Hardwired for global hegemony - American freedom and democracy

Hardwired for global hegemony - American democracy has become subverted by the rise of many hegemonic groups acting behind the scenes.

FOURTH of July was the 241st anniversary of the American Declaration of Independence. On that historic day in 1776, 13 British colonies in North America cut their links with their oppressor and proclaimed themselves to be the independent, sovereign United States of America.

The Preamble to the Declaration of Independence contains some of the most stirring words ever penned in a political or legal document: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

The eloquence of this passage distils the moral idealism of the forefathers of America’s independence and their vision and aspiration for the then new nation.

Indeed, in the decades that followed, the Declaration inspired many other similar documents around the world, including the Bill of Rights in the US Constitution. Abraham Lincoln referred to the Declaration in his quest to abolish slavery in the US.

Till today, students of public law around the world look with admiration to the American Constitution’s safeguards for liberty, its protection against state despotism and its vibrant provisions for check and balance of power.

Sadly, however, a wide chasm between theory and reality is discernible. Even in its pioneering years the “land of liberty” violated its lofty ideals.

The US expanded across North America by slaughtering the Native American population. “How the West was won” is a story penned with the blood of indigenous people.

The US wrested Arizona, California, Nevada, New Mexico, part of Colorado and Utah from Mexico. Though professing anti-colonialism, it acquired a few colonies abroad.

Friends of America note with sadness that after World War II, the use of brute military force and “American exceptionalism” have become very pronounced.

In 2015, the US spent US$598.5bil (RM2.6 trillion) on defence, even though it is not threatened by any enemies. It maintains 800 military bases in more than 70 countries around the world.

It is the chief manufacturer and seller of weapons of mass destruction and often uses proxies to sell murderous weapons to both warring sides.

A nation born in liberty has metamorphosed into a nation with an insatiable addiction to war and the ethos of a garrison state. From the jungles of Vietnam to the deserts of Mesopotamia, America remains in constant war to pursue its hegemonic and strategic interests.

William Blum, a historian and US foreign policy critic, has calculated that since World War II the US has nuked, bombed or been militarily involved in 31 countries and has directly or indirectly killed or maimed between 15 and 20 million people, 90% of whom were innocent civilians. Pentagon records their extermination as “collateral damage”.

Nations in Asia that have suffered devastation at American hands are Afghanistan (1998 to the present), Pakistan (2003, 2006 to the present), Japan (1945), Cambodia (1969-70), Vietnam (1961-73), Laos (1964-73), China (1945-6), Korea (1950-53) and Indonesia (1958).

In the Middle East, victims of America’s “deadly export of democracy” are Iraq (1991 to the present), Iran (1987 and 2003), Kuwait (1991), Lebanon (1983-84), Syria (1983-84, 2014 to the present), Palestine (2010) and Yemen (2003, 2009, 2011 to the present).

In Africa, the US has intervened militarily in Libya (1986, 2011, 2015 to the present), Congo (1964), Sudan (1998) and Somalia (1993, 2001-8 and 2010).

In Latin America, the US has imposed its military will on Cuba (1959-61), El Salvador (1980s), Guatemala (1954, 60, 67-69), Grenada (1983), Nicaragua (1980s), Peru (1965) and Panama (1989).

Europe has not been spared. Bosnia in 1994 and 1995 and Yugoslavia in 1999 were mercilessly bombed.

What is notable is that most of the targets are people of colour, those of the Third World or Muslims. It is not just a coincidence that all the nations being bombed by the USA today happen to be Muslim.

In addition to direct military attacks, the US wages proxy wars around the world. In Iran (1953), Guatemala (1954), Congo (1960), South Vietnam (1963), Brazil (1964), Dominican Republic (1965), Chile (1973), Egypt (2013) and Ukraine (2014) the US armed rebels and hired mercenaries to subvert and overthrow governments that refused to tow its line.

Contrary to what Americans believe, the United States is one of the greatest destabilising forces in the world today. It is also the chief diplomatic, military and financial backer of the seven-decade-old genocide in Palestine.

To assert its impunity and sense of exceptionalism it has done such outrageous things as shooting down an Iranian civilian plane in 1988 (when a US Navy ship reportedly mistook the Airbus A300 for a much smaller and faster F-14 fighter jet), killing all 290 on board. In 1999, it bombed the embassy of China in Belgrade. US officials later claimed it was an error.

Ever since 9/11, it runs offshore torture camps. It arms and finances terrorist groups with a view to destabilising governments it does not like.

It rejects or unsigns international treaties like the Ottawa Convention (the Mine Ban Treaty); the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court; and the Paris Agreement on Climate Change.

All friends of America wonder why a nation so steeped in democracy and liberty has metamorphosed into such a war-mongering hegemon. The issue requires a separate and fuller examination.

What can be summarised is that American democracy has become subverted by the rise of many behind-the-scenes, hegemonic groups which have acquired such a stranglehold on foreign, financial and military policy that even the President and the Congress cannot defy them.

The CIA operatives, the foreign policy establishment, the military-industrial complex, the arms manufacturers, the oil barons, the gun lobby, the media, the Zionist pressure groups and the major banks constitute a parallel “deep state” that runs America.

This deep state has a vested interest in the manufacture and sale of horrendous weapons, the waging of continuous wars, the destabilisation of unfriendly regions, the control of oil supplies and the maintenance of existing trade mechanisms.

The power of the Constitution, the Congress and the President is more symbolic than real. The American electorate is either unaware or benumbed. Only if it learns more about this sad reality can any change be accomplished.

Reflecting On The Law Shad Saleem Faruqi

Emeritus Professor Datuk Dr Shad Saleem Faruqi is Tunku Abdul Rahman Professor of Law at Universiti Malaya. The views expressed here are entirely the writer’s own.

Related Links:

Restoring judicial clout

Grand inquest of the nation

Strengthening separation of powers 

Discretionary powers of the King

Reaffirming Constitutional supremacy 

Is there a tyranny-terror link?

Exceptions to double jeopardy protection

Honouring our nation’s architect and architecture

Related Posts

Malaysia is a Secular state or an Islamic country? 

Double standards on Ukraine and Crimea 

Freedom & hate speech hypocrisy 

Why not abolishing wars, seeking peace in the 70 years after WW2 & inception of the UN? 

US-Syria drums of war — a familiar beat 

New thinking on human rights & cooperation 

Malaysia world's No.1 highest civil servants-to-population ratio! Its tenure of service legally vulnerable but notoriously difficult to dismiss! 

Huge Civil Service Size, Attractive Emoluments and Benefits are costing Malaysia !

Prized job: While long-term security like the pension scheme free healthcare and easy loans have been among the perks of joining the ... 

