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.

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.

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.