Putting an end to child marriages

The incidence of child marriages is alarming. By child marriages, I mean the marriage of any person under the age of eighteen. This is more so for the fact that it appears that such marriages are significantly more prevalent amongst Muslims. A recent statement by a United Nations agency here indicates that the number of such marriages has increased significantly over recent years.

The minimum age of marriage for persons of other than the Muslim faith is eighteen. Muslims girls are permitted by state law to marry at the age of sixteen. In some states, like Kedah, the Shariah Court can sanction the marriage of an even younger Muslim girl. In one such case, the Shariah Court recently granted permissions for a twelve-year old girl to marry a nineteen-year old man (some reports have put the age of the groom at sixteen). According to reports, the father of the bride consented to the marriage to avoid any “immoral activity” on the part of the couple. The husband is quoted as saying that his bride had agreed to shoulder the responsibility of a wife.  The reports do not indicate either his view or that of the father as to the ability of the twelve year old to understand the full implications of the situation.

It may be recalled that in 2010, a marriage between a fourteen-year old and her twenty-three year old husband sparked some controversy. The Government at that point took the position that if the marriage was permitted under Islam, and as such within the jurisdiction of the State Government, there was no basis to reject the same. Its position does not appear to have changed.

The Attorney General has, through his continued silence on the subject, endorsed such marriages. 

On my part, I fail to understand how the Federal Government and the Attorney General could have allowed for this self-evidently destructive trend to continue. Such marriages are not only, I say, unconstitutional, they hurt the children concerned and society. Research shows that child marriages have severely adverse consequences on the physical, emotional and mental development of the child. UNICEF has reported that girls who marry young tend to forego formal education, which, not only disadvantages the girls concern, lead to gaps in their knowledge on maternal health and child rearing issues. There is an increased risk of death in childbirth for girls that young.

It is for this reason that the Convention for the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, which Malaysia has acceded to, places an obligation on the State to ensure that the “betrothal and the marriage of a child shall have no legal effect” and to take appropriate steps to regulate this. 

It is also for this reason that various countries have set to combating child marriages with a view to improving the welfare of children and for the protection of the community. It is generally accepted that the prohibition of such marriages will contribute significantly to poverty eradication and the promoting of gender equality. In some countries, punitive measures against persons who perform, permit, or promote child marriages have been enacted.

It is no answer to say that the economic realities of the situation are in favour of such marriages. If poverty is causing such marriages, then poverty should be addressed. We cannot allow the situation to evolve; I shudder at the thought of this process being used to validate trafficking of child brides or, for all purposes intents, validating the pedophilic tendencies of the monsters that prey on young children. Less sensationally, even the thought of young child-divorcees is reason for concern.

It appears that rather than dealing with the root problems, the Government would rather sidestep the matter. In this, it would seem that Islam is being invoked to stifle the controversy. 

While I can appreciate the need for the State to preserve the integrity of personal law, it is not the case that the personal law of Muslims can be understood as permitting the endangering of Muslim minors. More so for the fact that the legal framework of this nation so evidently gives basis to the Federal Government and the Attorney General to intervene and correct the situation.

A question arises as to whether the power of the Shariah Court to validate such marriages is constitutional. The analysis cannot stop at the fact that the Legislative Assemblies of the states enact laws that vest the Shariah Court with the power to validate. Though it is true that the Legislative Assemblies have competence over the legislating of laws for the purposes of the administration of Islam, the discretion to do so is not absolute. It must be appreciated that such discretion is limited to enacting only laws that are constitutional. 

As to the question of what is constitutional in the circumstances, several key features of our constitutional framework are material. Firstly, the constitution protects the fundamental liberties of all its citizens. Two of these are highly relevant to the discussion: the right to life, and the right to equal protection of the law. 

As to the former, as has been underscored by the Federal Court, the right is not limited to merely concerns over corporeal existence. It extends to the intangible aspects of the right to live one’s life, a state of being that hinges on the protection of mental and emotional integrity. As to the latter, it would be wholly repugnant to our system of life to allow for a state of affairs where some vulnerable citizens are protected from physical, mental and emotional abuse while others are not. It is for this reason that while at first glance, some constitutional powers could be read as allowing for violations of these strictures in the interests of some other cause, closer scrutiny would inevitably lead to the conclusion that this could not be the case.

Put another way the power of the State Legislative Assemblies to enact law pertaining to the administration of Islam cannot be extended to validating the enacting of laws that defy the constitution. And yet this appears to be what section 8 of the Kedah Islamic Family Law Enactment 2008 does. It vests the Shariah Court with the power to expose Muslim children to the kind of conduct that is proscribed where non-Muslim children are concerned. In doing so, it discriminates against the former category of children. It permits the undermining of the physical, emotional and mental integrity of Muslim children in a way that is wholly inconsistent with their right to life. 

It is not coincidental that the Child Act 2001, which defines a “child” as being a person under eighteen years of age, makes it an offence to cause physical or emotional injury to a child. The same law provides that a minor is deemed to be in need of the care and protection of the State if there is a substantial risk of the minor being emotionally injured or sexually abused. Sexual abuse is defined to include situations where the minor takes part in sexual activity for another person’s sexual gratification.

It is equally no coincidence that the Penal Code defines the offence of statutory rape as involving sexual intercourse with a girl below the age of sixteen without exception. Marriage does not make lawful such sexual congress. It is highly significant that the Malaysian courts in convicting offenders for statutory rape have found that girls under the age of sixteen are too young to even be introduced to carnal knowledge between a man and a woman.

This takes me to the second point. In recognition of possible conflicts between state and federal laws, their respective law-making bodies potentially unavoidably encroaching into each other’s fields of competence, the Federal Constitution gives federal law primacy. As such, where federal law and state law conflict, federal law prevails. 

That being the case, even if the Kedah legislation (or any other such legislation_ were constitutional, which for the reasons I have explained above I cannot see as being a correct proposition, then in light of Parliament having enacted the Child Act and the statutory rape offence under the Penal Code, the Kedah legislation is void.

I suggest that the circumstances compel the Federal Government and the Attorney General to take immediate action. There is recourse; the Federal Government is entitled in law to mount a challenge on the state legislation in the Federal Court. It must do so.

MIS

(This article first appeared in The Edge on 15.12.2012)

Precedential Transitions

Precedential Transitions

The Prime Minister has declared that the anticipated power transition to Datuk Seri Najib Razak will occur as planned. The media has reported this and other news items pertaining to the subject as a transition of Prime Ministers. If this is in fact what the Prime Minister has proclaimed, and it is not apparent whether the Prime Minister had limited his remarks to the transition of the UMNO presidency, then it calls for a re-examination of the way in which governments are formed under the Federal Constitution.

