This is why my new Dean is cool: charting new human rights

If you think that this post  butter-ups my Dean, then you are probably right. That could be the effect of it, but it is definitely not my intention. You’ll know what my intention is when u read the last few lines in this post.
So, the new human rights that i was referring to is not that new after all. But people are always more interested in civil/negative/first generation rights than the second or third generation of human rights, thus neglecting two of the very important rights.  The reasons for such attitude will not be discussed here.

The two that i was referring to are:

1. Right to information privacy

2. Right to clean water supply

The right to information privacy is one of limbs under the umbrella of right to privacy guaranteed by article 12 of the UDHR. The other 3 limbs under this head are, right to bodily privacy, right to territorial privacy and privacy of communication.

The right to information privacy simply guarantees that personal data such as your bank account balance, your DNA and whether or not you are HIV-positive, even your photographs and your mobile phone number, are to be treated like all other  personal property which must be guarded against the invasion of a third party.

Any invasion on a such personal date (disclosed or exposed without the consent of the owner) will directly affect one’s human dignity. The priceless possession which the law of human rights ultimately seeks to protect.

Well, i guess you now know why there’s such a furore when there was an introduction on the MyKad, the DNA bill and the mandatory pre-marriage HIV test for Moslems.

So what do we need?

- A law protecting personal data.

And who drafted the Bill for the second time after discovering that there are several errors in the first bill drafted by the AG guys?

- My Dean. (which is why he’s cool)

In relation to the right to clean water, which was recognised recently by UN as a fundamental human right, a new bill will also be read in the Parliament when it seats again next year. Hopefully we can finally drink from the tap without worrying about getting sick after the law is enforced.

And who drafted the Bill?

- You guessed right!

And this is why my Dean is cooler than yours. So what have your Dean done to contribute to nation building,ATC LLB London?

It’s not a piece of chewing-gum wrapper

I understand that this entry comes a little to late as everything has already been swept under the carpet- the Malaysian-style. But I believe that one ought to take full responsibility of what one write or say, online and offline. I have taken lots of time and serious thinking before presenting this new twist.

Tomboyism and Yoga has absolutely zero connection under the normal “bird-chirping days”. You can hardly find a tomboy doing yoga. As a matter of fact, no tomboy enjoys holding their arses in the air.  But of course, here in Malaysia, everything has its twist. ( i hope by now you expected what this post is all about)

The  fatwa on tomboyism and on practicing yoga must adhere to human rights standards. And when I say “human rights standard” here, i choose to confine the ambit to those found in Part II of the Federal Constitution. And if it does not, it can be struck down as unconstitutional under Article 4(1) of the Constitution.

To put it simply, a fatwa is an answer when there’s a doubt as to whether a particular practice or lifestyle is acceptable under Islam. Under the law, when the fatwa is endorsed by the fatwa committees in various states and the Federal Territories and then gazetted, it became binding on all Muslims. And when that happens, it is a criminal offence under to law to act in contempt of, to defy, to disobey, or to dispute the direction. An ordinary Muslim is not even allowed to question the reasonableness of the fatwa.

But quite recently some rulers of the state had voiced their concern that the ruling made by the National Fatwa Council must first be presented to the Conference of Rulers for further discussion and deliberation before any action is to by taken to make the ruling a law.

Now, here’s my twist. When the ruling made is presented to the rulers, can the rulers, as Head of Islam of each State, make any decision on the rightfulness of the ruling? Or in other words, can the Sultans say “nay” to the ruling prohibiting tomboyism and the practice on Yoga?

My answer to that is “yes” as the deliberation of the Head of Islam cannot be reduced to mere formality and the Head must be given the power to review the ruling substantively.

What follows is,  can this power be exercised arbitrarily without any limits? The answer is a straight “NO”.
The reason being,

1. The Conference of Rulers as well as the position of the rulers as Head of Islam were created by the Constitution. Hence, the constitution must prevail. All limitations and checks found in the Constitution must apply to all institutions formed under the Constitution, and this includes the three branches of the government as well as the Monarchs and the Conference of Rulers.

2. The Federal Constitution is not a piece of chewing-gum wrapper! (to quote Justice Sri Ram). No matter how high the law of religion is, is it not higher than the Constitution. And i believe no one will dare to say that the doctrine of constitutionalism do not apply.

My point is simply this, in the event where the Conference of Rulers and/or the Sultans endorse the ruling made by the National Fatwa Council on tomboyism and Yoga, the Ruler will be acting unconstitutionally and the fatwa can be struck down for violating article 5, 8, and 10 of the Federal Constitution.

If you are asking this –> what does fatwa got to do with me, a non-Muslim?

The answer is this, the fight for human rights is a fight of all human.  We are born as humans first before anything else. Will you say that the war against apartheid is a matter only to those in South Africa? I doubt that.

Martin Niemoller once said,

“In Germany they came first for the Communists, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn’t speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time no one was left to speak up.”

I am doing this because it is also MY business!