Leakages from government
Nazri "opinion in passing" talking through his Smelly Dirty Filthy Fucking asshole mouth
has given expression to the saying, “Talking through his hat!” That was what he was doing when he rather foolishly commented on the majority decision of the Court of Appeal which ruled in a landmark case that Section 15(5)(a) of the Universities and University Colleges Act was unconstitutional.
In spite of the Court of Appeal’s ruling, for the Minister of Law to insist that “it does not invalidate the Act” and to dismiss the Court’s decision as “an opinion in passing” is appalling and shocking, exposing his alarming ignorance of the judicial process.
Section 15(5)(a) has been invalidated as unconstitutional by the Court of Appeal ruling – which means that the provisions of that section are no longer applicable and cannot be enforced. That section, as a result of the Court’s decision, is void and invalid.
Binding decision, not opinion
It is a binding decision and cannot be dismissed merely as “an opinion of the Court” without any consequence. Until and unless the Federal Court overturns or sets aside this ruling – thus upholding the High Court decision – no power on earth professing the democratic tradition can ignore this decision. It is as simple as that!
It is extremely disturbing that the Minister for Law has shown scant respect for the judicial process by not taking the Court decision seriously. His dismissive remarks mock our judiciary and he himself comes across as a bumbling clown.
“This is law, passed by us as lawmakers. There must be separation of powers,” he thundered. If he respects the separation of powers, then he must not poke his nose where it does not belong!
The judiciary has an inherent independent authority conferred by the Federal Constitution to “act without fear or favour (and) discharge their grave responsibility of pronouncing judgment on the validity of executive and legislative acts and on the meaning of any provision of the federal and state constitutions …” as clearly expounded by the late Tun Mohamed Suffian.
Why only local universities?
According to Tun Suffian, Courts have the power to pronounce on the validity of legislative acts and to interpret the Constitution.
When great minds have given their considered opinion, it is futile to split hairs.
Perhaps Nazri, as he is prone to be so vocal, can help us in clarifying what is deemed as a contradiction.
Is there a contradiction in the UUCA in that it doesn’t seem to be applicable to all the university students?
Why is it that the UUCA is only applicable to students of local universities? Why are students of overseas universities exempted from this Act?
And the more pertinent question is: Why do almost all nations espousing democratic traditions refrain from subjecting their university students to such restrictions as spelt out in our UCCA?
What about Umno Club?
How is it that Umno Club members comprising overseas students are permitted to attend the Umno General Assembly regularly? Aren’t they also violating the provisions of this Act which state no student shall express or do anything which may reasonably be construed as expressing support or sympathy with or opposition to any political party in or outside Malaysia?
These Umno Club members openly express their support for Umno and by doing so, don’t they fall foul of this Act? Or is it a case of selective application?
Now that the Court had ruled, these Umno Club members henceforth can legitimately attend Umno General Assemblies, something that was not right previously.
- P Ramakrishnan is the president of Aliran
Why Religious Fundamentalism Can't Last
A friend on Facebook sent a couple of questions to me via chat yesterday that I thought could be more easily answered in an article than in short bursts on instant messaging. I've written about my thoughts on postmodernism, its effects on theology and the church before, but it's an important enough subject to revisit from time to time.
His first question was (and I'm paraphrasing):
What do you think about the emerging church movement?
First, I think he rightly identifies it as a movement, more viral in nature than any particular institution would tend to propagate a set of ideals. I told him that I felt that emerging church, as an idea, is a natural byproduct of postmodern culture. In short, postmodernism challenges the more dichotomous, black-and-white, either-or thinking of modernism. Postmodernism suggests that the dualistic attitudes of modernism, which began as early as the Enlightenment, paint an overly simplistic picture of reality. In the United States in particular, postmodernism has found voice as our culture becomes increasingly pluralistic and those lines we believed were clear before begin to blur.
As for the emerging church movement, I told him that I see this as a natural response to postmodern thought. Though our understanding of what exactly emerging church is varies by individual (typically postmodern, isn't it?), there are a handful of general attributes that I see as defining what emerging church is:
- A value of community over institutional membership.
- An emphasis on service-based ministry over traditional evangelism for the sake of conversion.