For practical purposes it can be said that Parliament is dissolved when a general election is called. The government of the day, formed by the majority of the member of the Dewan Rakyat, comes to an end when this occurs, at least in theory. A caretaker government is charged with the responsibility of governing the nation in the short period before a new government is formed. This occurs when the Yang di-Pertuan Agong appoints a member of parliament to be the Prime Minister. The person His Majesty appoints is the person who in His judgment is the person commanding the confidence of the majority of the members of parliament. The appointment is a matter left entirely to the discretion of His Majesty with one condition: the appointee must be the person commanding the confidence of the majority of the members.

In the usual course, this is a matter of numbers. That person who can say that he or she commands the confidence of the majority should become the Prime Minister. This is straightforward where every member exercises his or her own judgment in coming to a choice and expresses that choice independently.

The situation is less clear where the right to choose is ceded over to a political party, or more specifically the leadership of that party or the coalition to which it exists. It may be that the party’s choice of candidate is not the choice of some or members or even a majority of them. The question then arises whether the choice of the leadership can be taken as the choice of the members of parliament from the party or coalition.

A purist perspective would lend against such a conclusion. The choice of the individual member of parliament of whom it is that he or she has confidence in is enshrined under the Constitution. A more practical approach would inevitably favour the conclusion that the party’s choice would prevail. This could however be made the basis of a plea to His Majesty. Though we have yet to see this happen on the Federal stage, we saw such a scenario unfold in Trengganu last year. There the Regent took the position that the party’s choice, predicated as it was on the majority of assemblypersons being made up of members of the party, was not decisive in view of personal preference favouring another candidate. This incident could be viewed as having some persuasive force.

The situation is not radically different where a Prime Minister resigns. As the Constitution does not cater to such a situation specifically, it stands to reason that reference must be made to the same provisions concerning the appointment of a Prime Minister.

These provisions provide for the resignation of a Prime Minister where upon his request for the dissolution of Parliament, His Majesty declines to do so. In that case, the Prime Minister must tender the resignation of the Cabinet (of which he is a member). I would think that though the Constitution is silent, the Prime Minister is permitted to resign, even where a no-confidence scenario is not in existence. To do so, he would however have to tender the resignation of his cabinet.

The more interesting aspect of this situation centres on what it is His Majesty can or should do. Save for the no-confidence scenario, the power to dissolve Parliament is one to be exercised on advice. It could be argued that without such advice, His Majesty cannot dissolve Parliament and as such is left with only the option of appointing a new Prime Minister who in turn will form his cabinet.

However, if one were to take the events of Perak as definitive, in particular the discretion of the Sultan to determine whether confidence exists, it may be open to His Majesty to take the position that by the incumbent Prime Minister resigning for reasons that have nothing to do with his incapacity, it could be said that he no longer commands the confidence of the majority. That being the case, His Majesty has the option of dissolving Parliament.

I do not think that is the correct way of looking at things. However, after Perak, it is difficult to say what is right anymore.

Leaving aside the conundrum outlined above, there remains the final dimension of this discussion: the absolute discretion of His Majesty to appoint as Prime Minister the person whom in His judgment commands the confidence of the majority. This need not necessarily be the person who replaces the Prime Minister as the President of UMNO.

That this has occurred all this while need not make it a necessity. A convention within the Barisan Nasional and the coalition’s dictates cannot bind His Majesty especially where there is reason to ask whether the proposed candidate does in fact command the requisite confidence. Imagine if personal preferences were marshaled in a way that lent to a different outcome in His Majesty’s mind. If that were to occur, there would be little room left for UMNO to maneuver, especially after the way it has carried on about the inviolability of the royal discretion. Precedent has a nasty way of biting back.

(Malay Mail; 3rd March 2009)

MIS

What Gives, Dr M?

Developments within UMNO are intriguing and, much as we would wish for it to be otherwise, have an impact on all of us. The President of UMNO by convention becomes the Prime Minister. UMNO politics also impacts throughout the Barisan Nasional for the opportunities and risks that internal political upheaval presents to coalition members. This has been particularly true in the period after March 8th. The dismal performances of Gerakan, MCA and MIC have been, in part, blamed for the claw-back of political power to the Pakatan Rakyat even as they reconsider their own ideologies and positioning.

These parties forming the Government, it stands to reason that upheavals within UMNO translate into possible repercussions for the nation, in perception if not in fact. The Malaysian commercial world appears to have gone into quasi-hibernation mode, adopting a wait and see stance as it attempts to assess the situation and its risks. Malaysians seem to be talking of nothing else but UMNO and what is going to happen.

I am certain that I am stating the obvious, especially for someone like Tun Dr Mahathir. In thay vein, I am equally confident that that these factors would have been taken into consideration as he developed the strategy that is now unfolding. Above all, Dr M, as he come to be known to us, was a master tactician. There is no reason to believe that he has lost the talent.

The aggressive and very public campaign against the Prime Minister prior to the Election, the way in which the campaign was heightened after the Election to leverage off weakening support for Abdullah Badawi caused by the disappointing shock results, the sudden resignation from UMNO and Mukhriz's breaking of ranks within Parliament are all part of the tactical play that is now unfolding. Dr M is playing to a gallery far bigger than merely UMNO. The nation watches, holding its breath, and he knows it. This has opened up another flank of the Prime Minister as he now not only has to ward of internal attacks but has to also to shore up the support of the wider nation, an important factor in his own push to retain his presidency of UMNO.

Some would say that this is masterful. Judging by the comments that have been left at Dr M's blog, he is even more firmly entrenched in the minds of some as the saviour of the nation.

And this is where I am thrown into confusion. What exactly is Dr M unhappy about, what it is that he would have had the Abdullah Badawi do differently? The obvious answer on the lips of those that oppose Abdullah Badawi is that he lost the Elections in part due to his weakness as a leader and in part due to alleged handing over of control to his family. Though Dr M seems to have his sights on something less obvious, something that pre-dates the Election, he is for the moment satisfied with the opportunity the election failure provides to rally support against Abdullah Badawi.

