Bangsaku
Janji yang kita meterai lama dahulu
Di kala kita bertungkus membina sebuah negara
Bahu ke bahu
Bersama sebagai saudara
Lupa kita pada janji kita ini?

-

Bebas daripada rantai perhambaan
Bisa menempa cita-cita
Bisa menentu hala dan tuju
Bisa mencapai impian
Satu bangsa Merdeka

-

Ah, jauh sungguh dikotakan
Janji bangsaku ini
Tidakkah kita punya impian untuk merai kepelbagaian?
Namun perbezaan dijadikan alasan
Membahagi diri mengikut garis-garis pemisahan
Terpesong dengan tanggapan perbedaan

-

Bukankah kita sudah diam bersama sekian lama?
Bukankah kita sudah tempuhi begitu banyak dugaan?
Bukankah kita sudah punya suatu identiti tersendiri?
Namun mengapa kita begitu sukar untuk menerima
Bahawasanya kita semua adalah benih-benih pertiwi

-

Kita pernah berikrar untuk bersatu dan berpadu
Membina sebuah tanahair Merdeka
Di mana minda tidak dikekang prasangka
Dan ilmu itu tidak punya harga
Di mana kebenaran lahir dari perigi kata-kata
Dan tindakan berpandu pada kompas saksama
Di mana buah kejayaan dapat dirasai
Bukan kerana nama atau harta benda
Bukan kerana warna atau agama
Tetapi atas usaha gigih dan daya upaya

-

Janji bangsa ini
Yang masih belum dikota
Oleh mereka yang berjanji
Bangsaku, bangsa Malaysia

-

*this poem first appeared in Loyarburok. It is a quasi-translation of my earlier poem in English, “Promise of a Nation.“

by Daniel Albert

The refusal by the Attorney-General’s Chambers to take any further action or proffer charges against any of the six named individuals involved in the Lingam video clip fiasco has received scathing criticism from the public – and rightly so.

This pre-mature attempt to close official investigations into this matter is an affront to the judiciary and a slap in the face to us all.

The refusal to prosecute in effect means that the implications of blatant judicial manipulation and improper interference surrounding this affair, which were reinforced by the findings of the royal commission, will be left to linger and fester without any finality or conclusion.

Despite the public fury stirred by the contents of the video clip, no basis or reasons were given for the AG’s decision. Only a blanket statement was offered to the effect that investigations into the affair had failed to turn up sufficient evidence to bring charges.

So smug are our government officials and leaders that despite the decision going completely against the findings and recommendations of the royal commission, no attempt has been made to provide any further explanation or give reasons for their decision to the rakyat.

It is significant that the findings of the royal commission were not merely made by lay individuals devoid of any knowledge of the law. The panel was headed by a former Chief Judge of Malaya and also included a former Chief Judge of Sabah and Sarawak, a former Court of Appeal Judge and a former solicitor-general. The panel was not only highly proficient in the law, but in addition, possessed valuable experience in the workings of the judiciary and AG’s Chambers.

Their specific findings that there was “sufficient cause to invoke the Sedition Act 1948, the Prevention of Corruption 1961, the Legal Profession Act 1976, the Official Secrets Act 1972 and the Penal Code against some of the principal individuals involved” would therefore have been made with a thorough understanding of the application of these laws and the requisite burdens and standards of proof entailed in invoking these laws.

Identities of witnesses not shrouded in secrecy

It is also significant the entire process that led to the commission’s findings were transparent and open to public scrutiny. The identities of the witnesses called were not shrouded in secrecy. Neither was witness testimony extracted behind closed doors by unknown means. Evidence presented was adequately tested by a host of lawyers that represented the interests of all parties concerned. The quality of the inquiry conducted and the evidence obtained as a result was apparent to all.

Over and above all this, what is of utmost significance is that there was basis provided for the findings of the commission. The reasons for their findings were detailed in a report that was disclosed to the public. Their findings were not bare averments. The conclusions and recommendations made were justified with their interpretation of the evidence obtained.

All this adds credibility to the findings of the commission; a quality sorely lacking in the AG’s decision. What investigations were carried out? Were they sufficiently thorough? What was the outcome of these investigations? What kind of legal expertise were used? Surely, the rakyat is entitled to such answers. It is absurd that a matter of this significance is now being swept under the carpet in such cavalier fashion.

Should we be surprised by such action? Sadly, no. The manner in which this matter had been dealt with, from the very start, was indicative of the fashion by which it would be concluded.

When the video clip was first disclosed, whilst the rakyat were livid at the contents of the clip, our then prime minister instead chose to warn those that reported the video clip that action will be taken against them if the allegations that surfaced as a result of the video clip were proven untrue.

Calls for a royal commission were immediately rejected. Instead, a cabinet appointed panel was instead set up. The legal basis of this panel was vague and it was unclear if the panel had the necessary powers to conduct a proper fact-finding inquiry.

Thereafter, the focus was skewed towards identifying the maker and source of the video clip; the contents were made secondary. Curiously, whilst their identities were fastidiously pursued, all mention of the lead actor and his likely conversation partner was carefully avoided by the authorities. Continued calls for a royal commission to be set up fell on deaf ears. The entire time, the de facto law minister had the gall to maintain that the matter had been blown up and there was no crisis within the judiciary.

A royal commission was only set up after almost two months of unabated public outcry and more footage of the video clip revealed – and even then, the terms of reference of the royal commission were exceedingly confined.

Whilst the motivation for such conduct is open to speculation, it is clear that the integrity and sanctity of the judiciary has taken a back seat. As opposed to immediately making every effort to fully investigate the allegations surrounding the video clip and thereafter undertaking the appropriate remedial measures to restore the integrity of the judiciary and public confidence, there have been concerted efforts to play down and where possible avoid the issue all together. Avoiding the issue does not resolve the issue. This however is a solution our leaders seem quite content with.

Scant regard for judicial institution is nothing new

This scant regard for the judicial institution is sadly nothing new. This willingness to prostitute the judiciary has been consistently demonstrated time and time again by our leaders. The integrity and independence of the judiciary is simply not a priority. In fact, it does appear that many of our politicians perceive a strong judiciary as plain trouble.

