FEAR FACTOR AND MAHATHIR

by

K. Siladass

The fear factor has finally caught up with Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad. The fact that Dato Ambiga Sreenevasan, a former President of the Bar Council and currently the co-chairman of Bersih Movement, has been making constructive suggestions for the clean and proper conduct of the forthcoming general elections is well known. Mahathir, alike all his cronies and supporters fearing that the wind of change in the thought process of the Malaysians is actually blowing, had begun to make frantic undemocratic demands-one among them is the call for the revocation of Ambiga’s citizenship. Does this remind of Idi Amin of Uganda?

Has Ambiga said anything that would constitute as an attempt to overthrow the government? Hardly so. All her comments, suggestions, criticisms were objectively aimed at improving the standards of the voting procedure. Any citizen could make suggestions so long it is not contrary to law. Neither she nor Bersih advocate the transformation of illegal immigrants to legal immigrants with voting rights. It is those who violated the Country’s citizenship, immigration and election law, who should be dealt with according to law.

It is also hardly correct to assume that Ambiga alone had formulated all the comments, suggestions and criticisms; instead, she represents a movement and her expressions are those of the movement, hence, would it not be appropriate that all those who are linked with her and the Bersih Movement should receive like treatment? All who support the Bersih Movement should have their citizenship revoked. If this sounds very puerile, then, why single out Ambiga? When we are talking about democracy and democratic government we are indeed talking of Government by discussion. This does not mean discussion only amongst ruling party members but must also include the views from the public, of which the opposition and civic movements are a part.

From the Mahathir’s outburst it could be discerned that he and his followers are unable to match up with reasonable, rational and sensible argument, and argument has always been the core principle in democracy.

Calling for the revocation of Ambiga’s citizenship seems to indicate that Mahathir had become barren with ideas to resist her criticisms and of her movement. Thus, the attempt to seal her lips. How often can the voice of the people be muzzled? For how long must the Malaysians suffer the ignominious treatment by Mahathir and his supporters? Should not the law take care of this type of people whose main aim is to widen the polarity among the various races?

Mahathir also laments that the present Federal Constitution does not contain provisions to revoke the citizenship of those who speak against the Government. He, therefore, calls for an amendment to the Federal Constitution. Here comes the real threat; for any amendment to the Constitution could only materialize if two-third majority is there.

Malaysians would recall how the ruling party under the leadership of Mahathir with two-third majority had amended the Federal Constitution resulting in grave injustice to families where one spouse elected to convert to Islam leaving the non-Muslim spouse with no justice or remedy at all. Those who were affected by the amendment to Article 121 of the Federal Constitution are still languishing in infinite agony. The silence maintained by those who could find an end to their suffering is indeed baffling.

The judiciary is in a predicament as far as the cases of conversion are concerned, because the civil courts, at the mention of Islamic element, drop the case as if it is a hot brick. In other words, abdicate from their constitutional duty as judges.

Malaysian voters should abandon the idea of two-third majority for good, for it had caused tremendous harm. Two-third majority means absolute power and absolute power corrupts absolutely is the famous nineteenth century advice by Lord Acton. Earlier, in eighteenth century William Pitt speaking in the House of Lords said: “Unlimited power is apt to corrupt the minds of those who possess it.”

If Malaysians are wary of the ruling party it is because of the painful experience they had to endure during the Mahathir’s tenure as  premier. It is that wrath  which his successors had inherited. And by constantly making statements about the superiority of one race and the inferior position of the minorities, Mahathir is indeed losing BN’s fight.

IS SEVERE PUNISHMENT THE REAL ANSWER FOR BEASTLY OFFENCES AGAINST WOMEN AND CHILDREN?

By

K.Siladass

          The Delhi brave-heart, as she had been described by the media, the recent victim of brutal sexual and violent assault is not something new. Such vile acts have previously occurred, and when will it stop? It is the pious hope we have. We too have had the nasty experience and continue to face such vicious occurrences in our society from time to time.

The moment something dreadful happens it shakes and rattles the nation’s conscience, it is true that this has been pricked on countless occasions. This had prompted various groups to advocate severe punishment as a deterrent to the offenders and would be offenders. These groups feel that, severe penalties are the panacea for all forms of crime that are plaguing and will continue to plague us. History does not seem to be on the side of the proponents for severe penalties, because, however severe the punishment may be that alone had not thus far deterred culprits from keeping away from crimes of a horrendous nature.