Let us assume for purposes of argument that both the obvious grounds are made out. They do not however in themselves explain why the support of the rakyat shifted in the way it did. They do not go to explaining nor justifying the fact that UMNO had become detached from reality, that UMNO big-wigs had become so arrogant and so drunk with power that they appear to have lost sight of the fact that they were there to serve the party and their constituencies, that race and religion had become so politicised that they threatened to divide the nation, that corruption had become endemic, that systems had either broken down or were close to it to a point where Malaysians no longer had institutions to turn to to solve their problems AND that many Malaysians of all races were suffering from a widening poverty gap, spiraling inflation and a total loss of hope.

And above all, these grounds do not go far in explaining away the very real fact that many, if not all, these and associated problems, had their roots in the Mahathir Administration. Abdullah Badawi inherited the efidice that Mahathir left him as well as a nation that was struggling against a cancer that Dr M had allowed it to be infected with.

That does not absolve Abdullah Badawi of any fault, he appears to have embraced the benefits of a skewed system with gusto and was equally willing to rely on repressive measures that Dr M himself has relied on as thousands of persons who were tear gassed or water cannoned and the HINDRAF 5 would testify to. As some would say, membership has its privileges. Abdullah Badawi however found out that no measure of spin-doctoring and empty rhetoric could hide the fact of his membership of this exclusive club of one.

It was as such only a matter of time before the rakyat got to their tipping points. It was apparent that when Malaysians could no longer hold their heads up high with dignity due to the overwhelming burden of a range of factors, from religion to personal security, economic or otherwise, they would turn away in search of alternatives. This was a road that Dr M had put them on.

I had thought that the only people who could not see this, it would seem, were the leaders within the Barisan Nasional. It would seem I was wrong, Dr M appears to have been, and still is, oblivious to it.

Dr M may wish to remind himself that Abdullah Badawi led the Barisan Nasional to a significant win in the 2004 Elections (I will refrain from calling it a landslide win until we can be assured that the Election was free and fair in all senses of the expression) and that he did so for one primary reason: he promised a substantial reform of the system that Dr M had left behind. Abdullah Badawi's failure this Election was caused by a failure to deliver on the promises he made. Put another way, he failed to overhaul Dr M's system the way he said he would.

Is Dr M saying that he should have? Or perhaps he is saying that he should never have even talked of reforms.

MIS

The Politics Of Compromise

Any reform of an institution or an institutional nature will require political will. As we have learnt, the Barisan Nasional federal government is impervious to public opinion. Were it otherwise, we would not have heard the kind of rhetoric we did these past few years and that we continue to hear. Like all bullies, the Barisan responds to aggression and power. Until March 8th, when Malaysians coalesced into the phalanx that drove the Barisan out of five states and denied it the traditional two-thirds majority it had become accustomed to, there was no power that could match that of the Barisan. Safe in its control of key institutions and agencies, it had sat back and thumbed its nose at everyone else.

The slap it received on March 8th made the Barisan reel. But even as it took one, maybe two, steps back, it quickly steadied itself and clung to whatever it could, notably government. And despite seeming efforts to bridge the gap between it and Malaysians through the trumpeting of the need for reforms, the Barisan has thus far governed pretty much as it had prior to March 8th. We have in the short time since the elections heard about threats to racial harmony, seen the race and religious card played, heard the usual excuses over non-performance and, as expected, heard of how the opposition is the cause of all ills in the nation. Business, as such, is pretty much as usual, perhaps more so for the fact that the internal power struggle in UMNO is eclipsing all else on the list of priorities. Governance, it would seem, has once again fallen second to politics.

In this climate, it is apparent that Malaysians can only reasonably expect to see reforms where these reforms intersect with the political agenda of key players within UMNO. For all purposes and intents, more so than before in light of their dismal performance at the polls, the MCA and the MIC are largely irrelevant.

This setting makes me wonder how to perceive these wonderful promises of judicial reform. I know Zaid Ibrahim and I think he is doing a good job at trying to push for reforms. His efforts strike me as being sincere and aimed more at nation building than politics. If he were the only factor in the mix, I would be heartened and would view the situation optimistically.

However, Zaid is not the only factor nor he is the only player. Neither is the Prime Minister, assuming that he is solidly behind the push for reform. There are those on the cabinet who, in many ways, represent the old guard and for that reason alone may choose to oppose any measure involving acknowledgments of wrongdoing, tacit or otherwise. I note the Deputy Prime Minister’s emphatic rejection of the suggestion that the gesture made by the Government to those judges who were victimized in 1988, was not, repeat, not an apology. This refutation is manifestly inconsistent with Prime Minister’s declaration of a need to make amends. This and the presence on the cabinet of other senior UMNO members who may be nervous about crossing Tun Mahathir, who in these politically treacherous times is now openly acknowledged as being the principal cause of the downfall of the Judiciary, hints worryingly at the possibility that the reform proposals may not gain traction.

The ex-gratia payment and the speech delivered by the Prime Minister fell short of the full vindication that the affected judges, so well versed in the parceling of fault, are deserving off. The payment and speech go someway to beginning a necessary process of truth and reconciliation not only the victims of 1988 but for the Judiciary and the nation. We must credit Zaid and the Prime Minister for that.

Having said that, it must be recognized however that no matter how we characterize the gesture, it in itself does not go far in reforming the Judiciary. Zaid had declared that there were three key aspects to the reform package he was offering Malaysia; the apology, the establishment of a judicial appointments commission and reinstating Article 121(1) of the Federal Constitution to ensure the separation of powers. Of the three, as thing stand, only the first has to an extent become a reality.

The Prime Minister’s declaration that the government proposes the establishment of a judicial appointments commission does not quite hit the mark where the second is concerned, in part because it is for the government to take steps and not to propose. His explanation that this will involve some time as the process has to be worked out is not reassuring in light of the split in ranks within the cabinet. The Prime Minister had in 2005 similarly reassured Malaysians that the IPCMC would be established. We have yet to see it, largely due to resistance from within. The establishment of the National Human Rights Commission (SUHAKAM) took some seven years. If that is what is meant when the Prime Minister says that the process will take time, I am not inspired. I do not know whether Malaysia can take another seven years of the Judiciary in its current state.

The avoidance of any discussion of Article 121(1) in the speech is similarly worrying. The reinstatement of the article as it was prior to 1988 is a crucial step in re-entrenching the separation of powers and re-establishing the judiciary as a bulwark against totalitarian arbitrariness. The Barisan government has time and time again shown us why Malaysians cannot afford to lose the right to seek judicial review. We are largely where we are because the courts felt themselves unable to intervene or, if permitted, were unwilling. The absence of any reference to this key aspect of the discussion further undermines my belief that the Government will actually take concrete steps forward.

