trains aren't running, officially because there are delays, but there have been no announcements. The LRT *is* running.
Second, an sms that says that there are road blocks, with the police checking car boots. They stopped a girl with a yellow wrist band. There are helicopters buzzing and FRU and police at corridor between Central Market and McDonalds. There are five policemen sitting at BauBau cafe (in the Central Market Annexe).
It seems that the KTM trains aren't running, officially because there are delays, but there have been no announcements. The LRT *is* running.
Thursday, 8 November 2007
Here! Tomorrow!
Real time updates on the events at Dataran Merdeka. Promise. If my troopers come through...
Indigenous rights and Oz
There are some *serious* issues facing indigenous people in Australia. THe most recent is the Federal Govt 'intervention' in the Northern Territory. The aim, officially, of the intervention is to prevent child abuse, which is at shockingly high levels. But the Federal Govt has some interesting ideas on this - ignoring most of the recommendations made by the people who had spent time in the communities and engaged in consultation etc, and instead engaged in a series of measures that include:
1. Sending in the *army*!
2. Changing the land rights and title of Aboriginal people
3. Suspending/ exerting control over welfare payments.
What's great, in comparison to Malaysia, is that there are articulate indigenous spokespeople who are given a reasonable amount of coverage in the mass media, and loads of coverage in the independent media. What's annoying is that these spokespeople inevitably argue that the Australian indigenous people have 'the worst' deal in the world.
Sorry, but this bugs me. It ignores the bad deal, terrible deal, and often equally genocidal deal, that indigenous people in the developing world. If you compare the deal they get in Australia with New Zealand, Canada and the US, it is horrendous. If you compare with Thailand, for example, or Cambodia, or Vietnam, it looks a lot less bad.
The reason I bring it up is because this focus on the bad West, has led to problems at an international level. When at the World Conference Against Racism, for example, the indigenous womens' caucus put forward a whole series of demands (negotiated in English) that completely ignored the needs of indigenous women in the developing world. And because they *didn't* speak English, they were marginalised by those who are in turn marginalised within their home states.
Grouch.
1. Sending in the *army*!
2. Changing the land rights and title of Aboriginal people
3. Suspending/ exerting control over welfare payments.
What's great, in comparison to Malaysia, is that there are articulate indigenous spokespeople who are given a reasonable amount of coverage in the mass media, and loads of coverage in the independent media. What's annoying is that these spokespeople inevitably argue that the Australian indigenous people have 'the worst' deal in the world.
Sorry, but this bugs me. It ignores the bad deal, terrible deal, and often equally genocidal deal, that indigenous people in the developing world. If you compare the deal they get in Australia with New Zealand, Canada and the US, it is horrendous. If you compare with Thailand, for example, or Cambodia, or Vietnam, it looks a lot less bad.
The reason I bring it up is because this focus on the bad West, has led to problems at an international level. When at the World Conference Against Racism, for example, the indigenous womens' caucus put forward a whole series of demands (negotiated in English) that completely ignored the needs of indigenous women in the developing world. And because they *didn't* speak English, they were marginalised by those who are in turn marginalised within their home states.
Grouch.
Wednesday, 7 November 2007
And now to Oz...
It's bright, sunny and the birds are (seriously) singing. I'm in a comparatively chilly two-bedroom apartment, looking for an excuse not to do the laundry, and this is it! I'm working from home, much as I have been in my retreat in Rawang, still keeping an eye and a half on what's happening back in KL, and keeping my fingers crossed.
Here, it's election time. I was listening to a wonderful group of people on the radio this morning. Ah, this should really start with a discussion of 3CR, and the other community radio stations in Melbourne, but that will have to wait. Was listening to the John Howard Ladies' Auxiliary Fan Club
who have now started a 'paramilitary' wing to declare war on the working classes. The ladies had staged a 'terrorist' event at one of 'Johnnie's' events this morning. Strapping Christmas crackers on themselves, they rallied round one of his events, then pulled the crackers at an opportune moment. According to them (the stunt was conducted live on air), this was to provide Johnnie with an opportunity to declare, once more, a war on terrorism, create fear and thus guarantee himself another term as Premier.
