http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/sideviews/article/why-do-perkasa-and-others-oppose-repeal-of-the-sedition-act-rama-ramanathan
14 June 2014
The news that Perkasa-ites want to retain the Sedition Act reminds me of a police dog.
Soon after black rights leader Martin Luther King Jr was killed, a police dog needed to be retrained. It had been trained to attack blacks, during riots.
When the United States finally gave blacks the same rights enjoyed by whites, many whites took to the streets. Many blacks countered them.
The mainly white police needed dogs to manage riots. More specifically, they now needed their dogs to attack people not on the basis of colour, but on the basis of behaviour.
So, they set about retraining the dogs. After months of training, one dog decided what was needed of it.
The reliable, devoted and much-loved dog decided that henceforth, its masters wished it to attack whites. For the dog, it was unimaginable that criterion other than race could explain behaviour.
Like that dog, some can only see in black and white. They see the world – not just Malaysia – as being made up of two types of people. The first type is Malays. The second type is non-Malays.
According to Perkasa-ites, Malays are homogeneous and non-Malays are homogeneous. According to Perkasa-ites, every waking moment of every non-Malay is spent plotting how to rob Malays of their special, Article 153 position in Malaysia.
According to Perkasa-ites, Malays who recognise the equal importance of equality before the law, Article 8, are misguided and need to be whipped into shape.
“Unimaginable” is the key word Tan Sri Zaman Khan, chairman of the “integrity bureau” of a group which calls itself the Malay Consultative Council (MPM), is reported to have used when proclaiming MPM’s objection to the National Unity Consultative Council’s (NUCC) proposal to replace the Sedition Act with the Racial and Religious Hate Crimes Act.
It matters nothing to Zaman (a former CID director) and his ilk (which includes Tan Sri Abdul Aziz Rahman, a former Malaysia Airlines chairman) that the committee which made the proposal did so after much study, and includes several Malay members.
I have intentionally rehearsed the positions these honoured men held, for they love to flaunt them.
They expect to be listened to more than others because of their positions and honours. They seem unable to believe wisdom may also spring from the young and un-titled – for example, the Prophets of the world’s two largest religions.
Let’s consider our subject, the Sedition Act, a blunt instrument designed in 1948 by the British to quash dissent. The act was amended in 1969, after the riots which were a coup d'etat against Tunku (Abdul Rahman).
The act as it now stands criminalises questioning of some portions of the Federal Constitution. Clause 3(2)(f) makes it explicitly an offence 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.”
Article 152 covers the national language. Article 153 covers quotas for positions in the public services, seats in institutions of learning, permits, etc for Malays and the natives of Sabah and Sarawak. Article 181 covers the sovereignty of the rulers.
If the news report is correct and Aziz did say the Sedition Act prevents Malaysians (Malays included) from questioning Malay “special rights,” he’s wrong.
The Constitution doesn’t provide Malays with special rights; it provides Malays with a “special position” – which allows the government, through the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, to discriminate in favour of Malays by giving them special preferences in constitutionally prescribed matters.
The question Perkasa-ites don’t ask is: what about other provisions in the Constitution?
For instance, Article 3 covers Islam and other religions. Article 4 declares the Constitution is the supreme law. Article 6 prohibits slavery and forced labour.
Article 8 assures equality before the law. Since these articles are not listed in the Sedition Act, do these distinguished men claim is it okay to question the position of Islam, the supremacy of the Constitution, the prohibition of slavery and the principle of equality before the law? I think not.
What then drives their desire to retain the Sedition Act? Why do they wish to do so when even our Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak, wishes to repeal the Sedition Act?
The problem is this: only countries like China and South Korea have acts like the Sedition Act on their books.
The problem with the Sedition Act is the ease with which people can be selectively and easily convicted. The problem with the Sedition Act is clause 3(3):
“For the purpose of proving the commission of any offence against this act, the intention of the person charged… shall be deemed to be irrelevant if in fact the act had, or would, if done, have had, or the words, publication or thing had a seditious tendency.”
For conviction, most criminal laws require proof of mens rea (intention). But not the Sedition Act!
Presently many Muslim-Malaysians are pushing for the implementation of shariah criminal law. They do so partly because of the importance Islam places upon convicting only on the basis of reliable evidence. At least for me, some long-hidden, noble aspects of Islamic jurisprudence are emerging.
Therefore, I am especially shocked that the two Tan Sris are agitating to retain a British artifice whose prime purpose was to obtain easy convictions.
The trouble with the Sedition Act is the selective conviction (“prosecution” seems inaccurate) it assures. The Sedition Act mocks Article 8 and puts us with North Korea.
The dog never learned that agitators occur across all races and that it is shameful to attack people on the basis of race. The dog was moved to a place where it could neither hurt nor embarrass.
Some will remain stuck in time (1969 was 45 years ago). We live in the Bersih era.
I hope our prime minister will have the wisdom of the dog trainers. – June 14, 2014.
