Thoughts On Democracy

Democracy allows each and everyone of us the freedom to reach out and achieve our ambitions, to live our lives to the fullest in our own unique way. We should be able to do this because of everyone else around us, and not despite them.

Article 11 Meets Select Committee On National Unity

'Article 11', the coalition of NGOs was invited by the Parliamentary Select Committee On National Unity to make representations before the Committee on 6th August 2007. The coalition attended and made representations through Zainah Anwar and myself. A statement was submitted. The full text appears below.

Statement By “Article 11”
Hearing By Parliamentary Select Committee On National Unity (06.08.2007)

Article 11’s position from the outset, as has been the case for the civil society organisations that make up the coalition, has been the position declared by HRH The Regent Of Perak as reported in the media on 6th August 2007.

This position is:

• that the Federal Constitution is the supreme law of the land. All laws, state actions and policies are to be tested against the Constitution. If they contravene the Constitution, these laws, actions and policies are void;

• Malaysia is not an Islamic State. Our Constitution and a binding decision of the Supreme Court have rejected any such notion. The public, and as such the governing, law of this country is law premised on universal values equally cherished and applicable to all; and

• The Rule of Law is essential to the continued progress and development of this Country. The Rule of Law must be blind to ethnic and religious influences. The special status of Malays, natives of Sabah and Sarawak and the place of Islam in the Federation have, and should have, no bearing on the Rule of Law. The laws of Malaysia must serve all Malaysians.
  

Article 11 was and is concerned that:

• the 3 points stated above have not been fully appreciated by those charged with responsibility amongst us. There has, sadly, been an undermining of the Rule of Law in a series of actions and decisions of the Court that have run counter to the letter and spirit of the Federal Constitution including:

1. the case of Kaliammah, the widow of the late P Moorthy;
2. the case of Lina Joy; and
3. the case of Subashini.

• These decisions have not only resulted in injustice to the parties concerned but have also laid down precedents which have created deep rifts in society. The fact that these decisions have been justified by reference to the Constitution makes the situation more alarming. It points to:

1. a state of affairs where the aspirations of some, in particular the aspiration for a greater role for what some perceive as precepts of Islam in public life, have become a reality through processes which are not constitutional or even legal;
2. these unconstitutional processes include:
   

• the irresponsible and reckless declarations by some quarters as to Malaysia being an Islamic State despite this not being the case and the stifling of free debate over such declarations (This should be compared and contrasted to the approach taken by the Government in 1988 when the then Chief Justice was removed on the following ground:

(charge 4) - Your attempt to restate the law generally along Islamic legal principles ignores the character of Malaysian society as one which is multi-religious and multi-racial with cultural differences. No responsible Government can allow the postulation of such views by the Head of the Judiciary without cause for consternation among its non-Muslim population. Furthermore your statement violates established principles of judicial interpretation widely accepted in the courts of Malaysia and in the Commonwealth.;

• the re-writing of history to attempt to justify claims, for political reason or otherwise, that Malaysia is an Islamic State and a greater role for the perceived precepts of Islam in public life including declarations to the effect that this nation was founded by Muslims (consider the Government response to a written query by SUHAKAM as to Malaysia being an Islamic State, (published in SUHAKAM Annual Report 2003, pp 285-286) in which the following points were made);

o the nation was founded by Muslims;

o the Head of the Nation is a, and the government is in the hands of, Muslim(s);

o the majority of its citizenry are Muslims and most of their cultural and social elements are influenced by the culture of Islam;

o the Islamic umah (in Malaysia) is free to abide by Islamic Law (‘Syariat Islam’), and are even supported in this regard by the Government;

o systems to increase religious observance of ‘munakahat’ (religious rules pertaining to marriage) and ‘muamalat’ (rules pertaining to societal issues) are implemented all over the nation;

o Islamic education is taught from primary school to institution of tertiary education level and its quality are continuously being improved;

o The existence of Sharia courts and Sharia laws; and

o The existence of other Islamic institutions which expand the greatness of Islam.

