By John Lee and Wan Fadzrul Wan Bahrum, YouthSpeak Coordinators
September 7, 2008
With the changing political atmosphere in the country exciting Malaysians of all races and ages, the youth are fast becoming determinants of political success. We literally are the future of this country, but that means we are also the future of this country's politics and government. Ultimately, we will be responsible in some way for shaping Malaysia, whether through something as simple as casting our votes, or something as lofty as taking office as Prime Minister.
But if we want to exercise our responsibilities as citizens wisely, we have no choice but to inform ourselves about the issues of the day. It is ridiculous to expect ourselves to vote blindly; we might as well not vote at all. It is almost just as foolish to vote based on the empty rhetoric of politicians. Politicians are far more skilled at twisting emotions and swaying hearts than they are at informing the people and dealing in facts and figures. As boring as the plain facts may be, they are crucial. You would not steer a ship just because you feel you know how to go; you would demand charts and insist on plotting a course.
That is why the CPI's various efforts, most especially the website, are commendable resources for youth who seek to get involved in the future of our country. As a policy think tank, CPI does not deal in the hazy rhetoric of politicians, or the emotional fury of activists. It coolly and calmly dissects the effect of government policies on the future of our country, and examines proposed alternatives in the same light.
More importantly, CPI separates the wheat from the chaff; the power of the internet as a medium is clear to us all, but we worry about distinguishing fact from fiction. The commentaries published on the website are backed by a real organisation, which will suffer real consequences if it does not act responsibly. If you see a blog post carried on the website, you know it not only has relevance to the facts of politics and governance, but you also know it can be relied on.
Today is an exciting time to be a Malaysian. But it is even more exciting to be a young Malaysian. For the first time in a long while, the opportunities that stretch before us, in our future, the opportunities to change the fate of our nation, to make things in this country right, are innumerable. The generation that leads us today has kicked the door open; it is our job to guide our country through that door. I am very pleased to welcome CPI to that roster of civil society organisations which will help us in our responsibility.
Universities and University Colleges Act: Shifting Implications
By Wan Fadzrul Wan Bahrum, YouthSpeak Coordinator
August 13, 2008
A “precursor to more freedom???. That is amongst dozens of quotes taken from daily pronouncements and comments on the expected amendment of the academically nefarious Universities and University Colleges Act of 1971 (UUCA). But will the replanted pastures be as green as expected?
The UUCA, in and of itself, is not as controversial by essence; it is comparable to any regulatory legislation that asserts the institutional, administrative and operational guidelines for tertiary-level educational establishments. What is deemed contentious would be the limits the Act imposes on student life and its apathetic effect on the coming generations of citizenry. Sections 15 and 16 of the UUCA, the gist of the debate, deals with student involvement in non-academic assemblies, student body financing and the actions to be taken if such violations – as expressed in the Act – were committed. However, taking a less biased perspective on the case, it should be noted that the UUCA must be examined in the context and spirit of its enactment.
Student movements have had a long history as catalysts for reforms and shifts from orthodoxy. With the advent of counter-cultural radicalism and the Cold War reaching its apex in the 1960s and 70s, the social environment was volatile with new ideas clashing with traditional conservatism. Malaysia did not escape this excursion in ideas; student groups such as Angkatan Belia Islam Malaysia (ABIM), University of Malaya Students Union (UMSU) and various leftist youth bodies amongst the educated were as much a part of the campuses as classes. It was not until the bloody events of May 13th 1969 did the youth movement become a substantial force, replacing the emasculated opposition, due to the suspension of Parliament following the declaration of an Emergency.
The primarily radical student movement reached its apex in 1974 with the Baling incident, making household names of Anwar Ibrahim, Syed Husin Ali and Adi Satria. With that, the formerly benign UUCA of 1971 was amended in 1975, pulling student movements by their roots: chiefly the campus-based organizations were targeted. What had happened were simply the consequences of the perceived socialist radicalism that was prevalent at the time. With recollections of the communist insurgency still fresh in the minds of the leadership, needless to say a “reactionary??? response was inevitable.
But with the current loosening of the noose, what will this change bring? Will student radicalism erupt again, or would the liberalised political environment allow their venting through more practical and effective channels?
In the proposed amendments to section 15 and 16 of the Act, students will be allowed to join any societies, groups or organizations – including NGOs – but the Act still holds the bar for political parties and organizations considered ‘unlawful’ (part III, section 15, subsections 1& 2) and will no longer be limited to those that were expressly identified by the vice-chancellor.