Years ago a gruesome sexual attack on a ten-year-old girl and her murder had indeed troubled the nation’s conscience. Nurulhuda Abdul Ghani was not the first victim and she may not be the last. And she was not the only one to suffer such a beastly, inhumane attack. There were others too since then.

The senseless, ruthless sexual assault and murder of Nurulhuda had provoked calls for severe punishment, which included castration, the death penalty among others. The security guard who committed the monstrous attack on Nurulhuda pleaded guilty to the charge and had been sentenced to twenty years imprisonment and 24 strokes (of the cane).

Datuk Seri Dr. Rais Yatim, Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, had then come up with the proposal that those who commit rape, including murder presumably, should be flogged in public.

If we look at history we could realise that however severe the punishment may be, that had not, apparently, deterred criminals from crimes. We are unsure whether the suggested forms of severe penalty are to be taken as solution to the problem or emotional reaction. The latter could be a sign of our own weakness and prevent us from looking at the problem very pragmatically. Therefore, the call that the culprits ought to be flogged in public is evidence of the revulsion people feel but the suggested cure is laced too much with emotion.

It is common knowledge that countries where public flogging is popular do not show that it had the impact of minimising or getting rid of the cruel, wicked and inhuman crimes. Besides, tooth for tooth, eye for eye, public stoning and public flogging are ancient punishments and they have not dissuaded culprits to keep away from crime over the centuries.

What must be troubling us is that there are puzzling aspects in these sorts of crime, i.e., rape and murder. Some of the culprits had been caught. Shamefully, there are also cases where the culprits are still roaming around, presumably waiting to unleash another vicious attack on innocent, unguarded and unwitting women and children. The police have not been able to apprehend the culprits and bring them to justice. “Why?” is the big question. Too many embarrassing questions spring to our mind as to why those culprits are still enjoying freedom? The police themselves will have to search their conscience as to whether they have discharged their responsibilities in a manner that commensurate to the known standards of investigation and conscientiously.

While we must admit the difficulty faced by the police in solving crimes, nevertheless, the police should disclose to the public what they have been doing about the unsolved ones. By doing so, the public will gain confidence and at the same time they too will be on the alert. Unsolved crimes lying in cold storage only to be occasionally mentioned when similar offences are committed would induce the public to believe that the police are not doing their duty.

The question that will haunt our conscience is: how come brutal atrocities are constantly inflicted on innocent women and young children notwithstanding stringent penal laws?

Are the laws ineffective? Or, are the law enforcement agencies adopting a lackadaisical attitude? It must be confessed that that we are at sea when attempting to find answers to these penetrative questions.

Thus, where lies the reason for the commission of these injurious deeds? Is it a case for psychiatrists to embark on a serious investigation and research to find the cause? Or, are there some flaws in our system of education? Or have we, as parents, failed to recognize our own responsibilities?

While we are always prepared to shout vociferously against the ineffectiveness of the law, what we have ignored is the safety measures the young children need.

A child has the right to be free from fear of molestation and violence in any form. It has the right to be protected and it has the right to expect every form of protection. Have we directed our minds to these uncomfortable questions? Nay – we have been imbued with financial security and opulent lifestyle. To sustain these qualities we are involved in activities to improve our financial positions, paying scant attention to the little ones and the protection they need so badly.

It must be realised that feeding, clothing and educating the children are not their only needs. They need protection from vicious minded predators, both inside and outside their homes. Thus, what sort of protection could we provide? Are the protections they presently enjoy both at home and outside sufficient from being violated by mindless, wicked predators? We need to ask these questions repeatedly and search our own conscience for the answers! Have we been good, caring, protective parents?

What sort of protection could the parents, then, provide? Would it be sufficient protection if we send our children in school buses? Do we know anything about the school bus drivers? Have the schools proper records on school bus drivers or operators? Are people working in close proximity to children screened for good character? Are the police and the Road Transport Department maintaining proper records of the school bus drivers and operators? It is not intended to suggest that school bus operators should be included in the category of the predators; instead, it is the safety system we demand that we should look into.

Is the Education Department fully aware of the background of the teachers who shall be dealing with young girls and boys? What mental aptitude do they possess? Again the same caveat as in the case of the bus drivers should be entered here to the effect it is the safety system we are looking into and not to cast any aspersions on the teachers.