14 June 2014
The news that Perkasa-ites want to retain the Sedition Act reminds me of a police dog.
Soon after black rights leader Martin Luther King Jr was killed, a police dog needed to be retrained. It had been trained to attack blacks, during riots.
When the United States finally gave blacks the same rights enjoyed by whites, many whites took to the streets. Many blacks countered them.
The mainly white police needed dogs to manage riots. More specifically, they now needed their dogs to attack people not on the basis of colour, but on the basis of behaviour.
So, they set about retraining the dogs. After months of training, one dog decided what was needed of it.
The reliable, devoted and much-loved dog decided that henceforth, its masters wished it to attack whites. For the dog, it was unimaginable that criterion other than race could explain behaviour.
Like that dog, some can only see in black and white. They see the world – not just Malaysia – as being made up of two types of people. The first type is Malays. The second type is non-Malays.
According to Perkasa-ites, Malays are homogeneous and non-Malays are homogeneous. According to Perkasa-ites, every waking moment of every non-Malay is spent plotting how to rob Malays of their special, Article 153 position in Malaysia.
According to Perkasa-ites, Malays who recognise the equal importance of equality before the law, Article 8, are misguided and need to be whipped into shape.
“Unimaginable” is the key word Tan Sri Zaman Khan, chairman of the “integrity bureau” of a group which calls itself the Malay Consultative Council (MPM), is reported to have used when proclaiming MPM’s objection to the National Unity Consultative Council’s (NUCC) proposal to replace the Sedition Act with the Racial and Religious Hate Crimes Act.
It matters nothing to Zaman (a former CID director) and his ilk (which includes Tan Sri Abdul Aziz Rahman, a former Malaysia Airlines chairman) that the committee which made the proposal did so after much study, and includes several Malay members.
I have intentionally rehearsed the positions these honoured men held, for they love to flaunt them.
They expect to be listened to more than others because of their positions and honours. They seem unable to believe wisdom may also spring from the young and un-titled – for example, the Prophets of the world’s two largest religions.
Let’s consider our subject, the Sedition Act, a blunt instrument designed in 1948 by the British to quash dissent. The act was amended in 1969, after the riots which were a coup d'etat against Tunku (Abdul Rahman).
The act as it now stands criminalises questioning of some portions of the Federal Constitution. Clause 3(2)(f) makes it explicitly an offence 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.”
Article 152 covers the national language. Article 153 covers quotas for positions in the public services, seats in institutions of learning, permits, etc for Malays and the natives of Sabah and Sarawak. Article 181 covers the sovereignty of the rulers.
If the news report is correct and Aziz did say the Sedition Act prevents Malaysians (Malays included) from questioning Malay “special rights,” he’s wrong.
The Constitution doesn’t provide Malays with special rights; it provides Malays with a “special position” – which allows the government, through the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, to discriminate in favour of Malays by giving them special preferences in constitutionally prescribed matters.
The question Perkasa-ites don’t ask is: what about other provisions in the Constitution?
For instance, Article 3 covers Islam and other religions. Article 4 declares the Constitution is the supreme law. Article 6 prohibits slavery and forced labour.
Article 8 assures equality before the law. Since these articles are not listed in the Sedition Act, do these distinguished men claim is it okay to question the position of Islam, the supremacy of the Constitution, the prohibition of slavery and the principle of equality before the law? I think not.
What then drives their desire to retain the Sedition Act? Why do they wish to do so when even our Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak, wishes to repeal the Sedition Act?
The problem is this: only countries like China and South Korea have acts like the Sedition Act on their books.
The problem with the Sedition Act is the ease with which people can be selectively and easily convicted. The problem with the Sedition Act is clause 3(3):
“For the purpose of proving the commission of any offence against this act, the intention of the person charged… shall be deemed to be irrelevant if in fact the act had, or would, if done, have had, or the words, publication or thing had a seditious tendency.”
For conviction, most criminal laws require proof of mens rea (intention). But not the Sedition Act!
Presently many Muslim-Malaysians are pushing for the implementation of shariah criminal law. They do so partly because of the importance Islam places upon convicting only on the basis of reliable evidence. At least for me, some long-hidden, noble aspects of Islamic jurisprudence are emerging.
Therefore, I am especially shocked that the two Tan Sris are agitating to retain a British artifice whose prime purpose was to obtain easy convictions.
The trouble with the Sedition Act is the selective conviction (“prosecution” seems inaccurate) it assures. The Sedition Act mocks Article 8 and puts us with North Korea.
The dog never learned that agitators occur across all races and that it is shameful to attack people on the basis of race. The dog was moved to a place where it could neither hurt nor embarrass.
Some will remain stuck in time (1969 was 45 years ago). We live in the Bersih era.
I hope our prime minister will have the wisdom of the dog trainers. – June 14, 2014.
.JPG)
0 comments:
Post a Comment