Seditious Ruling

Flag of the Supreme Head of Malaysia
Flag of the Supreme Head of Malaysia (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

I wish that our government should stop using the word rule when they talk about themselves. They seem to have forgotten that a government merely governs, it does not rule. Only the Rulers rule.

This is a symptom of being in power for far too long. They have forgotten that they merely govern and I’m sure some of them have styled themselves as de-facto Rulers by now.

Which is why I think that the bunch of kids are being hauled up for acts of stepping on the PM’s photograph under the Sedition Act is unlawful. In the Act, S.3(1) defines seditious acts as:

(a) to bring into hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection against any Ruler or against any Government;
(b) to excite the subjects of the Ruler or the inhabitants of any territory governed by any government to attempt to procure in the territory of the Ruler or governed by the Government, the alteration, otherwise than by lawful means, of any matter as by law established;
(c) to bring into hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection against the administration of justice in Malaysia or in any State;
(d) to raise discontent or disaffection amongst the subjects of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong or of the Ruler of any State or amongst the inhabitants of Malaysia or of any State;
(e) to promote feelings of ill-will and hostility between different races or classes of the population of Malaysia; or
(f) to question any matter, right, status, position, privilege, sovereignty or prerogative established or protected by the provisions of part III of the Federal constitution or Article 152, 153 or 181 of the Federal Constitution.

The only way that I can see that stepping on the PM’s photograph is wrong is if he is defined as the Ruler for he is certainly not the government but merely the head of one branch of government.

Let me reiterate this – our PM is not the government. So, how could the Sedition Act apply to an act of stepping on his face – unless of course he styles himself as the “Ruler”, which would itself be seditious.

Then again, maybe I’m just too stoopid to understand these things.

Also, it’s OK to step on a Chief Minister’s photograph but not so to step on a Prime Minister’s photograph. I wonder what would happen to someone who uses the photograph as target practice in a range.

Malaysia Boleh!

Related articles

GE13 Date!

Since everyone and their mom seems to be placing bets on when the next General Elections are being held, I thought that I’d drop my prediction into the hat too. I have to stress that this is purely my personal opinion and does not represent the views of any other person or organisation.

I predict that we’re going to go full term.

My rationale for this prediction is simple enough. I don’t think that BN has the capability to win back two-thirds majority nor do they have the slightest chance to win back all the states. Whether the BN wins a simple majority or loses, both scenarios would be seen as a failure. Only an out-right massive win would be seen as victory.

As that is highly unlikely, our PM would likely have to swallow humble pie and take the blame for the results. If he doesn’t step down gracefully, his opponents would oust him out just like how our previous PM was shoved off unceremoniously.

Therefore, it is not in his interest to call an early election. In fact, it is in his best interest to stay on as the un-elected PM for the longest time possible to enjoy the perks of office. Since it is entirely the PM’s prerogative to call for the elections, I don’t see why he would.

That’s just my 2 sen on the topic.

Someone (not me) should start a pool.

Anti Hopping Constitutional Convention

English: Ballot Box showing preferential voting
English: Ballot Box showing preferential voting (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

I had this rather unsatisfying discussion with Prof Johan in Constitutional Law class about anti-hopping laws (good thing it did not come out for my exams). We were learning about Article 10 of the Constitution, particularly in relation to the Nordin Salleh case, when this issue came up.

Now, the Constitution clearly does not recognise any concept of a ‘party’ or a ‘coalition’. So, it is clear that the Constitution only cares about voting for the person as the elected representative – it should not matter which side the person takes as long as he/she takes the side of the people he/she supposedly represents.

That is all fine and good in theory. However, we’re often asked to vote along party lines regardless of which donkey or monkey is running. The reason is that the party will fight for our struggles and not any specific elected person. The party maintains discipline by ensuring that all elected representatives tow official party lines.