These sentiments have manifested in the form of continued attacks by our leaders on the judiciary. Attacks, whether by means of controversial appointments and removal of judges or ousting the court’s jurisdiction so that certain governmental action is beyond judicial scrutiny, have undeniably led to the continued erosion and decline of the judicial institution and the state of affairs present.

It was against this backdrop that the Lingam video clip was disclosed. Hence, the public distrust and immediate presumption that many of the allegations surrounding the video may be credible. The hue and cry that ensued and demands for the video clip to be thoroughly investigated was understandable. Had the video clip been disclosed against a backdrop of a strong independent judiciary with a sterling track record, perhaps the AG’s decision, given without reason, would be easier to swallow.

And at what costs is this to the rakyat? Most significantly, the decline of our judiciary has resulted in its inability to function as an effective watchdog on the executive and legislative.

The doctrine of separation of powers dictates that all three organs of the state (executive, legislative and judiciary) act as watchdogs on each other to carry out a process of ‘check and balance’. This is a safeguard to ensure that none of the organs abuses its constitutional power or oversteps its mandate. The reality however is that because the composition of the legislative (Parliament) and executive (government) overlaps and both organs are effectively controlled by the prime minister, the process rarely is effective. This emphasises the role of the judiciary.

Ills of corruption allowed to fester

This failure of the judiciary to carry out this process has allowed avoidance of accountability and transparency in the country’ governing. The ills of corruption, abuse of public funds and excesses of power have been allowed to fester and become constant features in our political landscape.

The disclosure of the video clip presented a golden opportunity to our leadership reform the judiciary; to clean up everything that was wrong and perceived to be wrong with the judiciary and start afresh. Sadly, this now looks unlikely.

It is clear that unless and until there is sincere political will for reform, things will not change. We, the rakyat, must provide the impetus for that change in political will. We need to make clear to our leaders, regardless of political divide, that a strong judiciary is a priority and we will accept nothing less. It is for this very reason we cannot allow this matter to be put to sleep quietly.

*This is an article by a good friend of mine, Daniel Albert. Reproduced from Malaysiakini.

by Edmund Bon Tai Soon (Chairman of the Bar Council Constitutional Law Committee)

These past few months have been immensely hectic. The Malaysian Bar is extremely fortunate to have a pool of incredibly talented, young and energetic group of lawyers, pupils-in-chambers, and students working night and day on this Campaign. From the words “let’s move”, the action has been continuous, non-stop, and it has been difficult to keep up with even the emails!

Draft after draft of the logos (and thank you finally, Fir, Joe Kidd and Khairul for the artwork), nitty-gritty details of the launch, version upon version of the 1st instalment of the “Rakyat Guides” [RG] (and thank you again, Joe and Khairul for the artwork), excellent debate and arguments on the direction of the Campaign, hours-on-end of meetings (which have burnt large holes in our pockets and now, some of us have even gone berserabut), the ConstiLC has only just begun to move this enormous Campaign.

Our launch of the 1st RG: What is the Federal Constitution?, launch of the 1st “Rakyat Service Advertisement” [RSA]: Apa itu Perlembagaan Persekutuan? followed by the soon-to-be serial “Conversations…” (with eminent conversationalists) will be held on November 13, 2009 (3pm) at the Bar Council Auditorium. Mark your diaries, because you wouldn’t want to miss this! Exclusive, limited copies of the 1st RG will be distributed. More information on how to register for the launch will be released soon.

In the meantime, follow the Campaign trail with the ConstiLC’s tweets and sign up for daily updates on Facebook as a “fan” of the Campaign. Use our logos and the “purportedly” cute faces (you have a choice of 7!) on your blogs and sites. Or watch our videos on YouTube. A website regarding the Campaign will also go live very soon.

Catch up soon!

*I am reproducing this from Loyarburok because I have not updated my blog recently as I am working on the PerlembagaanKu/MyConstitution campaign.

by Micheal Loo Yeong Huei (member of the Bar Council Constitutional Law Committee)

Yeoh Yen Kee

Recently, I came across news about 19-year old, Yeoh Yen Kee. She obtained 11As for SPM, and was to pursue her dream to study medicine. She was awarded a scholarship to study in the Czech Republic.

However, in 2008, she was diagnosed with leukemia and could not proceed with that plan. After undergoing chemotherapy, and another relapse, she was told that she needed a bone marrow transplant. Despite numerous attempts, efforts to find a donor were in vain. Finally, through the National Marrow Donor Programme Registry in USA, her family managed to find a suitable donor.

The cost?

RM200,000 for the operation and related-care. USD55,000 for the procurement and courier of the bone marrow.

The sum required is not an amount that her family let alone any ordinary Malaysian can afford. Yen Kee’s father had also quit his job to care for her. In the course of Yen Kee’s treatment in the Penang General Hospital, her family has already spent RM70-80,000. A blog (helpyenkee.co.cc/) [which has since been discontinued] was set-up by her friends, and a donation initiative was taken to raise funds for Yen Kee.

What about other families who cannot afford to pay the RM70,000 required to treat a cancer patient? What are the other options available in the healthcare system for them? Speaking to my parents, they seem to be riding on the chance that they would not need to go to the hospital, God forbid! I then did a check and found that the cost of an angioplasty and a bypass – heart diseases are the most common health problems – is in the region of RM18-35,000! This is not something an average Malaysian would be able to afford. And these are figures taken from IJN (subsidised by the Government) and not from a private hospital.

Right to Health in International Human Rights Law

Before I get lost ranting about the state of healthcare in Malaysia, the right to health is a fundamental human right. Article 25(1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948 states that:

Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

Article 12(1) of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights 1966 (ICESCR) recognises the right of everyone to “the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health”. This imposes specific obligations on governments to make healthcare adequate, accessible and available to all, particularly the marginalised and underprivileged. Governments are also to ensure no one is discriminated against, and seek to increase greater participation by stakeholders when making decisions on healthcare.

Although SUHAKAM has said it a few times that Malaysia should be a party to the ICESCR, why is our Government still reluctant or unwilling to sign and ratify the ICESCR?

