WEAKNESS AFFECTING SOCIETY

Speech delivered by K. Sila Dass on 11^th November, 2005 to a group of Undergraduates.

The topic I was asked to address is weakness.  The word “weakness” standing alone would seem to have the effect of penetrating into every pore of human life and, therefore, I was told to address the weakness affecting  the society.  So we have a topic : Weakness affecting society.

          The root word for weakness is “weak”.  That word “weak” has been defined, amongst other things, as “wanting in moral strength for endurance or resistance; lacking fortitude or courage, strength of purpose or will; unsteadfast and wavering.”

          It also means actions or attributes of features, expression of countenance, indications, weaknesses of character or intention.  Deficient to control emotions, unduly swayed by grief, compassion or affection.  When talking of a person it is common to refer to weak bodies, limbs deficient in muscular strength, inferior in respect of physical strengths. 

Therefore, the word “weakness” represents the quality or condition of being weak, deficient in strength or force.  The term can be seen applicable to describe a certain state of mind; certain factors that prompt a person to arrive at a decision.  Thus the words,  “weak” and “weakness”  in their diverse applications are susceptible of covering physical as well as psychological attributes.

With these myriad meanings staring at us, I had to look in what way I have to deal with this topic – weakness affecting society.

I have looked at the words “weak” and “weakness” as the inherent force within us.  I have,  for a considerable period of time thought about it and my understanding of these terms through experience clearly shows the element of weakness in us has been the cause for our own difficulties, our own down falls, our own unpleasant state of affairs.

In this context it would be a useful exercise to find out how weakness works in us and ultimately destroys  us systematically.  The discussion we are to embark upon will also raise a very pertinent question and that is: whether weakness is relative to a particular ethnic group or is its effect universal.

It has been said very generally that fear is the source of weakness.  Fear is the worst thing you can have in your life.

-                     Fear destroys everything good in you.

-                     Fear destroys reason in you

-                     Fear destroys courage

-                     Fear destroys the innocence in you

-                     Fear, the root of evils is the dominant factor which   destroys                                                         your thinking ability

-                     Fear prevents you from thinking rationally

-                     Fear destroys your capability to act freely

Fear is identifiable in people we hear of, or see everyday.

Leaders fear they will lose their leadership and with that the power to command the lead.

America fears that it will lose its world domination.

Britain fears that its intellectual market will be threatened.

Japan fears it will not be able to flood the world market with electronic goods produced through cheap labour.

World countries are divided into developed, developing and under developed countries because of their fear that they will lose out to powerful countries whose technical advancement is far superior than theirs.

So fear is not unique to individuals alone.

Individuals lose out because they fear to think.  Our student population is told to read a particular topic and is warned that it is the  examination topic so learn it and get it into your system - you will pass.  You are not asked or required to think.  You may pass the examination but you would have lost; for, the fear that had developed in you is the examination fear.  So long you pass it you are happy.  Your parents are happy and those who taught you are happy; but, has the passing of the examination made you a perfect person- a person who could think?

Our forefathers lost because they were illiterates and that was the deficient factor that contributed to their weakness of not being able to think. You have managed to acquire education the objective of which has not been to get rid of the weakness inherent in you but to mature in a modern way and enslave you with promises of materialism but not the ability to think.  You will lose and continue to lose because you dare not think.

The modern education has all the trappings to entrap you with false objectives whereby you are guided to think the best way of living and what could that be?  Good position.  Good income.  Car, and all the luxuries that could make you comfortable and at the same time subject you to bothersome liability. 

Your weakness for luxury leads you to indebtedness and that keeps you busy and in fear how to repay.  As a result of this additional burden one has no time to think about improving the knowledge by reading literature which would help.  Modern way of life cannot by any stretch of imagination be considered as a qualitative life, instead it is full of problems.

          In a homogenous country, generally weakness of any type would be viewed as if it is quite natural unless such has the effect of destroying the very substratum of the society  and the country.  There could be an element of tolerance in these types of visible weaknesses and  attributing them to be natural.   Thus the admitted or apparent weakness would be treated with sympathy by rational minded persons or those who have the ability to correct it.

          Such may not be the case where multi-racial, multi-lingual and multi-cultural and multi-religious  ingredients are present.  Here, in most cases, the weakness in the minority groups will be exploited by those who are strong enough to formulate laws and implement them.