- A call to live out ministry in the cultural context where you find yourself, rather than expecting the community to come to you through the institutional church.
- A focus on trying to live as Christ lived and taught, rather than propping up church dogma, doctrine or any one particular statement of faith.
As for defining emerging church beyond this, I find it hard to do. Some claim it's a predominantly liberal movement, and in so much as one defines "liberal" as downplaying the importance of institutional and doctrinal authority, I suppose that's accurate. But I know social conservatives and progressives who identify as part of the emerging church movement, along with agnostics and evangelicals.
Emerging church does not promote a specific Christology or set of theological ideals, as this would be contrary to the very concept from which it came. This doesn't mean that, on occasion, some folks won't try to co-opt the emerging church label on behalf of their own particular agenda, but such labels end up falling away.
My friend's second question was:
Isn't postmodernism giving way to a kind of hyper-modernism?
I think this is an astute observation, especially with the growing visibility of such people as John Piper and Mark Driscoll. However, my short answer to his question would be "no."
I think that any time a new worldview begins to take hold, there will be some degree of push-back from those entrenched in the prior way of seeing things. This is especially true for individuals and institutions that stand to benefit from things staying the way they are. In this case, religious fundamentalism -- whether from the right or left -- depends on a more dichotomous, either-or way of thinking. So any alternative to this understanding of the world is considered a threat.
Although more fundamentalist, doctrinal and/or dogmatic approaches to religion may be more vocal in their reaction to postmodernism and the emerging church, this does not necessarily mean that they are gaining popular momentum. On the contrary, as a more people understand the world in pluralistic, fluid (some might argue relativistic) terms, such vocal opposition seems increasingly out of step with reality. As technology allows us to exchange ideas and experiences more easily and rapidly, and as our communities reflect an increasingly heterogeneous face, efforts to draw clear lines and define life with absolute, monolithic clarity simply begin to lose credibility.
So in short, though there are "hyper-modern" advocates who would have us believe that postmodernism and the emerging church are merely the passing fad of the moment, a longer-term, broader perspective reinforces the idea that we cannot simply go back to old ways of thinking when the world around us is so much more integrated, fluid and diverse than ever before in history.
Such changes simply can't be undone, despite the vocal cries for a return to the ways of the past. You can't un-open the box.
One needs to have a forked tongue and a pair of webbed feet to come out with such an absurd, cockeyed, derisory, idiotic, laughable, ludicrous, nonsensical, preposterous, and ridiculousassumption!
NO WONDER WE ARE MESSED....5 DECADES ON....
I was doing a highly specific Yoga exercise to relieve Perkatak related stress. Do you discriminate against people who practice Yoga?
Just thinking deeply about the next sponsor for my wife’s handbags and her shopcoholic daughter.
Why did you interrupt me? I had almost figured out a solution to our biggest problem……my monorail.
I wasn't sleeping! I was meditating on the EPG and envisioning a new paradigm for CHOGM….minus the irritating irritaTUN!
Ah, the unique and unpredictable circadian rhythms of the sleepy heads!
This is just a 15 minute power-nap like they raved about in the BTN boot camp.
I love sleep. My life has a tendency to fall apart when I'm awake, you know?
"I'm not asleep... but that doesn't mean I'm awake."
People who say they sleep like a baby usually don't have one.
Pardon me, while I take my power nap. My wives just completed their COW (club of obedient wives) modules last night.
A power nap is when you sleep on someone who's weaker than you.
"Sleep is the most moronic fraternity in the world, with the heaviest dues and the crudest rituals.
"Some people talk in their sleep. Speakers talk while other people sleep.
I'm actually doing a Stress Level Elimination Exercise Plan (SLEEP).
The overwhelming response to Bersih chief Ambiga Sreenevasan during a speech at Australian National University serves as a real warning to Umno and it is one that they are taking seriously.
Indeed, they are sizing up and trying out all ways and means to counter the growing reform wave threatening to end its 5-decades hold on political power - all except for the right way.
Prime Minister Najib Razak and cousin Home Minister Hishammuddin Hussein, who masterminded the highly-reviled crackdown against the July 9 Berish rally for free and fair elections, have suffered huge popularity-ratings drop as a result of their heavy-handed moves to outlaw Bersih.