Problems with healthcare in Malaysia

On the other hand, we have seen moves to privatise healthcare which has worked against the needs of the rakyat. In 1993, the procurement of medicine for Government hospitals and clinics was privatised and the cost of medicine doubled the following year. In 1996, following the privatisation of five more areas of support services including laundry, cleaning, maintenance of equipment and facilities, and waste disposal, the cost of these services went up from RM140 million to RM450 million the following year. Is the escalating cost of healthcare and services sustainable for the rakyat in the long-term? (See Dr Hsu Dar Ren’s “Malaysian Healthcare: Where are we Heading? A Critical Look at the Proposed National Health Financial Scheme” and SUHAKAM’s “Report on the Public Forum on the Right to Health: Achieving Health MDGs”)

Yet, why is the Government spending less than 3% of Malaysia’s GDP on healthcare when the WHO-recommended level is 5%? If and when the Government fails to protect the right to accessible healthcare, shouldn’t they be held accountable? How are we to hold the Government accountable? To be held accountable would mean looking at our laws and the “highest” or supreme law of the land is the Federal Constitution. Does our Federal Constitution clearly define the State’s obligations to the rakyat in respect of healthcare?

While physical and financial access to healthcare is an important issue, another would be considering Malaysia’s fight to reduce and halt the transmission of HIV/AIDS. One of the Millennium Development Goals – No. 6 – calls to “Combat HIV/AIDS, Malaria & Other Diseases”. Malaysia is not doing very well on this front. We have one of the fastest-growing HIV infection rates in the Asia-Pacific region, and various initiatives by the Government have not succeeded in reversing the trend.

Anand Grover

In June 2008, the UN appointed Anand Grover as the Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health. He has a track record of fighting discrimination against HIV/AIDS sufferers, and is the Project Director of the HIV/AIDS Unit at the Lawyers Collective, an organisation created by a network of lawyers that offers legal services to those living with HIV/AIDS. He has personally handled several hundred HIV/AIDS-related litigations in India.

Grover led arguments in a recent landmark case, Naz Foundation v Government of Nct of Delhi, where the High Court decriminalised homosexual relations between consenting adults in private. On the basis of the constitutional right to health, it was argued that the criminalisation of gay sex (or known as “unnatural sex”) prevents homosexuals who are HIV/AIDS sufferers from obtaining information, treatment or healthcare for fear of prejudice and persecution.

The Bar Council’s Constitutional Law Committee is grateful to have Anand Grover share his thoughts, and kick-start our “Conversations with the Constitution (Conversations)” series on 29 October 2009 at 630pm, Bar Council. Admission if FREE and you are invited to attend. For more details, please go here.

Conversations is part of the MyConstitution Campaign/Kempen PerlembagaanKu due to launch on 13 November 2009 at 3pm, Bar Council. You are welcome to come join us! In the meantime, follow the Campaign trail here:

www.perlembagaanku.com (to be launched on 13 November 2009)

www.malaysianbar.org.my/constitutional_law_committee

www.facebook.com/MyConstitution

www.twitter.com/MyConsti

www.youtube.com/user/PerlembagaanKu

*I am reproducing this from Loyarburok because I have not updated my blog recently as I am working on the PerlembagaanKu/MyConstitution campaign. The ‘Conversations on the Constitution’ series is a part of that campaign.

Glosari:

Twitter – perkhidmatan rangkaian sosial dan mikro-blog yang terbaru dan semakin mendapat sambutan. Tweet – catatan atau entri di Twitter. @[username] – nama pengguna yang digunakan di Twitter.

Contoh, @syahredzan adalah nama pengguna saya. @loyarburok adalah nama pengguna LoyarBurok.

Tanggal 1 Oktober 2009 merupakan hari yang bersejarah di dunia siber Malaysia. Pada hari tersebut, pengguna-pengguna perkhidmatan Twitter di Malaysia telah bertutur dalam bahasa Malaysia.

Ia mula diperkenalkan oleh @stephendoss, seorang pengguna Twitter yang kerap memberi ulasan sosio-politik di Malaysia. Melalui Twitter, inisiatif untuk menggunakan bahasa kebangsaan di alam Twitter pada setiap 1 dan 15 haribulan setiap bulan telah merebak dengan cepat. Dalam sekelip mata, begitu ramai pengguna Twitter di Malaysia mendapat tahu tentang inisiatif tersebut dan mula bertutur dalam bahasa kebangsaan. Ia semakin mendapat sambutan apabila ahli-ahli politik seperti @niknazmi, @elizabethwong dan @khairykj juga menyokong daya usaha tersebut.

Twitter merupakan perkhidmatan mikro-blog di mana pengguna membuat catatan dalam 140 huruf atau kurang. Selaras dengan tahap penembusan internet di peringkat kebangsaan, kebanyakan pengguna Twitter di Malaysia merupakan penduduk bandar dari kelas menengah atau atasan. Jumlah pengguna Twitter jauh lebih kecil dari jumlah pengguna perkhidmatan rangkaian sosial yang lain seperti Facebook atau Friendster. Pengguna Twitter yang efektif dan mempunyai banyak pengikut adalah pengguna yang selalu membuat catatan yang menarik. Keupayaan mereka berartikulasi dan memberi ulasan serta pendapat terhadap sesuatu perkara, tidak kiralah samada perkara itu perkara normal seperti makan di sebuah restoran mahupun ulasan tentang berita politik yang mutakhir, bermakna sebahagian besar daripada mereka adalah golongan terpelajar dan cenderung untuk berbahasa Inggeris untuk membuat catatan. Oleh itu, penggunaan bahasa kebangsaan oleh sebahagian pengguna Twitter pada hari tersebut telah menukar wajah alam Twitter di Malaysia.

Antara halangan pertama para pengguna Twitter adalah mencari perkataan bahasa Malaysia untuk perkataan “tweet”. Sebenarnya “tweet” dalam konteks Twitter tidak mempunyai terjemahan, maklumlah ia merupakan perkataan baru. Ada yang memberi cadangan supaya menggunakan perkataan “tuit”, tetapi telah dibangkang kerana ia hanyalah mengambil perkataan Inggeris dan menukarkannya kepada perkataan bahasa Malaysia. Sudah terlalu banyak perkataan sebegitu, walhal terdapat perkataan bahasa Malaysia yang boleh digunapakai. Lihat sahaja perkataan “informasi” (maklumat), “konklusi” (kesimpulan) dan “translasi” (terjemahan).