Similarly, are the police maintaining a proper record of drug addicts, robbers, thieves, burglars in their areas and if not what kind of monitoring exercise do they carry out to ensure that these culprits are not free to pursue their criminous intent? 

As the stories about rape and murder unfold with gory details we learn of criminals roaming around freely and the police have apparently not kept an eye on them.

The criminals’ movements from one place to another have not been monitored and as a result the police lose track of them. For example, say A has been noted for some criminal activities in Kajang and sensing that his area for criminality is limited, he moves to another town in a different state. The Kajang police may feel consoled that they have less problems because A’s disappearance is a relief. A relief, it may be for Kajang police but it does not relieve them from responsibility.

With all the technical advancements we have attained and our boast about a Multimedia Super Corridor steeped in information technology, it is hard to believe that the police are unable to highlight the disappearance of A from Kajang with the details of his penchant for criminal activities. We are aware of the requirement of the law that a person who moves from one place to another is under a duty to notify his change of address to the Registration Department, but is this law even enforced? Why the police are not adopting this course is a mystery.

It is a common story that drug addicts and known convicts are prowling everywhere and the safety of not only the children but of even the grown-ups is in danger. Putting away the drugs addicts and subjecting them to rehabilitation programme may have desired results, but how far have the law enforcement agencies succeeded that the source of drug is smashed and rendered ineffective? If drugs are still available in the open market despite severe punishment awaiting drug pushers when apprehended, is clear evidence that severe punishment is definitely not the answer and has failed to serve as a deterrent.

Because of our nation’s economic well-being, we have foreign workers all over the country. The menace of illegal immigrants is indeed very real. And what have the Immigration and the police done to ensure that these foreign workers are not a menace in our society?

Would it then be strange if we were to conclude that the problem we are looking at is not an isolated one but very wide and there are many good reasons to believe that the law enforcement agencies are not free from blame?

If we have the courage to say that we have to look at the cause, then, it is suggested that we have to be courageous enough to look at the cause. Do we not say that the primary cause for terrorism must be understood so that we can banish it altogether? Similarly, should we not look into the primary cause for a man’s insatiable violent sexual lust?

This brings us to another important point – is our education system tailored to educate the young about sex? Those who commit rape and murder have at one point of time been young and in schools and the kind of education they have had would have some impact on them as they grew older. We cannot dismiss the possibility that they too must have been subjected to sexual abuse. That terrible feeling must be lingering in their minds whereby they may feel that since no one protected them and the culprit had gone scot-free, so what could prevent them from doing what was practised on them. A very delicate situation; no doubt; but that is one of the problems we may have to look into.

What is wrong in teaching the children about sex? It would be prudent to tell them about sex and warn them of the repercussions if it is abused. Should we not slowly instill in them of the severity of the law in dealing with those wickedly cruel minded persons who violate young children?

Early education on these topics would have lasting impression on children as they grow up. Would it not be a fruitful exercise for Filem Negara to produce films of the horrible aspects of sexual violence and tell children of the consequences? Should we not produce literature, essays, cartoons depicting the dangers flowing from inhuman conduct and the resulting punishment?

We must teach children to be compassionate. A good grounding in the concept of compassion would definitely encourage children to love one another, understand one another and thus cruel thoughts would not blossom in their minds. Compassion would help to build a strong character which could, when they grow older, encourage them to think in terms of love and understanding. It will mould them into good citizens and not to hurt anyone. A person who has compassion would not hurt anyone.

There are reports in the media that the police have recently begun patrolling schools. A good idea no doubt, but its effectiveness is suspect. What can patrolling achieve when it is common knowledge that in the areas where it is regular, criminal activities had not abated?

In the meantime, it is suggested that parents do organise themselves to prevent criminals getting near to the young ones. One method, it would seem, is to ensure that children are not left alone to move about. The other method would be for parents to organise a vigilante posse in their area who should go around to shield the children from being violated, attacked. This would also curb gangsterism flourishing in schools and will also help prevent immoral activities being perpetuated there.

The sex-based cruelty unleashed against children and women is not peculiar to any one country. Such monstrous atrocities are also reported in other countries. It would be appropriate that the Government, in consultation with the United Nations, call for an indepth study into this human problem whereby countries with identical problems could meet and share their experience and knowledge to combat this vicious crime. Aside from this, it would also be productive if regular meetings, seminars are held to educate the public of the dangers, and consequences of every type of crime.