          Thus it would seem weakness is  not confined to an individual but has the capability of becoming a national, international, societal, or religious issue.

We could begin with an individual.  I remember an incident some fifteen years ago.  I was appointed as a legal adviser to a multi-national Japanese firm, and during one of my visits to the factory I met a young man whom I knew as  my law firm was handling some legal matters of his family.

I was obviously delighted to  learn from the young man that he had been working for the Japanese firm for almost a year as supevisor.  I congratulated him and  told him : “Good!  This is a good start for you.  Learn the Japanese language and it will be an asset.  And you can progress steadily in the firm.”

My initial delight turned into absolute horror on hearing this young man’s reply.  “Why should we learn Japanese?’  he asked and he himself provided the answer :  “If we learn  their language we will be influenced by their culture and we will lose our own identity.”

For a moment I could not believe that our country being a multi-racial, multi-cultural and multi-religious could have people with such warped ideas.  The first question we have to ask is : whether learning another language could destroy your identity?

The answer, to my mind, seems to depend of the mind set of an individual. The general view is that learning more than one language would help to broaden one’s knowledge and provide an opportunity to understand others and of  other people’s  different cultural and religious beliefs.  However, if we take the young man’s attitude toward a foreign language it can be seen that there are certain factors which could have impeded him to venture learning any language than his.

There are few factors we should consider. 

Firstly, the fear in one’s mind, it is fear that breeds weakness.  What sort of fear did this young man have?  His fear was: Should he learn the Japanese language, he would be influenced by Japanese culture and thus lose his own cultural identity.  Was he correct in thinking the way he did?

His fear of losing his cultural identity led him to believe that the knowledge of other ethnic group was no good – short of saying, my cultural heritage entwined with religious teaching are far superior than other cultures and other religions.

By accepting such a course he was in fact barricading himself from the flow of knowledge available in other languages.  By doing so he was unwittingly demonstrating the weakness in him, namely his inability to distinguish the differences between the various thoughts that develop through knowledge.

He was not prepared to let his mind wander and seek the knowledge available in other languages.  How do we explain this enigma?  Should we consider this as a sign of fear crystallizing in weakness whereby he has not the ability to hold fast to his own views however strongly instilled in him?  Or, could we consider his position as that being full of uncertainty and doubts of the thoughts in him?  Would we be correct in assuming that the fear he has prevents him from getting out of the frog pond he is accustomed to and prefers to remain in the same frog pond because the moment he is out of that frog pond he will be confused and lost because intellectually he is not strong.

Assuming he is thoroughly grounded in his culture, religion, he need not fear at all because no influence could sway him away from the knowledge he already has.  The acquisition of additional knowledge  would have helped him to broaden his vision;  it would have helped him to see the differences in opinions.  He would have realised that he is not a frog in a frog’s pond.

Secondly, our friend was restricting his thinking process within the ambit of the knowledge he already has.  He is scared that learning a foreign language and the knowledge acquired through it would destroy the knowledge he has however limited it may be.

This shows narrow-mindedness or bias to knowledge generally.  He closes his mind from receiving any information that could upset his beliefs.  His thought process is like a tunnel-vision.  Only one vision.  It has no ambulatory strength to see what is floating around him.  He remains what he is with very little knowledge of the outside world.  Here again we see that it is own weakness which hindered him from attempting to acquire knowledge in a general way.

         

          Thirdly, he believes that whatever knowledge he has is sufficient and there is no reason to expand it.  Why?  Again a fear that acquisition of new knowledge could destroy the beliefs in him.  We could look at this as a fear that had generated over the years and strengthened the weakness.  To him that weakness is his strength because he could proudly claim that he has not deviated from the teachings he had received however deficient it may be.

          Looking at it very broadly  we could discern a pronounced pattern which could be classified as culture cum religious prone behavioural syndrome which rejects the reception of any knowledge that is capable of leading to enlightment and better understanding of our fellow beings.  This culture cum religious behavioural syndrome creates a wall of suspicion against all other knowledge however good, or thought provoking it  may be.