• continued use of divisive labels such as ‘Islamic State’ and the emphasis on the greater role of the precepts of Islam without regard to the sensitivities of all concerned communities nor of the ‘policy’ positions such declaration will take in the minds of lower ranking bureaucrats and administrators. Bearing in mind the close link between ethnicity and religion for the Malays, and the prevalence of Malays in the public administration, this has resulted in discriminatory practices that run counter to any notions of unity and equality. This takes on particular significance in the face of assertions of ‘Ketuanan Melayu’; • as a consequence of the foregoing, or otherwise, this has resulted in an increasing defiance of the Constitution and oaths to uphold the Constitution by public administrators;

• the use of inflammatory language and religious incitement has not been adequately curtailed. Conversely, they have been allowed to shape government response to the subject of such language and incitement. Illustrating this is the directive to Article 11 to desist in its efforts to promote the Constitution and constitutionalism as a consequence of hostile and untruthful distortions that were given validity through State action. It is significant that much of what Article 11 stated or sought to state was given prominence on the front page of the New Straits Times on 06.08.2007 when declared by HRH The Regent of Perak;

It is imperative therefore that:

• all State actors be made to appreciate that the Constitution is the supreme law;

• the supremacy of the Constitution be reaffirmed;

• mechanisms be put in place that ensure the appointment of persons to public office who are qualified and competent to discharge their functions and duties in a manner contemplated by the Constitution. The lack of such individuals in the public administration has been a key factor in the process that has led us to where we are as a nation. This can be corrected as long as there is adequate political will; and

• the Attorney General’s Chambers be called upon to determine the state of affairs and make such recommendations as are necessary to strengthen the existing Constitutional structures if there is a need for the same. Such deliberations must be made public and be conducted in conjunction with civil society to ensure that all interests are taken into consideration. It is disconcerting to note that as of late the AG’s Chambers appears to have been at the vanguard of a push towards Islamisation. This is illustrated by the fact that the web-site declares as a mission statement the efforts of chambers to ensure that all civil laws are syariah compliant.

Article 11 wishes to express its gratitude for the opportunity afforded to it to present its views and to make representations. Article 11 also wishes to reaffirm its commitment to nation building and the Federal Constitution in light of the call by HRH The Regent Of Perak that civil society stands up and be counted.

***

MIS

Not Just A Matter Of Labels

Secular State, Islamic State, Muslim Country. I have been asked why be concerned over what we call ourselves. After all, does political rhetoric really have an impact on our lives?

I think there are two primary reasons why what we call ourselves is important and does have an impact.


The Undermining Of The Rule Of Law

Firstly, our democratic institutions are weak. In theory, the primary organs of state - the Executive, the Legislature, the Judiciary, the Attorney General, the Auditor General - are meant to operate independently and in constant supervision of the other organs. This process is what we refer to as the process of 'check and balance'. The independence which underpins is the 'separation of powers'.

The reality is that the separation of powers in Malaysia is illusory. The Government controls more than 90% of Parliament. In this way, the Executive controls Parliament. An attempt to suborn the Judiciary to Parliament was made in 1988 when the Constitution was amended to remove the entrenched power of the Judiciary to review executive action by limiting the jurisdiction of the High Court to matters vested in it by Federal Law. Leaving aside the constitutionality of the amendment and its effect, the popular notion, even within the Judiciary, is that there is Parliamentary Supremacy (as opposed to Constitutional Supremacy) in Malaysia.

Additionally, as I have previously written, the Prime Minister ultimately decides the appointment of judges (respect of the decisions of the Conference of Rulers could be argued as being a convention rather than a legal obligation). In this way, it could be said that the Executive controls the Judiciary and those who are appointed or promoted may, for one reason or the other, not necessarily be the most qualified or most capable. Seen from this perspective, there is in effect no check and balance. It could be said that the nation is in effect ruled by dictate or decree. Perhaps this is why the mainstream media is fixated on the views of the Prime Minister on almost everything and also why the wishes of the leadership elite is often seen as having force of law.

The foregoing is further complicated by a 'ketuanan melayu' policy articulated through an aggressive policy of affirmative action in favour of the majority Malay community and a close linkage between the Malay ethnicity and Islam. It is a truth that the civil service and the Judiciary is predominantly Malay who are, in turn, Muslim.

As more recent history has shown, this has allowed for a translation of the ambiguous statements of the leadership, particularly where Islam is concerned, into a belief on the part of administrators and bureaucrats that Islam, and as such its administrators, has a role to play in the governance of this country and has a more 'superior' role than other religions or faiths. This belief is given further foundation by the policy dictates that are seen to be conveyed by declarations that Malaysia is an Islamic State.