MAHATHIR’S FALSE ACCUSATION OF TUNKU

by K. Siladass

Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad, former prime minister had indeed accused Malaysia’s first prime minister Tunku Abdul Rahman of having done something not permitted by law by granting citizenship to one million foreign immigrants.

Historians of repute will be quick to confirm how inhuman, unsound, flippant and exasperating is Mahathir’s allegation. The granting of citizenship to “foreign immigrants” was not the work of one man – Tunku alone. Besides, it is wicked of Mahathir to claim that one million or so residents in Malaya were purely immigrants ignoring the fact that they had lived in this country for generations; and had been an integral part in the resistance against the Japanese occupation and in the fight against communism. Those one million or so “foreign immigrants” as Mahathir arrogantly and wickedly describes are the ones who saw the economic progress of this country from the time the East India Company arrived here, under constant perilous conditions.


It is indeed shocking that Mahathir had not acquainted himself of the negotiations among the Alliance Partners consisting of UMNO-MCA-MIC, the predecessor of Barisan Nasional (BN) which played a prominent role in achieving Merdeka. Aside this, it is also shocking that a man of Mahathir’s stature would descend to cheap politics in hurling condemnation against the late Tunku, who was indeed instrumental in ensuring that the radicals from all sides did not scuttle the movement towards Merdeka by their emotional actions.

These historical facts are there for the world to see; that the partners in Alliance were concerned as to the type of policy that had to be adopted and implemented after Merdeka in relation to education, citizenship and Malay special privileges. These were classified as sensitive issues and it is fair to infer that there must have been a lot of debate over them.

While the citizenship was a thorny issue beginning with the question whether it should be granted on the basis of jus soli or other format, after much consideration and upon reaching consensus on the issues of education and Malay special privileges the Alliance partners agreed on the jus soli principle for citizenship. Further, it was also agreed that the residential qualification shall be less restrictive than the previous requirement. However, according to Joseph M. Fernando, “The Making of the Malayan Constitution (2002)”, the residential qualification was reduced to eight years. The authors Barbara Watson Andaya and Leonard Y. Andaya in their “A History of Malaysia” (2nd edn.) have stated very distinctly the circumstances leading to the compromises reached by the Alliance Partners, and also referring to other features that must have been very significant, namely the influence of the Malayan Communist Party (MCP) which was wielding its influence, and its association with left wing Malay nationalists, coupled with the dissatisfaction of the Chinese community with the British; who also seemed to be easy target for MCP’s recruitment. The combination of all these developments would have derailed every effort to find solutions to problems that were tormenting the leaders of all races at that time. These are the other considerations which eventually led to the compromises which everyone in the Alliance was reasonably satisfied.

Granting of citizenship was a joint decision in which decision making process UMNO was the dominant partner. Therefore, it is patently wrong for Mahathir to single out Tunku and condemn him as having done something out of the ordinary. The situation demanded a solution and common sense prevailed to tackle the situation in a pragmatic manner and that was what precisely done. Mahathir’s condemnation is indeed a mischievous distortion, an attempt to conceal or cloud his own illegality in granting citizenship to illegal immigrants. Illegal immigrants can never be equated with those who had come here legally and raised their families and contributed for the well-being of this country. When others had come to exploit and take away the wealth of this country those one million immigrants who were granted citizenship had worked hard to earn that right and had reinvested their earnings in this country.

 Mahathir and his cronies should realise that there is a world of difference between the status of those who aspired to become citizens under the Alliance arrangement and those that were granted by Mahathir. During the Tunku’s premiership citizenship was granted to those who were legally living in this country for decades. They were not illegal immigrants. The Sabah situation was totally different when illegal immigrants’ status was altered to one of lawful citizens of Malaysia by Mahathir to benefit one political party which was led by him.

Another point Mahathir makes is that by granting citizenship to one million “immigrants”, the Malays’ power had been diluted. Any fair-minded person will tell that this is a preposterous fancy and we have to stomach it because he was an erstwhile premier and the press gives him undue publicity.

Mahathir also claims that not all those who were granted citizenship in Sabah voted for BN. One cannot look for a baser excuse than this.