The Constitution was drafted with the assumption that people will vote for the person. As the elected representative of the people, he/she should be free to associate, in the best interest of the people. However, in practice, we end up electing the representative of the parties who end up working in the best interest of the party who put them there, not the people.

This is the crux of the problem.

My argument was that while Article 10 right to freedom of association is sacred, this must be balanced against the voice of the voters to be heard – the trouble being the archaic tradition in Malaysia of voting for the party and not the person.

Until the day comes where our electorate are mature enough and our candidates are human enough for us to vote for the person, we will need better controls. However, I too believe in protecting the liberty of a person to associate freely.

The solution that I propose is a simple one.

We strike a balance between the freedom of an individual to associate with that of the voice of the people to be heard. Both rights are sacrosanct and important in a healthy democratic system. So, the simplest solution would be to vacate an MPs seat if he/she changes parties after the elections.

The way I see it, it’s like a sort of an agreement between the MP and the electorate. During campaigning, the MP promises to accomplish certain things in return for the trust that the electorate puts in him/her. If the MP decides to change parties and thus change the objectives that they have promised to accomplish, he/she has reneged on that trust.

So, the proper way would be for the MP the seat to be vacated and to ask for a fresh mandate from the people. This way, the MP is still able to freely associate and the voice of the people can be clearly heard. I call that a win-win.

Now, there is no Constitutional provision for this though there is no reason that any Law that requires the MP to seek for a fresh mandate would be ultra-vires the Consti. That said, it would be painful to enforce this.

If we want to mandate that the seat be vacated upon switching parties, the Constitution would need to be amended to recognise the concept of a party. That would bring a whole world of pain on its own. The same problem would occur if we wish to mandate that an MP shall resign his/her seat when switching parties.

This is where the concept of Constitutional Conventions come in. The best way to solve this problem is to make it a convention. Alternatively, party constitutions can be amended to bar any MP who ran under other party banners from joining a new party without first vacating their seats.

It is actually in the best interest of all parties to avoid jumpers.

However, praying for politicians to act in the best interest of anyone other than themselves, is folly.

Related articles

Hudud and Malaysia

English: A green version of http://commons.wik...
English: A green version of http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Allah-eser2.jpg (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Thanks to the limited knowledge gleaned during my Islamic Law class, I’ve come to form my opinion on the situation and it is really simple: all sides are talking about different aspects of the same issue. As a result, the message to the public is one that is thoroughly confused and pushes everyone back into their own corners, in fear.

On one side, we have PAS who are adamant that Hudud has to be implemented in Malaysia, no questions asked. This position is simple to understand once we realise that Islam encompasses all aspects of life, not just religious rituals. That is why we have such things like Islamic Finance and Law.

For a person’s faith to be complete, they must accept all aspects of Islam, including the complete implementation of Islamic Laws – lock stock and barrel. It’s an essential item of faith. Therefore, it is necessary for all Muslims, including those in PAS, UMNO or otherwise, to accept Islamic Law.

This is the hard-line stance taken by PAS leaders.

That said, it’s not wrong to question the details and implementations of these Laws. In fact, such things are explicitly welcomed. While the Quran lays down general principles of Law, it is often sparse on details, leaving these to be filled by man. It is also important to take stock of present cultural and/or societal norms into consideration.

In the case of Malaysia, this often means taking into account the wishes of the large minority of non-Muslim people in the country. While one may argue that Islamic Laws only apply to Muslims, it is enough to observe current events in our country to know how this separation quickly becomes messy in real-life.

This is the song sung by the UMNO leaders.

Then, the general view of most non-Muslims that Hudud is a Bad Thing and is against our core ideas of justice, right and/or wrong. This view is further strengthened by the Constitutional argument that our country is not an Islamic State. As a result, Hudud cannot be implemented in Malaysia.

Let’s not forget that Islamic Law is already part of our legal system. Whether or not Hudud ever becomes Law in Malaysia is a question that is to be answered by the future generations. Maybe a day will come when everyone in the country can accept it. Then, introducing it would merely require a Constitutional amendment.

