I spoke to a middle-aged lady as I prepared to leave. She expressed her support for the campaign, describing it as ‘timely’. She then commended me on my command of English. In her own words, she said that I spoke ‘very good English’. I was flattered of course, but secretly thought that what she said was pure balderdash. She then said that usually, ‘they’ do not speak good English.

I instantly knew who she was referring to, without her mentioning it. I also realised that her comments were not because my English was anything spectacular, but because I was a Malaysian Malay speaking passable English.

This is a common perception and I have encountered it many times before. For some reason, justified or otherwise, a lot of people make the assumption that Malays cannot converse fluently or even speak English.

People have come up to me for the first time and automatically speak to me in bahasa Melayu, even if it is an English speaking occasion. I usually reply to them in English, a conscious effort to deny their stereotypical view. Most of the time, this will work and they will start to converse with me in English, but there are times when they remain oblivious. The conversation would then continue with the person speaking in bahasa Melayu and I would be speaking English.

Make no mistake; if they spoke to me in bahasa Melayu in reverence to the national language, I have no qualms. I will gladly converse in Malay. Yet, I know that instead, it is because of a stereotypical view of the English proficiency of Malays, and this irks me to no end. Especially if I know that I speak better English than the person who harbours this stereotype.

To a certain extent, I do not blame them. The standard of English has been on the decline. A lot of Malays do not seem to realise the importance of the language, and because bahasa Melayu is the lingua franca of the country, there is less of a need for them to improve their English. But to immediately assume that a Malay person should be spoken to in the ‘native’ language smacks of racial prejudice and stereotyping.

We live in a country that practices institutionalised segregation, ‘boxing’ different people into different categories. From school, when students are ushered into Agama and Moral classes, to official forms stating what race and religion we are, to the granting of scholarships and in the giving of tender, differences have been accentuated between the various communities.

Some Malaysians go through their lives without meaningful contact with ‘the others’. It is no wonder therefore that such prejudices and stereotypes exist.

Sometimes, these breed suspicion and tension. There is a lot of literature in the media on prejudices against non-Malays and the negative stereotypes of them. But Malays too have to face these prejudices.

A lot of it stems from the affirmative action policy put in place by the government. While it has created a sizeable Malay middle class, the oft-talked about New Economic Policy has also unfortunately encouraged mediocrity. Sub-standards are acceptable, as long as you have a ‘bin’ in the middle of your name. The result of this is that any form of success achieved by a Malay person will be viewed with suspicion. He or she did not ‘make it’ because of blood, sweat and tears, but instead because of handouts, quotas and affirmative action.

When I was made partner of my law firm, I had to struggle against the perception that it was because the firm needed a bumiputera partner. In fact, I still do. I may have worked very hard, but it matters little to the detractors. It would seem that a successful Malay owes his or her success to the government, and not to his or her own efforts.

There are rent-seekers, of course. There are those who exploit the affirmative action policy. There are those who use connections, political or otherwise, to enrich themselves. They are those who rely on the NEP not as a means to even the odds, but as a means to sustain themselves. Affirmative action has been very profitable to them. It is because of people like them that Malays who try to make it on their own merits have to work extra hard to prove that they can do it without relying on their so-called ‘special position’.

It is frustrating to have your achievements dismissed simply because of your ethnicity. Non-Malays have often complained of this when they talk of the NEP. Yet what many do not realise is that Malays too have had to grapple with society’s stereotypical view of them.

These are little known side-effects of a policy that is past its prime. A policy that was necessary at the time, but now in dire need of overhaul. Some efforts have been made towards this end, but have been met with stiff resistance. It remains to be seen what the final outcome will be. Until then, I will have to keep convincing people that I can actually speak English.

*first published on 26 January 2012 in The Star iPad application.

It was recently ‘revealed’ by a state exco that the state’s religious department has in their possession ‘talking bibles’ purportedly used for proselytizing to Muslims. This was the follow up to his earlier claims that the Christians are using solar-powered talking bibles to try and covert the Muslim ummah to embrace the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

This latest incredulous claim is part of a larger narrative; that there is a ‘Christianisation’ movement to try to convert the whole country and turn it into a ‘Christian state’. So convinced are they of the Christian threat to the faith of Muslims that a number of Malay-Muslim NGOs have formed a coalition in order to ‘save’ the faith of Muslims from this Christianisation wave. At the time of writing, the coalition has garnered some 12,000 or so ‘likes’ on Facebook. Which is rather ironic, as the very same coalition charged that Facebook exposes young Muslims to apostasy.

In the middle of last year, a blogger claimed that there were moves by the Christian community to install a Christian prime minister and to amend the Constitution to make Christianity as the official religion of the Federation. The incredulous claim was picked up by a Malay-language newspaper who carried it as if it is the gospel truth. Yet to date, neither blogger nor newspaper has provided proof of their assertions.

That very same Malay-language newspaper has also alleged that the Bersih 2.0 coalition is being funded by Christian groups overseas. The objective? Purportedly a change of government through street protests. We also saw last year how a state religious authority raided a church in Damansara for allegedly attempting to convert Muslims.

Not forgetting the constant threats the Christians pose to the faithful through things like Valentine’s Day, Santa Claus and Christmas greetings. Some even go so far as to ‘read’ symbols of Freemasonary and Illuminati into mundane things and linking them to them to Christianity.

