Some years ago, my friend interviewed a local graduate for pupilage. The interviewee spoke flawless Bahasa Malaysia. He carried himself well and answered all my friend’s questions confidently. Until, of course, my friend started speaking English. He asked the interviewee, “Why did you read law???? The interviewee looked into my friend’s eyes for a moment and appeared to be in deep thought. Finally he said, “Because I want pass my exam.???
I have been labelled anti this and that. Apparently, I am also pro this and that, or the other. As such, I am going to begin this article with a disclaimer, just as all accountants do on their reports. This article contains my interpretation of the relevant Constitutional provisions in respect of the “rights??? of the Malays. And please read the next sentence real slowly. It is not intended to question anything, whether rights or otherwise, belonging to anybody, regardless of his or her race, faith or political leaning.
Civil societies advocates today gained a significant victory in the Federal Court in the case involving the appeal by the Home Minister against the release of Raja Petra Kamaruddin from his ISA detention.
Briefly, the Federal Court today declared that the last sitting of the Federal Court which heard and dismissed four applications (motions) by RPK was not properly convened. Consequently, the Federal Court today set aside all orders made on the said motions.
In order to appreciate the significance of today's order, allow me to give a chronology of events.
And so, it needs no further proof that political assemblies could churn out rationalities which could sit anywhere between the state of burlesque and the city of grotesque. Just look at the recently concluded PAS muktamar.
Apparently in Malaysia, no political assembly could be completed — and probably regarded as meaningful — without the usual mega important gimmick or resolution. In Malaysian politics, perhaps the two are even one and the same. Hence the unsheathing of the keris and the subsequent kissing of it during the Umno general assembly. That was the gimmick. That was to be followed by the usual we-are-the-Malays-and-we-have-our-rights-and-don’t-challenge-us-or-else-we-would-run-amok rants. That was the resolution. After that, everybody had tea and curry puffs and went home.
In image building, it is good to have a concept. But the trouble with having a concept is that the concept should be followed up with or backed by a blueprinted plan to achieve whatever is set out to be achieved by the concept. It must be borne in mind however, having a concept is one thing, implementing a concept is another and of course, missing a concept, especially in Malaysia, is as easy as getting dead or into a coma in a police lock-up.
So, let us say we have a concept and our concept is "change". We should then have some ideas as to what change we want to achieve. Then we should have a plan on how to achieve that change which we want. After that, we should all go out and do whatever is being planned in order to achieve that change. That is how it works. Well, at least, that is how I think it should work.