This has several implications. For one, it results in attempts to reinterpret law to make it more Islamic compliant. This is wrong in light of the understanding underlying the Fedeal Constitution. As has been judicially recognised, the founding fathers put in place a constitutional democracy in which public law was not meant to be predicated on any one religion.

Additionally, though it is often argued that Islam espouses universal values, in practice this is not necessarily the case. The practical Islam that we have been exposed to in Malaysia is one which is unforgiving and premised on punishment. The Islamic administration in this country seems more focused on form than substance.

Further, for administrative convenience and the ease of enforcement only selective versions of Islamic precepts determined to be acceptable are apermitted to become the basis of Muslim practice. In this way, we have seen a codification of a narrower swathe of Islam than the diversity of the religion itself contemplates. The Islamic law in this country is premised on the shafii madzhab or school (within the Sunni grouping) even though there is nothing objectionable about the other madzhabs. The Imams that founded these madzhabs were careful to ensure that their teachings did not become definitive. This appears to have been forgotten in our rush towards building, albeit on the quiet, an Islamic State.

In this context, a crucial question is who defines Islam for the purpose of reinterpretation of law and the development of an 'Islamic' policy. The monopoly over Islam potentially hurts Muslims as much as it does non-Muslims. The freedom of Muslims themselves to delve into God given diversity is in this way compromised.

The net effect is one where the Rule of Law is undermined resulting in the kind of controversies we have seen these last few years. No matter how you analyse and characterise these controversies, the painful truth is that injustices have been occasioned, more usually in the name of Islam.


Whither Unity

Secondly, labels are divisive. They exclude in as much as they include. One would have thought that as this nation turned 50 we would no longer be struggling with forging a national identity and that we would be striving as one nation.

Sadly, this is not the case and it is not difficult to see why. Continued emphasis on race and religion have led to alienation. They have also, riding on the back of the aggressive affirmative action campaign launched in 1969, created a context in which discrimination has become the norm in a way not countenanced by the Constitution. As I have said elsewhere, as long as article 153 of the Constitution remains in force I will recognise it as the law and for that reason accept the special status of Malaysa and the natives of Sabah and Sarawak. But the NEP and its successor policies has gone far beyond the contemplation of those who drafted article 153.

The extended campaign has also created a privilege rather than special right attitude amongst the Malay community (I am generalising). This attitude is fueled for political reason to an extent that many cannot see an inconsistency between the affirmative action policy and the universality required by Islam. The truth is that many non-Malay Muslims do not qualify for special privileges simply because they are not Malay.

In this murkiness, labels do have an impact. They fuel resentments, they entrench further the belief amongst that while all are equal, some are more equal than others. So, even if there is value in labels such as Islamic State, does this value outweigh the more pressing need to ensure that all of us feel like we have our rightful and equal place in this country? I think not.

MIS

Concern For Nathaniel Tan

I am concerned about the arrest and remand of Nathaniel Tan. Media reports suggest that he has been arrested in connection with an offence under section 8 of the Official Secrets Act, or the OSA. If this is true, then the Government must take immediate steps to ensure that Nathaniel Tan is immediately released.

For this, it would be useful for us to get a grasp of what the OSA, and in particular section 8, concerns.

As it was originally drafted, the OSA was a law aimed at allowing the Federal and State governments to take measures to ensure that highly sensitive information pertaining to matters of national security could be maintained confidential. The objective was to allow those charged with the security of the country to keep such information away from those who would use this information adversely.

For this reason, as it was originally drafted the OSA allowed for the classification of a very narrow class of documents pertaining to military installations, military prisons and other matters related to state security.

The OSA was amended in 1987 to expand the scope of information that amounted to an ‘official secret’. Since then information so defined include information in the following categories:

• Cabinet documents, records of decisions and deliberations including those of Cabinet committees;
• State Executive Council documents, records of decisions and deliberations including those of State Executive Council committees;
• Documents concerning national security, defence and international relations.
• any information and material relating to the 3 categories set out above and any other official document, information and material as may be classified as "Top Secret", "Secret", "Confidential" or "Restricted", as the case may be, by a Minister, the Menteri Besar or Chief Minister of a State or such public officer appointed
  

The government may add to the first three categories by simply gazetting the variations. This allows for additions outside parliamentary scrutiny and process.

