From afar, with anything-but-rose-tinted spectacles, crime seems to be reaching epidemic proportions. On a personal note, my parents' place has been subject to some baffling disturbances. Why someone felt the need to empty out the shoe cupboard, but leave nothing taken, will hopefully remain a mystery. I'm hoping they'll remain outside my parents' house, which is fitfully guarded by one large and one tiny dog, both equally inept at deterring anything but squirrels from entering the garden.
Nonetheless, I'm sickened by some of the vigilante videos I've been seeing on Youtube. Vigilantism doesn't keep us safe, it's just a different form of crime. There are plenty of really good reasons for this. First off, everyone is equal before the law. The person who first commits a crime, and the person who subsequently assaults them. Both the theft and the assault are crimes. Nobody - including the police - have the right to assault someone. Even if they committed a crime. If you aren't convinced, don't forget that those who participate in illegal assemblies are also committing a crime.
Second, everyone has the right to a fair trial. Part of the point of this system is to take the vengeance element out of the equation. The judge is impartial, and weighs up the evidence, only then is the suspect found guilty, or innocent. Until that point, they are innocent. Thus, each kick landed, each wallop walloped is given to an innocent person. Innocent until proven guilty, no exceptions. A fair trial happens prior to punishment, not after the person has been so badly beaten they can no longer stand. If you oppose detention without trial, that's the basis, the right to a fair trial. It applies universally.
Third, punishment is commensurate, and defined by law. This complements the last point, about taking vengeance out of the equation. The punishment for a crime is that which is defined by law. Few countries have made 'snatch theft' a capital offence.
So what can we do about crime, if we are serious in addressing the problem? More cops, generally, doesn't work too well. What does is social inclusion. This isn't quite the same as social justice. It's about making people feel part of the community. I'm not entirely sure how we build it - it starts with social justice, but it doesn't end there.
Wednesday, 4 September 2013
Tuesday, 3 September 2013
A clean slate
Khairy Jamaluddin has suggested that we need to start over, renew the social contract upon which Malaysia was, so myth has it, built.
It's a shame the idea hasn't garnered more attention. Because even if we decide that we're happy with the Constitution we have (and many of our best lawyers are, just think we could have better respect for the document), it doesn't hurt to look at what works about it, what doesn't and why things are the way they are. It might also help generate discussion on the ways in which we can agree on what Malaysia should be.
There are some reasons why I think this would be a good idea.
First, Malaysia was never our creation. We never voted on our constitution, and we never discussed what we wanted in it with our neighbours. As long as Malaysians were outside the drafting and accepting of the bedrock of our governmental system, it's going to be considered, at least by some, of questionable provenance. Those who argue the British imposed our Constitution upon us are going to have resonance, as long as that remains true.
Second, it gives us a chance to build capacity. I'm thinking a Venezualan-style nationwide discussion on democracy, democratic processes, the role of the Constitution, separation of powers... if I'm not making you hot and sweaty with this kind of talk, then you shouldn't be reading my blog! It's about as sexy as it gets, as far as I'm concerned.
I know that there are some problems, not least the distance between the supporters of an Islamic state and the supporters of a secular state. But ignoring this issue isn't making it go away. It was there at the drafting of the Constitution, and looking in the opposite direction has just made it grow bigger. However, it would be great to get the two sides to sit down and try to agree on something. Even better if they could. A constitution inspired by the values of Islam is something I would love to see, for example. I realise this isn't close to what some people want, but if we can get to the point where everyone understands that the Constitution has to be a document that everyone can agree on, a starting point for building a nation, then this in itself would be an achievement. (Admittedly, that just underscores how hard it would be!).
If that happens, and we, the people, draft something which is then voted on in a fair and transparent process, and... this of course is where my house of cards all falls down. Because on the other side there are real problems with reworking what we have.
Who controls the process? Who participates in the process? Who drafts, who votes, and who oversees the voting process?
BUT... but but, surely we can talk about it? Start those hot and sweaty conversations going, even if the courtship leads nowhere?
It's a shame the idea hasn't garnered more attention. Because even if we decide that we're happy with the Constitution we have (and many of our best lawyers are, just think we could have better respect for the document), it doesn't hurt to look at what works about it, what doesn't and why things are the way they are. It might also help generate discussion on the ways in which we can agree on what Malaysia should be.
There are some reasons why I think this would be a good idea.
First, Malaysia was never our creation. We never voted on our constitution, and we never discussed what we wanted in it with our neighbours. As long as Malaysians were outside the drafting and accepting of the bedrock of our governmental system, it's going to be considered, at least by some, of questionable provenance. Those who argue the British imposed our Constitution upon us are going to have resonance, as long as that remains true.
Second, it gives us a chance to build capacity. I'm thinking a Venezualan-style nationwide discussion on democracy, democratic processes, the role of the Constitution, separation of powers... if I'm not making you hot and sweaty with this kind of talk, then you shouldn't be reading my blog! It's about as sexy as it gets, as far as I'm concerned.
I know that there are some problems, not least the distance between the supporters of an Islamic state and the supporters of a secular state. But ignoring this issue isn't making it go away. It was there at the drafting of the Constitution, and looking in the opposite direction has just made it grow bigger. However, it would be great to get the two sides to sit down and try to agree on something. Even better if they could. A constitution inspired by the values of Islam is something I would love to see, for example. I realise this isn't close to what some people want, but if we can get to the point where everyone understands that the Constitution has to be a document that everyone can agree on, a starting point for building a nation, then this in itself would be an achievement. (Admittedly, that just underscores how hard it would be!).
If that happens, and we, the people, draft something which is then voted on in a fair and transparent process, and... this of course is where my house of cards all falls down. Because on the other side there are real problems with reworking what we have.
Who controls the process? Who participates in the process? Who drafts, who votes, and who oversees the voting process?
BUT... but but, surely we can talk about it? Start those hot and sweaty conversations going, even if the courtship leads nowhere?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)