On top of being constantly demonised, Christians also have to contend with impediments to their constitutional right to profess and practice their religion.

Some want to regulate and dictate what are the names they can call their God. Their holy books have been confiscated and defaced. They struggle just to obtain permission to build their houses of worships. Then, some of these places of worship are themselves torched. Even the relatively harmless activity of Christmas caroling now requires a police permit.

In short, it would appear that everything that is wrong in this country is directly or indirectly the fault of Christians. Christians, to them, are like a plague upon the nation, one that must be confronted and combated before it becomes a bigger menace.

I could never understand this paranoia. Perhaps, it is because I have lived my whole life surrounded by Christians and Christianity. My alma mater, a school in Petaling Jaya, was founded by missionaries. Walk around its halls and you will many vestiges of the missionary school of yore. I spent years walking around in its compound under the shadow of a very noticeable cross. Once, a couple of parents wanted to remove the cross, but the objections from everyone else meant that the idea remained an idea. I was never tempted or wondered about switching school.

Some of my closest friends are Christians. Yet never have I once been proselytised by them. They have not even questioned the faith I have in my faith, even if religion is far from being a taboo subject to us. Surely if there was indeed a movement, why have they not tried to convert me?

My involvement with the MyConstitution campaign also meant that I had to visit a lot of churches for events and workshops. We would be treated with wonderful hospitality, but I have never been asked to leave my faith.

It saddens me when these allegations are banded about my fellow Malaysians in the name of my religion. When I know of so many Christians who are so passionate about their country, who are contributing their blood, sweat and tears to make a better Malaysia, yet treated as if they are high level national security threats. It is heartening to note that Christians of Malaysia have reacted with calm, turning their collective cheeks and still loving their neighbours.

I believe a lot of the paranoia and demonisation of Christians are due to ignorance. For some reason, these people see Christians as a homogenous and singular community. That is why they buy into the idea of a Christian conspiracy. Yet to see Christians as one entity betrays their lack of knowledge in the history of the religion we know of as Christianity. That is why a Protestant church was firebombed when the challenge in Court to use the name ‘Allah’ was brought by Catholics. They know not of the difference.

Prejudice and paranoia are difficult to eradicate. Even more difficult when you are constantly bombarded with propaganda. Yet it must be done, for what other choice do we have? After all, is it not true that God help those who help themselves?

*first published in The Star iPad application on 12 January 2012

Pemuda yang cerdik dan daripada pengamatan saya, dia ingin belajar dan didedahkan kepada selok-belok pengamal undang-undang. Untuk memudahkan cerita, kita panggil dia “H”.

H masih belum membuat keputusan, sama ada dia mahu menjadi peguam. Tidak mengapa, kerana perjalanannya baru bermula. Keputusan tidak perlu dibuat sehingga beberapa tahun lagi. Saya tidak pula ingin mendorongnya menjadi seorang peguam; profesion ini bukannya sesuai untuk semua.

Adalah lebih baik sekiranya seseorang itu mencari jawapannya sendiri, tanpa dipengaruhi oleh sesiapa. Dalam perbualan kami, H bertanya tentang kerjaya lain yang boleh dipilih dengan adanya ijazah undang-undang. Wah, begitu banyak pilihan lain sebenarnya.

Ijazah undang-undang adalah suatu tiket am untuk memilih pelbagai kerjaya. Kemudian H bertanya, mengapa saya memilih untuk menjadi peguam?

Sekiranya soalan ini dijawab menggunakan logik dan pertimbangan kewangan semata-mata, ia sebenarnya langsung tidak masuk akal untuk menjadi peguam. Kerjaya lain jauh lebih berbaloi, gajinya lebih lumayan dan waktu kerja juga berpatutan.

Ramai peguam, lebih-lebih lagi yang muda, tidak mempunyai keseimbangan kerja-kehidupan (work life balance) yang sihat. Seorang peguam muda bekerja lebih daripada 12 jam sehari. Hujung minggu juga kadangkala terpaksa datang ke pejabat.

Gaji peguam muda juga lebih rendah daripada profesion-profesion lain, dan sekiranya dibandingkan dengan negara-negara lain, adalah secara relatif lebih rendah.

Peguam muda harus berhadapan dengan anak guam yang menghantar e-mel ketika larut malam, atau bos yang melambakkan kerja tanpa belas kasihan. Dari sudut ini semua, tidak ada sebab langsung mengapa seseorang itu wajar memilih menjadi peguam.

Tetapi jawapan saya kepada H mudah – memilih kerjaya ini kerana tidak ada kerjaya lain boleh saya ceburi. Tidak ada profesion lain boleh memberi makna kepada diri ini. Saya memilih kerjaya ini kerana cinta kepadanya.

Ya, sedikit klise, tetapi inilah hakikatnya. Tiada profesion lain boleh menentang kezaliman dan ketidakadilan secara terus. Tidak ada profesion lain boleh menyelesaikan masalah manusia melalui undang-undang.

Membaca kertas kausa, memahami kes, membina kekuatan mencari kelemahan lawan, menganalisis fakta, membuat kajian undang-undang, bersedia untuk bicara, berhujah di hadapan hakim dengan bersenjatakan undang-undang; dan cuba sedaya-upaya untuk meyakinkan hakim.

Inilah kepuasan saya nikmati secara peribadi yang begitu mengasyikkan dan saya ketagih. Terlalu ramai peguam muda di luar sana mengeluh tentang keadaan kerja mereka. Tentang gaji, masa kerja, bos dan klien mereka.