Yet the Najib administration has not learned its lesson and is still trying to demonize Ambiga and the Bersih committee rather than admit that it is the people who have grown up and want a better functioning democracy than that which their Umno party is willing to give.
Just a day ago, police banned a homosexual and transgender rights event due to be opened by Ambiga, calling on all Muslims to shun the reform movement inspired in 1998 by Opposition Leader Anwar Ibrahim and revived by the July 9 Bersih rally. It is strange that Najib and his advisers have failed to realize that Bersih became larger than life because of the very obstacles that they rolled out against it.
Already, the ban on the Seksulaiti Merdeka is starting to boomerang on them. While most Malaysians still tend to be homophobic, they dislike the intimidating style of the police and the Umno government even more.
International observers
During the July hey-days, Bersih supporters were invincible. Their spirit and courage surmounted each and every obstacle that Najib, Hisham and the police dished out. This made Bersih a legend, and hence till now, the overwhelming support for Ambiga and team from the Malaysian diaspora hoping to wave goodbye to Umno's political monopoly that has long since been soured by corruption, racism and bigotry.At the packed ANU auditorium today, Ambiga challenged the Najib administration to invite international observers for the next general election. If truly, the GE-13 would be fair and clean, there was nothing for Najib to fear and it would also silence critics who still harp at the legacy of cheating and votes-rigging left by the Mahathir era.
“If you say the electoral system is OK, get international observers. Prove it to us. Bring in the international observers, let them observe our elections. That’s my call to the Malaysian government," said Ambiga to loud applause.
“If you say your system is fine and that it doesn’t need electoral reform before the 13th general election, I dare you to bring in international observers. And let them determine if our elections are free and fair.”
Bersih burns on
The crowd cheered and clapped when Ambiga recounted the July 9 rally held in Kuala Lumpur and more than 30 cities worldwide. When it was over, she was mobbed by students and other participants who had come to hear her talk about Bersih, and the hope and inspiration it gave to the marginalized and oppressed all over the world.
Ambiga’s appearance at the ANU law school is the last leg of her lecture tour of Australia following several earlier engagements in Melbourne and Sydney. She also met with Australian political leaders from various parties and foreign policy officials, highlighting to them Bersih's campaign for electoral reform and its eight key demands.
While the world moves forward, establishing better living standards and fortifying the rights of individuals across the globe, in Malaysia the defence of Human Rights is scorned as a religion that will endanger Malaysia’s social contract. Atrocious as it seems, but this appears to be the line of thought subscribed to by Perkasa and its supporters.
In his opening speech at Perkasa’s general assembly, former police chief Abdul Rahim Noor warned that civil liberty activists here considered the US and UK as their spiritual home, and drew parallels as to how the Comintern had engineered the global spread of communism from its Moscow base.
Obviously, the former IGP was trying his very best to engineer a state of panic and fear among the Perkasa members. Fear that their standings as Malays in Malaysia would be threatened by Human Rights practitioners.
The birthplace of human rights is in our hearts
If Perkasa rejected human rights, does this mean that it supports slavery especially of the kind we see in Africa involving children? Does Perkasa subscribe to the thought that women should remain indoors and out of sight as practiced in some Middle-Eastern countries? Does Perkasa support ethnic cleansing? Does Perkasa support the segregation of a nation based on racial demographics?
Perkasa and Rahim Noor are wrong if they think that the US and UK are the spiritual home of activists. The birthplace for the greatest human rights is within the hearts and minds of ordinary citizens. It is only natural that every individual on this planet wishes for fairness and justice. This is a natural instinct and precedes the invention of governmental methodologies like democracy, communism or socialism.
In fact, the ethos of Human Rights is what gave rise to the system of government that we now call democracy. The right to vote, the right to representation in Parliament, the right to govern, the right to voice one’s opinions are all cornerstones of democracy and constitute the basic tenets of human rights.
How can Rahim Noor and Perkasa believe other-wise? To contend that human rights threaten the social contract in Malaysia? In fact, it is people like Rahim Noor and Perkasa who threaten the social contract by believing that one ethnic group is superior over others.