          The mind set of the person under scrutiny is that it is so weak saturated with the fear that any outside knowledge is bad, questionable, and is capable of destroying the so-called equilibrium he has falsely grown accustomed to.  A well read person whose knowledge is immense and is open minded will rarely fear the pervailing dissemination of knowledge that could be new  or thought-provoking  because he is inwardly strong and is receptive to all knowledge the source of which does not bother him for he has the courage and ability to sieve through them, analyse, accept which he feels is worth further consideration or reject those he thinks are inconsistent with established principles or with his own views.  Here again, a person whose intellectual capacity is strong  would be prepared to deal with new ideas albeit unsettling,  yet with an open mind to investigate further because it is knowledge.

          For thousands of years the popular belief was that the sun was rotating the earth.  This thought prevailed since the time of Aristotle, a philosopher of excellent genius who built a monumental literature of the whole physical universe and it was the basis of Greek logic.  His ideas had travelled and found lasting  impression in the Western civilisation through the Arabs.  Although two thousand years later it was discovered some of his views were antiquated and seemingly erroneous, in   particular, the religious denominations which had found harmony in Aristotle’s views and had adopted them into their doctrine, refused to accept any challenge to the views that had become deeply embedded in human mind.¹

1. The First Freedom. A History of Free Speech, Robert Hargreaves

          The Greeks had found that the world was round, both from the spherical shadow it threw on the moon during an eclipse and by the fact that different stars are visible in different latitudes.  But Aristotle supposed that the earth was at rest and the heavens revolved around it.  Because the constellations did not alter shape, they must rotate around the earth, just like the sun and the moon.²

          The Egyptian astronomer, Ptolmey, a disciple of Aristotle, constructed an elaborate universe around a stationery earth surrounded by a series of fifty-five  invisible rotating spheres, which carried with them the sun, moon, the various planets and the stars.³

                Strangely it is the false version of the universe survived but not the other versions also formulated by the Greek astronomers. ⁴ The theories of Democritus and Aristarclus  of Samos were lost although theirs were closer to truth.

In May 1514, Nicolaus Copernicus,  a Polish wrote Commentariolus

2. Op. Cit at pp 67, 68

3. ibid

4. ibid

and circulated it discreetly.  This was to be the foundation of his work : On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres published in 1543.  In this work Copernicus distributed the geocentric cosmology that had been accepted since Aristotle’s time.  Copernicus, contrary to popular belief  has postulated a simpler explanation for the movement of the heavenly bodies.  He placed the sun at the centre of the universe and had the earth rotate around it. ⁵  This was not acceptable to the church and for fifty years his enunciation was scoffed.

                According  to Robert Hargreaves,  “ …the church fathers refused to take seriously this adventurous speculations into the ‘divine Secrets.’  It was enough to follow the teaching of St. Ambrose that “to discuss the nature and position of the earth does not help  us in our hope of the life to come?”

                Copernicus died on May 24 1543.  Twenty years later Galilee Galilei was born.  By 1597, Galileo had studied Copernicus’ discovery and came to the conclusion that it must be true.

                Galileo devised a mechanical calculating devise now called the sector,

5. ibid

worked out a mechanical explanation of the tides based on the Copernicus motions of the earth.  He produced a treatise on mechanics illustrating that machines do not create power but merely transforms it.

          By the end of 1609, Galileo had 20-power telescope which he used to see the lunar mountains the starry nature of the Milky Way, and previously unnoted ‘planets’ revolving around Jupiter.

          Galileo’s continual exposition of Copernican theory was not one the Holy official Rome  would countenance, and had, in 1616, issued an  edict against Copernicus.

                The Church would not allow Galileo to pursue an investigation which was opposed to the divine revellations.  In  1632 he wrote Dialogue which became famous.  In 1633 he was condemned to life imprisonment for “vehement suspicion of heresy.”  He died in 1642.

               

                Galilieo showed to the world, like Socrates before him “Mere authority cannot suppress the search for truth.”

          The journey into the lives and enunciations and brave search for truth by Copernicus and Galileo is deliberate  to show that views are likely to change but the quest for truth will never end.  It is the weak mind that abandons the truth and find solace in antiquated theories however doubtful they may be.  As indicated, earlier it is  the fear that breeds  this weakness eventually trapping the individual into beliefs that may not be correct but call for or demand infinite enquiry.