Ramai lagi peguam muda terus berhenti mengamal undang-undang. Seperti saya katakan, tidak masuk akal, jika difikir secara logik untuk terus mengamal undang-undang.

Tetapi ramai yang masih terus mengamal undang-undang kerana cinta mereka dengan kehidupan sebagai peguam. Ada suatu ungkapan saya sering gunakan yang tidak akan diterjemah kerana maknanya akan hilang; Love of life in the Law.

Inilah sebab mengapa saya menjadi peguam walaupun jika dibandingkan kehidupan di luar guaman adalah jauh lebih baik. Langsung saya tidak berniat untuk mengagung-agungkan kerjaya ini. Hanya sekadar berkongsi fikiran, memberi sedikit perspektif berbeza di belakang keputusan diambil.

Saya tidak pasti, sama ada H dapat merasakan keghairahan saya ketika bercerita tentang kehidupan seorang peguam. Mungkin jika H sendiri menjadi peguam satu hari nanti, dia akan memahami kata-kata saya dan mengapa saya masih mengamal undang-undang.

My first wish was for greater constitutional awareness. While there is no way of measuring this, at least through the MyConstitution campaign organised by the Bar Council, we are able to gauge that the general public do want more knowledge about their Federal Constitution. The numerous activities undertaken by the campaign throughout 2011 is testament to this.

My second wish for 2011 was for the abolishment of draconian laws in the form of the Internal Security Act 1960 (“ISA”), the Emergency (Public Order and Prevention of Crime) Ordinance 1969 (“EO”) and Dangerous Drugs (Special Preventive Measure) Act 1985. The three are known as the ‘unholy trinity’ of detention without trial legislation.

We will thankfully see the end of two – the ISA will be abolished sometime in March 2012, and the emergency declarations of 1966, 1969 and 1977 have meanwhile been annulled by Parliament on Dec 20, 2011. Six months thereafter, the EO will cease to have legal effect.

However, we have been told that legislations to replace these draconian laws are being drafted, and will continue provide for detention without trial. So even with the abolishment of the ISA and the annulment of the emergency declarations, we must remain vigilant to ensure the draconian nature of these legislations do not manifest itself in new laws. Preventive detention – whilst being a feature of many jurisdictions these days – must be for a specific purpose; terrorism. It cannot be a carte blanche power to punish extra-judiciously. We must also ensure that the injustices of the past can no longer be repeated in the future.

My third wish for 2011 was for better inter-faith relations, to mend the interfaith relationship that took a beating in 2010. Unfortunately, this wish of mine did not materialise. Christians in particular bore the brunt of the inter-religious aggravation. They have been accused with collaborating with communists to topple the government and have been accused of attempting to convert Muslims through a ‘Christianisation’ movement (gerakan Kristianisasi in Bahasa Melayu).

The climax of these tensions was the Jais raid on a church earlier this year as well as the Himpunan Sejuta Umat (Himpun) assembly of Muslim NGOs, purportedly to ‘defend the Islamic faith’ from this christianisation.

I will renew my wish for better interfaith relations in 2012 and in this I am heartened to see that the Christians of Malaysia have remained true to their teachings by reacting with calm, turning their collective cheeks and still loving their neighbours. There are also many Muslims who denounce this demonisation of their fellow countrymen. In this, I remain hopeful.

My last wish for 2011 was if general elections were called, we would vote for the right leaders to represent us in Parliament. 2011 came and will end without the dissolution of Parliament, but the elections will almost certainly be in 2012.

My hope will be carried over to 2012, that while we may not see less politics, we will at least see a more dynamic, robust and meaningful Parliament after the 13th General Elections.

Looking ahead, I hope for a better year in 2012 for our nation. My first hope is that the Peaceful Assembly Bill 2011, which has been passed by both Houses of Parliament, will be amended at the very least. A fortnight ago, I wrote of how this Bill is flawed and should be withdrawn. A withdrawal may be too late, but I truly hope that efforts are underway to amend the more severe aspects of the legislation.

I also hope that in 2012, we will finally see the proposed amendments to the Universities and University Colleges Act 1971 (UUCA) to allow for the participation of students in politics. I have also wrote in this column of the landmark decision of the Court of Appeal in the UKM4 case and it is my wish that the decision will herald a new dawn in the movement to push for the constitutional rights of students, curtailed by the UUCA.

2012 will be an exciting year. The impending general elections and developments in the fundamental liberties of the rakyat will mean that socio-politico-legal commentators like me will have more than enough material to fill their columns. Let us hope that when I write again on this topic next year, it will reflect upon a good year for Malaysia.

*this article was first published on 29.12.2011 for The Star’s iPad application for my column, A Humble Submission

Soon after, the actual Bill was made available to public. Interested persons began trawling through the Bill. Thankfully, the Bill is not very long, there are only about 27 sections and 4 short schedules. Before long, concrete views about the Bill began to emerge as the media scrambled for analysis on the Bill.

My initial view of it was actually not as bad as some other early opinions of the Bill. Compared to the repressive (and unconstitutional) regime regulating public assemblies under Section 27 of the Police Act, the Bill looked like a step in the right direction. After all, the main selling point of the Bill is the fact that you would no longer need a police permit to hold a public assembly. Under PA2011, you only need to notify the police of the intended assembly. As the requirement of notification is an international norm, the movement from permit to notification would bring the country closer to international standards relating to public assemblies.