The stuents will be allowed freedom to speak on “academic matters??? without fear of repercussions (part III, section 15, subsections 3 & 4). However the definition of “academic matters??? could be arbitrarily interpreted into, for instance, statements in support or opposition of political, labour unions or illegal bodies.
Any charges under the Act will be decriminalised and henceforth taken as disciplinary offences (part III, section 15B), students who had been charged or detained under the Act would now have the option to continue their studies without the prior approval of the Minister of Higher Education (part III, section 15D). This of course would be a good news to those who had been charged in the past including no less than the 34 cases between 2005 and 2006.
But one of the most significant changes would be on the all-powerful post of Vice-chancellor, which will no longer be a political appointee (schedule I, part II, section 9). Considering several controversies regarding previous occupiers of the post in various universities, it would indeed be a welcome change.
However, these amendments, while liberating, did not address other, far more pressing issues. No proposed changes were mentioned on schedule I, part VI, section 45 regarding the current requirements for the employment of teaching staff (read: the Akujanji contract), government ties would still exist through the universities’ board of directors (schedule I, part III, section 13) and senate membership will still be within the personal discretion of the Vice-chancellor (schedule I, part III, section 17).
As difficult as it is to accept this meagre attempt to reform our tertiary institutions, it should be noted that in previous administrations such motions would merely be a dream. These ‘baby steps’ could well lead to major leaps in paradigm shifts of accommodative pragmatism, rather than the radicalism of the past that had led to the formation of the Act itself. Nevertheless it would still be too early to tell if Malaysian youths had gained any significant amount of political maturity since. Which ever way the story turns out, it should be said that we are far from the ideal, both on the kind of administration and students we would want to inhabit our supposedly centres of learning excellence. The amendment of the UUCA may be that silver bullet, it may also be not; but what is important is that we aren’t rushing into things, even if we are heading in the right direction.
Sdr Wan Fadzrul is currently a Final Year student at the Monash University enrolled in the Bachelor of Business & Commerce (Finance, Economics) course, and shows a keen interest in Public Policies and Finance, and Developmental Economics. Fadzrul and Sdr John Lee will jointly coordinate the YouthSpeak section. Share your thoughts and ideas with him via: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
The controversy over the recent Bar Council forum on religious conversions shows little sign of dying down, with former Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad insisting that the government should have banned the dialogue. The grand old man of Malaysian politics is entitled to his opinion, as are the 300-odd protesters who showed up that Saturday; I applaud them for exercising their fully deserved freedoms of thought, conscience and expression. I cannot, however, commend their nonchalant rejection of some other fundamental freedoms, such as the right to private property, and the reciprocal right of others to their own thoughts, their own consciences, and their own speech.
The 19th century philosopher Edmund Burke once remarked that "Toleration is good for all, or it is good for none." In other words, whatever you expect me to tolerate from you, you must likewise tolerate from me. If I have to tolerate you calling me a pig and telling me to leave the country, you must tolerate the same treatment from me; if you cannot tolerate a frank discussion of how your religious beliefs impact mine, then I likewise have the right to insist you never discuss my religion.
This reciprocal rule of tolerance may stem from English rather than Islamic jurisprudence and ethics, but I am confident it resonates with any civilised value system in existence. Jesus' golden rule of "Do unto others as you would have done unto you" is at the heart of almost every moral value out there. So why would the fervent fundamentalists deny to others the very rights they themselves freely claim and exercise?
The protesters that Saturday were beautifully exercising their freedom to speak their minds, yet the purpose of their rally was to shut down the free expression going on within the Bar Council building. Inside, Muslims and non-Muslims were discussing the ramifications of religious conversions — a perfectly valid topic, considering that non-Muslims are increasingly being compelled to appear in Muslim Syariah courts, and the scope of Islamic law is expanding to include non-Muslims who previously converted to Islam or whose family members have done so. Yet outside, protesters were insisting that this horrible infringement of their right to practice Islam be stopped, by any means necessary.
Fortunately only a handful of the activists outside appeared to really believe this. The Malaysian Insider and other media outlets quoted protesters who were unhappy with the order to storm the building if the forum could not be stopped, citing the presence of Muslims at the dialogue who were sharing the Muslim point of view. Many of the activists appear to have been there only to voice their own opinion, rather than to silence others' thoughts.