Bloated civil sevice in Malaysia must cut down the size and salaries 

Call on the Government to downsize the country’s bloated civil service

Corruptions, Conflict of interests, politicians and Malaysian bloated civil service

Ministers may face conflict of interest, says Tunku Abdul Aziz:  "If you have no power, you cannot abuse it. Civil servants hav..

Why not abolishing wars, seeking peace in the 70 years after WW2 & inception of the UN?

Why should an organisation devoted to saving “succeeding generations from the scourge of war” make it its business to authorise war?

In the 70 years since the inception of the UN, the world has unfortunately witnessed many theaters of conflict. 

SEVENTY years ago, the Charter of the United Nations solemnly proclaimed that the people of the UN were determined to “save succeeding generations from the scourge of war” and to “establish conditions under which justice … can be maintained”.

Peaceful resolution of disputes was the over-arching ideal of the Charter. However, the Charter permitted two exceptions under which recourse to war was permissible:

> Under Article 51, a nation can defend its sovereignty against an armed attack.

> Collective use of force can be undertaken under Chapter VII of the Charter under a resolution of the UN Security Council.

In the euphoria of the establishment of the UN, these two provisions were regarded as just and fair exceptions to the prohibition on the use of force.

But with the tragic misuse of UN authorised interventions in Afghanistan, Libya and Syria, one is made to wonder why an organisation devoted to saving “succeeding generations from the scourge of war” and securing peace and justice should make it its business to authorise the revolting actions that necessarily flow from war. It is therefore timely to demand that the provision relating to collective use of force under Chapter VII be reviewed or repealed.

Spiralling wars: In the 70 years since the inception of the UN, the world has unfortunately witnessed many theatres of conflict. In a nuclear age, the savagery of war has become even worse. The grounds on which war can be waged have expanded.

Anticipatory self-defence: Some powerful nations like the US and Israel have interpreted the Charter to read into it the right of pre-emptory attack or anticipatory self-defence.

Humanitarian intervention: A new ground of “humanitarian war” without the authority of the UN has been established extra-legally by the American-European Union Alliance.

Regime change: Wars for the purpose of regime change were and are being waged in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria and Yemen.

Proxy wars: Many rich and powerful states are fomenting civil wars and supporting armed mercenary forces for the purpose of subverting the sovereignty of other states. Tragic examples are Yemen, Libya, Syria and Ukraine.

Privatising torture: Since the 90s, wars, incarceration in overseas prisons and torture have been privatised. This is a wicked way of avoiding accountability under national laws.

Terrorism: Unspeakable horrors are being committed by terrorist groups like the IS. However, it must be stated that all terrorism, whether by private groups or state actors, is an abomination. On the pretext of combating terrorism, many states are committing atrocities both within their territory and abroad.

Targeted killings: Extra-judicial assassinations of the officials of other states or national liberation movements are being carried out by drone attacks, special-forces units or covert operations.

Humans as guinea pigs: Some nations are developing, deploying and testing their new weapon systems in countries that they invade or occupy – countries like Afghanistan, Iraq and Gaza whose population has become a guinea pig for testing deadly weapons.

Threat of missile attacks: Threats of missile and nuclear attacks have become standard language of foreign policy. This is a violation of international law.

Selective sanctions: In the name of human rights, sanctions are being enforced but in a very selective way by the Security Council and by individual nations against their opponents. This is despite overwhelming proof that sanctions hurt innocent civilians and cause untold misery and deprivation to the weakest members of society.

The ICC: The International Criminal Court has gone into operation. But nations like the US and Israel refuse to join it. The UN Security Council and the ICC have brought to book a few war criminals. Sadly, the work of the ICC shows a terrible ethnic bias against Africa. Mass murderers from the USA, EU and Israel remain immune.

Cold War reignited: The Cold War has become reignited and with it new theatres of conflict as in Ukraine are causing massive loss of life.

Merchants of death: The arms trade continues unabated and ignites and fuels regional wars and retards the search for political solutions to international disputes. All arms traders are merchants of death but enjoy a prestige and wealth unknown to many other professions.

Western exceptionalism: Western unilaterism is a sad reality of geopolitics today. In the last decade itself, there were full scale invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq on trumped up charges plus bombing of Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, Libya and Syria. In Yemen, Libya and Syria, western proxies are in the forefront of the so called civil war.

US drones blow up “enemy combatants” in many parts of the world with sickening regularity. Despite its professed belief in democracy, Washington has a sorry record of collaborating with right-wing military officers to overthrow elected leaders who do not do Washington’s bidding. The latest victims are Morsi in Egypt in 2013 and Yanukovych in Ukraine in 2014.

On July 3, 1988 the United States shot down an Iranian Airbus killing 290 passengers. The Western world expressed only muted regret.

Genocide in Palestine: US and European complicity with Israel in the 67-year old genocide of the Palestinians is an undeniable fact. As I write, Israel continues to butcher children, women and civilians in Gaza.

Srebrenica: Dutch complicity in the massacres in Srebrenica is well documented.

Structural violence: Add to these military atrocities, the structural violence and oppressive economic systems of the West. There is a desire to consolidate an uncompromising version of corporatism that seeks total economic hegemony over Asia and Africa.

Environment: An environmental catastrophe is awaiting the world unless we take adequate measures to control the threat. Needless to say that part of the ecocide is contributed by the use and misuse of weapons of mass destruction.

In sum, it is a pretty grim situation in the world today. What can be done to bring about a more peaceful and just world? There are obviously no simple solutions. A comprehensive, holistic approach is badly needed.

Reflecting On The Law by Shad Saleem Faruqi

Shad Faruqi, Emeritus Professor of Law at UiTM, is a passionate student and teacher of the law. He can be reached at prof.shad.saleem.faruqi@gmail.com. The views expressed here are entirely his own.

Related posts:

Possibility of Third World War as Ukrainian Crisis Deepens!

16 Sep 2014

As possibility of third world war exists, China needs to be prepared. US vs Russia. As the Ukrainian crisis deepens, international observers have become more and more concerned about a direct military clash between the US ...

West should end its hypocrisy on anti-terror war! 

22 Jan 2015

The decade-old wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have cost the lives of hundreds of thousands of civilians, but the mainstream media outlets in the US have largely ignored the tragedies and focused on the loss of their own troops.

Malaysia is a Secular state or an Islamic country?...  

Malaysia a transit point for terrorists or a terro...

Freedom & hate speech hypocrisy

Freedom per se has no value. It is what freedom is for. It is the use to which it is put. It is the sense of responsibility and restraint with which it is exercised. 

THE crude and disgusting video by some American citizens mocking Prophet Muhammad has caused great anguish to Muslims around the world. Blasphemous provocations by some media mavericks in France are adding insult to injury.

Even before the sacrilege perpetrated by the video Innocence of Muslims, the deeply-wounded Muslim community was living in humiliation and helplessness.

The 65-year-old American-aided genocide in Palestine continues to rage unabated.