PA2011 is one of those laws that on the face of it looks progressive. For the less discerning, there would not be much that is wrong with the Bill. Yet, spend a bit more time with it and its many flaws will soon be apparent, so much so that taken as a whole, it would actually be more regressive than the current legislation.

The biggest (and some say most insidious) weakness of PA2011 is the outright ban against what is termed as ‘street protest’ under the Bill. This has been justified in order to ‘protect the interests of other people who are affected by street protests’, such as small business and motorists.

Yet, ‘street protest’ has been defined as ‘an open air assembly which begins with a meeting at a specified place and consists of walking in a mass march or rally for the purpose of objecting to or advancing a particular cause or causes’. Effectively, this would potentially cover all forms of moving assemblies or processions, from the Bersih-type rallies to Maulidur Rasul or Thaipussam processions. An organiser or participant of such ‘street protests’ will be liable to a maximum fine of RM10,000.00. Under the current scheme in Section 27 of the Police Act, it is possible to hold a ‘street protest’ as defined by PA2011, subject to the issuance of a permit from the police. The banning of a ‘street protest’ is thus a clear step backwards for freedom of assembly. In addition, this outright prohibition would also be unconstitutional. Although the Federal Constitution allows for restrictions to be placed on freedom of assembly for certain specified purposes such as public order, such restrictions cannot amount to a total prohibition against the exercise of that right to freedom of assembly.

The outright prohibition against public assemblies at ‘prohibited places’ also attracted the same criticisms. Under the Bill, a public assembly cannot be held at such places or within 50 meters from the limit of such places. The Bill lists places such as schools, kindergartens, places of worship, hospitals, land public transport terminals, petrol stations, hospitals, railways, bridges and many other places as ‘prohibited places’.

The list of prohibited places severely limits the areas in which a public assembly may be held, especially if it is in urban centers such as the Klang Valley. It would be difficult to find a place that is not within 50 meters of a petrol station, school, land public transport terminal or a place or worship in the Klang Valley. Many public events are held in places like the Bar Council or the PWTC yet these places because of their proximity to prohibited places can no longer host such events.

This also means that mundane, everyday activities can no longer take place in such prohibited places. An assembly as defined in the Bill is a means an ‘intentional and temporary assembly of a number of persons in a public place, whether or not the assembly is at a particular place or moving’. Under PA2011, an assembly such as a school assembly, a church mass or Friday prayers can no longer be held as they would be held at a school or a place of worship. Remember, this would be an outright prohibition. Not even the police can grant permission to assemble in such prohibited places.

Surely this cannot be the intention of the government in drafting the Bill. Surely such jarring flaws merit a more thorough review of the proposed law.

Instead, for no rhyme or reason, the bill was approved. It was first tabled on 22 November 2011 and by 29 November 2011, it was passed by the Dewan Rakyat with amendments. Demands and pleas for the Bill to be referred to a Parliamentary select committee failed. It would appear that Malaysian must accept this Bill.

It is upon this backdrop that the Bar marched to Parliament on 29 November 2011 to present an alternative Peaceful Assembly Bill to the government. The alternative Bill was drafted by a team assembled by the Bar Council and lead by former Bar president Datuk Yeo Yang Poh. The team drafted the alternative bill in three days yet the product was superior to PA2011. It only took that many days because there is a raft of legislation in other jurisdictions to emulate. The drafters of PA2011 also took from these other jurisdiction, but instead of taking the best out of those other legislation, it would appear that it has been pieced together into a contradictory, regressive and ultimately flawed bill which does not give justice to the government’s promise of democratic transformation.

*this article was first published on 15 December 2011 in The Star’s iPad application for my column, A Humble Submission.

Both of us were not at the scene of the march, so what we know will be based on the news report as well as eyewitness accounts of those who were at the protest.

The march began at Masjid Jamek LRT station and the objective was to a present memorandum at PWTC and at SUHAKAM headquarters. The march itself was without incident, in fact what was noteworthy was the cooperation given by the Royal Malaysian Police (PDRM) to the protesters, in which they facilitated the march instead of trying to stop it as what usually happens. This is much welcomed, and hopefully this will herald a new approach to policing and future protests be handled similarly.

The current controversy is in relation to an incident in PWTC. It would seem that emotions got the better of some of the students at PWTC. A flag, bearing the Prime Minister’s face, was lowered and replaced with the flag of BEBAS. It happened briefly, the original flag was raised back up as quickly as it came down. The incident took place not more than 5 to 10 minutes, and in the words of @KohJL on Twitter:

Never has so much been said about so little. I saw incident and didn’t even think it was newsworthy. I’ve been proven very wrong

But newsworthy it was indeed. The storm of controversy that followed the aftermath of the incident (Flag-gate, anyone? You heard here first, on LB!) is well documented. In fact, the flag incident has overshadowed the march of the mahasiswa so much so that no one seems to be talking about the real issue behind the events that Saturday. It would appear that all we that we took from the march was the Flag-gate incident.

It is interesting to note how much this incident has garnered divided opinions and perspectives, from within the mahasiswa movement itself and the larger civil society.