There are lots of serious issues in this election - but nobody seems to want to talk about them. The Labour leader, Kevin Rudd, seems to have his behaviour largely dictated by John Howard. Howard says 'sack the Trade Unionists' and Rudd obliges. Yet, despite startling low unemployment (watch those figures morph as definitions change!), something like 10% of Australians experience poverty - much higher than the number of unemployed. Not an issue to mention in this election.
Maybe in the next post I'll talk about indigenous issues - the Aborigines here have a bad deal, but I am sometimes annoyed about how focussed they are on the industrialised and developed world...
Here, it's election time. I was listening to a wonderful group of people on the radio this morning. Ah, this should really start with a discussion of 3CR, and the other community radio stations in Melbourne, but that will have to wait. Was listening to the John Howard Ladies' Auxiliary Fan Club
who have now started a 'paramilitary' wing to declare war on the working classes. The ladies had staged a 'terrorist' event at one of 'Johnnie's' events this morning. Strapping Christmas crackers on themselves, they rallied round one of his events, then pulled the crackers at an opportune moment. According to them (the stunt was conducted live on air), this was to provide Johnnie with an opportunity to declare, once more, a war on terrorism, create fear and thus guarantee himself another term as Premier.
There are lots of serious issues in this election - but nobody seems to want to talk about them. The Labour leader, Kevin Rudd, seems to have his behaviour largely dictated by John Howard. Howard says 'sack the Trade Unionists' and Rudd obliges. Yet, despite startling low unemployment (watch those figures morph as definitions change!), something like 10% of Australians experience poverty - much higher than the number of unemployed. Not an issue to mention in this election.
Maybe in the next post I'll talk about indigenous issues - the Aborigines here have a bad deal, but I am sometimes annoyed about how focussed they are on the industrialised and developed world...
Tuesday, 21 August 2007
Our children vs the tourists
Was just listening to the news over Traxx FM tonight... and they reported a new Government initiative. School buses will no longer be allowed to operate, even on a temporary basis, as tourist buses, because they don't meet the required safety standards.
Read that again slowly. The tourist buses have higher safety standards than our SCHOOL buses have.
Is it me, or is this just a bizarre ordering of priorities? How on EARTH have we arrived at a point where tourists are worth more to us than our own children?
Read that again slowly. The tourist buses have higher safety standards than our SCHOOL buses have.
Is it me, or is this just a bizarre ordering of priorities? How on EARTH have we arrived at a point where tourists are worth more to us than our own children?
Monday, 23 July 2007
Another spiked article
Hi people,
This is my column for June, which didn't make it into the Sun. And I was, seriously, trying to be careful. Didn't mention baby-snatching or locking up effeminate men. Sigh.
This is my column for June, which didn't make it into the Sun. And I was, seriously, trying to be careful. Didn't mention baby-snatching or locking up effeminate men. Sigh.
The proper jurisdiction
By Sonia Randhawa
Almost 40 more books have been pulled from our shelves. As Malaysians, we are considered insufficiently mature to read them. They may be pornographic or, worse still, they may confuse us. All these books are banned under the Internal Security Ministry, signed off by the Internal Security Minister (better known as the Prime Minister).
Book banning, or restricting, is always an infringement of our fundamental rights. It is always an abrogation of Article 10 of the Constitution. But, so what? Many of us feel that there is a need to put limits on freedom of speech, as well as our other fundamental freedoms. And the Constitution recognises this. Article 10 is limited, there are matters that do not fall under its protection. The problem then becomes how do we interpret these limitations?
I recently met with the secretary for the Publications and Quranic Texts Control Division, a civil servant of the old school. Seemingly steeped in his responsibility, he acknowledges both his shortcomings and his attempts to overcome them, and best of all is willing to engage in frank dialogue with some of his sternest critics to improve. His sternest critics, of course, including me. After all, his job is to ban books. And other publications.
He and his staff argued that there is a need to prevent religious confusion, and that the proper place for it to be decided whether or not a book causes religious confusion is Jabatan Kemajuan Islam Malaysia, Jakim. There, religious scholars can sit and discuss the number of angels on a pinhead, or whether discussing the number of angels that can fit on a pinhead is liable to cause confusion.
Now, my first question was, so what if people are confused? Is confusion a matter of national security? Public order? It is hard to see how causing confusion, religious or otherwise, is a justification for censorship. It certainly isn't there under the Constitution.