Seen from this perspective, it is glaringly evident that the nation is currently caught up in a huge public relations exercise that the Barisan has hinged on the promise of judicial reforms. The public relation campaign does not necessarily of itself lead to the implementation of reforms.

It is for this reason that civil society must keep on pressuring the Government to act and to act decisively. The Pakatan Rakyat should consider tabling a private members bill for the establishment of an adequately empowered judicial appointments commission. All possible avenues to create awareness and force accountability must be explored. The battle has not been won, it has just begun.

Which is why I find the overwhelmingly supportive reaction of the Malaysian Bar somewhat surprising. The Bar has always been at the vanguard of rule of law issues. It has been steadfast in its condemnation of the events of 1988 and the subsequent decline in the quality and integrity of the Judiciary. Nothing less than a full apology and a reinstatement of all benefits of the judges who were wrongly attacked should have warranted the standing ovation given to the Prime Minister. But there was a standing ovation, and that at a dinner hosted by the Bar but paid for by the Government, something I never thought I would see in my lifetime as a lawyer.

The Bar needs to be wary of accommodating, or being perceived as accommodating, the politics of the Executive. It is however veering dangerously close to doing just that and compromising itself in a manner that will rob it of its credibility.

When, and if, the proposal for a judicial appointments commission comes to fruition, the Bar will be the primary voice of civil society to ensure that the commission is established as it should be. In all likelihood, the appointments mechanism will not satisfy the criteria of an independent appointments commission. At that point in time, the Bar must ensure that it is in a position to live up to its responsibilities. Positions it takes now will limit its freedom to react appropriately. Regrettably, the extent of support shown to the Government, from the hosting of the dinner to the adulatory speeches, may have already had their impact.

Commending the Prime Minister for the step taken was the proper thing to do, but to offer, as the media reports suggest, congratulations for the loosening up of controls over the freedom of expression, is to ignore the very real and very painful suppression of the numerous demonstrations of 2007 by force. The shots fired in Pantai Batu Burok still ring out, as do the cries of peaceful marchers and demonstrators as they were tear gassed and attacked with water cannons. The Prime Minister was responsible for all that and more.

I appreciate that activism will require tactical concessions. I also understand that it is better to seize what gains one can when one can rather than not making any progress at all. However, gains should not be taken at the risk of principle. The rule of law cannot be built on compromise.

MIS

A Test For The 'Reform Cabinet'

Concerns have been expressed about proposals made at the conclusion of a seminar organized by the Islamic Institute of Understanding Malaysia (IKIM) and the Syariah Judiciary Department recently. As reported by the media (‘Proposal to prosecute non-Muslims for khalwat’, The Star, 3rd April 2008), these proposals include the prosecution of non-muslim parties to the offence of khalwat, though in the civil courts, increasing the penalties to include whipping for the syariah offences of khalwat, prostitution, consuming alcohol and involvement in gambling activities and the establishment of rehabilitation centres for those convicted of moral and faith offences. Though reference is also made in the media to a proposal concerning apostasy, no details have been given. Judging by the other proposals, it would not be improbable that it proposes the criminalization of apostasy.

In a nutshell, these proposals, formulated as a draft resolution, which is to be submitted to the Attorney General’s Chambers, aim at increasing the role of Islamic law in the public life of Malaysians. As I have said before, in my view, the extent to which Islamic law has been made to be applicable in the public law sphere in Malaysia is not supported by the Federal Constitution. The Constitutional framework envisaged Islamic law being relevant only to the personal law of persons professing the religion of Islam to the extent that the same did not conflict with the fundamental liberties of these individuals. We have however seen how constitutional safeguards have been eroded through judicial pronouncements, a situation which has culminated in a deeply entrenched mindset that the Islamic legal system is legitimately a system of parallel standing to the secular civil law system.

The draft resolution of the seminar reflects this mindset. It is eerily consistent with the statement issued by a coalition of Islamic NGOs shortly before the General Election, one which, in effect, called for the implementation of Islamic State measures.

I do not agree with the correctness of these views. As I have said elsewhere, the Federal Constitution does not envisage the establishment of an Islamic State nor does it allow for the implementation of measures aimed at the articulation of Islamic law in public life. For this to be permitted, the Federal Constitution must be amended. Until this is done, no matter how well intentioned proposals to this effect are, they must remain as just that, proposals.

It is wholly repugnant to any notion of a united, harmonious Malaysia for non-Muslims to be convicted, directly or indirectly, of offences that might rather ambiguously be called Islamic moral or faith offences. In my view, it is equally repugnant to subject Muslims to moral policing. I believe that there is constitutional basis for rejecting the validity of such offences though this remains, as yet, unarticulated in the courts.

The proposals are basis for grave concern for two reasons. Firstly, apart from the questionable legality of the proposals, they are deeply worrying for the fact of whose views they are. In this I do not intend to refer to individuals but rather the agencies involved. IKIM is the government linked agency that is charged with the articulation of Islam Hadhari. The Syariah Judiciary department is the department charged with overseeing the administration of Islamic law through the syariah courts. The resolution that is being submitted could therefore be said to be a resolution of agencies of the Government and are, to that end, potentially of great influence. This state of affairs is not easily reconciled with the declared vision of the Barisan Nasional Federal Government of a progressive and moderate nation. Not only do the proposals smack of ‘talibanism’, they have quite predictably failed to address the more fundamental problems affecting the ummah in Malaysia in their not unusual preference of form over substance.

Secondly, the proposals suggest an intent on the part of the agencies concerned to persist in attempts to perpetuate divisive delineations of race and religion as well as the underlying supremacist positioning. Coming so soon after the devastating results of the General Election, I cannot help but ask whether the proposals are in a way an attempt to up the ante, so to speak, in what is already a very confused state of affairs. Whatever the case, civil society and the political parties must be vigilant in ensuring that responses are measured and tactful. Were they the views of individuals who were in the extremist minority, aggressive responses might not have any serious consequences. These views are however being presented as the views of IKIM and the Syariah Judiciary Department. Responses carry with them the possibility of serious reprisal or repercussions.

As to how this reflects on the Barisan Nasional Federal Government, much will depend on how the Government responds. Civil society is entitled to expect a response. Religious supremacism was one of the key issues in the last General Election and the Adbdullah Badawi administration has promised reforms across the board. This could be one of the first tests of the sincerity of the administration. A failure to respond from a moderate, progressive and constitutional perspective will further convince Malaysians that the Government only pays lip service to notions of unity and harmony.

