For a more detailed and complete account on the flag burning issue we’d discussed earlier. Read this.
The Campus Election is coming real soon as there was already signs from the bullish group trying brainwash the newbies.
More exciting stories on that real soon.
At the mean time, let’s hope Subashini obtains the justice she deserves.
It has been a great week and it ended on a high note. I had a wonderful conversation with a kind old lady in the photocopy shop at about 11.30 am on various issues regarding the Malaysian legal system. She enlightened me and has given me insights on the formation of Malaysia and the drafting of the constitution, which i wish to share with you here.
This person is Wan Arfah Hamzah. The co-author of “An Introduction to The Malaysian Legal System”, which is literally the “bible” for that subject, and the very first book every law student in my school had probably bought.
When asked about her opinion on the Secular-Islamic debate, she said there’s no question that the constitution is a secular constitution. And more importantly, in the social contract that was made before the formation of Malaysia, the Alliance Party had promised that the country will remained secular. In return, the special status of the Malays and Islam will be recognized.
This is great deal. Those to claimed that Malaysia is an Islamic country always based their argument on the Social Contract.
But hey, now it seems like you have no argument at all!
Wan Arfah is currently updating her book. And she promised that she will write extensively on this matter.
Despite the madness that the government has brought to the country, credits must still be given to a few good men.
Natural Resources and Environment Minister Datuk Seri Azmi Khalid appears to be one of the very few who are still doing his job as the servant of the people, first by improving the EIA report, then rapping town planning agencies for not upgrading the public transport system and promote sustainable development, the good man also set a good example by striking off shark’s fin soup from the menus of official functions.
The second group of people is of course the Auditor-General and his team who exposed the mismanagement of public funds, doing his job without fear or favour.
Thank you.
Dewan Rakyat : Hot debate over flag burning .
A man was caught on camera burning the national flag during a riot in Kuala Terengganu last Saturday. And there were calls later inside and outside the Parliament that this person be punished.
Bung Mokhtar from Kinabatangan, with his usually frankness that uncovered his stupidity, wants him expelled from the country. Md Alwi from Kereteh sees this as an act of rebellion. Mohd Aziz from Sri Gading made some funny analogy that doesnt make sense to me.
Anyway, “what’s so bad about burning a national flag?”, will be our topic today.
Before i defend this man for his action. Let’s take a peek into the mind of people who thinks that he should be punished. From their point of view, burning the national flag is a sign of being unpatriotic and citizens who are unpatriotic do not appreciate what the country has done to them.
But is that really so?
History has shown us that for the last 50 years, the country has only been represented by one government. Coupled with the fact that this government thinks that they rule the nation in every aspect, it is not easy to deny the fact that this country can be renamed as Barisan National. In short, showing your frustration towards your country simply means you didn’t like the government.
Next, when this particular flag burner is doing what some termed as unpatriotic, it is important for us to look at the intention of this person. Is he doing this because he dislikes the government or was he declaring that he’s a traitor?
Furthermore, not every man on the street is good enough to be a member of the opposition party and at the same time win a seat in the Parliament. Some of the above mentioned people are not good in conveying his thoughts and anger in writings. The general election is held every 4 to 5 years and often with controversy. Demonstration in public places is out of the question since the law, (made by Barisan National government), make it an offence to gather in a group of 30r more without obtaining a licence from the police. And press freedom is a fairy tale in the country.
With all these in mind, how do you think a citizen, angry and frustrated, is capable of exercising his freedom of expression? The only creative way left is probably by burning the flag.
Flag burning has been recognized as a constitutional right to freedom of expression in certain country. So what is so wrong about flag burning that you have to rip a person’s citizenship?
If you think it is bad for the development of the nation, then using your standard, people who misuse the public funds and those whose abuse their power and rank should be sent to the gallows.
Little did you know, the flag probably belongs to him. If that is the case, what is so wrong about burning your own property?
The august house is becoming more like a joke these days. Don’t you think?
The above title can also be put in other equally fashionable manner like Theocracy won’t work in a multi-racial nation, Those who claimed that religious is above the law are highly insensitive people, Secularism is still the best, The Wall of Separation (between law and religion) is absolutely necessary, and finally, Malaysia IS a secular nation.