Section 8 of the OSA is one of the main sections of the Act. It sets out offences against the Act in the widest terms. It would be best to reproduce the relevant parts here:


8. Wrongful communication, etc. of official secret.

(1) If any person having in his possession or control any official secret which -
…
(c) has been made or obtained in contravention of this Act;
…
does any of the following -


(iii) retains in his possession or control any such thing as aforesaid when he has no right to retain it, or when it is contrary to his duty to retain it, or fails to comply with all lawful directions issued by lawful authority with regard to the return or disposal thereof; or

he shall be guilty of an offence punishable with imprisonment for a term not less than one year but not exceeding seven years.

(2) If any person receives any official secret or any secret official code word, countersign or password knowing or having reasonable ground to believe at the time when he receives it, that the official secret, code word, countersign or password is communicated to him in contravention of this Act, he shall, unless he proves that the communication to him of the official secret, code word, countersign or password was contrary to his desire, be guilty of an offence punishable with imprisonment for a term not less than one year but not exceeding seven years.


As one can see, the provision puts almost any activist involved in efforts to improve socio-political conditions in Malaysia in a ‘damned if you do, and damned if you don’t’ place.

The OSA is unconstitutional. In its current form, it violates a range of fundamental liberties guaranteed by the Federal Constitution. Chief amongst these is the freedom of expression, and the associated freedom of information. Seen from the perspective of allowing arbitrary government, the OSA violates the equal protection and equal access to the law guarantees as well as undermining the fair and free elections underpinnings of our system of government.

The OSA in its current form allows for a government to administer this country covertly and in defiance of the accountability and transparency that is crucial to democratic process. This impacts on all our lives in more ways that we can begin to understand as the government is given a means to thwart legitimate public interest by the forced suppression of material and relevant information. The position taken by the government in connection with the disclosure of toll concession agreements illustrates this worrying trend.

The OSA as it is also violates international human rights norms and runs counter to representations made by our government at the international level about the state of play in this country where civil and political rights are concerned. Malaysia is a current member of the United Nations Human Rights Council. It must act in a manner consistent with its membership.

These are not my views alone. The OSA has been widely condemned (see here for a comprehensive analysis of the Act by Human Rights Watch).

In view of the above, short of repealing the OSA or amending it to neturalise the contraventions of constitutional guarantees and international human rights norms, no charge or charges should be made out against any person under the OSA. Such an act would run counter to the promises of transparency and accountability of the current administration under Abdullah Badawi.

The move against Nathaniel Tan is particularly worrying in light of indications in the media that the investigations are being carried out in connection with concerns about matters published in blogs. In a previous posting, I had explained how vital blogging is to nation building efforts.

MIS

Article 11: Alive And Kicking

Article 11, the coalition, launched its video series today. The videos are aimed at clearing the air about what the coalition stands for and what its objectives are. At the moment, there are 3 videos: a dialogue in English with key coalitions members, a dialogue in Malay with other key members and a dialogue (in Malay) about the role of Islam in governance. The videos will be available for viewing shortly on prominent internet portals and sites. For further details, please go to www.article11.org. The website also has an FAQ about the coalition and its activities.

It is worth underscoring that Article 11 stands for what all of us as Malaysians should be standing for. A just and compassionate society in which the interests of all are equally protected through an unbiased and objective adherence to the Rule of Law. For those of you who have doubts, let me set out here the mission and objective of Article 11 (as is set out in its website):

“Mission Statement

Our mission is to ensure a Malaysia that:

• upholds the supremacy of the Federal Constitution;
• protects every person equally, regardless of religion, race, descent, place of birth or gender; and
• is firmly established in, and upholds, the rule of law.
  

Objectives

We aim to promote awareness towards, advocate for, and contribute to achieving a Malaysia where all Malaysians in our daily lives:

1. affirm the Federal Constitution as the supreme law of the land;
2. strive to build national unity;
3. affirm the right of every person to full and adequate access to justice;
4. recognise the need for a judiciary that is impartial, independent and an equal arm of the government;
5. recognise that the Federal Constitution embodies an agreement among the various communities;
6. respect the Constitutional guarantees of equal protection for every person in a multi-racial, multi-religious Malaysia;
7. seek to protect fundamental liberties for all;
8. respect the freedom of thought, conscience, belief and religion of every person; and
9. ensure that Malaysia does not become a theocratic state.”
   