MIS

Lost In Transition?

My posting "Race And The Poverty Gap" caused some agitation. I tried to clarify and explain my position in my replies to comments made by some of you. I hope that all of you who have not read those comments and replies will take the time and trouble to do so. They are interesting and important for a more nuanced understanding of the issues.

Those of us who want a better Malaysia want change in some form or other. The inadequacies of government, the mismanagement, the corruption are matters that are driven by factors that transcend the racial and religious boundaries.

We all suffer from their impact.

The value of the Ringgit declines as the cost of living increases even as the quality of those state services (for which we pay taxes) that have not been privatised (read: handout to those who benefit from the concessions. Our taxes were invested for the development of the state enterprise that was then sold for a song to the concessionaire. Our taxes were also used to buy back the failing enterprise from the concessionaire. Or will be). If we have a choice, we do not send our children to government schools, we do not get treatment from government hospitals. We try to avoid anything to do with the government service as much as possible. Not only for the guaranteed inefficiency but because many have serious doubts as to the quality of these services.

This was not the case before. Something changed along the way. It may have been less discriminating standards being applied in the enthusiasm of affirmative action. It may have been less concern for safeguards, increasing levels of corruption and the increasingly politicized landscape. Whatever the reason or reasons, things changed. And the BN government allowed for it to happen, perhaps even drove that change for reasons that are not readily apparent.

Things are at a point where Malaysians want an improvement. Some say that the system is so riddled with deeply entrenched problems that only a total change of government will allow for the changes necessary to put us back on track.

At first blush, this is an attractive proposition. It envisages a rebirth, a clean start. And if we were debating for the sake of debating, I could think of many ways to defend the proposition. We are however dealing with a reality that requires a consideration of practicalities. This is not to say that the ideal should not be abandoned; I myself wish for a rebirth. The road to that end must however be laid in such a manner so as to allow us to avoid pitfalls and obstacles.

What are these pitfalls and obstacles. A seeming lack of political will on the part of the Government for reform and the machinery to quell any attempts to mobilise (read:ISA and other anti-democratic laws) is obviously one of the greater difficulties. Leaving that aside for another discussion, I would like you to consider the number of voters that actually embrace the prospect of change as fervently as others might.

For these persons, and I believe the number is significant, change signifies instability. There is a great fear of the uncertainties of a regime change. For them, these uncertainties do matter. And the idea of simply giving the untested a "chance" on the premise that "things could not get any worse" is not attractive simply because things are not that bad in their minds and a revolution would mean chaos.

It is not sufficient to dismiss these views are being self-serving and aimed at perpetuating the benefits these individuals, and those like them, derive from the system. To conclude such one would have to assume that all these individuals are benefiting in this way. I do not think this is the case. Think about the civil servants, professionals and wage earners, many of whom share this view. These groups are made up of persons of diverse racial and religious backgrounds.

For any change, those that share this view must be given basis to feel comfortable with the idea of change. Without the support of these groups, the necessary changes cannot be brought about.

There are two ways of approaching this challenge. One way is to guarantee them that nothing is going to affect their ability to provide for their families, that their security will not be undermined. I will refer to this as the Guarantee Factor.

The other way is to feel that even if there is a period of instability, the gains that will be made, through the improvements or changes that are being promised, will be such that the risk of changes is worth taking. I will call this the Calculated Risk Factor.

The Guarantee Factor requires a belief that the new 'regime' is in a position to do what the old one could not. This is where exposure to those who make up the new, not just through campaign rhetoric, but through coherent planning and, if possible, action. As I have said elsewhere, while we hear a lot from those who make up the Opposition about what is bad with the Government and how it fails us, we hear very little about how the Opposition intends to deal with the issues of governing the pluralist, uneasy compact that Malaysia is. In these circumstances, how is it that those who need assurance are expected to feel that their future would be in good hands.

Running a country is a difficult thing to do. I referred to the solidarity movement in Poland to make the point that despite the idealism of the movement and its incredible influence, when it came to do to running the country, the inexperience of the solidarity government in matters of governance led the nation into significant difficulties from which Poland only of late began to evolve out of in a manner far removed from the socialist utopia that those in the movement dreamed of.

The Calculated Risk Factor requires a similar projection of a future in which the Opposition will play a more significant role. But as I have said already, what material is there on which Malaysians are to form a view.

The lack of seemingly credible alternatives paralyzes, makes people seek refuge in the familiar.

My aim has never been to suggest that the Opposition could not govern, but rather to question the premise of the Opposition's assertion that not only could it, but it could do better. The doubts are compounded not only by the distinct ideologies of the opposition parties (for example, compare and contrast the Islamist ideology of PAS with the the secularist positioning of DAP) and by the fact that the the three primary opposition seem unable to work together. It is not unreasonable for some to conclude that the Opposition is in a state of disarray. Each primary party appeals to its own constituency and suffers the existence of the other. Each is marked with its own distinctive, and some might say doubt causing, features.

This being the scenario, my view is that the Opposition must start taking steps towards addressing these very valid concerns. The value the Opposition holds for Malaysians is its ability, if significantly represented in Parliament, to provide a counter-balance to the exercise of power. An insignificantly represented Opposition has negligible value and allows for power to concentrate absolutely. And, as we all know, absolute power corrupts.

The Opposition must therefore convince voters who do not already support its cause) that it does not intend to destabilize the nation, either directly or indirectly. My sense is that while there is little doubt as to bona fides of the intention of the Opposition (though, having said that, the Islamist and Malay rights positioning of PAS is worrying for many), there is serious concern as to whether the Opposition is paying enough attention to the question of what happens after. One way in which this could be done is to focus on increasing support through the promise of enhanced accountability a stronger Opposition will allow for. This is an approach that does not alienate nor threaten and may allow the necessary transition to rebirth.

Happy holidays to all.

MIS

Forcing Accountability

(Speech delivered at Public Forum on "90 Days After The Auditor General's Report-What Next?" organised by Empower Pusat Janadaya)

90 Days After The Auditor General’s Report: Forcing Accountability

I would like to congratulate Empower for organizing this very important forum this evening. I would also like to thank Empower for having given me an opportunity to share my thoughts with you.