Kemudian, pengguna Twitter @Arianti telah mencadangkan “kicau”, iaitu terjemahan literal bagi perkataan “tweet” yang merujuk kepada bunyi vokal yang dikeluarkan oleh burung. Penggunaan perkataan “kicau” ini dipersetujui oleh sebahagian besar pengguna Twitter dan sekali lagi ia merebak dengan cepat. Maka satu perkataan lama telah diberikan makna yang baru, tanpa perlu menunggu ia dimasukkan ke dalam Kamus Dewan (walaupun mengikut Kamus Inggeris-Melayu Dewan, terjemahan yang tepat bagi perkataan “tweet” adalah “ciak-ciak, ciap-ciap”).

Usaha menggunakan bahasa kebangsaan ini telah disambut baik oleh pelbagai lapisan pengguna Twitter, tidak mengira bangsa mahupun agama. Ada pengguna yang tidak begitu biasa berbahasa Malaysia, apatah lagi untuk membuat ulasan, tetapi mereka tetap meneruskan usaha mereka dengan semangat untuk menjayakan inisiatif tersebut.

Bukan mudah untuk bertutur dalam bahasa kebangsaan, selain daripada bahasa pasar yang sering digunakan. Malahan, mereka yang menggunakannya sebagai bahasa utama juga akan terkial-kial untuk bertutur dengan betul. Kita sudah terlalu biasa mencampur-aduk perkataan-perkataan Inggeris dalam perbualan kita, sehinggalah apabila kita harus bercakap dalam bahasa Malaysia, kita terpaksa mencari terjemahan bagi perkataan-perkataan tersebut.

Lihat sahaja perkataan “gentleman” dalam bahasa Inggeris. Pengguna-pengguna Twitter telah berbicara dengan panjang lebar tentang terjemahan yang harus digunakan bagi perkataan tersebut. Perkataan-perkataan seperti “lelaki budiman”, “lelaki pekerti”, “lelaki sopan”, “lelaki mithali” dan “tuan” telah dicadangkan. Malahan, seorang pengguna Twitter telah membuat kekhilafan yang besar dengan membuat terjemahan literal kepada “lelaki (man) lembut (gentle)”. Pengguna malang tersebut tidak lekang diusik oleh pengguna Twitter yang lain.

Bagaimana pula istilah-istilah yang biasa digunakan di alam siber? “Re-tweet” atau “RT” menjadi “Kicau Semula” atau “KS”. “Facebook” ditukar kepada “Buku Muka” (atau istilah yang saya lebih gemari, “Kalam Wajah”). “LOL” (Laugh Out Loud) ditukar kepada “KKK” (Ketawa Kuat Kuat). Istilah “LMAO”? Ianya ditukar kepada “GSPT” (sila cari terjemahan untuk istilah tersebut sendiri, ia diperkenalkan oleh @Aisehman).

Kejayaan inisiatif menggunakan bahasa kebangsaan di alam Twitter pada 1 Oktober 2009 membuktikan bahawa bahasa Malaysia diterima oleh semua rakyat Malaysia, tidak kira samada ia adalah bahasa ibunda atau bahasa utama mereka ataupun tidak. Saya melihat ia sebagai satu proses pendemokrasian bahasa kebangsaan, di mana pengguna-pengguna Twitter mengambil semula bahasa tersebut dari genggaman sesetengah pihak yang mengakui bahawa merekalah “pembela” bahasa Malaysia. Ia adalah peringatan kepada semua bahawa bahasa tersebut adalah kepunyaan semua rakyat Malaysia, tidak terbatas kepada mana-mana bangsa atau kaum. Jika bahasa itu jiwa bangsa, maka bahasa Malaysia adalah jiwa bangsa Malaysia.

Ia juga membuktikan bahawa inisiatif rakyat kadangkala jauh lebih berkesan dari kempen yang dianjurkan oleh kerajaan. Pengguna-pengguna Twitter yang menjayakan usaha tersebut tidak perlu dipaksa untuk bertutur dalam bahasa kebangsaan. Mereka melakukannya dengan rela hati, walaupun kadangkala sukar. Bak kata @timmysay, ia bagaikan berpuasa bahasa Inggeris; susah dan perit tetapi seronok!

Ayuh, kita berkicau dalam bahasa kebangsaan pada setiap 1 dan 15 haribulan setiap bulan!

*this article was first published in Loyarburok. You can follow @loyarburok on Twitter.

Dilaporkan oleh Malaysian Insider bahawa 5 tahanan ISA termasuk Mat Sah Satray yang telah ditahan lebih 7 tahun telah dibebaskan.

Malam ini, seorang suami pulang ke pangkuan isteri. Seorang ayah pulang ke dakapan anak.

Malam ini, tangisan hiba selama tujuh tahun bertukar kepada jemari yang mengangkat syukur ke hadrat-Nya.

Kebebasan!

Betapa kita tidak ambil peduli tentangnya. Betapa kita tidak menghargainya. Sehinggalah ia dirampas daripada kita!

Kebebasan tidak ternilai harganya. Manusia rela mati demi kebebasan. Oleh itu jangan dirampas kebebasan dengan sewenangnya, tanpa dihakimi oleh proses undang-undang.

Kebebasan bukan perkara main-main. Bukan boleh dijual beli. Bukan matawang politik yang boleh ditukar dan diganti.

Tidak, Malaysia masih belum sempurna. Malaysia masih perlukan kita.

Selagi kebebasan boleh diambil dengan senang, selagi itu kita tetap lawan. Bebas lima tak semestinya dah menang. Bebas semua tak bermaksud kita henti berjuang.

Tak bermakna kita tidak lagi perlu menegakkan yang hak dan yang benar. Tak bemakna kita tidak lagi menentang yang batil dan yang salah.

Kita lawan, sampai tiada lagi tahanan politik.

Kita lawan, sampai tiada lagi salahguna demi kepentingan pihak tertentu.

Kita lawan, sampai tidak ada lagi yang ditahan ikut suka dan rasa bapak menteri.

Kita lawan, sehingga tiada lagi ibubapa mengharapkan kepulangan anak yang dinanti.

Kita lawan, sampai tiada ada lagi isteri yang dipisah dengan suami.

Kita lawan, sampai tiada lagi tangisan anak demi ayah yang dirindui.

Kita lawan, sampai kebebasan tidak lagi dirampas dengan sewenang-wenangnya.