Those in support of what Adam did say that it is a flag with the PM’s face and not the Jalur Gemiling. Some say that students did not burn nor trample the flag and merely lowered it. To them, there is nothing wrong with the action – it is a display of dissent and dissatisfaction with the government. Some have even accorded the act with a sense of symbolism, when quite clearly it was something which was not planned at the time did not have the endorsement of the organisers. It was only later that BEBAS did so retrospectively. As such, to say that the act is supposed to a symbolic one sounds like an afterthought and a rather disingenuous one at that.

On the other side of the spectrum, those against what Adam did described it as lacking courtesy at best, and biadap at worst. @ZainHD described it on Twitter (edited for clarity):

Whatever your affiliations, get it right. Don’t step into someone’s PRIVATE PROPERTY & do something that will LIKELY INSULT them. Understand respect.

Some students themselves (within the movement and the same circle) feel that the actions by BEBAS do not represent the entire student segment of the citizenry. Even though they walked with BEBAS on Saturday, or have been ardent supporters of the movement to expand student freedom and university autonomy, they do not agree with the act. They use the analogy of someone coming by your house, your very own private property, and starts messing around with your garden on your property.

Unfortunately, Flag-gate has degenerated into a partisan farce. Those in UMNO are going after Adam and BEBAS. Those in PKR meanwhile have thrown their support behind Adam and BEBAS. It is with this backdrop that the public discourse regarding Flag-gate is taking place.

BEBAS had no control what Adam did and it would appear that the movement did not plan to do what Adam did. So they could not be held responsible for what happened. What we disagree to is the response by BEBAS to the backlash. Instead of taking a step back to re-evaluate the situation and to take in the bigger picture of how political liberalization is an evolutionary process, they have instead opted to go forth with guns blazing.

Make no mistake, we condemn the threats against Adam, which so far includes threats to slap and spit on him. And while we do not agree in principle with Adam’s act, we also think that the backlash is disproportionate to the ‘crime’. It is after all just a flag with the Prime Minister’s face and it was just briefly lowered.

But BEBAS could have seen the bigger picture. They were asked to apologise, and while we do not see a need to do so, they could have instead chosen the more reconciliatory approach. The confrontational stance they have taken and their retrospective endorsement of Adam’s act have ironically damaged the movement and the cause.

Detractors of the cause are now using Flag-gate to discredit the cause. They are using this incident as proof that the mahasiswa should not be given their freedoms. The erstwhile @mpkotabelud tweeted:

Next it’ll be burning, spitting, tearing & stepping on Jalur Gemilang. Why the hell not? It’s freedom of speech & expression what!

The hardliners in UMNO have also found their ammunition against Dato’ Saifuddin Abdullah, one of the few true progressives in the party who not only talk of it, but also acts on it. We find it sad that Flag-gate is being used against the mahasiswa movement’s benefactor and greatest ally in government.

Time to put things back into perspective. It was a historic march, the culmination of years and years of mahasiswa empowerment. It should symbolise the coming of age of student activism, the day when the mahasiswa showed to the world that they no longer are afraid of the shackles of AUKU, placed upon them by a government fearful of the mahasiswa. The fact that the students marched peacefully to forward their cause for academic freedom without any violence or sabotage from anyone should take precedent over Flag-gate.

The very fact that SUHAKAM, through its commissioner Muhammad Sha’ani Abdullah, received the memorandum is recognition of the inalienable rights of the mahasiswa by the statutory body. Similarly, the fact that the memorandum was received by Dato’ Saifuddin Abdullah, Deputy Higher Education Minister and stalwart supporter of student political participation, is tacit acknowledgment by the government of the perjuangan.

Lest our views are misconstrued as losing faith in the students’ ability to handle the responsibility of political expression and affiliation, we reiterate a popular quote from Evelynn Beatrice Hall, in her work “Friends of Voltaire”:

I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

Likewise, while we disagree with the methods and tactics employed, we must stand in solidarity together with those who believed in the same cause of advancing student freedom and university autonomy. Flag-gate must not be allowed to be used as an argument to take away from the very same struggle that has been fought for by many generations of students for over four decades.

Those fighting for the cause, regardless of whether it is BEBAS, PKR, PAS, Dato’ Saifuddin, youth wings within Barisan Nasional and civil society must stand together instead of being divided over Flag-gate. The cause is a political cause, but it should not be allowed to become a partisan one.

The cause is far, far bigger than Flag-gate. Let us turn Flag-gate into a positive. BEBAS, while possibly causing damage to the cause, have also put the focus on its movement. Before Nelson Mandela promoted his cause through dialogues, writing, speeches and thereafter reconciliation, he also committed acts of sabotage. It was part and parcel of the struggle. Maybe this is also part and parcel of the perjuangan mahasiswa. And since the nation’s attention is already on this issue, let use it to bring the spotlight onto the cause itself, rather than the incident.

*this article was first published in LoyarBurok on 21 December 2011.

2011 adalah tahun di mana bermulanya pemansuhan dua akta zalim yang membolehkan penahanan tanpa bicara, iaitu Akta Keselamatan Dalam Negeri 1960 (atau ‘ISA’) dan Ordinan (Ketenteraman Awam dan Pencegahan Jenayah) Darurat 1960 (atau ‘EO’). Kedua-dua undang-undang ini, bersama-sama dengan Akta Dadah Berbahaya (Langkah-langkah Pencegahan Khas) 1985 dikenali sebagai unholy trinity undang-undang yang memperuntukkan penahanan tanpa bicara.