And this is where I get disconcerted. Because every functionary, every civil servant, from the lowliest traffic policeman to the Yang DiPertuan Agong derives their power, position, prestige and even salary from the Constitution. If the Yang-Dipertuan Agong wishes to make laws, he can't. He does not have the authority to make legislation. Because it says so in our Constitution. The legitimacy of our offices, the legitimacy of our laws, all derive from the Constitution. The right of the Internal Security Ministry to ban books derives from the Constitution.
The Constitution, however, does not enforce the will of the majority. It was designed to be sturdier than that. Because a consistently marginalised minority is unlikely to support a state. So one of the first things written into the Constitution was protection of fundamental liberties, liberties which will ensure that minorities are not consistently marginalised, or persecuted. Regardless of subsequent laws. If they infringe the Constitution (such as Article 198A of the Penal Code), the courts can declare the offending article, or act, an infringement of the Constitution – and therefore not valid law.
So when books are banned, it is an abrogation of our fundamental liberties. But the Constitution says this is alright, under certain circumstances. Now, Jakim has responsibilities. It is responsible to the Ummah, the individual scholars are responsible to their own consciences. They are not, however, responsible for the decision to ban, or not ban, a book. They can make recommendations, of what is best for the Ummah.
This is not the same as what is best for Malaysia. The Internal Security Ministry is responsible for banning books. Unlike Jakim, it has to consider whether or not it has the right, under the Constitution, and in light of what is best for all Malaysians, to ban a book.
The secretary elaborated the appeals process that has been put in place, emphasised that it is impossible for his department to scrutinise all eight million publications that come into the country each year. All of which is valid and important. But his role is a hugely important one. He makes the recommendations to the Minister on whether or not a book, or publication, is dangerous enough to warrant abrogating our fundamental liberty of freedom of speech. It is a weighty decision. Because deciding the wrong way does two things.
First, it brings his own department (and thus the law) into disrepute. Banning (or restricting) children's books (which he plausibly denies having done), books on breastfeeding, or important academic texts, makes him, and his office, look silly. Not the best reputation for a Government department to have.
The second is worse. It indicates that the Internal Security Minister, who is currently also the Prime Minister, is showing a lack of respect to the Constitution. And the Constitution is the fount of all law, it is where the Prime Minister, the police officer, the tax collector, all derive their power. If those who derive their authority from the Constitution show it a lack of respect, it sets an exceedingly bad example, and sets us one step further down the path to lawlessness.
Thursday, 7 June 2007
Malaysia After Lina Joy Forum
The DAP organised a forum on the Lina Joy case last night. Much as it was vaunted to be dialogue, there was very little of that. For dialogue to exist, the two sides (and there are two sides here, there appears to be little middle ground) need to be talking the same language. And that seems to be impossible.
This was no reflection on the organisers or the speakers. Lim Guan Eng wasn't particularly compelling, but Leonard Teoh from the Malaysian Consultative Council of Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Sikhism and Taoism (MCCBCHST) suprised me. In the past, I have been critical of the way in which they have phrased their statements, which basically seemed to me to lack backbone. I was highly critical of the way they handled the Moorthy case. Leonard however made some very pertinent points - most important, I think, that this is NOT an issue of Islamic theology, but an issue of Malay nationalism, looking at what the Mufti of Perak had said on al-Jazeera.
He also pointed out the contradiction - we insist that Malays profess Islam, but less emphasis is put upon the other definition of a Malay as one who regularly practices the Malay adat.
Tan Sri Khalid was also dull, but was succeeded by Azmi Sharom. The most important point he made, imho, was that this is not a merely administrative matter. It is a matter of detention without trial, a matter of civil liberties and suffering. And by refusing to take a stand on this matter, the civil courts are not living up to their responsibilities.
Yusri Mohamad from ABIM was next. He was understandably defensive, but to the point almost of insult, questioning the motives of DAP in organising the forum, stating openly that he hoped that it was not to mock Islam. He said very little, but basically asserted the rights of the Syariah courts, made the point that everyone thinks we are better than our neighbours in terms of integration and harmony (which most of the audience disagreed with!) and warned about 'extreme secular' views. Was generally elitist in outlook, as in we have to discount the views of those who are not educated etc.