The mission and objectives of Article 11 are not inconsistent with Islam. On the contrary, they go far in attempting to ensure that the core Islamic values of justice and righteousness are adhered to and applied. How is it Islamic to leave any person – muslim or otherwise – without recourse? How is it Islamic to apply the law tactically to deprive a person of legitimate rights of access to justice? Islam does not only offer justice and fairness to Muslims. It does not create a monopoly over these values for Muslims. Any suggestion to the contrary is an insult to the religion. Any application of the law to that end misrepresents Islam as a religion that enjoins unfairness, injustice and oppression.

Article 11 promotes the Constitution. In doing so, it accepts the Constitutional declaration that “Islam is the religion of the Federation” (Article 3(1)). It also accepts the Constitutional declaration that “all other religions may be practiced in peace and harmony” (Article 3(1)). There have been many lies about the coalition and its supposed efforts to reject Islam as the religion of Federation. I question the motives of those who have misrepresented the efforts of the coalition. I challenge them to prove that Article 11 has done what it is they say.

It is the Constitution that protects us all, Muslims or otherwise. It is the Constitution that guarantees Muslims the freedom to be Muslims. It is the Constitution that guarantees a Malay Muslim the freedom to practice Islam in the way a Shafee Muslims would. It is the Constitution that allows a Malay Muslim to reject any compulsion to practice Islam other than as a Shafee. But if one accepts that along with the madzhab Shafee, there are other recognized schools of thought, or madzhabs, within the Sunni grouping of Muslims, we must also recognize that the Constitution equally protects the rights of Muslims to practice Islam in accordance with the principles declared by these other madzhabs. Muslims from the Indian sub-continent are more usually Hanafis.

Islam cherishes diversity. In our uniqueness as humans, diverse as we are, we celebrate the Creator. Islam is not monolithic. To attempt to define Islam in a limiting way is to attempt to limit God.

The Constitution protects that diversity. Not only within the religion of Islam but also outside it. It protects the rights of all persons in religion, faith and conscience. It guarantees that all of us are equal in law and before the law; that no one can be discriminated against on grounds of ethnicity, religion and gender. In this way justice is ensured for all. And just because the Constitution is not replete with Islamic terminology, this is no reason to condemn it as being unIslamic or anti-Islamic. Labels only go to form. More importantly, justice is not justice unless it is seen as being impartial. Fairness cannot be created from bias, in fact or in perception. Justice must not only be done but must be seen to be done. The Constitution exemplifies this principle.

So, I believe that in promoting the Constitution and the objective, detached justice it offers to us all, Article 11 is in fact promoting the universality that is an essential aspect of all faiths, religions and ways of life, including Islam.

And that is why it continues with its efforts to highlight those very disturbing trends that have developed in recent times. Can you blame Article 11 for doing so? I think not. To turn its back on the issue would mean turning its back on the very unjust and unfair treatment of individuals such as the widow of Murthi, Shamala, more recently Subashini and all those in similar positions.

The reality is that these individuals have been wronged by a system that was conceived to protect individuals like them but which has been misapplied to contrary ends in recent times. They have been treated unfairly and oppressively. Regretfully, Islam (as represented by the syariah courts and their purportedly exclusive jurisdiction) has been invoked to justify the treatment of these individuals and others like them. In this way, Islam is being given a bad name

The situation that has developed is a grave one. It is a situation that is dividing the nation more and more as the flaws in reasoning get more entrenched. I say flaws because the Murthi or Shamala or Subashini scenario is a recent one. We have been independent since 1957 and Article 121(1A) - the Constitutional provision that introduced the jurisdictional divide between civil and syariah courts - came into play in 1988. One would have thought that the problems would have surfaced much earlier. They did not. Shamala, the first in the series as far as I know, came to court only in 2004.

Why now and not before?

This is what Article 11 has been attempting to grapple with and highlight. If the system worked before, then something must be wrong with the way it is being applied now. The resultant injustice is reason enough for all of us to study the situation and attempt to solve it. Recent developments are tearing apart this nation, ironically in the name of the Constitution.

In this way, the efforts of Article 11 are aimed at ensuring that this country remains united and that the assurance of the Prime Minister of “1 county, 1 system” is borne out.

Article 11 is a nation building effort. It is an effort which all of us should align with. It is not an effort that belongs to the organizations and individuals behind the coalition. It is an effort that all of us are stakeholders in.

Help Article 11. Help Malaysia. Disseminate correct information about the initiative, consider the issues it is dealing with, communicate your understanding to others. The situation developing is serious enough for all of us to be concerned about, irrespective of faith.