Seperti kita sedia maklum, ISA akan dimansuhkan pada Mac 2012. Parlimen pula telah meluluskan usul untuk menamatkan ketiga-tiga pengisytiharan darurat tahun 1966, 1969 dan 1977, oleh itu mengikut Perlembagaan, 6 bulan selepas ini EO tidak lagi mempunyai kuat kuasa undang-undang. Walau begitu, masyarakat madani harus memastikan bahawa undang-undang baru yang akan menggantikan ISA dan EO tidak menjadi ‘racun lama di dalam botol baru’ dan memastikan undang-undang baru tersebut akan benar-benar menjamin kebebasan rakyat.

Tahun 2011 juga merupakan tahun di mana Parlimen telah meluluskan Rang Undang-undang Perhimpunan Awam 2011 (atau ‘PA2011’) yang begitu hebat dikritik. Seperti telah saya bentangkan sebelum ini, rang undang-undang tersebut penuh dengan percanggahan dan kelemahan. Namun, kerajaan tanpa mengendahkan suara masyarakat madani telah memantaskan kelulusan sebuah undang-undang yang begitu cacat.

Tetapi nasib belum menjadi bubur. Kerajaan masih boleh meminda PA2011, sekurang-kurangnya untuk memastikan bahawa peruntukan-peruntukan yang mempunyai kesan paling buruk dapat diperbaiki. Mungkinkah 2012 akan menyaksikan perkara ini berlaku dan wujudnya undang-undang yang dapat menjamin hak berhimpun, dan memberi makna kepada ucapan Perdana Menteri di ambang Hari Malaysia.

Di samping itu, 2011 adalah tahun yang begitu bermakna bagi penjanakuasaan hak berhimpun yang termaktub dalam Perlembagaan. Perhimpunan Bersih pada pertengahan 2011 merupakan satu anjakan paradigma yang penting dari segi mentaliti rakyat terhadap perhimpunan awam. Masyarakat makin sedar, protes dan tunjuk perasaan itu sebenarnya perkara biasa di mana-mana demokrasi di seluruh dunia. Mereka sedar, hak mereka datangnya daripada Perlembagaan dan bukannya diberi makna pihak berkuasa.

Dari segi perjuangan mahasiswa, 2011 telah menyaksikan satu langkah penting. Rayuan kes 4 anak muda yang dikenali sebagai ‘UKM4’ membuahkan keputusan yang amat dialu-alukan. Mahkamah Rayuan membenarkan rayuan mereka dan mengisytiharkan Seksyen 15(5)(a) Akta Universiti dan Kolej Univerisiti (atau Auku) sebagai bercanggah dengan Perkara 10(1)(a) Perlembagaan Persekutuan begitu diraikan. Ia merupakan satu kemenangan untuk perjuangan mahasiswa membebaskan diri daripada kongkongan beberapa peruntukan
Auku yang represif dan tidak demokratik.

Di samping itu, Perdana Menteri juga mengumumkan, Auku juga akan dipinda untuk membolehkan mahasiswa terlibat politik. Pada ketika ini, kerajaan sedang mendapat maklum balas pelbagai pihak. Diharapkan, apa-apa pindaan mencerminkan aspirasi mahasiswa dan mengembalikan hak mereka.

Adakah 2012 akan dipenuhi dengan peristiwa juga? Nampak gaya, begitulah. Lebih-lebih lagi apabila semua pihak menjangkakan pilihan raya umum akan berlaku pada 2012. Sudah tentu begitu banyak isu timbul. Harapan saya supaya masyarakat mengenali hak mereka dari segi undang-undang, untuk Malaysia yang lebih baik.

*rencana ini pertama kali diterbitkan di dalam akhbar Sinar Harian pada 2 Januari 2012 untuk kolum saya, Cermin Sanubari.

Sebelum ini, tokoh-tokoh yang dinobatkan ialah seperti pengasas Facebook Mark Zuckerberg, presiden Amerika Syarikat Barack Obama, Pemimpin Agung Republik Iran yang pertama, Ayatollah Khomeini dan pejuang kemerdekaan India, Mahatma Gandhi.

The Protester, atau Si Pemprotes, menurut Time, tidak hanya menyuarakan rungutan, tetapi mereka juga telah mengubah dunia. Daripada pemprotes yang mencetuskan revolusi Arab Spring di Timur Tengah, sehinggalah ke pergerakan Occupy yang bermula di Wall Street, New York, seluruh dunia menyaksikan kebangkitan bantahan, protes dan demonstrasi, tidak kiralah sama ada ia aman mahupun tidak.

Perjuangan mereka juga berbeza-beza. Revolusi Arab Spring adalah untuk menjatuhkan rejim Timur Tengah yang zalim, tetapi Occupy Wallstreet pula untuk menuntut keadilan ekonomi. “Mereka tidak bersetuju, mereka menuntut, mereka tidak putus asa, walaupun jawapan yang diterima adalah gas pemedih mata atau hujanan peluru hidup.”

Menurut Time lagi, si pembantah telah menjelmakan gagasan bahawa tindakan individu boleh membawa kepada perubahan kolektif yang begitu besar. Malaysia juga tidak terkecuali daripada penangan si pembantah. Negara menyaksikan demonstrasi jalanan yang dianjurkan oleh gabungan Bersih 2.0 untuk menuntut pilihan raya yang lebih bersih dan adil.