Ambiga S., President of the Bar Council spoke after Yusri. Two main points here was that this is NEW - that previous judgements have upheld the Constitutional right to freedom of religion in similar circumstances, up to 1999. And that the minority judgement was diametrically opposed to the majority judgement on every point. This is the scary thing for me - there seems to be no common ground.
I missed Lim Kit Siang's speech, but caught some of the questions.
This was where it became more apparent that while we were using the same words, the two different sides (and that really is what exists) are not using the same language. Ambiga had said that referring criticisms about referring non-Muslims to the Syariah court is not a judgement on the courts themselves, whether they are fair or just. It is that non-Muslims and those not professing Islam should not be subject to the courts upholding the religious law of a religion not their own. It is akin to Muslims being subject to the Ecclesiastical court, and the views of non-Muslims are given less weight etc. The comment from the floor was that this is already happening because Muslims are subject to the civil courts on a daily basis.
Where is the space for dialogue? We can point out a million times that this is just inaccurate, that it is not the same thing as being subject to an ecclesiastical court, but it would make no difference.
So all we can hope is that there are fence-sitters, a silent majority, out there who do not think that compassion allows for Lina Joy to be subject to detention without trial on the grounds of her belief. I think that the silent/ silenced majority is out there, but our mis-education system, our castrated media and culture of mediocrity make critical discussion and debate less likely with each passing year, reducing the silent majority and increasing the strength of the forces who are rapidly turning Malaysia into a theocratic state.
Speak out, or you'll lose your voice.
This was no reflection on the organisers or the speakers. Lim Guan Eng wasn't particularly compelling, but Leonard Teoh from the Malaysian Consultative Council of Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Sikhism and Taoism (MCCBCHST) suprised me. In the past, I have been critical of the way in which they have phrased their statements, which basically seemed to me to lack backbone. I was highly critical of the way they handled the Moorthy case. Leonard however made some very pertinent points - most important, I think, that this is NOT an issue of Islamic theology, but an issue of Malay nationalism, looking at what the Mufti of Perak had said on al-Jazeera.
He also pointed out the contradiction - we insist that Malays profess Islam, but less emphasis is put upon the other definition of a Malay as one who regularly practices the Malay adat.
Tan Sri Khalid was also dull, but was succeeded by Azmi Sharom. The most important point he made, imho, was that this is not a merely administrative matter. It is a matter of detention without trial, a matter of civil liberties and suffering. And by refusing to take a stand on this matter, the civil courts are not living up to their responsibilities.
Yusri Mohamad from ABIM was next. He was understandably defensive, but to the point almost of insult, questioning the motives of DAP in organising the forum, stating openly that he hoped that it was not to mock Islam. He said very little, but basically asserted the rights of the Syariah courts, made the point that everyone thinks we are better than our neighbours in terms of integration and harmony (which most of the audience disagreed with!) and warned about 'extreme secular' views. Was generally elitist in outlook, as in we have to discount the views of those who are not educated etc.
Ambiga S., President of the Bar Council spoke after Yusri. Two main points here was that this is NEW - that previous judgements have upheld the Constitutional right to freedom of religion in similar circumstances, up to 1999. And that the minority judgement was diametrically opposed to the majority judgement on every point. This is the scary thing for me - there seems to be no common ground.
I missed Lim Kit Siang's speech, but caught some of the questions.
This was where it became more apparent that while we were using the same words, the two different sides (and that really is what exists) are not using the same language. Ambiga had said that referring criticisms about referring non-Muslims to the Syariah court is not a judgement on the courts themselves, whether they are fair or just. It is that non-Muslims and those not professing Islam should not be subject to the courts upholding the religious law of a religion not their own. It is akin to Muslims being subject to the Ecclesiastical court, and the views of non-Muslims are given less weight etc. The comment from the floor was that this is already happening because Muslims are subject to the civil courts on a daily basis.
Where is the space for dialogue? We can point out a million times that this is just inaccurate, that it is not the same thing as being subject to an ecclesiastical court, but it would make no difference.
So all we can hope is that there are fence-sitters, a silent majority, out there who do not think that compassion allows for Lina Joy to be subject to detention without trial on the grounds of her belief. I think that the silent/ silenced majority is out there, but our mis-education system, our castrated media and culture of mediocrity make critical discussion and debate less likely with each passing year, reducing the silent majority and increasing the strength of the forces who are rapidly turning Malaysia into a theocratic state.