In Syria, Western mercenaries are leading the civil war with overt and covert help from the Western alliance. Iran is under daily threat of annihilation. In blatant violation of international law, American drone attacks continue mercilessly to murder innocent civilians in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Yemen, Somalia and Pakistan.

There is in most Muslim minds a perception that Islam is under attack; that Muslims are under siege; that behind the beguiling rhetoric of democracy, human rights and the war against terrorism, there is a cunning plan to re-colonise Muslim lands and seize their wealth for the insatiable appetite of Western economies.

It is in this background that the exploding Muslim rage against blasphemy must be understood.

However, understanding something does not mean justifying it. Human life is sacred and no idea and no theory can excuse the murder of innocents.

It is with sadness and shame that I note the violence and deaths resulting from the airing of the obnoxious video. Equally painful is the mindless damage to Buddhist religious places in Bangladesh because of Facebook insults to Islam.

Having said that I must state that we all have a duty to show respect to others and to not denigrate what they hold as sacred.

We have a duty to censor ourselves when we speak to others about what lies close to their hearts and souls.

Blasphemy violates the sacred; it trespasses boundaries that must exist in every civilised society; it causes pain to millions.

God and all His prophets must not be defiled. Blasphemy should be a punishable criminal offence in much the same way sedition and treason are.

Unlike free-speech advocates who place this freedom at the heart of their new abode of the sacred, I think that freedom per se has no value.

It is what freedom is for. It is the use to which it is put. It is the sense of responsibility and restraint with which it is exercised.

Blasphemy is a form of hate speech. Andrew March admits that “many in the West today use speech about Muhammad and Islam as cover for expressing hatred towards Muslims”.

Geert Wilders and makers of Innocence of Muslims are hate mongers, not human rights pioneers.

Behind hate speech is the ideology of racial or religious superiority. Hate speech amounts to discrimination.

It promotes denigratory stereotypes. It attacks basic premises of the human rights system, premises as deep as equal human dignity, respect for others and equal protection.

It must be asserted that Islamophobia is a new form of racism.

Further, the claims by Western leaders, including President Barrack Obama and Secretary of State Hilary Clinton that the constitutional principle of free speech permits no state interference is an overstatement.

In the US, the First Amendment of the Constitution has since the beginning been interpreted to mean that “prior restraints” on freedom of expression are not allowed.

But this does not exclude the legal possibility of post-event prosecutions and sanctions. For example, defamation is actionable. Contempt of Court is punishable.

For much of its history the USA has had a Sedition Act. Supreme Court decisions over the decades have vacillated between various criteria for determining the justification for invasion of free speech.

But there has always been the possibility of post-event restrictions to avoid danger to society. There is freedom of speech but sometimes no freedom after speech!

An Espionage Act exists. Whistleblowers are prosecuted. Under the Obama administration, six prosecutions under this Act were all directed against journalists exposing government wrongdoing.

At the Food and Drug Administration, they spy on their own employees’ email. At the Department of Defence any soldier who speaks about government lies in Afghanistan or Iraq is jailed. Twenty-seven laws exist to monitor social media content.

The State Department blocks Wikileaks with its firewall. The founder of Wikileaks is being hounded.

European record is even more reflective of double standards. Public order laws are used regularly in Britain and Germany to criminalise “politically incorrect” expressions or pro-Nazi ideas and to punish any comment, research or analysis that departs from the officially sanctioned version of the holocaust.

In February 2006, Austria jailed British historian David Irving for three years for denying the holocaust.

Overt and covert censorship is very much part of Western societies. Only that it is more refined; it is non-governmental; it is de-centralised. Its perpetrators are publishing houses, financiers, advertisers, interest groups, editors, publishers and other controllers of the means of communication.

Obviously free speech in the USA and Europe is not absolute save when it demonises, dehumanises and denigrates Islam and Muslims. Then it is part of the new abode of the sacred.

COMMENT
By PROF SHAD SALEEM FARUQI

Shad Saleem Faruqi is Emeritus Professor of Law at UiTM 

Related:

Malaysian education is too Western-centric, ignorance of Asian values, etc!

A Merdeka of the mind

Our education is too Western-centric, aping Western universities and showing ignorance of Asian and African contributions to knowledge.

AS we celebrate 55 years of political independence, we may note the blessings of peace and prosperity in our beloved land. But we also need to reflect on some unfulfilled dimensions of independence.

If independence is autonomy or freedom from the control of another nation, then we Malaysians are hardly free.

The basic assumptions of our political, economic and educational systems are dictated by Western, especially Anglo-American, hegemony. Politically we are free but enslavement of the mind has hardly ceased.

A slave mentality or Western/Euro-centrism need not be a conscious option. It is rooted in our psychology of dependence on, and blind reverence for, everything Western.

Syed Hussein Alatas calls it “the captive mind”. For Ward Churchill, modern intellectual discourse and higher education are “White Studies”.

Hundreds of years ago, the coloniser seized not only land but minds, monopolising information sources and undermining indigenous know­ledge.

For Frantz Fanon, the colonised was “elevated above his jungle status in proportion to his adoption of the mother country’s cultural standards”.

Ngugi wa Thiong says “it is the final triumph of a system of domination, when the dominated start singing its virtues”.

So 55 years after independence, our public figures are still enamoured with the colonial tune. Their intellectual discourses have three tendencies.

First, the Western worldview and its assumptions are blindly aped. Second, we are ignorant of Asian and African roots of knowledge and Eastern contributions to civilisation. Third, there is hardly any critique of Western theories in the light of our own realities.

Take Western-centrism in our educational institutions. Yusef Progler finds that in whatever field of study, a course in most Asian and African universities follows a similar path.

“It will first identify the great white European or American men of each discipline and then drill their theories and practices as if these were universal”, while ignoring knowledge from other civilisations.

Government recognition of foreign degrees is skewed in favour of Anglo-American awards. Eminent citadels of learning in Asia and Africa are largely ignored.

The favoured destination for JPA-sponsored postgraduate scholars is Europe or the United States. The external examiners and visiting professors are mostly from Britain, the US or Australia. Asian scholars are generally excluded from such honours or offered lesser terms.

Intellectual grovelling before Western experts remains as deeply ingrained as during the British Raj. A few years ago, Cherie Blair was invited to lead the arguments in a case before our courts even when scores of eminent local lawyers were available.

In any prestigious lecture series, the guest of honour is invariably a Westerner, sometimes of dubious credentials. For example, Tony Blair was invited by a local NGO to deliver a lecture.

But when Mugabe and Bashar were scheduled to come, concern was expressed, and rightly so. The crimes of Western leaders may be ignored, but we jump up to take a principled stand against Asian and African miscreants.

Our legal system remains British-oriented. In the English fashion of Austinian positivism, the concept of law is tied to the commands of the political sovereign even though most Asians and Africans regard religion and custom as part of the seamless web of the law.