MIS

Defamation And The Blogger

Defamation Proceedings

There is a fallacy that needs to be addressed. Blogging on the internet is not immune from legal process. Like other publications on the internet if a blog publishes defamatory material the blogger responsible for the publication, and even the host of the blog, can be subjected to defamation proceedings.

I believe that Dr Mahathir’s promise of internet freedom could only be taken as being a promise that the Administration would not restrict internet freedom. Based on this promise, Malaysians could reasonably expect that no criminal proceedings are brought against persons publishing on the internet and that no steps will be taken which have the effect of impeding free access to the internet.

I do not believe that Dr Mahathir’s promise was a licence for bloggers to publish material in a reckless and irresponsible manner. You can imagine the extensive damage that could be done if this were the case. For as many bloggers who publish responsibly there are that many more who do not, hiding behind their anonymity and their mistaken belief in immunity. Their attacks on the reputations of individuals and businesses do have an impact and it will sometimes be necessary for those who have been attacked to take steps to vindicate themselves.

This is at the heart of defamation proceedings, the desire to clear one’s reputation and achieve vindication. In more traditional systems, such as in the UK and Malaysia, an award of damages is seen as being the best means of vindication. The award is intended to represent to the world at large the inaccuracy and lack of truth in the offending statements. They are also intended to deter, through a ‘chilling effect’, publications of a similar nature. The courts do not order the publication of an apology, the failure to voluntarily do so by the wrongdoer when asked being one of the factors taken into consideration in quantifying damages. In other systems, such as in Germany, the courts do order the publication of an apology.

Seen from this vantage, those who sue for defamation cannot be faulted for so doing where there is legitimate basis. We have heard of and seen how defamation proceedings have been invoked as means of pressure and intimidation, the complaint most commonly being made with regard defamation proceedings in Singapore. Where done with that intent, the proceedings could be said to have been brought for collateral purpose and despite the plausible legal basis for doing so, could be seen as being ‘less legitimate’. This too is a factor that the court can take into consideration where damages are concerned.


Blogging And Nation Building

However, in the Malaysia context, the analysis should not end there. I believe that there is a social and moral dimension to the discussion. This dimension is founded on the crucial role that blogging plays in socio-political Malaysia and in nation building efforts. There are several ways this can be approached.

First, the reality is that press freedom in Malaysia is limited. The need for permits and the threats of closure and prosecution are not conducive, even where there is editorial will for freer publication. As such, information is available to the public on a limited and ‘structured’ basis. Responsible blogging allows for gaps in information to be filled and the establishment of a more informed polity. In this vein some blogs have, in a manner of speaking, become alternative journalistic institutions. There are of course numerous other blogs that are purely of a personal nature and do not fit into the scheme of things as outlined here.

Second, we cannot deny that the fact that Malaysians having had to exist in a ‘climate of fear’ since, at the very least, 1987 has resulted in an inability on the part of many Malaysians to engage in critical and constructive of analysis on topical issues. The ‘de-education’ of Malaysians by the education system has worsened this state of affairs. The democratic space that blogs open up and the education in logic, critical analysis and constructive dialogue are invaluable.

Third, we similarly cannot deny that race politics and its consequences has also caused a continuing brain-drain. This has seriously undermined the quality of the views expressed and allowed for the insulation of an Administration that is clearly not the best qualified for that role. The blogs have allowed for an involvement of Malaysians living abroad and a harnessing of their views.


Competing Interests

Keeping the foregoing in mind, it becomes apparent that where suits are brought against blogs that are recognized as playing a crucial role in nation building, then it is the nation building process itself that is being threatened.

Having said that, from time to time, as with all publications, offence will be caused. Aggrieved persons will have rights of action and will be legally entitled to recourse and vindication. This points to a need on the part of bloggers to be more responsible and professional in the way material is published.

Equally however, the evolution of the Malaysian blogsphere and the crucial roles that blogs and bloggers play point to a need for greater appreciation of how vital they are for nation building. I do not think I am overstating things when I say that Malaysia is in a state of crisis, politically and economically. The freedom to access information is more vital than ever.

As such, I believe that a balance has to be struck between these two competing interests; personal reputation and integrity on the one hand, and nation building on the other. We cannot lose sight that in as much as vindication may be achieved, the chilling effect may have far wider, and unintended consequences.

MIS