Speak out, or you'll lose your voice.
Friday, 1 June 2007
Oh Zam!
The Western media, it seems, are running us down again, engaging in Islam-bashing because of the Lina Joy decision. And the Prime Minister has said that 'one must have a hole in the head' to think that this was a political decision.
Both of these are obviously wrong. Zam's barely bears answering, but the PM's statement is wrong because regardless of whether or not there was pressure from the Government, this was BOUND to be a political decision. Politics needs to be reclaimed from politicians, and acknowledging that the judiciary, and the public, play a role in politics is one of the ways of doing this. As Malaysians, we seem to be fond of saying that we're not interested in politics or that we shouldn't discuss politics. It's a form of abdication of responsibility, and one that allows politics and political decisions to be decided by anybody and everybody else.
The politics of the Lina Joy case:
1) Whether our Constitution is supreme - a decision with profound political consequences
2) Whether the Federal Court is supreme - likewise
3) Whether the judiciary is swayed by arguments outside the confines of the law (such as whether or not it would result in violence)
Which of course means that the court is deciding whether it is willing to uphold the rule of law. Or not. These are, undeniably, political decisions. Whichever way they're decided.
Both of these are obviously wrong. Zam's barely bears answering, but the PM's statement is wrong because regardless of whether or not there was pressure from the Government, this was BOUND to be a political decision. Politics needs to be reclaimed from politicians, and acknowledging that the judiciary, and the public, play a role in politics is one of the ways of doing this. As Malaysians, we seem to be fond of saying that we're not interested in politics or that we shouldn't discuss politics. It's a form of abdication of responsibility, and one that allows politics and political decisions to be decided by anybody and everybody else.
The politics of the Lina Joy case:
1) Whether our Constitution is supreme - a decision with profound political consequences
2) Whether the Federal Court is supreme - likewise
3) Whether the judiciary is swayed by arguments outside the confines of the law (such as whether or not it would result in violence)
Which of course means that the court is deciding whether it is willing to uphold the rule of law. Or not. These are, undeniably, political decisions. Whichever way they're decided.
Dua, tiga dalang berlari
This excellent play by Mark Teh, performed by Fahmi Fadzil, Wong Tay Sy and Lim Chung Wei, looks at the history of two dalangs post-57, and by inference the history of the National Cultural Policy. It is a sympathetic look at what both dalangs lost in their individual ways of dealing with political change, slightly subtly directing attention to the changes in interpretation of Islam, the problems of mixing state and religion, and the unifying factor among all our politicians, the will to power.
(Visit www.kakiseni.com for more info).
(Visit www.kakiseni.com for more info).
Thursday, 31 May 2007
Lina Joy
I'm pondering what this means for all of us. Some of my friends see this as a blow for women's rights (which it is), others a blow against Christians. It is both these things, but only in as far as women and Christians are Malaysian. Because what has been undermined is the Constitution, and by implication, the rule of law in Malaysia. To deny someone the right to follow the religion of their choosing - there is no doubt that this is denying freedom of religion. Anything else is mere semantics. Our Constitution may be a living document, but it is one that is being buried alive.
I refrained from writing on this yesterday, having driven home in a state of rage and misery parallelled only once in my history as a political activist. Because I was hurting, am hurting, too bad to really be rational about this. But I'm trying. So please bear with me, I'm grieving. I'm grieving for the judiciary, I'm grieving for Lina Joy, I'm grieving for my nation. (Though I feel a small spark of satisfaction at thinking that Pembela have argued themselves out of being members of a meaningful profession - because what use is a lawyer, when there is no rule of law?)
We have lost the narrow boundary that preserved us from sliding into a theocracy. Which was Constitutional supremacy, upheld by an impartial judiciary. The judiciary, at least as represented by two of the three judges, decided that this was not their job, their job did not lie in upholding the law but ensuring a politically acceptable outcome. The last bastion of law and order has fallen.
Yes, a mob would have been a bad thing. It may well have happened. But a mob can be overcome. The police could have, within the bounds of the law, coped. How do we cope with the abdication of responsibility by the judiciary?
We have had our freedoms abrogated by acts of Parliament, in the past. And the judiciary has upheld that. But this is taking things further. The fundamental right of freedom of religion can be abrogated by mere regulations. Presumably that means so can the other fundamental freedoms.