The Civil Law Act continues its worship of outdated British precedents even though we have greater affinity with many other constitutional systems like India’s.

The Legal Profession Act continues to permit British graduates to be called to the Malaysian Bar without undergoing a bridging course. A key component of the course should be a study of the Malaysian Consti­tution.

In our law faculties, legal education is as much a colonial construct as during the Raj. The course structure and content, the book list and the icons are mostly Western.

A typical course on jurisprudence in Malaysia often begins with Plato, Aristotle, Locke, Bentham, Pound, Weber, Ehrlich, Durkheim, Marx, etc.

The Mahabharata, the Arthashastra, the Book of Mencius, the Analects of Confucius and the treatises of Ghazali, Ibn Rushd, Jose Rizal, Benoy Kumar Sarkar, Yanagita Kunio and Naquib al-Attas are not included.

Chinese, Indian and Persian universities predated European ones and provided paradigms for early Western education. Yet our universities ignore centuries of enlightenment in China, India, Japan, Persia and West Asia.

It is as if all things good and wholesome originated with Western civilisation and the East was, and is, an intellectual desert. The truth is other­wise.

In science, Galileo, Newton and Einstein illuminated the firmament but not much is known about Al-hazen and Nasir al-Din al-Tusi. Western chemistry was preceded by Eastern alchemy, algebra had African roots.

The philosophy of Plato, Aristotle, Kant, Sartre and Goethe can be matched by Ghazali, Ibn Rushd, Mulla Sadra, Shenhui, al-Mutanabbi and Kalidasa. Durkheim’s and Weber’s sociology must compete with Ibn Khaldun’s.

Freudian psychology had its corrective in Buddhist wisdom. The Cartesian medical model has its Eastern counterpart in ayurvedic, unani and herbal methods.

Very few know that Arab Muslims were central to the making of medieval Europe.

A slavish mimicking of Western norms of government, law and economics prevents us from tackling our own problems like poverty and unsustainable development.

Our attitude leaves us vulnerable to many predatory policies of Western-dominated institutions and processes. Transnational corporations dominate our economies.

Many Asian and African nations choke under the debt stranglehold. The West can bring down our economies with currency speculation, hedge funds, piracy of indigenous resources and trade boycotts as new forms of tyranny.

Yet we are too scared or ashamed to express our own views. Basing our life on other nations’ opinions is slavery.

As Aug 31 approaches, we must resolve to free our minds from Western intellectual hegemony. A Merdeka of the mind will put us on the path to that.

Comment
Prof Shad Saleem Faruqi
> The author wishes all readers Salam Lebaran and Salam Kemerdekaan.

Related posts:
Malaysian education heavily politicised, Quality ... 
Malaysian Universities need decolonization, relook the ... 
Top 10 universities in South East Asia, Malaysia not in! 
Malaysia's history, sovereignty violated, semantics need ...

Speaking up for religious tolerance

Differences of religion should not make people fight one another, rather they should cooperate in doing good and warding off evil.

AS a Muslim I am deeply distressed and perplexed at the incendiary view, allegedly emanating from the Saudi Grand Mufti, that all churches in the Arab peninsula be destroyed.
This view, if it were really expressed, is offensive. It violates all canons of decency, international law and the human rights of our Christian brothers.

It contradicts many exquisite passages in the Quran and the practices of Prophet Muhammad. It runs contrary to centuries of Islamic history of peaceful co-existence with other religions. The syariah gives ample guidance on inter-faith relations.

Multiplicity of faiths: In innumerable passages, the Quran recognises religious pluralism. In 2:256, it is stated: “There is no compulsion in religion.” In 109:6, there is the exquisite passage: “Unto you your religion, unto me mine.”

In Surah 11:118, it is declared: “If thy Lord had so willed, He could have made mankind one people: but they will not cease to dispute.”

In Surah 10:99, Allah gave this admonition: “Had your Lord willed, those on Earth would have believed, all of them together. Will you then compel people against their will to believe?”

In 18:29, it is commanded: “Let him who will, believe; and let him who will, disbelieve.”

Common fountain: In the Quran 42:13, it is implied that the divinely-revealed religions all stemmed from the same source. “He has ordained for you the same religion which He ordained for Nooh (Noah) … and which He ordained for Ibrahim (Abraham), Musa (Moses) and Esa (Jesus) saying you should establish religion and make no divisions in it.”

“Every nation has its messenger” – 10:47. “Nothing has been said to you save what was said to the messengers before you” – 41:43.

Respect for all prophets: Plurality of prophets and multiplicity of revelations reflect a divine will. The Prophets of all revealed religions are brothers and there is no difference between them with regard to the message. Muslims are obliged to believe in them all.

In Surah 2:136, it is stated: “We believe in Allah and that which has been sent down to us and that which has been sent down to Ibrahim (Abraham), Ismail (Ishmael), Ishaq (Isaac), Yaqoob (Jacob), and to Al-Asbaat (the offspring of the 12 sons of Yaqoob), and that which has been given to Musa (Moses) and Esa (Jesus), and that which has been given to the Prophets from their Lord. We make no distinction between any of them, and we are Muslims in submission to Him.”

According to the renowned Malaysia-based Afghani scholar Hashim Kamali, “Islam sees itself as the third of the Abrahamic religions.

“The Hebrew prophets and Christ are deeply respected by Muslims. The Virgin Mary is given the most exalted spiritual position in the Quran: a chapter of the Quran is named after her, and she is the only woman mentioned by name.

“The tombs of the Hebrew prophets, who are also Islamic prophets, are revered by Muslims to this day.”
All Christians and Jews are given the special status of ahle-kitab (believers in a book).

Respect for places of worship: All places of worship are sacred and must be defended. In Surah 22:40, the Quran speaks of monasteries, churches, synagogues and mosques “as places in which God is commemorated in abundant measure”.

In Islamic history, the clergy in the churches were given full authority over their flocks with regard to all religious and church matters. Mosques were often built next to churches. When the Muslims conquered Egypt, they gave the Coptic churches back to the Copts and restored their rights.

In the early history of Islam, Muslims and Christians often prayed simultaneously in many churches, e.g. at the Cathedral of Saint John in Damascus. Likewise, Prophet Muhammad allowed the Christians of Najran to pray in Muslim mosques. When Prophet Muhammad migrated to Madinah, there was a large number of Jews in the city. One of the first affairs of state that he dealt with was to establish a treaty with them, according to which their beliefs were to be respected and the state was obliged to ward off harm from them.

Duty of civility: In the book Civilisation of Faith by Mustafa as-Sibaa’ie, it is stated that the Quran obliges the Muslim to believe in all the Prophets and Messengers of Allah, to speak of all of them with respect, not to mistreat their followers, to deal with them all in a good and gentle manner, speaking kindly to them, being a good neighbour to them and accepting their hospitality.