In spite of this, it is insidious that a vocal minority of the protesters were eager to deny those inside the very rights those outside were exercising. If the Bar Council had organised the forum to call Muslims pigs and to ask them to leave the country, then I would understand the protest; such language can easily be violent incitement in our sensitive sociopolitical climate. But the Bar Council organised a peaceful discussion open to all Malaysians to discuss the ramifications of religious conversion for all Malaysians; there was no intent to demean any religion or faith.
Instead, what wound up happening was a handful of protesters calling non-Muslim attendees pigs and asking them to get out of Malaysia. The only people present who threatened any violence against anyone were those calling on the Muslim activists to storm the building. Honestly, which group was more hurtful, more seditious, more likely to inflame vile sentiments in our plural population?
The Police presence should have deterred the protesters from making good on their threats of violence; they instead validated the threats, and advised the Bar to halt the forum. This hardly makes sense; it is completely contrary to the laws governing the fundamental right to private property.
This is not like the BERSIH or HINDRAF rallies, which were held in a public area; the forum was being held on the private premises of the Bar. The Bar has every right to do what they like with their own property — just like you and me. The Police are obligated to arrest anyone who violates this right by trespassing and causing damage to the property within — that's all there is to it.
By analogy, let us say that I have my birthday party at home. I invite a bunch of friends, but I also tell them to invite anyone they like — it's an open house, for the public. At the party, talk turns to politics and religion — nobody says anything seditious, but somebody does mention how an acquaintance had difficulty converting out of Islam after his Muslim wife passed away. Now, a bunch of people turn up and tell us to stop talking or else they will come into my house, trash my property, and attack my friends. We call the Police, and they advise us to heed the warning. But how can we be in the wrong for having a discussion on our own private premises?
Some suggest that there is a relevant distinction between open and closed events, saying that the dialogue should not have been open to the public. I cannot for the life of me see how this matters; is the public going to be inflamed by a few intemperate comments in a little forum? Ultimately the purpose of dialogue is for people to understand each other, and I would much rather have a public dialogue moderated by a bunch of lawyers rather than secretive gossip in the coffee shops moderated by, well, nobody at all.
There are others who find it disappointing that some of the most offensive remarks made came from a Pakatan Rakyat politician. I do not think it is instructive to listen to the views of any individual politician if you are really interested in judging his party. Why not judge Pakatan by the actions of its other elected officials there who tried to calm the protesters? Why not judge Pakatan by the actions of the PAS Unit Amal, which played a key role in preventing things from getting ugly at the rally?
I believe it is heartening that PAS has come out swinging for the right of people to express themselves freely and peacefully; it is heartening that Pakatan is willing to censure politicians who cross the line. Pakatan may insist on drawing a distinction between open and closed discussions, but they are at least open to some sort of dialogue. Whether you are satisfied or not, how Pakatan handled the issue is infinitely more prudent than how Barisan Nasional would have tackled it. Can you see UMNO Youth holding back a crowd bent on violence, or the UMNO Deputy President issuing an immediate statement criticising UMNO politicians who play the racial card?
Ultimately, this still comes down to some fundamental rights: our right to express our thoughts, our right to possess property gained by the sweat of our brow, our right to live in peace. These rights can only last as long as we are willing to respect them when they are exercised by those we vehemently disagree with. The Barisan coalition has persistently and repeatedly failed this test of reciprocal tolerance; that Saturday, Pakatan passed it with flying colours.
OCT 3 — With Sept 16 already nearly three weeks in the past, the Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim-led Pakatan Rakyat is still dithering on whether it will be taking power any time soon. Many observers are pointing out, as has been done before, that Pakatan seems increasingly fragile, held together only by Anwar and the promise of power. This is not quite true, for we should not be comparing Pakatan to an ideal political coalition, but the coalition it is challenging — Barisan Nasional. And the fact is, Pakatan is far more united and far more principled than Barisan.
It's easy to see why you might think Pakatan is fracturing and fragmenting. Pas and the DAP can barely sit at the same table. DAP explicitly takes a more classical liberal approach to governance, promoting market-based solutions to poverty where possible, while Pas espouses a welfare state.
DAP demands greater personal freedom and a secular government, while Pas believes social cohesion and moral and religious concerns should take priority over individual liberties. These two parties can hardly sensibly sit down together and speak with one voice, can they?
It is also clear that the Anwar-led PKR is only able to glue these parties together because of its refusal to come down too hard on either side. Anwar in his public speeches has come out in support of both free markets and greater government intervention in the economy; the party economic manifesto reflects both positions.
Likewise, Anwar's and PKR's statements on religious issues and civil rights have been carefully worded to avoid offending either side while simply calling for greater dialogue between the two sides. How can Pakatan remain coherent without Anwar's incredible charisma and force of personality?