Jalan masih jauh. Ranjau masih berliku. Perjuangan masih belum tamat.

Jangan luntur semangat juang. Jangan senyap berkata-kata. Jangan lenyapkan hujah dan fakta.

Kita lawan, sehingga Akta lapuk, Akta drakonis, Akta zalim itu dimansuh!

*this piece was first published in Loyarburok.

For the 1Malaysia concept to work, there has to be equal treatment of people by the judiciary regardless of race, religion, wealth or political influence.

A FEW weeks ago, two minors were detainedby the police. According to the law, they must be produced before a magistrate within 24 hours of their arrests. They can only be detained further if the magistrate grants a remand order.

I went to the police station as one of the lawyers representing one of the minors in the remand application before the magistrate.

The two minors were alleged to have participated in an illegal assembly. I do not know whether they were indeed participants or mere bystanders in the wrong place at the wrong time. Nor was it of relevance to me. The issue was not whether they were guilty of the alleged crime. My presence, along with fellow lawyers, at the police station was to uphold the fundamental right of each citizen to legal representation as enshrined in the Federal Constitution.

Our duty was to tell the magistrate that the minors do not need to be detained further for the purpose of investigations. Whether they were participants in the alleged illegal assembly can be ascertained without the need to detain them further. Fortunately, the magistrate held the same view.

The law is clear – detained persons shall be allowed to consult and be represented by a lawyer. This law applies to everyone, regardless of race, religion and political affiliations. Everyone is entitled to equal protection of the law.

Our Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak has made it clear that one of the foremost aims of his administration is to improve race relations and to foster national unity. 1Malaysia would be the conduit to achieve that goal.

I believe that there are three crucial components in the concept of 1Malaysia that are needed to make it a success. These are equality, acceptance and unity. Equality will lead towards acceptance and once we accept each other, we can be united.

The basic premise of 1Malaysia is not novel. Our founding fathers had always envisioned a nation that promotes equality, acceptance and unity. Despite the special position accorded to certain ethnic groups, the underlying principle of our Federal Constitution is that the rights of all Malaysians, regardless of race and religion, will be protected.

Article 8(1) of the Federal Constitution states: “All persons are equal before the law and entitled to the equal protection of the law.”

The meaning of Article 8(1) is simple: the law applies equally to all Malaysians. Race, religion, gender, social class, wealth and power should not have any bearing on application of the law. Everyone is equal in the eyes of the law.

The notions of equality and equal protection, as encapsulated in Article 8(1) are not new. They are aspects of the concept of rule of law; that the law is above everyone and it applies to everyone.

Equality before the law and equal protection of the law or “legal egalitarianism” is an important element that is needed for 1Malaysia to succeed. 1Malaysia cannot succeed if the rakyat do not feel that there is only one Malaysia for all. For it to resonate within each and every Malaysian, 1Malaysia must go beyond slogans, banners and theme songs.

Equality before the law means that a person who commits a wrong must be punished by the law. A person with power is as guilty of a crime as a man on the street. No one should be exempted from the law by virtue of his power, position, wealth, ethnicity or religious beliefs.

Equal protection of the law means that a pauper who comes to court seeking legal redress is entitled to the same justice as a millionaire. The rights of each and every individual are protected by the law regardless of who the person is. Everyone has a right to legal representation and has a right to a fair trial.

The operation of law and the dispensation of justice must apply equally to all. Justice must be blind; meted out objectively, impartially and without fear or favour.

For the most part, our laws do not distinguish between people of different races and religions. A person who commits theft will be guilty of the crime. A person who has been negligent and causes loss to another person will be liable for damages. A person who owes money to another person must repay the amount owed. A person who has indulged in corrupt practices must be brought to justice.

These laws do not provide for different liabilities or procedures for different people. They apply equally to all.

The problem is not with the law itself but with the institutions tasked to carry out and implement the law. There is a perception amongst a wide section of society that certain persons and quarters are frequently allowed to go “off the hook”. There is a perception that the application of the law is not impartial and influenced by various racial, religious, financial and political considerations.

Why is it that certain politicians are investigated zealously over alleged corrupt practices but allegations against other politicians are not even looked into? Why do certain groups need a permit to gather but other groups do not? Why are some organisations allowed to disseminate racist propaganda without action being taken against them?

These are the questions raised by the rakyat and gives rise to the perception of partiality and biasness in the application of the law.

Similarly, the independence of the judiciary must also be upheld. A person who seeks legal redress must be able to come to come to court with the confidence that justice will prevail.

It is not enough that they are repeatedly told that the judiciary is independent; the rakyat must see and believe that the judiciary is truly independent. Justice, after all, must not only be done but must also be seen to be done. We simply cannot afford a situation where a party comes to court with a pre-conceived notion of what the decision will be, not based on the strengths of the case and the evidence available but on the might of the parties in the action.

Let us not sugar-coat the harsh reality; we have a low perception towards the institutions involved in the implementation of the law and the dispensation of justice. We cannot allow this negative perception to go on for much longer. We must use 1Malaysia as a clarion call to address the issues that plague these institutions. 1Malaysia must bring back the legal egalitarianism found in our Constitution. 1Malaysia must revive the people’s confidence in these institutions.

Once the Prime Minister and his administration restore the confidence that everyone is equal before the law and that everyone is entitled to equal protection of the law, the rakyat will no longer feel that there are different “Malaysias” for different people. The rakyat will then believe that there is 1Malaysia for all.

*this article was published in the Star on 31 August 2009, for it’s Merdeka Special pullout.

Malam itu aku bercadang untuk membawa kereta ke car wash yang berdekatan. Sudah tiga minggu aku tidak basuh kerata. Mataku sakit melihat tompok-tompok kotor di badan keretaku. Aku menelefon S (bukan nama sebenar) dan mengajaknya menemani aku sambil menunggu keretaku dibasuh. Malang bagiku, car wash yang ingin aku kunjungi sudahpun tutup. Aku membuat keputusan untuk singgah di restoran daun pisang bersebelahan dengan car wash tersebut. S tiba tidak lama kemudian. Aku memesan teh-o dengan pelayan restoran dan S pula segelas ais kosong.