Seramai lebih kurang 40,000 hingga 50,000 rakyat Malaysia pelbagai kaum, agama, usia dan kelas masyarakat turun ke tengah bandar Kuala Lumpur sebagai si pemprotes, walaupun pada ketika itu pihak berkuasa cuba sedaya-upaya ‘mengunci’ Kuala Lumpur.

Apa yang begitu menarik tentang himpunan Bersih 2.0 ini adalah bagaimana ia telah memecahkan tembok di antara aktivis atau ahli parti hardcore dengan rakyat Malaysia yang biasa. Himpunan yang berlaku pada 9 Julai 2011 telah sedikit sebanyak menjadikan perhimpunan sebagai satu yang normal.

Apa yang sebelum ini menjadi suatu perkara luar biasa, kini menjadi biasa dan juga melibatkan rakyat Malaysia yang tidak selalunya akan menjadi si pemprotes. Si pemprotes kini bukan hanya aktivis atau ahli parti hardcore, si pemprotes boleh jadi rakyat Malaysia yang biasa.

Si pemprotes juga hadir di himpunan, protes dan bantahan lain. Selain Bersih 2.0, si pemprotes antara lain telah hadir pada himpunan Patriot, tunjuk perasaan yang dianjurkan oleh MTUC di seluruh negara, Himpunan Sejuta Umat, bersama dengan anak muda untuk Occupy Dataran dan perarakan Walk 4 Freedom anjuran Badan Peguam baru-baru ini.

Si pemprotes boleh jadi Barisan atau Pakatan, terpilih atau marhaen, nasionalis atau sosialis, terpelajar atau sedang belajar. Melalui si pemprotes, rakyat Malaysia sedar akan kewujudan hak untuk berhimpun dengan aman dan juga hak untuk menyuarakan pendapat. Mereka sedar juga bahawa hak-hak ini datangnya daripada Perlembagaan dan bukannya ditakrifkan oleh pihak berkuasa semata-mata.

Hak-hak ini begitu penting buat si pemprotes, tanpanya sudah tentu si pemprotes tidak boleh membantah. Pihak pemerintah pula tidak perlu khuatir tidak bertempat dengan si pembantah ini. Malahan, pemprotes sewajarnya dihormati dan bukan dikecam, didengar bukan dibiarkan, kerana melalui si pemprotes, demokrasi di Malaysia menjadi semakin subur dan matang.

*rencana ini pertama kali diterbitkan di dalam akhbar Sinar Harian pada 19 Disember 2011 untuk kolum saya, Cermin Sanubari.

Perarakan itu bermula dari pintu masuk Kelab Taman Perdana Diraja dan berakhir di Parlimen. Perarakan itu dipelopori Majlis Peguam dan diketuai Presiden Badan Peguam, saudara Lim Chee Wee. Ketika di Parlimen, Majlis Peguam menyerahkan memorandum dan rang undang-undang alternatif yang dirangka oleh Majlis Peguam kepada Timbalan Menteri Di Jabatan Perdana Menteri, Datuk V K Liew.

Kausa kami adalah PA2011. Pada kami, PA2011 penuh dengan cacat dan cela. Ia tidak dirangka dengan teliti dan ada begitu banyak percanggahan dan kekhilafan. Ia juga mempunyai peruntukan yang lebih regresif berbanding undang-undang sedia ada.

Antara kelemahan PA2011 adalah berkenaan dengan ‘protes jalanan’ yang tidak dibenarkan sama sekali. Definisi ‘protes jalanan’ begitu luas sehinggakan apa-apa jenis perhimpunan bergerak atau perarakan boleh diklasifikasikan sebagai ‘protes jalanan’.

Di samping itu, terdapat juga larangan yang tidak masuk akal. Contohnya, PA2011 memperuntukkan beberapa tempat larangan berhimpun, antaranya, sekolah dan tempat ibadat. Seseorang itu melakukan kesalahan sekiranya dia menganjurkan atau menyertai perhimpunan di tempat larangan.

Oleh itu, mengikut PA2011, adalah menjadi satu kesalahan jika seseorang itu berhimpun di sekolah. Bagaimana pula dengan acara seperti hari kantin? Di bawah PA2011 kenduri di pekarangan masjid juga dilarang.

PA2011 juga memberikan polis kuasa yang luas untuk mengenakan sekatan dan syarat ke atas mana-mana perhimpunan yang dikenakan. Dikhuatiri, sekiranya sekatan dan syarat ini tidak diperincikan, ia boleh disalahgunakan oleh pihak berkuasa.

Atas sebab-sebab ini, dan sebab-sebab lain, Majlis Peguam menentang PA2011. Ini bukan tentang politik, bukan tentang barisan atau pakatan apa-apa. Ini tentang sebuah rang-rang undang yang begitu cacat dan dipantaskan kelulusannya.

Harapan kami mudah sebenarnya. Jika tidak mahu menarik balik PA2011, sekurang-kurangnya rujuk kepada Jawatankuasa Terpilih Parlimen. Biar jawatankuasa ini perhalusi dan periksa peruntukan-peruntukan rang undang-undang ini satu persatu dan berunding dengan masyarakat awam. Mengapa perlu bergegas? Kita semua inginkan undang-undang yang dapat menjamin hak berhimpun, dan memberi makna kepada ucapan Perdana Menteri di ambang Hari Malaysia.