The Auditor General’s Report for the year 2006 is unique not because it details mismanagement of public funds but for the extent of the mismanagement reported. Unlike the reports of previous years that were relatively muted, Malaysians were confronted with an array of damning indictments concerning the way public funds had been misused and wasted. The revelations are shocking, not only for the fact that the wastage pointed to is not easily reconciled with the repeated declarations of budgetary constraints that we hear of even in connection with matters of crucial importance such as education and healthcare, but for the fact that they point to what appears to arbitrariness in the exercise of powers that go far beyond any permissible limits of accountability. These revelations also point to a mindset within government that does not sit easily with any notions of the sustainable development of this nation, an objective that must be a priority when considered against the backdrop of depleting natural resources in particular oil.

The Auditor General must be congratulated for having had the fortitude to issue the report he did.

We hear so much of the three primary organs of the State: the Executive, the Legislature and the Judiciary. And while we tend to think of Parliament as a place of law making, many of us do not necessarily appreciate the crucial role Parliament plays, in theory if not in practice, in controlling the finances of the nation. Chapter 1 of Part VII of the Federal Constitution sets out the framework of parliamentary control. One of the key features of this framework is the office of the Auditor General established by the Constitution itself, by Article 105, and safeguarded by constitutionally entrenched safeguards aimed at allowing for the discharge of a constitutionally mandated function without fear or favour. Seen from this perspective, the Auditor General is not subordinate to any organ of the State. The Auditor General is subordinate only to the Constitution and the law, to the extent the Constitution permits. The reports of the Auditor General as such carry great force and are indisputably decisive of the matters considered in the said reports.

What that means where the 2006 report is concerned is that the shocking revelations are reasons in themselves for the Government to not only act but to act decisively and firmly. The office of the Auditor General being one of high constitutionality, it is both legally as well as morally incumbent upon the Government to take action.

The fact of the report itself is not a matter for which the Government can claim credit. It has been suggested that the fact that the issuance of such a damning report is reflective of the commitment of the current administration to doing the right thing. This could only be correct if the current administration was admitting to having interfered with the auditing process for previous years. If that is not the case, then the credit is entirely the Auditor General’s.

The only credit that the Government could claim to itself would be for having meaningfully acted on the report. This however does not appear to have been the case.
Thus far we have seen, or heard of, very little beyond the usual rhetoric of Government. A grand total of 10 related arrests by the Anti-Corruption Agency have taken place, 8 of civil servants. The civil servants arrested were nowhere near the top of the chain of command so as to justify the fanfare around their arrest. The Prime Minister has, in effect, snubbed the suggestion by the Public Accounts Committee of Parliament that the ACA should go after the “bigger fish”. Leave it to the ACA, the Prime Minister has said. The Prime Minister has apparently overlooked the fact that that the ACA is answerable to the Prime Minister and, as such, an endorsement by the Prime Minister of the suggestion by the PAC would carry great weight.

This state of affairs brings to the fore two crucial and inter-related questions. Does the political will exist for meaningful action to be taken against those responsible for the abuses and mismanagement? And, if political will is lacking, why is this the case?

The state of affairs suggests that there is a great reluctance on the part of the administration to take meaningful action. It is only logical that the person or persons in charge of the various ministries and agencies involved must necessarily be held to account for the wrongdoings of the said ministries or agencies. Being held to account is not necessarily limited to matters of criminality. If there has been neglect or misfeasance, then that is actionable in private law as well. A former Attorney General of Hong Kong was sued by the Government of Hong Kong to recover monies he had misappropriated. Further, legal proceedings are not the only means at the disposal of the Government. Disciplinary measures can be taken. Resignations can be requested.

Sadly, we have heard of no such measures even being considered by the Government, which, it would seem, is satisfied merely with the report itself and the minimal action that has been taken. Even worse, no one has come to the fore to take responsibility of the abuses and no one has been compelled to do so. It would appear that those responsible at the top of the chain of command have absolved themselves, firm in their belief that they will be forgiven. I have no explanation for this apparent belief other than perhaps they are banking on the fact that no one has taken issue in the past and so no one will in the present. Governments have toppled for less in other parts of the world.

We are therefore compelled to consider why the Government has taken such limited measures.

The nature of the mismanagement involves at its essence, serious breaches of trust. The Government, and as such its servants and agents, are trustees of the nation for the rakyat. They are trustees over public funds. These funds belong to the nation. They are not the property of the Government. A mismanagement of these funds is an injury to the nation and to the rakyat. It is a matter of national interest. It therefore defies logic that not only does the Government not appear to be taking any urgent, concrete and meaningful action, it also appears to not want to take such action. Why this is so is a matter of speculation, though Malaysians could not be faulted for drawing inferences. Politics has become the raison d’etre of Government at the expense of governance, it would seem. Institutions, and the processes underlying these institutions have been subverted for vested interest, political or otherwise. The continued refusal by the Government to recognize that the Judiciary is in a state of crisis, and as such the administration of justice and the national interest, serves to illustrate that the Government interest is not necessarily the national or the public interest.

The intentional enshrouding of bureaucratic process through the use of laws such as the Official Secrets Act, the Printing Presses and Publications Act and the Internal Security Act, as well as the seemingly insurmountable levels of officiousness, compound the problem. Malaysians are kept in the dark about, told that they have no right to know of, matters which are crucial to their ability to make informed choices, to decide what they want as Malaysians.

It would appear therefore that to rely on the Government to do what is right and what is best may be a luxury that Malaysians can no longer afford. It is evident that it falls to the rakyat to take the lead. How this is to be achieved is a complex question that calls for us to question ourselves. We must confront the realities of our existence. We must acknowledge that that it is our fault that we have the Government that we do, a Government that believes it can act with impunity no matter the scandal, no matter the revelation. We must decide whether it is safer for us to leave things as they are or whether if we do not start acting responsibly, for ourselves and for our children, it may be too late.

As far as I am concerned, we no longer have the luxury of time. We must act and we must act quickly.

The matters disclosed by the Auditor General and the apparent reluctance of the Government to act meaningfully are, in my view, election issues. Malaysians must show that they have had enough by voting, and voting responsibly, at the next General Election as Malaysians. Not as Chinese, Malay, Indian or other. As Malaysians, concerned for the welfare of their country.

To prime ourselves, we must identify who those responsible are. We must educate ourselves on the issues at hand. NGOs such as Transparency International are on hand to lend assistance in developing the knowledge base necessary for us to take this challenge on. Other civil society groups are poised to act collectively and coherently to spearhead the way. Civil society groups have been exploring citizens’ movement initiatives as a means for effecting change. I would like to believe that these explorations have resulted in a greater insight into the nature of the beast and what it is that we must do to attack it. They have also shown us how crucial it for us to come together as Malaysians to single-mindedly deal with issues of this nature, firm in the belief that the harm we suffer is a collective harm. The BERSIH initiative shows us just how far citizen movements can take us if we have the passion to declare ourselves Malaysians first, above everything else. Mismanagements and abuses of the nature disclosed by the Auditor General recognize no boundaries, be they religious, racial or economic.