Superior race
This is the stance of Perkasa. By belittling Human Rights, Perkasa is saying that they and they alone have the right to determine what and how ethnic groups co-exist in Malaysia. And this is really the game Perkasa is playing. It has no intention of uplifting the Malays, Perkasa has no intention of seeing the betterment of social unity in Malaysia.
Perkasa is never going to be anything more than a disgruntled bully who seeks attention; a reflection of the men who conceptualized it - Ibrahim Ali and Mahathir Mohamad. And this is why, Malaysia does not need entities like Perkasa running amok.
This week, the Russell Tribunal on Palestine will consider the question of whether Israel's practices in the occupied Palestinian territory (OPT) constitute the crime of apartheid within the meaning of the 1973 International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid. This Convention, which has been incorporated into the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, is not confined to apartheid in South Africa. Instead it criminalises, under international law, practices that resemble apartheid.
The Russell Tribunal was initiated in the 1960s by the philosopher Bertrand Russell to examine war crimes committed during the Vietnam War. It has now been revived to consider Israel's violations of international law. It is not a judicial tribunal, but a tribunal comprising reputable jurors from different countries, that seeks to examine whether Israel has violated international criminal law and should be held accountable.
In essence, the Russell Tribunal is a court of international public opinion. It will hear evidence in Cape Town on the scope of the 1973 Apartheid Convention, on apartheid as practiced in South Africa, on Israeli practices in the OPT, particularly the West Bank, and on the question whether these practices so closely resemble those of apartheid as to bring them within the prohibitions of the 1973 Apartheid Convention. The Israeli government has been invited to testify before the tribunal, but, at this stage, has not replied to the invitation. Most of the evidence will inevitably, therefore, be critical of Israel.
Israel cannot be held accountable for its actions by any international tribunal as it refuses to accept the jurisdiction of either the International Court of Justice or the International Criminal Court. The Russell Tribunal seeks to remedy this weakness in the international system of justice by providing for accountability by a court of international opinion. It does not seek to obstruct the peace process. On the contrary, it wishes to promote it. But there can be no peace without justice. This is a basic principle that Richard Goldstone, who has written an op-ed criticising the Russell Tribunal (Israel and the Apartheid Slander, New York Times, October 31, 2011), has devoted much his life to, as prosecutor before the Yugoslavia Tribunal.
Is it true to say, as Richard Goldstone has argued, that there is no basis for likening Israel's occupation of the OPT to that of apartheid? Is it true, as he argues, that such suggestions are "pernicious" and "inaccurate"? Or is there substance in these suggestions?
Of course, the regimes of apartheid and occupation are different. Apartheid South Africa was a state that practiced discrimination against its own people. It sought to fragment the country into white South Africa and black Bantustans. Its security laws were used to brutally suppress opposition to apartheid. Israel, on the other hand, is an occupying power that controls a foreign territory and its people under a regime recognised by international law - belligerent occupation.
However, in practice, there is little difference. Both regimes were/are characterised by discrimination, repression and territorial fragmentation (that is, land seizures).
Israel discriminates against Palestinians in the West Bank and East Jerusalem in favour of half a million Israeli settlers. Its restrictions on freedom of movement, manifested in countless humiliating checkpoints, resemble the "pass laws" of apartheid. Its destruction of Palestinian homes resemble the destruction of homes belonging to blacks under apartheid's Group Areas Act. The confiscation of Palestinian farms under the pretext of building a security wall brings back similar memories. And so on. Indeed, Israel has gone beyond apartheid South Africa in constructing separate (and unequal) roads for Palestinians and settlers.
Apartheid's security police practiced torture on a large scale. So do the Israeli security forces. There were many political prisoners on Robben Island but there are more Palestinian political prisoners in Israeli jails.
Apartheid South Africa seized the land of blacks for whites. Israel has seized the land of Palestinians for half a million settlers and for the purposes of constructing a security wall within Palestinian territory - both of which are contrary to international law.
Most South Africans who visit the West Bank are struck by the similarities between apartheid and Israel's practices there. There is sufficient evidence for the Russell Tribunal to conduct a legitimate enquiry into the question whether Israel violates the prohibition of apartheid found in the 1973 Apartheid Convention and the Rome Statute.
No comments:
Post a Comment