While there is no denying that Anwar is one of the strongest factors holding Pakatan together, I think we often underestimate the actual cohesion within Pakatan. The strongest and most important tie, I think, is a commitment to dialogue. Without willingness to sit down and hash out difficult issues, I don't see how a country can get anywhere.
Even if Pas and the DAP do not see eye to eye, it is important that they try to talk about it rather than try to silence the other. Say what you will about Pas, but it was the Pas Unit Amal which prevented the crowd of fundamentalist Muslim protesters from storming the Bar Council building at that infamous protest; they upheld the freedom of expression, the freedoms of both the protesters and the forum participants.
DAP has repeatedly shown a willingness to hear other views, even if some of its leaders are more stubborn than others. A coalition can work in spite of political differences; ask coalition governments in countries like New Zealand, Italy and Germany — and even big tent parties like the Democrats and Republicans in the United States, who have more than their fair share of internal dissenting subgroups.
Just as importantly, all Pakatan component parties agree that it is imperative to forge stronger bonds of nationality between us all, and endorse the repeal of discriminatory policies as a major step towards this goal.
You must be insane if you think it is easy to get a consensus on something as complicated as the issue of race and nationality. That all Pakatan parties endorse this principle is an amazing testament to their success in building a foundation for their coalition; this is more than a marriage of convenience.
The final issue I think all Pakatan parties can agree on is the important need to stamp out corruption, rehabilitate the justice system, and restore the rule of law. These might seem to be truisms which any politician will support, but surprisingly there are many politicians from the ruling party who see justice and fairness as things which stand in the way of their profits and interests. Pakatan has thus found a rough agreement on legal and economic issues, a consensus on ethnic and identity politics, and declared itself willing to talk openly about where to go on other issues.
Compared to where Barisan stands, this is really honestly amazing; Barisan could not agree on politics to save its life, quite literally. It has party leaders tearing up pictures of other party leaders. Virtually every move one party's leaders make is criticised by the leaders of the other parties.
They have attempted their own drive at fixing the country's institutions but that has completely stalled, with the minister leading the charge quitting halfway through. If we are completely objective, it is Barisan that is the marriage of convenience, not Pakatan.
And this is again, quite literally true: recall that this is how the Alliance was seen when it was first formed. Umno and MCA could not agree on anything then, and they still cannot agree on anything now. The difference is, back then they agreed to frankly discuss and negotiate important issues in private to work differences out. That is what made the Alliance viable; it is what has become the undoing of Barisan.
Today Barisan's failure is two-fold. First, this model of closed-door negotiations, with high-level ethnic community leaders feeding decisions down the hierarchy, cannot satisfy a mature democracy's need to discuss issues openly without having leaders talk down to the citizens. Second, today Barisan does not even adhere to this model of negotiating compromises in private; in reality, one party tells everyone else what they are supposed to do. Without an agreement to talk — with instead just an agreement to pretend to talk — is it any wonder that Barisan component parties cannot get along, cannot work together, cannot govern?
Pakatan may be a marriage of convenience, but such are all coalitions. The stark reality is, they are a far more solid coalition than Barisan was at its formation, because they are willing to support the right of all Malaysians to participate in a dialogue on important issues, and voice their own views; because they have an agreement on the need to fight corruption and restore the country's institutions, and are doing so slowly in the states they govern; and because they already have a plan for uniting the nation which the nation itself endorses. As loose as it may be, Pakatan is the stronger coalition, because without even a basic agreement on the right of everyone to have a say, Barisan will implode — as it already is in the process of doing.
Religious freedom is hitting the Malaysian headlines again, this time because of yet another recent forum forced to end after threats of violence. Both sides clearly believe they are fighting for what is right; maybe we could have a forum to clear the air on this? We need to understand why the other side behaves the way they do; like it or not, both sides feel that something very fundamental is under threat, and we have to solve the problem, either by clearing up this misapprehension, or by removing the threat.
From my point of view, there is absolutely nothing at all with holding a forum on the subject of religious conversion, no matter how biased it actually is. Even if it's just a huge party where everyone agrees we should burn the heretics at the stake, or alternatively encourage more heresy — both stances I strongly disagree with, in case it wasn't apparent — I'm not going to tell you what to believe or what to say. If you really think that we should kill the infidels or that blaspheming God is great, I'm not going to threaten to kill you for what you believe in, or what you say.