“Secularization” is defined as the process by which sectors of society and culture are removed from the domination of religious institution and symbols (Peter L. Berger). In other words, keep God away from public life and law. It follows that, God can be kept for private life without any interference from the public.
By now, you jolly well know where I stand in the secular-islamic debate.
I hope you have read the arguments on why Malaysia is a secular nation and not an Islamic state.
Here are some common sense regarding the same matter that I’ll like to draw your attention to.
1. Freedom of Religion
This right is important to every human being. It’s inalienable. It cannot be taken away. It means every human being has a right and freedom to practice a religion, to profess a religion, and to propagate a religion of his/her choice. The converse is also true. A right not to practice a religion, not to profess a religion, and not to be propagated with a religion.
But religion is a funny thing. It has no definition to it. Everyone interprets it differently. And, of course, pratice it differently. But the strangest thing about religion is, it always says it’s good. You may noticed the statement “lead them to the right path” is found in almost every religion. They even have a special word for it in English.
(Another common value would be the respect for another religion)
Nothing wrong with that. But I hope u notice that this statement doesn’t come with any condition. It’s a “do all you can, as long it’s done peacefully, any time any day” statement.
But things will definitely go wrong when one religion is prefered by the State over the others. If the State claim that a particular religious law is the highest law of the land, what follows is that the leader of the nation will have to run the country according to the principles and values of Islam, including “lead them to the right path”.
How can that be done? Well, first probably by establishing an economy system according to the religion, then the culture of religion is incorprated into governmental policy making and the moral principles including those about sins of a particular religion is implemented, maybe in criminal law. Soon, you could probably find that there are so many areas of your life govern by the values of a particular religion.
In such a situation like this, do you think you may still have a good ground to pratice, profess and propagate the religion of your choice? Or is that some sort of a curtailment of your freedom of thought, conscience and religion?
2. Equality
This is a fundamental idea in law. It’s there primary to maintain the common good of the society.
But, when a state prefered one religion over the other. It automatically prompted people professing other religion to ask “what about my religion?”
3. Unfettered participation in a democratic society
Very recently, the Chief Judge made a public statement in a speech saying that the common law imported into our local law by s.3 of the Civil Law Act, should be replaced by Islamic values. The de facto Law Minister, with his usual “not-so-smart”ness, made an equally insensitive statement.
The issue is this. When Islamic values (or any particular religion) are incorporated into the law, common sense dictates that everyone in the country must learn all Islamic values, right? And unless you finally mastered the values of Islam, whatever you say shouldn’t be accurate, right? What follows next is that everything said by those who has a Phd learning Islam is deem correct. Wouldn’t that create a Islam-as i say-tion situation? How do others who has yet to learn a thing about Islam participate in the running of the country?
See people. Common sense.
This is not to say secularism has no flaws. But, secularism is the best possible way.
This is big news. Just about 6 hours ago, the US District judge Victor Marrero struck down parts of the Patriot Act because it offended the constitutional principle of check and balance and violated the guarantee of free speech.
This is what you called a good judge, ever ready to protect the rights of the subjects of the states and the supremacy of the constitution. How often do we find a case in Malaysia where the court declare a law to be unconstitutional based on principles of constitution. The first one that I could remember was a case decided a few months ago where the Court of Appeal declared that the power of the Yang DiPertuan Agong to detained a juvenile in prison at the pleasure of the YdPA was unconstitutional for offending the principles of Separation of Powers.
What’s it got to do with a nation which they probably can’t even locate in the world map, you may ask.
Well, the Patriot Act was designed based on our antiquated draconian freedom-hating cruel and evil Internal Security Act 1960. However in the last draft/reading, it was made better in a sense that lesser power is given to the law enforcer and more freedom is left untouchable.
So what?
Let’s see how our good government respond to such judicial activism and standard of justice potrayed in the USA in dealing with the younger generation but better internal security law of the United States and also to the Spirit of Merdeka Movement Declaration on Restoring Democracy and Advancing Freedom in Malaysia that can be read many many times here.
Cultural relativism?
it’s their own business?
we are a more advanced country?
or would they even respond?
Recent Comments