I refrained from writing on this yesterday, having driven home in a state of rage and misery parallelled only once in my history as a political activist. Because I was hurting, am hurting, too bad to really be rational about this. But I'm trying. So please bear with me, I'm grieving. I'm grieving for the judiciary, I'm grieving for Lina Joy, I'm grieving for my nation. (Though I feel a small spark of satisfaction at thinking that Pembela have argued themselves out of being members of a meaningful profession - because what use is a lawyer, when there is no rule of law?)
We have lost the narrow boundary that preserved us from sliding into a theocracy. Which was Constitutional supremacy, upheld by an impartial judiciary. The judiciary, at least as represented by two of the three judges, decided that this was not their job, their job did not lie in upholding the law but ensuring a politically acceptable outcome. The last bastion of law and order has fallen.
Yes, a mob would have been a bad thing. It may well have happened. But a mob can be overcome. The police could have, within the bounds of the law, coped. How do we cope with the abdication of responsibility by the judiciary?
We have had our freedoms abrogated by acts of Parliament, in the past. And the judiciary has upheld that. But this is taking things further. The fundamental right of freedom of religion can be abrogated by mere regulations. Presumably that means so can the other fundamental freedoms.
Wednesday, 30 May 2007
What's in a name
This is an article I wrote for THe Sun, but which was never published. Given the demise of the Constitution earlier today, it no longer seems relevant, but for those interested in the recent history of Malaysia, it may be worth reading. Just so we know what we've lost - I don't think that the majority judges or Pembela realise it.
What's in a name
By Sonia Randhawa
I've always been grateful for my first name. Sonia doesn't rhyme with anything. My brother, in contrast, endured years of primary school suffering.
My name has a meaning, and I learnt what it's formal meaning was long after I had learnt that 'Sonia' meant me. But names aren't always as carefully constructed to their owner as Sonia now seems sculpted to me. Some names are, merely, labels. The nicknames that various friends called me in school, none of which have stuck. The nastier names thrown by enemies. These names are only as important as the truth they contain, vicious or virtuous.
Some names, however, can shape the named. If you call a child worthless, it internalises the label and begins to incorporate this into its identity. It shapes the child's behaviour, his or her outlook on life.
But it isn't just people that can be shaped by labels. It's hard to see how a table would change, even if you persuaded successive generations to call it 'Kate'. Call a State something, though, and it can have exceedingly worrying consequences. Which is why I was worried when I was engaged in a conversation about whether Malaysia as an 'Islamic state' is merely a label, or if it is indicative of something deeper. And was before we couldn't protect our Constitutional rights through peaceful forums, closed due to the threat of mob violence. Before one of the leading organisations in the 'Gerakan Mansuhkan ISA' declared that it was okay to imprison people without trial, if it was for religious transgression. Before the clampdown on 107 religious 'deviants', with barely a whimper from civil society.
The Islamic state label is more than just on name, regardless of what Mohd Nazri may have maintained earlier this year. It is an issue at the heart of many recent debates, from Anthony Rayappan and M. Moorthy, to Lina Joy, Shamala Sathiyaseelan, even the closure of radio shows on Ai FM. Because what is at stake is who or what is the supreme legal power in this country. 'Islamic state' is more than just a description. It is prescriptive as well. It prescribes how our courts, our Parliament and our Executive should behave. It prescribes a theocratic state, one in which God, as interpreted by one religion and its proponents, is in charge of the day to day running of the State. Not the Constitution, not the law, not Parliament, not the Government.
This might work, if God deigned to come down in, as it were, person, to rule in the stead of our Prime Minister. Or if our Prime Minsiter (as Bush has claimed to be) is directly inspired, a Prophet. Both solutions, of course, are blasphemous in Islam.
So we can't rely on God to govern directly. Which means that people will be governing. And my experience has been that most people are fallible. Except, possibly, Tun Dr Mahathir.
What we have is a State where, in name, God is the supreme power, but in practice, a person rules in his stead. A fallible person. What happens when the fallible person makes a mistake? Well, that's the problem with a theocracy. With God as the head of state, they can't make mistakes. Because then it's saying that God is making mistakes, and that is undoubtedly blasphemous.