Differences of religion should not make people fight one another or commit aggression, rather they should cooperate in doing good and warding off evil (Quran 5:2, 5:5).

“Allah alone is the One who will judge between them on the Day of Resurrection” – Quran 2:113.
“And do not argue with the People of the Scripture except in a way that is best” – Quran 29: 46. “And insult not those who invoke other than Allah, lest they should insult Allah wrongfully without knowledge” – Quran 6:108.

In the light of the above, it is obvious that any view that exhorts Muslims to destroy Christian places of worship is in serious conflict with the letter and spirit of tolerance in the Quran.

The Malaysian Consti­tution honours this spirit. Article 3 states: “Islam is the religion of the Federation; but other religions may be practised in peace and harmony.”

The alleged view of the Saudi Mufti has been repudiated by the top Muslim cleric in Turkey, Mehmet Gormez, who has stated categorically that the Islamic civilisation is not hostile towards previous religions.

Those whose hearts are filled with hate and whose lips drip the blood of vengeance must remind themselves of the caution administered by Kamali that fanaticism is not part of Islam, as the Prophet confirmed in a hadith: “One who promotes fanaticism (asabiyyah) is not one of us, nor is one who fights for asabiyyah, nor the one who dies for asabiyyah.”

Shad Saleem Faruqi is Emeritus Pro-fessor of Law at UiTM and a consultant to USM.

Attitude determines altitude

Tweet

Reflecting on the law By SHAD SALEEM FARUQI

To seek and attain inner peace, live simply, think deeply, act nobly; and leave the world a better place than you found it.

A DEAR colleague’s son was recently called to the Bar. At the dinner to commemorate the occasion, several of us were asked to share a few words of advice.

The wise among us spoke because they had something to say.

Lesser people like me spoke because we were asked to say something. This is what I could manage.

In the journey of life, a new destination beckons you. We, the friends of your parents, pray fervently that your journey on the highway of life will be successful; that you will blaze new trails; that the road ahead will lead you to many summits; and that each panoramic view will stir in you a striving for the horizons beyond.

Success, is, of course, a matter of personal perception.

To some people, wealth, power, influence and status are the tests of having made it.

To others – and I hope you will be in this category – success is to bring sunshine into the lives of others.

When you do that, some of that sunshine will illuminate your life as well.

Whatever your concept of success is, its attainment is rooted in some conducive mental attitudes and a great deal of planned, hard work.

Visualising and envisioning: You must envision, constructively imagine and role-play whatever you wish to be.

Dreams are the foundation of reality. If you can dream it, you can achieve it.

Any fulfillment is, of course, subject to your courage and discipline to act on your dreams and materialise them into concrete actions. Kipling’s admonition must be remembered: “If you can dream and not make dreams your master. If you can think but not make thoughts your aim”.

Daily planning: On a daily basis, plan your schedule. Fill every minute with 60 seconds of distance run. Sail a chartered course. Do not drift in the wind and the waves.

Act on, not just react to, things as they come. Do not let others lead you by the nose. Do not count on luck. Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity.



Mapping the road ahead: Careers are like ladders with many rungs. Map out the steps. Fix time frames. Periodically review your progress towards your long-term goals.

Intensity: There must be an intensity of commitment, a fire, a burning desire, an over-riding, if not single-minded, determination to attain your goals.

Ambition: Think big. Do not settle for too little. Make plans to reach the sky. If you land on the clouds, that’s OK. Strive harder next time.

Faith in God: When confronted by inevitable storms, trust God. God does not burden any soul with more than it can bear.

Self-confidence: We are all specks of dust in the universe. This necessary humility can, however, go hand in hand with a self-confidence that everything is attainable if we strive hard enough.

We must doubt our doubts but not our beliefs. We must remember that attitude, more than aptitude, determines our altitude.

Discipline and hard work: Work is part of worship and must be given the same type of devotion. Hard work compensates for lack of genius.

Many ordinary people achieve extraordinary things because they toil through the night while the world sleeps. Genius is 10% inspiration; 90% perspiration. A toiling tortoise can beat a heady hare.

Over the course of four decades, I have seen scores of extremely intelligent people fail in their endeavours because they lacked the humility that drives hard work; the discipline and planning that ensures progress; and the courage and persistence that overcome odds.

In most challenges in life, natural talents do not take us very far. Discipline does.

Passion: Whatever you do, do well. Let reason be the rudder and passion the sail. There are no small jobs; only small people.

There is honour in every profession provided we put our heart and soul into it and do ordinary things extraordinarily well.

It is often the case that those who do small jobs meticulously are likely to confront major challenges majestically.

Do not wait for ideal conditions: Do not wait for the perfect time to start building on your dreams. External conditions will never be ideal. We have to make do with what we have.

The wind often changes for the better once we set sail. It is our inner determination that makes the world stand aside to let pass a man who knows where he is going.

Show-case your talents: At a place of work, substance and form, isih dan gaya, the ability to be relevant, as well as to seem competent, are all equally important. Don’t be like the peacock that dances in the jungle but is not seen by anyone.

Find sophisticated and civilised ways to show-case your talents. Polish up your communication and PR skills so that your hard work and competence will be known.

Rewards come in many ways: It is natural to expect appreciation and recognition.

However, one must remember that in the workplace there are rivalries, jealousies and injustices.

As in the outside world, so in the workplace, justice does not usually prevail.

If the rewards do not come when they are due, remember that God is watching. His justice will one day prevail.

Work never goes to waste. A competent man is like the moon. Clouds can hide the moon for a while but in the end the beams of light will break through and the world will be filled with their luminescence.

Remember also that hard work with sincerity is nourishing for the soul and good for health.

The rewards of hard workare long term, internal and intangible. We all know that of all the things that matter in life, most are not things.

Success and failure: Success is never final. It is a journey, not a destination. It is a continuing process of repeating, reinforcing past accomplishments and conquering new challenges by adapting to a changed world.

Success is sustained effort over time and persistence in the face of hurdles. It is an attitude of “I think I can”. It is the courage to treat adversity as an opportunity. It is the willingness to regard every dare as a door.

Falling down does not amount to failure. Failure is to stay down. Falling down is never fatal. Life breaks all of us. The thing to do is to learn from our failings and to emerge stronger where we’re broken.

Happiness: To seek inner peace, live simply. Richness is not the accumulation of wealth but the smallness of needs. Think deeply. Act nobly. Leave the world a better place than you found it. Learn from people you admire.

“Lives of great men all remind us; we can make our lives sublime and departing leave behind us, footprints on the sands of time”.

Shad Saleem Faruqi is Emeritus Professor of Law at UiTM and Visiting Professor at USM. He wishes all readers happiness and health in the New Year.

Malaysia world's No.1 highest civil servants-to-population ratio! Its tenure of service legally vulnerable but notoriously difficult to dismiss!