We must at the same time find means to call to account those who have occasioned these abuses and those who are charged with the responsibility of acting in the interests of the nation. We must start at the top. Consider the Ministers, the Deputy Ministers, the Director Generals of Ministries. Consider the Prime Minister if we must. As the saying goes, the buck has to stop somewhere. And, as unpleasant as it is to think, it is with these individuals that responsibility lies.

We must embark on what some are referring to as audit activism. If the Government is not prepared to account then let us force an accounting on the Government. It is only through this that we can begin to make inroads into the fortress of in-accountability that has been built on the votes that we gave to the Government.

Malik Imtiaz Sarwar
President, National Human Rights Society, (HAKAM)
13th November, 2007

The Lingam Video: Why A Royal Commission Is The ONLY Way To Go

With so much being said about the video, it is important that we understand why civil society is demanding a Royal Commission.

Investigative Powers

I have written about Royal Commissions (see here). The analysis stands. It would be useful to remind ourselves that a Royal Commission has powers conferred on it by law to take all necessary fact finding steps in order to achieve its purpose. This is important as the Commission would have to otherwise depend on the largesse of parties concerned.

This is an important consideration. The special Investigative Panel has no powers in law to compel the surrendering of documents, the attendance of witnesses and so on.

With raises an interesting question. If the Panel has no investigative powers, then why is the Government insistent on adopting this course of action instead of putting in place a fully empowered Royal Commission. The answer may lie in a consideration of the mandate of the Investigative Panel.

The Mandate

As was confirmed by the Chairman of the Investigative Panel, Tan Sri Haidar, the mandate of the Investigative Panel is ONLY to determine whether the video is authentic (see Malaysiakini report, ‘Is the video authentic? That’s the panel’s ONLY job’).

This is curious for two reasons. Firstly, there is the question of the expertise of the members of the Investigating Panel. It would appear that the question of authenticity is a technical one. We must note that authenticity of video is to be distinguished from the authenticity of the events depicted in the conversation i.e. whether the conversation did take place. It is uncertain whether the Investigative Panel is mandated to look into this aspect as well. Judging from media reports, this does not appear to be the case.

Secondly, to limit the mandate of the Investigative Panel to only determining authenticity appears to be a pre-judgment of the video NOT being authentic. This is because if it were authentic, the implications and ramifications are tremendous and very grave. The Government does not appear to be too concerned with the possibility for were it so, the mandate would have been broader and more all encompassing.

Implications And Ramifications

It would be useful to consider what these are. These include the following:

• At the time of the recording of the video, external parties i.e. other than those constitutionally provided for, were involved in the process of appointment and promotion of judges;
  

• At the time of the recording of the video, the appointment and promotion of judges on the basis of ‘allegiance’, ‘predisposition’ and ‘partisanship’ rather than on competence and independence;
  

• The complicity of the Government in such appointments and promotions;
  

• The possibility of such external interference still occurring and having been made the basis of subsequent appointments and promotions;
  

• The effect of such external interference on decisions in cases before the courts, especially those involving the parties implicated by the video; and
  

• The indirect effect on the culture of the judiciary with regard to the decision making process i.e. the condoning of such interference by the Government being a signal that judges were, and are, free to decide cases on other than a merits basis

The foregoing becomes even more significant when one has regard to the fact that the Chief Justice, Tun Fairuz, has held the position of Chief Judge Malaya, President, Court of Appeal and Chief Justice since the alleged recording of the video. Furthermore, with the much complained delay in appointing the Chief Judge Malaya and President, Court of Appeal with the retirement of Tan Sri Siti Normah and the demise of the late Tan Sri Malik Ahmad, Tun Fairuz was in effect coordinating the activities of all the courts, at all levels. This in turn raises questions about whether:

• External considerations have been involved in how panels of the Court of Appeal (which usually sits in panels of three judges) and the Federal Court (panels of three or five judges) were selected; and
  

• External considerations have been involved in how appeals were scheduled for hearing and which panels they were scheduled before.

If in fact the video is authentic, and Keadilan has indicated that it is, the tentacles have reached deep into the heart of the administration of justice. They still hold it in their grasp.

It is for this reason that a suitably empowered AND independent Enquiry Panel is crucial to ensure that the truth is revealed.

Semblance Of Independence

It is not sufficient that the matter is investigated independently. It is crucial that the investigative process is seen to be investigated independently. There are several dimensions to this:

The Investigative Panel is appointed by the Government. The Government is implicated and CANNOT be involved in the investigation. It is not enough that the Government declares that the Investigative Panel will be left to do what it has to do. The mere fact of an association with the Government already undermines the process. The aim is to restore public confidence in the Judiciary. The public will not be confident if the Government is involved. A Royal Commission is sufficiently independent of the Government for this purpose

The members of the Investigative Panel must also not be seen to be connected with the Government or any of the parties seeming involved in the matters arising from the video. Both Tan Sri Haidar and Tan Sri Lee Lam Thye are in one way or the other associated with the Government or Tun Mahathir (who has also been implicated by the video). This is not to question their integrity but rather to point to th distinct possibility of their decisions being questioned one way or the other.

The Appropriate Mandate

For the reasons set out above, only a Royal Commission would suffice. Additionally, the mandate of the Royal Commission must address the question of the authenticity of the video AND the implications and ramifications.

The People’s Parliament Petition

The Petition to the DYMM Yang Dipertuan Agong by the People’s Parliament has been structured to address the matters discussed. It is imperative that the Petition be supported. Please sign up if you have not done so already. Every signature counts.

MIS

Of Flag Burning And Trampled Constitutions

In what has come to be seen by many of us as standard operating procedure, the authorities and Barisan Nasional MPs have sought to divert attention from the core issues of the events at Pantai Batu Buruk, the refusal/rejection of a permit for a peaceful gathering for legitimate purpose, the possible deployment of agent provocateurs and the questionable shooting of unarmed persons. This time, the focus is the burning of the Malaysian flag during the ensuing melee (see, for instance, Anger Over Burning Of Jalur Gemilang, The Star).