How do we get rid of this fear that generates weakness?  This is not an easy task, yet it is something which we have to look into.  When a person has sound education, that could help him or her to amass knowledge.    So, the question arises what sort of education helps to acquire or enhance knowledge.

This question about education has its own trappings.  When the world was imbued with spiritual motives the system of education was aimed at improving the spiritual aspect of the  pupil.  When ideological politics became the core of a government, they formulated policies consistent with their objectives.  The ideology may have flourished but the education and the minds of the pupils suffered.

 In a world where  materialism has been given a prominent part to play, the education system seems to work in a vicious way.  The colonialists when they introduced  their language they were motivated by a desire to have the locals to learn and write their languages so that the administration could be oiled to function smoothly.  The best educated who came from the colonialists homelands sat at the apex of the administration to control.  They did not think it prudent that the colonial subjects should have the best education, instead only some education the purpose of which was to serve the colonial masters.  Only the opulent class from the locals have had the best education but then they were inclined towards aping the colonial masters.

Generation after generation  the under privileged have been given false hopes in the name of education, the purpose of which has been to inculcate in them a keen sense of reliance and that is to serve the objective of those in power: or those who could wield power, and these unfortunate people remained where they were, languishing in false hopes.

The biggest problem that irked society is the fears of survival; and this in turn becomes the weakness whereby the person’s mind abandons thinking.

There are those who attribute to a community’s failure because of the violence it had grown accustomed to and to an extent this may be true.  However, if an attempt is made to enquire into the underlying reasons for such a state it could be discovered that violence becomes true once a person is deficient and is unable to control his emotions.  If he is educated in a proper way he would have acquired the ability to control his emotions and refrain from violent conduct.  This will, therefore, show that violence is not the main reason for a community’s failure but the failure of those who ignored to provide effective education.

The problems we face today are problems that had arisen as a consequence of defective  education system.  The system does not inculcate the culture of thinking.  It does not dare you to think.  The system has not shown the best part of acquisition of knowledge instead it had encouraged false concepts with false remedies and they are producing devastating results.

Another area where weakness is so glaring is the calculated move to encourage the younger generation to spend more time on cinema.  This I can tell you is a blatant design engineered to effectively kill any inclination towards better knowledge.

Take the youngsters and give them ten questions on general knowledge, and you will find to your horror that hardly one would be able to answer.

The next thing you should do is to ask ten questions based on cinematic culture and you will find to your shock that all ten may give correct answers.

Now, ask yourselves how did this come about?  One would wonder whether this is a deliberate attempt to divert the attention of the young to illusion, whereby they will not think about substantial issues affecting them, their community and their role in the country’s affairs.

Think of another concept at work, perhaps a ploy.  The power-to-be is prepared to dish out some benefits and privileges to keep you contented but does not want you to get advanced knowledge because they fear the moment you become knowledgeable you will begin to think and that is not good for them for you will begin to ask all the questions for which they have no answer and even if they answer your questions they will be couched in vague and ambiguous language.

A sense of greediness, selfishness is encouraged whereby the people or a section of the people and mostly the illiterates and the poor are made to believe that if they follow the advice of the powerful ones they are safe and their enjoyment however idiotic it might be will not be interfered with.  This is the weakness the power-to-be with their secret and obnoxious agenda want and cherish.  Once we fall for it we are doomed and that is precisely  what is happening.

Everywhere in the world you turn you can see this exploitation, but those in power know how to devise the means to perpetuate this exploitation.

 Therefore, weakness is everywhere and it is only a question of degree. The weakness that attacks the people could vary from people to people from class to class.

Weakness that numbs the rich people is their insatiability for more wealth, the greed never ends.  A leader’s weakness is  seen when he fears that his own position is challenged and is always looking at the rung of the ladder below him.  He wants to hold on to power infinitely and that is his weakness.  Rich countries fear that their wealth will dissipate and they would like to lead to poor countries so that there will be attractive returns. So weakness is everywhere; in you and in others.  How to get rid of it?  Amass vast knowledge and never close your mind to enquire.  Knowledge is your strength, and that will help rid of weakness and prepare you as a perfect person to analyse any event, any view or opinion and then be able to control your emotions.  Once you are able to control your emotions, weakness would disappear.

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.