It was for these reasons, along with a host of others, that democracies in Europe replaced monarchies. Not because the societies were mature, just or wise. But because they were fed up with dealing with the mistakes of monarchs who believed they were infallible. In the UK, as here, they rather liked their monarchs, so rather than beheading them, they just ensured that their powers were limited. True, it took civil war to get to the point, but they did get there.
Unfortunately, even in a democracy, there is no guarantee that the ruler will not attempt to usurp God-like powers from those who first put him or her in power (that's us). That's where Constitutions come in. It's our first line protection, saying, sorry, but no, you don't have the power to do that. You, no matter who you are, can't tell me what religion I should follow. You can't curb my freedom of speech. You can't send me into exile, deny me the right to life, the right to assemble.
I am equal with anyone else, before the law, regardless of race, religion, gender or class. (That one I love so much, it's painted on the side of my house).
If we are a theocratic state, then these rights are taken away from the Constitution and put in the hands of a man-made interpretation of what God wants. If we're an Islamic state, it's put into an interpretation of God that neither myself nor anyone in my multi-religious family adhere to.
It's just a name. Call us an Islamic state. What difference will it make, to Lina Joy, or any of us. Sticks and stones may break my bones, sure, but names will never hurt me? I hope not.
Tuesday, 29 May 2007
Asia Media Summit 2
Mini break: Dr Hamadoun Toure from the ITU. The ITU regulates telecommunications internationally – he is the recently elected sec-gen. It is NOT a trade union, a mistake I first made when I heard of the International Telecommunication Union.
Pointed out that this is a wealthy industry – so it can afford to help promote the MDGs. Still thinks that a profit-oriented market is the best model for ICTs.
Also talked about the cyber-security agenda....two years for a global agreement on cyber-security. He talks about concerns that schools that are e-enabled will be prey for chld pornographers and other criminals. These are, obviously, real concerns. Does anyone else know more about this? I worry that increases in cyber-security in turn lead to increases in cyber-surveillance. How much civil society input has there been on the global cyber-security agenda? How much more likely is it that the child in the village, prey for pornographers, would be better protected by education rather than an international cyber-security agenda? Pornographers, etc, are actively looking for ways round regulations – any cyber security protocols enacted today are likely to be obsolete, soon. But if you teach the child to protect him or herself, then and only then are they guaranteed safety. Unfortunately, that requires empowerment, transfer of resources to vulnerable communities etc. Much harder.
Seemed to think the key problem with Internet access is cost – which some of you will know I think has been conclusively debunked by the Akshaya project in Kerala. The website doesn't say much, but the presentations I've seen by those involved in the implementation of the project, say that it allows 23 million rural farmers access to an Internet portal, with basic information available free of charge, and with training provided for 80% of the families in the region.
Session Two: Future of Public Service Broadcasting
The first speaker, unfortunately, was from the Maldives – he did however draw the distinction between State and Public Service Broadcasting. He sounded great – but it was hard to reconcile what he said with what I've read on the repression being faced by Minivan journalists and broadcasters – Minivan being a pirate-type community radio broadcaster. And the problems that journalism in general has been faced by journalists in the Maldives.
Murray Green from the ABC was the next speaker, focussin on impartiality. The broadcasting law requires the ABC to be accurate, impartial and objective. Impartiality is expressed in two forms – it doesn't apply to performances. Hm. I wonder if there is an argument here for some form of regulation... remembering Nazi propaganda, dramas full of happy young blondes, and thinking about the need to represent Australia and many other countries in all their diversity, not just in the news.
Some form of impartiality perhaps could apply here – but how soon would it lead to censorship? He says public broadcasters will stand or fall by the quality of public broadcasting, and the key features of what public broadcasters can offer is this fairness, imparitality, objectivity in news reporting.
Radio Netherlands, an important funder for radio in this region, D-G Jan C Hoek spoke next. Started with free press and independent journalism. Yay! Need laws guaranteeing freedom of speech. Definition of PSB – financing from society, via government, but government has no influence on content. Diversity of commercial stations, owned by indivis and cos with their own agenda – and so it doesn't mean it is working in the public interest. For PSB they aim to show a diversity of opinions, deal with difficult subjects. Big difference is that commercial bcasters work for sponsors, advertisers and shareholders, PSB works for society.