Kami berbual kosong, bertanya khabar. Sudah dua minggu aku tidak bertemu dengan S, masing-masing sibuk dengan kerja dan hal peribadi. Sudah lama aku kenal S. Sejak dari bangku sekolah lagi. Aku rasa sudah lebih dari sepuluh tahun. Kami mula-mula rapat ketika di Tingkatan 4. Waktu itu, aku, S dan beberapa sahabat yang lain banyak menghabiskan masa bersama, samada untuk belajar mahupun untuk bermain. Lebih banyak bermain dari belajar, tetapi itulah lumrah kehidupan ketika bersekolah.

Perbezaan di antara kami memang wujud. Aku seorang Melayu-Muslim, S pula berbangsa India dan menganut agama Hindu. Sahabat-sahabat kami juga berlainan bangsa dan agama. Kami bukannya tidak menyedari akan perbezaan yang wujud. Aku sering diusik oleh S sebagai seorang lanun Bugis yang tidak bertamadun dan aku pula membalas dengan mengatakan bahawa S adalah seorang Malayalee yang kedekut. Tetapi kami tidak pernah mengambil hati kerana tidak ada niat buruk atau prejudis yang bermain di fikiran kami. Kami lebih mementingkan persamaan di antara kami. Tekanan menghadapi peperiksaan. Kepedihan libasan rotan ke atas punggung. Pencarian seorang teman wanita yang bagaikan tidak berakhir. Semua ini tidak mengenal warna kulit dan kepercayaan. Kami hadapi semuanya bersama, tanpa mengira bangsa mahupun agama.

Setelah tamat persekolahan, masing-masing mencari hala tuju sendiri dalam kehidupan. Namun kami masih rapat. Walaupun setelah aku merantau ke negara orang menuntut ilmu, walaupun setelah S menyertai tentera, kami tetap mencari masa untuk berjumpa. Setelah lebih kurang sembilan tahun meninggalkan bangku sekolah, aku kini seorang pengamal undang-undang manakala S pula bekerja sebagai eksekutif di sebuah bank tempatan. Kami masih sering berhubung dan berjumpa, walaupun kadangkala kehendak kerja dan peribadi tidak begitu mengizinkannya.

S menyalakan sebatang rokok dan memulakan topik, “So, how’s the country?”

Aku menggeleng kepala. Kami berdua tahu apa yang ingin dibincangkan. Isu demonstrasi kepala lembu.

Mereka sudah melampau, ujar S. Aku dapat lihat kekecewaan di muka rakanku itu. Diluahkan kepadaku perasaannya terhadap tindakan mereka yang berdemonstrasi di Shah Alam pada hari itu. Dia bagaikan tidak percaya bahawa ada pihak sanggup menghina agama orang lain. Bukankah penganut agama lain juga punya hak? Bukankah kita semua rakyat Malaysia? Bukankah sudah 52 tahun kita hidup bersama?

S juga mempersoalkan mengapa pihak polis tidak membuat apa-apa, hanya menonton apa yang berlaku bagaikan ianya sebuah tayangan gambar di pawagam. Mengapa mereka tidak dikenakan ditangkap di bawah ISA?

Aku tersenyum. Aku teringat suatu ketika dahulu kami berdua berdebat secara tidak formal tentang ISA. S percaya ISA masih relevan untuk keharmonian negara, walaupun dia amat tidak bersetuju dengan penyalahgunaan Akta tersebut. Aku pula tetap dengan pendirianku bahawa ISA itu suatu Akta yang zalim dan tidak wajar diteruskan.

Aku dan S banyak berbeza pendapat. Ketika HINDRAF membuat perhimpunan di Kuala Lumpur, S tidak bersetuju dengan apa yang mereka lakukan. S berpendapat bahawa dakwaan-dakwaan HINDRAF adalah keterlaluan dan bukanlah cara yang terbaik untuk menyelesaikan permasalahan masyarakat India. Aku pula berpendapat bahawa walaupun aku tidak menyokong HINDRAF itu sendiri, aku percaya bahawa sekiranya tidak diadakan demonstrasi, pihak atasan tidak akan mengendahkan isu-isu yang dibangkitkan.

Tetapi walau apapun perbezaan pendapat di antara aku dan S, ia tetap tidak menjejaskan hubungan kami berdua. Di kalangan sahabat-sahabat kami, perbezaan pendapat digalakkan dan kami sering berbual dan berhujah tentang isu-isu yang berbangkit dengan sivil dan ilmiah. Mungkin kerana itu kami tidak dapat menerima apa yang dilakukan oleh mereka yang berdemonstrasi dengan kepala lembu. Kami tidak menafikan hak mereka untuk protes, tetapi kami kecam tindakan mereka yang secara terang-terangan menghasut pertelingkahan kaum dan agama.

Aku memberitahu S bahawa apabila aku mula mendapat berita tentang demonstrasi tersebut, aku begitu marah sehingga urat di kepalaku berdenyut-denyut. Aku menyalahkan seorang Menteri Kabinet yang telah menyokong tindakan penduduk Seksyen 23 untuk membantah pemindahan kuil tersebut. Menteri Kabinet tersebut mendakwa bahawa pemindahan kuil tersebut ke tempat di mana majoriti penduduk adalah Melayu “bertentangan dengan Perlembagaan Persekutuan dan konsep 1Malaysia”. Walhal, kebebasan beragama telah jelas termaktub di dalam Perlembagaan. Tidak ada mana-mana undang-undang atau dasar yang menyatakan bahawa tempat ibadat bukan Muslim hanya boleh dibina di kawasan yang majoriti penduduknya adalah juga bukan Muslim. Pada pendapat aku, sokongan yang diberikan oleh Menteri tersebut, berdasarkan hujah songsang tentang Perlembagaan, telah “memberanikan” mereka untuk membuat tindakan yang melampau.

Aku juga luahkan kemarahanku terhadap mereka yang mencemarkan bulan Ramadhan yang suci dengan tindakan mereka yang biadap. Aku maklumkan pada S bahawa Islam melarang penganutnya daripada menghina agama dan kepercayaan orang lain, dan aku berang kerana mereka lakukan itu semua sambil menyebut nama Tuhanku!

“It only takes one spark, just for someone to retaliate and we’d have problems,” ujarku.