However, for now, I would ask that we sort out the legal mess that is our dual-legal system first. Until and unless we can work out all the kinks and loopholes, it would be folly to try to stack more stuff onto the system.

So, my question to all those making so much noise about Hudud is simple – what are you going to do about fixing the current mess first. Then, we can talk about how Hudud can be implemented in Malaysia.

Related articles

End of Exams

English: Part of the A Game Of Thrones board g...
English: Part of the A Game Of Thrones board game in progress. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

I sat for my final Law exam paper this morning. It was an exhausting affair and I had to resort to eating energy bars during the exams otherwise, my brain was blanking out.

Anyway, I have to say that my question spotting skills are still spot on. This time around, I had a 97.5% accuracy in spotting the questions. It helps that I’m also a lecturer.

I have not written so much in ages – 20 essays in 15 hours. All that writing takes a toll. My fingers are still aching and I think that my thumb will hurt for a few more days.

I dare say that I know the gist of Malaysian legal history – how English Law made its way into this country and the lasting impact it has had on our legal system. Our legal system is a curious creature and begs to be studied in more detail.

I dare say that I know about marriages and divorces – under Islamic family Law. Learning divine law was a pain for an atheist like me. I just had to learn it as it was. It has led me to a better understanding of why some people think and act they way they do.

I dare say that I know a thing or two about contracts – how to make them and how to get out of them. This was probably my favourite paper as it is so orderly and structured. Or maybe it’s just because of my business dealings and industrial experience.

I dare say that I know the basics of tort and liability – though I did try my very best to steer clear of negligence. This was an eye-opening subject for me to learn as it forces one to dig deep for answers and tests our core values.

I dare say that I know more about our Constitution today than I did a year ago – it is extremely depressing being a student of Malaysian Constitutional Law though I do see some light at the end of the tunnel.

All in all, I think that the last year of learning Law has been a great experience for me. I think that I am now richer because of the experience. It has taught me how to see things from a totally different angle.

I do hope that I’ll be able to go onto learn more interesting things next year but for now, I have a 3-month break from studying. This will give me an opportunity to catch up on some reading.

Game of Thrones, here I come!

Related articles

Taking Sides

Why would a supplier of services, like me, ever want to take sides in a business fight?

It’s in my best interest to continue supplying my services to all sides of the fight – as long as I remain neutral and do not take preference on any side. I sell to all at the same price with the same quality.

It’s their problem if their end-product ends up being priced markedly differently.

I shall continue to sell my services at the same price and quality to all parties involved. If they think that they can find someone better than me to do the job, it’s a free market.

Laissez-faire and all that.

Reading Law

Law School
Law School (Photo credit: Tulane Public Relations)

Why do I heap such pain and suffering onto myself?

Well, this is officially the hardest that I’ve ever worked for any exam in my entire life! That’s not to say that I find Law difficult. On the contrary, I actually find the Law quite easy to understand and apply. The problem is with the exams.

I’ve never sat for a Law paper before this and it’s been ages since I’ve actually written an essay. So, I have no idea what the expectations are and whether my present capability would net me a pass or a distinction.

All that I have to fall back on is some educated guesswork and experience. As an educator myself, I know what kind of things we’re looking for in an examination script. So, I’m a little better informed than many others.

That said, I still have no idea what the expectations are for Law at UM.

To be prepared, I have just decided to work my ass off and see how well or badly I fare. I have essentially cut myself off from the world for most of the last month and locked myself up in my room and Law library to work.

Writing essays was painful at first, having not hand-written things in ages. I struggled to find the pace and to even get my fingers to form the shapes of the words. Now, I have reached the point where I can write about a 1,000 word essay in under 45 minutes.

I pushed myself so hard that I started to suffer – essentially working 18/7 throughout the last few weeks. So, I took two days off before picking up the pace again.

My exams begin tomorrow and will last for two weeks – starting with Tort and ending with Constitution.

I hope to pass all my papers.