Media reports suggest that the Bar Council-organised forum was merely relating the experiences of people who have dealt with the problems arising when an individual converts into or converts out of Islam. Of course, since the forum was cut short, it presumably would have moved onto other issues later, but there does not seem to be any indication of incivility on the part of organisers or participants. The main aggressors were the 300-odd protesters outside the Bar Council building, threatening to storm it.
Now, I would say that the protesters are in the wrong. Not for exercising their freedom of speech, of course, but for threatening violence towards the forum participants. Violence is unacceptable — it makes dialogue impossible, because it reduces your options from "talk, fight or give in" to "fight or give in".
But there is more to the issue than that; the fact that some people want to use violence to resolve the issue does not change another fact — there are reasonable people genuinely concerned about open dialogue on religious conversions. The Malaysian Insider quoted some protesters upset that PKR MP Zulkifli Noordin told them to storm the building if they could not get the Bar to shut down the forum. A number accepted that the forum was meant to be a dialogue for them to express their views too; many leaders at the protest tried to calm the crowd, with Zulkifli reportedly the main instigator.
One banner carried at the protest read "Menjunjung keadilan, menyanggah kezaliman" — upholding justice, fighting tyranny. The people concerned about the forum are not imbeciles, mind you — they are reasonable people who must have a reason for doing the things they do. They, for some reason, believe that the forum was meant to promote tyranny and injustice.
And likewise the people at the forum surely did not see themselves as oppressors; they saw themselves as victims too. They must be reasonable people as well; contrary to some aggressive promoters of religious tyranny and religious freedom, normal people do not take to the streets for no damn reason, and neither do they stand up to claim they have been victimised unless they have, in some way, been a victim. So the forum participants saw themselves as standing up for justice and freedom as well.
Clearly someone is wrong — but maybe, just maybe, both sides are in the right. Discount the actions of provocateurs for a moment, and just think. The people at the forum were upset because they felt their right to practice their beliefs is under threat. The people protesting the forum were upset because they felt their right to practice their beliefs is under threat. From a purely ethical standpoint, both groups are right; nobody's right to believe in something should be suppressed, as long as they do not interfere with anyone else's right to their own beliefs.
It follows that the solution is for both sides to get together, and understand what makes each other feel threatened. This is hard to do when you have people threatening people's property and wellbeing, or when you have people yelling at other people to get out of the country ("balik Cina" and "babi" were among the insults heard at the rally). But there are reasonable people on both sides; if we can sit down, if we can talk about the issues, we might get somewhere.
There are of course a couple of obstacles to this, the main one being the pervasive belief that dialogue is harmful. The rally started in the first place, mind you, because the protesters believed that open discussion of Islam is taboo. We have to start by respecting the other side's right to disagree with us, rather than insisting that we must pretend the issue is settled and there is a clear consensus.
Discussion does not challenge anyone; the forum was not held to call anyone a pig (as some protesters did), or to insult anybody's religion. It was held to understand the issues surrounding religious conversion in Malaysia. We must distinguish between actual insults, and constructive dialogue.
The other obstacle is the threat that any discussion will be shut down by those who want to stop it by any means possible. Incitement to violence should be a crime, if it is not already; the police have a responsibility to protect people from violence when going about their lives. It is one thing to advise a public rally to disperse, since that is on public property; it is another thing to tell the people using private premises that they cannot be there because the police do not want to protect them from violence. People have a right to do what they like on their own premises, and the police must enforce that right.
I don't know if we have anti-incitement laws, but we definitely should; there are sporadic reports at the moment that in lieu of arresting Zulkifli Noordin and charging him with incitement, the government had purportedly (according to initial speculation) detained him under the Internal Security Act. I think it's abhorrent to lock people up without charging them for anything, but if the ISA has any use at all, this is one of them. The primary use of the ISA has always been supposed to be protecting public order, so if the government uses it at all (which it shouldn't), it should at least confine its use to cases like this, where a man tries to provoke violence.
It is of course a bit trite and cliched to say that dialogue is the answer, but in this case, I believe it really is. Dialogue is the only way non-Muslims and Muslims will understand why we feel and act the way we do, and it has to be done in an atmosphere of openness, rather than under the veil of secrecy and threat of harm. Most Malaysians are reasonable people who can talk with each other as reasonable fellow human beings; the only threat to harmony is the few who refuse to participate in dialogue, and insist on stopping it. If we want real and lasting peace, the answer is not to make the many stop talking at the behest of a few; it is to make the few understand that their sensitivities cannot stand in the way of understanding and dialogue.