Kami berpendapat bahawa Kerajaan tidak boleh berkompromi dalam hal ini. Semua yang terlibat harus dikenakan tindakan. Kerajaan harus mengenepikan walau apapun pertimbangan politik yang ada. Sekiranya Kerajaan tidak mengambil tindakan yang tepat, rakyat akan mengambil pendirian bahawa terdapat “tangan-tangan halus” yang menjadi dalang di belakang tabir. Sekiranya Kerajaan cuba untuk membela atau menawarkan justifikasi terhadap tindakan mereka, rakyat akan mengaitkannya dengan politik.

Merdeka kali ini begitu malap pada pemerhatian S. Tidak kelihatan bendera mahupun semangat kemerdekaan. Adakah ianya kerana apa yang berlaku di Shah Alam tempoh hari, ataupun ianya merupakan kesan daripada polemik dan retorik perkauman dan agama yang sering dimainkan oleh sesetengah pihak? Kami tidak tahu jawapannya, tetapi apa yang pasti Merdeka tahun ini bagaikan tidak mendapat sambutan.

Aku sering dingatkan supaya berwaspada tentang masyarakat S dan kaum bukan Melayu yang lain. Dikatakan bahawa bukan Melayu sudah semakin berani. Ingin merampas hak aku sebagai seorang Melayu. Malah sesetengah pihak, didorong oleh media yang menyebarkan propaganda perkauman, ingin aku “bangkit” dan “membela” bangsa dan agamaku. Hubungan antara kaum diasak bertubi-tubi oleh golongan yang tidak bertanggungjawab, yang sanggup menyemarakkan api perkauman demi kepentingan politik. Kalau mengikut logika mereka, aku dan S tidak boleh duduk semeja, apatah lagi bersahabat.

Tetapi persahabatan aku dan S, serta rakan-rakan kami yang lain, membuktikan bahawa dakwaan-dakwaan mereka langsung tidak berasas.

S menghembuskan asap rokok keluar dari hidung dan mulutnya.

“We must keep calm. If not, then they win.”

Ya, memang benar. Kita tidak boleh menari ikut rentak mereka. Jika tidak, kita akan tewas.

Aku percaya, terdapat ramai “aku dan S” di luar sana. Yang mementingkan kesamarataan, penerimaan dan perpaduan. Yang cinta akan kedamaian. Yang saling-hormat menghormati. Yang percaya bahawa kita semua, tidak kira bangsa mahupun agama, punya tempat di tanahair ini. Yang dapat membuktikan bahawa dua orang anak Malaysia yang berlainan bangsa dan agama masih boleh memelihara persahabatan yang begitu utuh.

Sudah tiba masanya kami mengambil semula negara ini dari cengkaman puak-puak yang ingin meneruskan agenda perkauman yang sempit dan melemaskan.

Kami berdua terdiam, masing-masing memikirkan nasib negara yang tercinta. Ke mana hala tuju Malaysia?

Sedar ataupun tidak, sudah beberapa gelas air minuman yang telah kami pesan.

*this article first appeared on LoyarBurok.

“In the name of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful. Praise be to God, the Lord of the Universe and may the blessings and peace of God be upon his messengers.

And whereas the time has now arrived when the people of the Persekutuan Tanah Melayu will assume the status of a free independent and sovereign nation among the nations of the world;

And whereas by an agreement styled the Federation of Malaya Agreement 1957, between Her Majesty the Queen and Their Highnesses the Rulers of the Malay States it was agreed that the Malay States of Johore, Pahang, Negri Sembilan, Selangor, Kedah, Perlis, Kelantan, Trengganu and Perak and the former Settlements of Malacca and Penang should as from the 31st day of August, 1957, be formed into a new Federation of States by the name of Persekutuan Tanah Melayu;

And whereas it was further agreed between the parties to the said agreement that the Settlements of Malacca and Penang aforesaid should as from the said date cease to form part of Her Majesty’s dominions and that Her Majesty should cease to exercise any sovereignty over them;

And whereas it was further agreed by the parties aforesaid that the Federation of Malaya Agreement, 1948, and all other agreements subsisting between Her Majesty the Queen and Their Highnesses the Rulers or any one of them immediately before the said date should be revoked as from that date and that all powers and jurisdiction of Her Majesty or of the Parliament of the United Kingdom in or in respect of the Settlements aforesaid or the Malay States
or the Federation as a whole should come to an end;

And whereas effect has been given in the Federation of Malaya Agreement, 1957, by Her Majesty the Queen, Their Highnesses the Rulers, the Parliament of the United Kingdom and the Legislatures of the Federation and of the Malay States;

And whereas a constitution for the Government of the Persekutuan Tanah Melayu has been established as the supreme law thereof;

And whereas by the Federal Constitution aforesaid provision is made to safeguard the rights and prerogatives of Their Highnesses the Rulers and the fundamental rights and liberties of the people and to provide for the peaceful and orderly advancement of the Persekutuan Tanah Melayu as a constitutional monarchy based on Parliamentary democracy;

And whereas the Federal Constitution aforesaid having been approved by an Ordinance of the Federal Legislatures, by the Enactments of the Malay States and by resolutions of the Legislatures of Malacca and Penang has come into force on the 31st day of August, 1957, aforesaid;

Now in the name of God the Compassionate, the Merciful I, Tengku Abdul Rahman Putra ibni Al-Marhum Sultan Abdul Hamid Halim Shah, Prime Minister of the Persekutuan Tanah Melayu, with the concurrence and approval of Their Highnesses the Rulers of the Malay States do hereby proclaim and declare on behalf of the people of the Persekutuan Tanah Melayu that as from the thirty first day of  August, nineteen hundred and fifty-seven, the Persekutuan Tanah Melayu comprising the States of Johore, Pahang, Negri Sembilan, Selangor, Kedah, Perlis, Kelantan, Trengganu, Perak, Malacca and Penang is and with God’s blessing shall be for ever a sovereign democratic and independent State founded upon the principle of liberty and justice and ever seeking the welfare and happiness of its people and the maintenance of a just peace among all nations.”

-Tunku Abdul Rahman Putra Al-Haj, 31August 1957

*this post was first published on 29 August 2007 in my old blog. It has now been reproduced here in conjunction with Merdeka Day.

We all know that in a few days time, we will be celebrating our 50^th year of independence. In view of that, I’d like to say a few words to my fellow Malaysians. Be warned that I will use some very strong language, and for that I apologize beforehand, but I feel that I really need to get these issues of my chest.