Tweet

Safeguards for public servants

REFLECTING ON THE LAW By SHAD SALEEM FARUQI

The legal position of public servants regarding security of tenure of service is quite vulnerable, but in reality, action against delinquent public servants is notoriously difficult to sustain.

MODERN society is held together by services provided by officials of the state. The public service is the pivot around which the administration of the contemporary state revolves. Every country’s economic, social and educational policies are ultimately dependent on the quality and commitment of its public officials.

Article 132(1) of the Federal Constitution defines “public services” to include the armed forces, the judicial and legal service, the general public service of the Federation, the police force, the joint federal-state public service, the public service of each state and the education service.

Employees of statutory bodies, public companies, universities, or any other body or authority established under federal or state law, are not public servants for the purpose of the Constitution.

In relation to public services, a number of basic rules apply.

No security of tenure: All public servants hold office “during the pleasure” of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong or Ruler or Governor. Posts may be abolished. A ministry or service may be closed down or privatised. Parliament may refuse to allocate funds for a service.

Terms of service: The terms of service of a public servant may be altered without his consent despite a written contract of employment. Post-entry requirements like language proficiency, in-house training courses or the need to pass an examination may be imposed.

Pensions: Article 147 protects pensions, gratuities and other allowances for members of the public service, their widows, children, dependants or personal representatives.

However, these are not absolute rights. The Yang di-Pertuan Agong may reduce or withhold pension if he is satisfied that the public servant is guilty of negligence, irregularity or misconduct.

Right to equality: Under Article 8(1) of the Federal Constitution there is a constitutional right to equality before the law and equal protection of the law. Thus, no gender, religious or unreasonable discrimination can be practised at the time of the application or during the period of service.

Regrettably, Article 8’s equality requirement does not apply in the private sector or to Government-linked companies.

Racial quotas: In Malaysia, the issue of race discrimination is complicated. A little known constitutional article – Article 136 – states that all persons of whatever race in the same grade in the service of the Federation shall be treated impartially.

Difficult issues arise because Article 136 has to be read along with Article 153 which permits reservations and quotas in favour of Malays and the natives of Sabah and Sarawak.

Tun Suffian has suggested that the two articles must be read harmoniously. At entry point, Article 153 permits reservations. Once in service the equality rule in Article 136 should apply to matters of promotion, rewards etc.

Arrears: A civil servant can sue the Government for recovery of arrears or for any other breach of the law of contract.

Tortious claims: In Malaysia, the Government is not above the law. Subject to some exceptions, a civil servant can sue the Government for damages in torts if the Government or a public authority has caused him loss.

Safeguard of Article 135(1): Though civil servants have no security of tenure, they can be removed only after prescribed procedures. Article 135(1) states that no member of the public services (except a member of the armed force) may be dismissed or reduced in rank by an authority subordinate to that which had the power to appoint him.

Natural justice: Under Article 135(2) no public servant may be dismissed or reduced in rank without being given a “reasonable opportunity of being heard”.

The terms “reasonable opportunity of being heard” have generated a wealth of case law. “Hearing” means that the officer concerned should be given a proper and prior notice of the allegations against him. The notice must be adequate in terms and in time.

Subject to some exceptions, the accused should have a full and fair opportunity of stating his case in reply.

He should be supplied with all evidence, information and documents made known to the adjudicator. He should have a right to present witnesses and exculpatory evidence and to cross-examine witnesses on the other side.

Exceptions: The safeguards of Article 135(2) do not apply in some situations such as:

> The laudatory and constitutionalised rule of natural justice does not apply to forms of removal that do not amount to “dismissal” or “reduction in rank”.

For example, “dismissal” is distinguishable from “contractual termination”, “termination in public interest” or “compulsory retirement”.

A reversion to the former post does not amount to reduction in rank provided the public servant was not already confirmed in his new post.

> “The right to be heard” does not imply the right to be heard orally. Hearing can be oral or by way of written representation.

> Members of the armed forces are not entitled to a hearing.

> There is no need to give a hearinIn reality there are many other ways of dealing with errant civil servants. Some of these ways do not attract the pristine safeguards of Article 135. For example:

> Even prior to a finding of guilt, an officer can be interdicted (ordered not to report for work) on full pay or half pay.

> In several circumstances, an officer can be suspended on no pay.

> Termination under the contract of employment need not be preceded by prior hearing.

> In some circumstances public servants can be prematurely and compulsorily retired. They recieve pension but lose their job.

The overall picture is that the legal position of public servants is quite vulnerable. In reality, however, action against delinquent public servants is notoriously difficult to sustain.

Many wrongdoers rely on technical or procedural flaws to obtain judicial review and escape accountability.
Enforcing quality and commitment in public services is not easy and require leadership of the highest order.

> Shad Saleem Faruqi is Emeritus Professor of Law at UiTM and Visiting Professor at USM

Every 3 taxpayers supports 2 civil servants in Malaysia
 

“The highest ratio of civil servants in the world”!
Most bloated civil service 

* With 1.3 million civil servants to a population of 26 million, Malaysia has one of the highest civil servants-to-population ratio in the world by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development standards.

* In 2009, Malaysia’s civil servants-to-population ratio was the highest in Asia Pacific. The ratio was 4.68 per cent, compared to Singapore’s 1.5 per cent, Indonesia’s 1.79 per cent, Korea’s 1.85 per cent and Thailand’s 2.06 per cent all of which have less than half our ratio.

Subject: Civil Servants in Malaysia...Alarming Figures 1. Number of civil servants in Malaysia   2000   -  894,788   2008  -  1.2M   2011  -  1.3M+  During 2000 to 2008, increase of 300,000 or each year 38,151 or each day 104. 2 . Money spent on salary / remuneration   2005  -  RM25.6Billion   2008  -  RM41.0Billion (or from each tax payer RM22,800)   An increase of a whopping 60% during 3 years only. If it is private company, sure "bungkus"!   3. Population that pays tax  1.8M     Number of civil servants   1.2M Meaning every 1.5 tax payer support 1 civil servant.   4.  Population Vs number of civil servant.  (I believe should be one of the highest in the world)

COUNTRY	%
Malaysia	4.68
Thailand	2.06
Korea	1.86
Philippine	1.81
Indonesia	1.79
Laos	1.24
Cambodia	1.18

The best civil servants in the world-MALAYSIA BOLEH

Best bloated civil service

    * With 1.3 million civil servants to a population of 26 million, Malaysia has one of the highest civil servants-to-population ratio in the world by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development standards.

    * In 2009, Malaysia’s civil servants-to-population ratio was the highest in Asia Pacific. The ratio was 4.68 per cent, compared to Singapore’s 1.5 per cent, Indonesia’s 1.79 per cent, Korea’s 1.85 per cent and Thailand’s 2.06 per cent all of which have less than half our ratio.