Jim Thomson, from NZ spoke next. His talk was titled 'unlocking the archives', dealing with the rights issues related to distributing content. Problems faced include inadequate documentation, the impossibility of finding out who owns the rights, the people who own the rights demand prohibitively expensive demands. And if anyone who holds the copyright doesn't want it to go ahead, or can't be found, then they can scupper the deal. Everyone loses out in the current scenario – those involved in the programmes, those who want to watch the programmes. So TVNZ has proposed legislation to allow PSBs to rebroadcast any prog made with public money, more than seven years earlier, that a fee is paid to those involved, can be broadcast in any format. The license fee would be fixed. A new way of looking at copyright. Sounds good.
Eric Soulier, French Embassy in Singapore: He emphasised that culture is not a commodity, so doesn't come under agreements for commodity trade, such as WTO (though he didn't mention it specifically). He was acting as an ambassador for the UNESCO convention on cultural diversity.
The Asia Media Summit 1
For my first posts, I am going to start with rants that I wrote today during the Asia Media Summit - one of the big regional media events. I'm splitting it into sessions...
The first session was on participatory media, with three speakers, none of whom, I suspect are bloggers. The main things that they raised about participatory media was the one to many side of things – that people can talk. They seemed to be completely ignorant of what Marina Mahathir said was the most important thing about blogging – that people can talk back. It's true of blogs, of YouTube... And of course none of the speakers mentioned community radio.
The first speaker, Haroon Siddiqi raised supposed problems with participatory media, failing to mention the digital divide, he concentrated on the usual problems of credibility, and the use of the Internet to encourage terrorism. It reminded me of Bruce Sterling's book 'The Hacker Conspiracy' – that hackers were going to bring down the modern world, according to the FBI etc. The same sources, incidentally, that he quoted as evidence for the use of the Internet by terrorism. He did also mention that those making most money from blogs are probably those monitoring them. Cause, effect, anybody?
I think it is scary at a forum such as this when a renowned academic and thinker such as Dr Siddiqi can stand up and say that terrorists are among the biggest beneficiaries of the Internet.
The second speaker Erik Betterman from Deutsche Welle did mention the digital divide, but mention it was all. He also made a point about users wanting tailor-made information and that if broadcasters want to retain their pre-eminent role, there needs to be a focus on the key functions of journalists – ethics, professionalism etc. Which is good.
The last speaker, from NHK Japan saw the blogs, wikis etc as one-way forms of communication – or at least that was the main aspect he talked about. Oh, and how blogs can 'make people irrational'. He was talking in the context of blogs helping to stoke racist sentiment. I think again, problems of confusing cause and effect. There are racists (anti-Chinese and -Korean) in Japan. Their views are not reflected in the mass media – it doesn't mean they aren't there. The blogs aren't causing these views, they are reflections of them – and a sensible Government will look at these opinions and react to them. Obviously, we can hope that they'll react by engaging in education etc, rather than pandering to racist sentiments. But that is a question of policy.
The Q&A was more interesting. The most interesting questions came from Palestine. An academic from the occupied territories spoke about how participatory media are vital for human survival in Palestine – the equipment of local radio stations has been confiscated by the Israeli forces, so the only means they have of telling their stories is through YouTube etc. Then there was the formidable Alison Weir (go to her talk! Thurs evening, at Sin Chew!). She asked the speakers about the biases for Israel in the news organisations, which only DW answered convincingly. Haroon Siddiqi claimed that the pro-Israel bias in papers etc reflected the pro-Israel bias of viewers etc. And I'm thinking, hello, so why is the Malaysian media so pro-America – right down to the foreign news in RTM. The top story on Traxx FM this morning – memorial services in the US, and Bush talking about fallen heroes. Doesn't RTM have any inkling of how the average Malaysian feels about the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq? If so, how do they justify leading the foreign news with this story, and if not, how do they justify their own existence? But anyway – it indicates how the Western biases permeate not just the Western media, but the entire world.
What would I have liked to have heard?
First, from bloggers themselves – bring them together with public broadcasters. The old men on stage obviously had no idea of what blogging and participatory media consists of. Second, of course, from community radio practitioners (ie not me) – people who are actively using participatory media to promote MDGs and overcome digital divide. And perhaps more on the role of public broadcasters in a digitised world.
La la.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)