Ramai yang bertanya, mengapa peguam perlu berarak? Bukankah ia menyusahkan orang ramai? Tidak ada cara lain untuk menunjukkan bantahan? Mengapa Majlis Peguam perlu ‘berpolitik’?

Majlis Peguam telah cuba berunding. Tetapi menemui jalan buntu. Perarakan itu adalah jalan terakhir yang simbolik supaya kami dapat dipertimbangkan. Lebih-lebih lagi apabila dilaporkan bahawa PA2011 akan diluluskan oleh Parlimen pada hari yang sama.

Badan peguam dan Majlis Peguam tidak berminat dengan politik. Kami bukan anti-kerajaan mahupun pro-pembangkang seperti sering dituduh. Kami pro-keadilan (justice) dan mendukung Perlembagaan. PA2011 adalah bertentangan dengan prinsip-prinsip ini. Atas dasar inilah saya berarak pada hari itu.

Malangnya, walaupun dengan perarakan tersebut Dewan Rakyat telah meluluskan PA2011 tanpa undi bantahan. Ahli Parlimen pembangkang telah bermain politik dengan keluar Dewan.

Maka pada hari itu, kesemua ahli Dewan Rakyat pada saya telah mengecewakan rakyat. Selepas peguam dan rakyat berarak, rang undang-undang tersebut tetap diluluskan oleh ahli Dewan Rakyat.

*rencana ini pertama kali diterbitkan pada 5 Disember 2011 di dalam akhbar Sinar Harian untuk kolum saya, ‘Cermin Sanubari’.

Tahukah anda bahawa umat Islam merupakan penduduk minoriti, iaitu lebih kurang lima peratus daripada penduduk Switzerland. Hasil referendum jelas menunjukkan bahawa majoriti rakyat Switzerland menyokong larangan tersebut sehinggalah perlembagaan dipinda. Adakah ini bermakna rakyat Islam Switzerland harus mematuhi kehendak majoriti rakyat Switzerland? Bahawa mereka tidak mempunyai hak untuk bebas beragama dan harus akur dengan larangan tersebut? Bagaimana pula sekiranya penduduk Switzerland pula menyokong satu larangan yang lebih teruk – melarang wanita daripada bertudung. Adakah mereka juga harus menerima suara majoriti ini?

Sekiranya kita menggunakan logika yang kita sering gunakan di sini, maka umat Islam Switzerland harus sahaja menerima larangan tersebut. Mereka harus menghormati ‘suara majoriti’. Mereka harus menghormati ‘sensitiviti’ penduduk negara tersebut yang 95 peratus daripadanya bukanlah beragama Islam. Hak minoriti boleh diketepikan sekiranya majoriti mahukannya. Inilah yang sering kita ulangi setiap kali hendak memberi justifikasi ke atas pencabulan hak dan kebebasan saudara senegara kita.

Adakah kita akan menerima larangan menara masjid di Switzerland. Sekiranya terdapat larangan wanita bertudung pula yang dikenakan (di Perancis, larangan adalah ke atas wanita memakai purdah), adakah kita juga akan redha?

Di Switzerland, komuniti Islam di bandar Langenthal bercadang untuk mencabar larangan tersebut hingga ke Mahkamah Agung Persekutuan Switzerland dan selepas itu, Mahkamah Hak Asasi Manusia Eropah, atas dasar bahawa hak asasi mereka untuk bebas beragama telah disekat oleh larangan tersebut.

Ya, hak asasi manusia atau human rights. ‘Konsep’ yang begitu dicerca dan dimomok, yang dibuat seakan-akan penyakit kusta yang harus dibasmi akan digunakan sebagai kausa tindakan sekumpulan umat Islam di Eropah. Ironik sungguh, bukan? Tahukah anda bahawa selain daripada dasar hak asasi manusia, larangan tersebut sukar dicabar kerana ia melibatkan referendum berperlembagaan?

Inilah hak asasi. Hak yang dijamin ke atas semua manusia, tidak kira negara, bangsa, agama, kelas, jantina dan lain-lain. Hak asasi manusia menjangkau undang-undang tempatan sesuatu negara. Ia memastikan kehendak majoriti tidak mencabuli hak-hak minoriti, Walaupun dibenarkan oleh undang-undang.

Secara amnya, mengikut undang-undang, hak adalah keistimewaan atau kelayakan yang membolehkan pemilik hak itu untuk mengamalkan hak tersebut. Menghormati dan mendukung hak tidak bermaksud kita harus menyokong atau bersetuju dengan mereka yang mengamalkan hak tersebut. Bak kata penulis Evelyn Beatrice Hall dalam karyanya Friends of Voltaire, “Saya membantah kata-kata anda, tetapi saya akan pertahankan hak anda untuk menyuarakannya.”

Sebab itu sukar untuk saya menerima pendapat bahawa kita harus mengamalkan ‘hak asasi yang terhad’ ataupun bahawa ia tidak sesuai dengan budaya kita kerana konsep hak asasi itu sejagat. Jika kita sokong umat Islam di Switzerland dan di Perancis, jika kita sokong hak asasi penduduk Palestin untuk tinggal di negara berdaulat, kita juga harus mendukung hak asasi mereka yang tinggal di negara ini.

*rencana ini pertama kali diterbitkan pada 21 November 2011 di dalam akhbar Sinar Harian untuk kolum saya, ‘Cermin Sanubari’.