Best way to bleed a budget dry

    * Much of the budget (2011) continues to go into operating a bloated civil service. As much as three quarters of the national budget is spent on paying salaries and other benefits to over 1.3 million civil servants.

    * A post-2011 Budget dialogue highlighted the massive amount (35 per cent of the total RM162.8 billion operating expenditure) to be spent on emoluments, pensions and gratuities of civil servants. A panelist, Ministry of Finance budget division director Datuk Dr Rahmat Bivi Yusuff admitted that there is a need to trim the civil service to reduce the budget deficit.

Best way to bankrupt this nation

    * Whilst it is the growing trend of many countries to reduce their civil service, the PM’s Department in particular, has done the opposite. It more than doubled its number of civil servants from 21,000 to 43,554 this year. In stark contrast, the White House employs only 1,888 staff.

    * The White House budget is US$394 million for 2011. The PM’s Department has been allocated a whopping RM18.14 billion for the year 2011, almost double the RM10.2 billion 2010.

    * Pemandu, which stands for Performance, Management and Delivery Unit, was set up last year under the Najib administration as one of the pillars in his Government Transformation Plan… is a massive drain on resources. In a span of two months the government spent RM20 million just to pay 50 consultants,.

Best contradiction of 1Malaysia

    * As at 31 December 2009, the racial breakdown of the Malaysian civil service comprising 1,247,894 employees was as follows: Malay (78.2 per cent); Other Bumiputras (7.7 per cent); Chinese (5.8 per cent), Indian (4.0 per cent); and Others (4.2 per cent).

    * “This is the worst multi-racial composition of the government service, with the lowest Chinese and Indian representation in the public service in Malaysia’s 53-year history. This is clearly seen from the three sets of comparative figures of the racial breakdown of the civil service before the NEP (1971) and as compared to Dec. 2009 – Malays (60.80 per cent and 78.2 per cent); Chinese (20.2% and 5.8 per cent); Indians (17.4 per cent and 4.0 per cent); and Others (1.6 per cent and 4.2 per cent).

Best in corruption

    * Last year two out of five civil servants were deemed corrupt by Cuepacs. It was described as a worrying trend that needed to be tackled urgently.

    * Cuepacs President Omar Osman revealed that a total of 418,200 or 41 per cent of the 1.2 million civil servants in the country were suspected to be involved in corruption last year (Bernama, 2 June 2010).

Best “dumping ground”

Mohd Ariff Sabri Abdul Aziz, a former state assembly member of Pahang who is a member of Umno and who uses the pen-name Sakmongkol AK47, in his blog entry wrote: “Government service shouldn’t be treated as a dumping ground for academic rejects and mediocre material. Let’s demand a certain high standard and ensure we bring in talent that supports the demand for high standards.

“What has the government done to improve the efficiency and competence of government servants? There isn’t really competition there if the service is dominated by one race. There isn’t sufficient quality if the entry-level qualifications are so-so.

“Yet each year, to placate civil servants, the PM will appear on TV to say, we honour our civil servants because they have done a good job, blah blah. Which is not entirely true. The service is slow, the quality of officers is questionable.”

But Umno likes Muhyiddin’s make-believe. The next General Elections must be close at hand. Civil servants are made to believe that Umno is their (political) paymaster and they owe it to Umno. The party’s leaders would do or say anything to convince the government servant of this, even praising them as “the best civil servants in the world”!

 Related post: 

Bloated civil sevice in Malaysia must cut down the size and salaries

The Malaysian government can make further spending cuts if it reduces the size of its “bloated” civil service, an economist said. File pictu... 

 

 
Related articles

• Budget 2012 to ride Malaysia Election, a wake up call! 

  • Deflate the bloated civil service

• Dear "Public Servant", You Are Not Good Enough (viewfrombippus.wordpress.com)

Changes in Malaysia's horizon; Keep the momentum up!

Tweet

Changes in the nation’s horizon

Reflecting On The Law By Shad Saleem Faruqi

Whether by revocation by the King or annulment by Parliament, all emergency legislations will cease to exist six months after the end of an emergency proclamation.

Image via Wikipedia

THE Prime Minister’s surprise announcement that the Emergency will be lifted, that the Internal Security Act will be repealed, and that laws like the Printing Presses and Publications Act will be amended to constitutionalise and humanise them has fired everybody’s imagination, and at the same time raised apprehension among the defenders of the status quo.

One reader asked whether the Prime Minister consulted with, and obtained, the consent of the Cabinet before making these bold pronouncements.

No outsider can answer this accurately, but what can be pointed out is that in parliamentary democracies, prime ministers are known to launch bold initiatives on their own and to present their Cabinets and their countries with a fait accompli.

Clear examples are decisions on premature dissolution of Parliament and budget and foreign policy initiatives.

In 1956, Anthony Eden of Britain got his country embroiled in the disastrous Suez invasion, and informed his Cabinet only after British paratroopers had landed on Egyptian soil.

In a strictly legal way, the prime minister is not bound by the Cabinet; instead the Cabinet is bound by the direction he supplies.

Politics may, of course, encourage a consultative approach but all students of parliamentary government know that the prime minister is the sun around which the Cabinet revolves.

Individual ministers are bound under the doctrine of collective ministerial responsibility to support their prime minister or step down from office.

Another reader asked whether the Prime Minister’s announcement means that the Emergency is already lifted?  The answer is in the negative.

The Emergency is proclaimed by the King and either he must revoke his proclamation(s) or the two Houses must by resolution annul the proclamation(s).

If the King (acting on advice) revokes a proclamation, the revocation comes into effect immediately.

However, if the two Houses are to debate and vote on a resolution to annul, that process can be expected to take some weeks or months because the Dewan Negara will probably convene only after the Dewan Rakyat’s lengthy budget session beginning in October.

However, if immediate parliamentary action to annul the 1966, 1969 and 1977 proclamations is thought desirable, the two Houses can meet concurrently to draw to a close the 47-year saga of the existing post-independence Emergency.

Once a proclamation expires, whether by revocation by the King or annulment by Parliament through an Emergency Act of Parliament or a piece of subsidiary legislation under an emergency law, all emergency legislations will cease to exist six months after the proclamation.

If the Emergency ends, does the Internal Security Act (ISA) also cease to exist? The answer is in the negative.  The ISA is a law against subversion under Article 149.

It is independent of Article 150 and has a life of its own, no matter what happens to the Emergency.

If the ISA is repealed, will those detained under the ISA have to be released? Undoubtedly, yes.

If the basis of their detention is extinguished, the detention, too, ceases to be valid.

Even if there is a new law under Article 149 to deal with security or terrorism cases, that law cannot be backdated due to the prohibition of Article 7(1).

Of course, the detainees may face new prosecutions under the Penal Code or the new laws.
The rule of double jeopardy will not apply.

Will the Government have to pay compensation to all people detained under the ISA, including in previous years?