The thing is, I just can’t understand why after 50 freaking years of living with each other, racial and religious issues are becoming more and more prominent these days?!

Do we have problems with each other?

You’d think that our leaders would set an example, but NO… they’re even worse! Some of you MP fellas think you’re so big-time lah. You fellas think that because you got parliamentary privilege, you fellas can simply say whatever you want to say. Shouting, swearing, making sexist comments, uttering derogatory racial slangs… you fellas think Parliament is a marketplace issit? Pleaselah, have some dignity.

I dunno how a bunch of jokers and court jesters like some of you even get elected in the first place. Did you fill your constituencies with blind and deaf people or something?

Actuallyyy… to all politicians as whole; STOP F***ING AROUND WITH THE COUNTRY’S FUTURE.

You fellas happily using race and religion for your own needs. Cannot make it as politicians based on merit and hard-work, resort to racial warmongering. I know lah, you fellas want people to think you’re some kind of big time champion of your race, right?

You want people to compare you Hang Tuah/ Wong Fei Hung/ Rajnikanth, right?

You selfish little gluttons, STOP IT! I cannot let you gamble my future, and the country’s future just so that you can become popular enough to stop working and massage your privates all day while seeing the money multiply in your bank account.

Actually rite, I have a question for all of you fellas out there; not just politicians but everyone; why are you all so hard up about race and religion? Do you guys have sticks up your proverbial asses that you MUST get all sensitive and emotional whenever race and religion is involved? Hear something about your race that isn’t complimentary, straightaway want to jump up and fight. Sikit-sikit feel threatened, sikit-sikit wanna feel insulted.

Rilex lah bro! Yes, not all of us are the same, yes we are a diverse bunch, but SERIOUSLY, there are more similarities between us than there are differences. Look at what unites us rather than what divides us for a change.

But NO, we’re so freaking suspicious of the other fellas. Different a bit only, we start to look at him funny. And then you fellas go online, and read some blog by a guy named littlejohn1663 or something and you read about some whacked up conspiracy by the other fellas to either;

a) take over the country;

b) turn the country into a hardcore religious fundamentalist nation;

c) convert the faithful en masse;

d) take away the rights of your community;

e) any combination of the above; or

f) any other conspiracy by the other fellas that will only be bad new to your race/religion.

Either that, or you read some forwarded SMS on your handphone. Either way, you fellas bodoh-bodoh go and believe. No proof, no evidence, but still you believe the guy who blogs with a name like littlejohn1663 or Nenj, whose too scared to use his proper name. And then, you fellas, after you bodoh-bodoh go and believe, get angry and you tell your
friends. And your friends, also being the bodohs that they are, also go and believe you.

In the end, who suffers? National unity. Goodlah you fellas. Can I blame such bodohness on the education system also?

Why ah some of you fellas cannot be friends with people outside your race? You fellas shy issit? You think that we’re so different that we cannot get along issit? Pleaselah, the other fella might be a bit darker/lighter, might be fluent in a different language than you, might pray to a different god that you (or not at all), but let me guarantee you this; just like you, after that fella eat some heavy duty sambal petai, the fella is going to look for a toilet as well. And after he’s done, the toilet is still going to smell bad, no matter what race the poor bugger is.

My point is, why can’t we all look past our differences?

But NO, some of you have to be so f***ing racist. Anything wrong with the country, blame it on the other fellas. You can’t get a job, you blame it on the NEP or Mandarin-language requirement or whatever else. You say the other fellas are trying to destroy your race, as if the other fellas got nothing better to do than plot the downfall of your race.

Some of you bumi fellas, all you do is moan about how the other fellas have all the businesses and become filthy rich and become successful and whatnot. But then, you’re too stuck up and arrogant to learn on how people become successful, so what you do? You sulk and moan and sit around with like-minded little racial warmongers telling how we
must protect our ‘hak-hak’. Whatever that means.

As for some of you non-bumis, you cannot get something in life and straightaway you blame the bumi fella and say that that the government carried his privates all throughout his life. You say that you’re down and trodden and out because of the bumi fellas denying you your rights as a citizen. Conveniently you forget about the numerous non-bumis who as made it… you start a blog and you bitch and bicker and insult and blame those lazy bumi fellas.

I wanna say something to some of you supposed alim fellas; why you fellas like to every time condemn other people. Cannot do this lah, cannot do that lah, this wrong lah that wrong lah… and you thrive in catching couples in bushes… I suspect you have a voyeur streak in you. As if you fellas damn good and angelic but actually some of you fellas are even worse BUT you never admit it. In fact, you never even realize it. Hypocrites.

And pleaselah, can you stop blaming every single one of society’s ills on the West/ non-Muslims/ Jews/ Muslim ‘liberals’. Paris Hilton is not the reason why the pakcik got caught for incest and reported in the papers. There are some deep problems in the society that will never be solved by simply blaming others.

I also want to complain about some of you non-Muslim fellas; the ones who do nothing but complain about how you’re being oppressed and whatnot by the ‘nasty’ majority. You then go overseas and tell the kwai lo how Malaysia is akin to Taliban-era Afghanistan. After all that you back to Malaysia and you go to whatever place of worship and you do your prayers…. Ehhh, I thought religious freedom in Malaysia is dead?

Yeslah, we all know that there are problems in the country. But why must we blame our problems on the other fellas? Why must we be so divided? Why can’t we work together to overcome our problems? You fellas think that by blogging or bitching about the other fellas you’re going to overcome the problems ah?

You fellas think it’s easy to get this merdeka of ours issit? You think the English ‘chaps’ simply wanted to give away the country ah? Bugger, a lot of hard work you know. Those fellas back then worked together to achieve merdeka… and then 50 years down the road, we can’t even live with each other without eyeing each other with suspicion. I tell you, our founding fathers will be so bloody disappointed with us.

Please lah, open your eyes! This is not just a country for one race or one religion; it stopped being Tanah Melayu decades ago! Our country is for all Malaysian, regardless of his/her race, religion, skin colour, body odor, size of his/her house, whether he/she washes with the hand or the tissue paper and all other differences between us, big or small.

WE SHARE A COMMON DESTINY, dammit!

*this post was first published on 21 August 2007 in my old blog. It has now been reproduced here in conjunction with Merdeka Day.