Thus far we have heard justification after justification from the authorities as to their actions at Pantai Batu Buruk. The version of events presented by the police appears absolute, if only for the fact that its version has been stated unequivocally. This is surprising in light of the varying accounts of what transpired, in particular as to the shooting. An apparent eye-witness has made statements to the effect that the police officer was shooting over his shoulder as he was running away from a group of unarmed individuals (see here). This contrasts with the description by the Chief of Police, Trengganu of the shooting as having been in self-defence by a police officer who had fallen to ground and was in fear of his life.

We have not heard of a firm commitment from the authorities that an independent and impartial investigation into the event and its causes will be conducted in a transparent manner. We have heard instead of SUHAKAM initiating a fact-finding mission. Some of the rakyat are calling for a Royal Commission. Whatever the case, it is manifest that an impartial and transparent enquiry is essential.

What I fail to see is how and where flag burning fits into all of this. Prosecuting the perpetrator (or perpetrators) does not address the core issues identified above. It does not address the endless complaints about the unnecessary use of force and excessive use of force by the police nor the unconstitutional requirement of a police permit for peaceable public gatherings. It does not in any way address the injuries, both physical and legal, of the victims of the shootings or the others who were injured by use of force when none was required.

And, as to the flag burning itself, though many of us would view the burning as a desecration of the flag and an a highly offensive act we should take a step back and attempt to see whether there is an alternative dimension. I do not mean to refer to the possibility of agent provocateurs having burnt the flag to agitate reactions. I refer instead to the possibility that the flag was burnt as an expression of rejection of the Government for it having abandoned the ideals that Malaysia represents to us all: freedom, justice and equality. Let me expand on this.

The Malayan flag came into existence when Malaya gained independence in 1957. In 1963, with a variation to reflect the entry of Sabah and Sarawak, the Malaysian flag was flown. Farish Noor has written an interesting explanation as to how and why we came to have our very own version of the Stars and Stripes. I can do no better than to refer you to his article, Our Other Flag That Never Was.

Like the Federal Constitution and the national song, Negaraku, the flag was a symbol of the basis of our commitment to self-rule. Malayans saw before them a glorious future in which each of them would have, to quote the Raja Muda of Perak, their "place in the sun". The understood these symbols to represent the commitment of the Government of the day, and all Governments that were to follow, to protect and ensure that glorious future through a strong adherence to the Rule of Law and the fundamental assumptions of democracy: freedom, justice and equality.

I agree that no one can claim rights to the flag. This however has ramification. It means that in as much as an individual cannot claim the flag as his own to do as he or she pleases, neither can the Government. The Malaysian flag, flying as it does over Putrajaya, does not act as a magical prism through which the actions of Government are miraculously justified. Each and every action of the Government must be examined on its own merits. Similarly, flying a Malaysian flag does not symbolize support to the Government.

Our Government however takes a different view. Allegiance to the flag is allegiance to the Barisan Nasional. Patritorism is measured by allegiance to the Barisan Nasional Government (how else can one begin to understand the aku-janji that academics have been asked to sign?). The rhetoric around the flag, and the presumption on the part of the BN government to the effect that ‘BN is the country’ reflects this. It is worth remembering that the term ‘Jalur Gemilang’ only became the official name of the flag in 1997 during the 40th year celebrations.

Having taken and projected that position, it is not surprising that in the minds of some a desecration of the flag can reasonably be interpreted as a rejection of the government of the day and all it stands for. There is absolutely nothing wrong with declaring the view that Government of the day deserves no support. The million dollar question is whether burning the flag as a means of expressing it is acceptable in law.

Fundamental liberties or freedoms mean nothing if they are upheld only when convenient or when it is popular to do so. Freedoms are freedoms because they ensure the means to the kind of life that each of us uniquely aspires to. Defining freedoms by reference to popularity rather than the need to ensure the crystallizing of the unique aspiration is a sure means to tyranny in one form or the other and the destruction of liberty. As Bertrand Russell observed in an essay entitled What Is Freedom? (1952), the “only kind of freedom which is undesirable is that which diminished the freedom of others”.

The freedom of expression is guaranteed under the Federal Constitution (Article 10) in these terms: every citizen has the right to freedom of speech and expression. The word ‘expression’ is not defined but case law from the Common Law world includes expression other than by speech (which is why the guarantee in Article 10 makes a distinction between ‘speech’ and ‘expression’. Flag burning has been declared by the US Supreme Court to be a legitimate form of expression (see US v Eichman (1990) and Texas v Johnson (1989) in striking down anti-burning legislation.

Needless to say, ‘expression’ is not limited to expression that is popular. As the majority in Eichman observed:

“While flag desecration - like virulent ethnic and religious epithets, vulgar repudiations of the draft, and scurrilous caricatures - is deeply offensive to many, the Government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.”

The rationale of the observation is pithily declared by Voltaire’s oft quoted sentiment, ‘I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.’

Were it to be otherwise, then the UMNO supremacist posturing we hear each year would not be permissible. The posturing would be a slur against the freedoms and equality guaranteed by the Federal Constitution. Similarly, the use of ‘kafir’ rhetoric by PAS would similarly be unacceptable. We must not lose sight of the fact that the freedom, and the lack thereof, manifests in our lives in so many different ways. Human rights are indivisible.

And as for the flag burning, should we not be more concerned with the fact that the ideals embodied by the Federal Constitution, in as much as they are symbolized by the flag and the national song, are being trampled on by those who have stewardship of this nation?

All actions must be measured by the same yardstick. That is the essence of democracy. And that is what the Malaysian flag symbolizes.

MIS

Vote For Change

There is a remarkable effort underway to reclaim Malaysia for its citizens. Conventional race-based politics have left many of crippled, especially in our "first past the post" electoral system. The problems affecting us are many but most, if not all of them, stem from the fact that Malaysians vote on race or political parties rather than on issues. As such, many critical issues have been left unaddressed or have been exarcebated by a political system aimed at ensuring status quo rather than dealing with the evolution of Malaysia.

'The Peoples' Parliament' is an initiative aimed at breaking convention. It is aimed at ensuring that legislators act responsibly as they must in a government by the people, for the people. It is aimed at ensuring that legislators represent the interests of the rakyat as they should rather than the interests of their particular political parties, opposition or government. A fantasy? Go here to see for yourself whether we can make this dream, a Malaysian dream, the reality that it should be.

Vote for change. We owe it to ourselves.

MIS

PS Watch this space for Project Malaysia: An Experiment In Nation Building