The answer is “no” because the legality of an act must be judged by the law at the time of the commission of the act and not by what happens afterwards.

How can the ISA be repealed? Does its repeal require the consent of the Conference of Rulers?

Under Article 149, any law against subversion may be passed or repealed by Parliament. A simple majority vote is sufficient. The consent of the Conference of Rulers is not needed.

From what we have heard, the ISA will be replaced by two laws on terrorism and national security.
Some cynics are saying that the move is therefore purely cosmetic and political.

The ISA may end but preventive detention may remain. I think we should hold our judgment on this issue till we see the substantive content of the proposed new laws.

I would give anxious consideration to the following issues:

> The concepts of terrorism and national security must be precisely and objectively defined and must not have any catch-all tendencies.

> There should be no exclusion of judicial review so that any abuse or misuse of power can be tested in the courts.

It is acceptable that on matters of security, the political executive must have a strong say without excluding the power of the courts to determine independently whether security was indeed involved or not.

> There must be some safeguards against political detentions.

> The power of the police to detain for purposes of investigation must be drastically reduced from the present 60 days to no more than three weeks.

> The Minister’s power, as at present, to order detention for two years and for such further periods as he deems necessary must be abolished.

Detentions on the orders of the Minister raise the unconscionable issue of accuser, adjudicator and executioner being combined. Some separation of powers and some check and balance is desirable.

Justice must not only be done but must be seen to be done.

> The power to try, to convict and to detain must be committed to a Special Security Court or Anti-Terrorism Court (or by whatever name called).

> Anxious consideration must be given to the composition of this Special Court which must arouse public confidence.

> The executive must accuse, the court must decide.

> Special procedural rules for security trials exist in many countries and must be examined.

Perhaps trials should be held in camera (without the public present).

Whatever the case, there must be fair due process. The accused must know the charge.

No incriminating evidence must be withheld from him and from the judge, as is possible at present.

The accused must be allowed to defend himself fully and fairly.

> The penalties and the maximum period of detention must be prescribed.

> Whether there should be no appeal in “security” and “terrorist” trials is a matter for further consideration.

We have many model legislations from many countries that we can emulate.

Whatever we follow must show fidelity to our own Constitution and to the primary instruments of international law.

> Shad Saleem Faruqi is Emeritus Professor of Law at UiTM and Visiting Professor at USM.

Keep the momentum up!

Question Time By P. Gunasegaram

The momentous changes proposed by the Prime Minister need to be pushed through with the utmost urgency for greater effect.

THE overwhelming support and acclaim from Malaysians over the proposals by the Prime Minister to repeal the Internal Security Act or ISA and lift all proclamations of emergency show just how unpopular these measures are among Malaysians.

Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak has read the signals right. But as important as these and other proposals are, the larger agenda is even more significant – to review and if necessary repeal and replace all laws which stand in the way of demo-cracy, legitimate free expression, and human and individual rights.

Two paragraphs from Najib’s speech last Thursday are worth re-quoting: “It is absolutely clear that the steps I just announced are none other than early initiatives of an organised and graceful political transformation. It stands as a crucial and much needed complement to the initiatives of economic transformation and public presentation which the government has outlined and implemented for over two years in the effort to pioneer a modern and progressive nation.

“…the Malaysia that we all dream of and are in the process of creating is a Malaysia that practises a functional and inclusive democracy where public peace and prosperity is preserved in accordance with the supremacy of the Constitution, rule of law and respect for basic human rights and individual rights.”

Two things are necessary to carry these reforms to its natural conclusion. The first is to keep the momentum generated up and without any delay implement what has been promised. Any delay and back-pedalling to cater to the interests of some sections of the community will have the effect of raising cynicism yet again.

The second is to look into all the other laws which need to be changed to allow Malaysians to exercise all their full rights as enshrined in the Federal Constitution without hindrance.

That means that all those laws that are in direct contradiction to the letter and spirit of the Constitution must go. The sooner they go, the better. There has to be demonstrable urgency over this matter.

Already there are some politicians who are saying that the amendments to make some of the major changes cannot be tabled at the forthcoming Parliament session and will have to be deferred to next year. That will be a wrong start.

The necessary repeals of the relevant legislation can be made and still passed by Parliament this year for implementation next year. By that time, other legislation such as a counter-terrorism Act to still allow detention without trial under special circumstances and under judicial review can be introduced.

That will have the effect of setting a timetable for the implementation of the proposed changes already announced so that no one will doubt that the Government is serious about implementing the promises.

Already, there is talk that some sections within the ruling party and some parts of the police force are opposed to the repeal of the ISA and the Banishment Act. But these people must not be permitted to stop – or even delay – the reform process set into motion by the Prime Minister.

Simultaneous with the rapid implementation of the announced measures is the necessity to do an urgent yet comprehensive review of existing laws to expand the public space and bring forth important issues to be debated maturely and openly – with no threat from any party.

The proposal to remove the yearly licensing requirement for publications including newspapers under the Printing Presses and Publications Act is a relief, but a small one. The Home Ministry still wields disproportionate power and has the right to stop publication at any time without there being any recourse to the courts.

For the full flowering of legitimate expression across the board, it will be necessary to repeal fully this Act. That of course does not mean we are free to publish whatever we want because we will still be subject to provisions of the law for defamation, sedition, secrecy and so on. There is still adequate check and balance.

Another piece of draconian legislation that needs to be reviewed is the Official Secrets Act (OSA). This Act was amended in the eighties to provide for mandatory jail sentence and gave the Government the right to determine what affected national security without review by the courts.

In practical terms, this has prevented many issues of great public interest such as toll agreements to come out into the open. In practical terms, the Government could classify the number of cups of coffee consumed in a departmental canteen as a secret and anyone who reported it could be convicted under the OSA and go to jail for a minimum one year.

New legislation should be worded such that it respects secrecy when it involves issues of national security, not cover up inefficiency, incompetence or breach of trust by the Government. That would help ensure a more accountable government.

One other Act which deserves mention is the University and University Colleges Act that prevents local students from taking part in political activities and being aligned to political parties. This is strange considering that many of our founding fathers were political activists from their student days.

They may be students but they are also adults and as adults should play their full role in society, including taking part in political activities. That is part and parcel of developing their maturity and making them better members of society in future.

There is no doubt many other pieces of legislation need to be reviewed and the task is momentous. However, momentous as it is, the momentum that has been created by the announcement of the proposals must not be lost. We must press on relentlessly.

Momentum is of the utmost importance for change to take place. We need to turn the wheels of transformation faster instead of slowing them down with all manner of unfounded excuses. Malaysia and Malaysians have to move forward and quickly.

> Managing editor P. Gunasegaram believes in the old axiom that change is the only constant.

Related posts:

Towards a brave new Malaysia, keep lobbying and pushing for change!

Winds of change blowing in Malaysia; Dawn of a new era?