It may be legal but is it moral?

Yes, if we open the Pandora’s box and start discussing the issue of moral versus legal, then there are many more issues we need to discuss other than the issue of the Selangor Menteri Besar.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Today, I published Dr Aziz Bari’s article (READ HERE) although I may not agree with his anti-monarchy views. Sometimes it is good to read the opposing view even though you may not agree with what that person says. That is what discourse is all about.

I know some readers complain that their comments are not posted and they ask me why I impose censorship in Malaysia Today. I would not call it censorship. When the comments are mocking in nature or are what the Malays would call biadap (insolent), I just do not bother with them.

The problem is some readers do not understand the difference between discourse and insolence. They think that any uncouth statement means discourse. Some even blame “Umno’s education system” for this. Actually, Umno has nothing to do with this. It is just that these people come from families that have not raised them in the proper manner.

I suppose the apple does not fall far from the tree and when their parents are biadap then the children will grow up to be just like their parents, people with foul mouths.

Anyway, back to what Dr Aziz Bari said today. He talked about His Royal Highness the Sultan of Selangor losing the moral ground (or moral high ground). A few other legal or constitutional experts have said the same thing: that there is no moral reason why HRH the Sultan would not agree to the appointment of Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail as the new Menteri Besar of Selangor.

If you have noticed, all these legal and constitutional experts talk about the morality/immorality of HRH the Sultan not agreeing to Dr Wan Azizah replacing Khalid Ibrahim as the Selangor Menteri Besar. They do not argue about the legality/illegality of HRH the Sultan not agreeing to Dr Wan Azizah replacing Khalid Ibrahim as the Selangor Menteri Besar.

These legal and constitutional experts know that there is nothing illegal in HRH the Sultan rejecting Dr Wan Azizah as Khalid Ibrahim’s successor. Hence they argue about the morality or immorality of HRH the Sultan’s rejection.

Morality and immorality are very subjective matters. If we talk about legality or illegality it is very straightforward. What does the letter of the law say? But when we talk about morality and immorality, a lot of points of view and opinions will come into play.

And morality/immorality is never constant. It changes depending on time, place and situations. Hence what may be immoral at some point of time in a certain place and under certain situations may become moral later, and vice versa.

Let us take war as one example. Traitors (or even cowards) during a war can be killed on the spot. For example, if the commander says advance or attack and you retreat or run away in fear, the commander can shoot you dead there and then. That is the rule of the battlefield during times of war.

In fact, there have been occasions when the commander stays at the rear with his pistol ready and any soldier who turns instead of advancing will get a bullet in his head. No trial, just a bullet in the head on the battlefield.

Spies are also shot on sight (you have no time to arrest them during the heat of battle when things are so chaotic). And enemy soldiers dressed in your uniform are assumed to be spies so if you are caught wearing the enemy’s uniform you can get shot immediately even if you are not really a spy.

There is nothing illegal about this and you will not be charged for any war crime. In fact, it is not only considered legal but is moral as well. Shot on sight, a bullet in the head. That is the rule and it is absolutely kosher.

But when the IS (or ISIS or ISIL) executes traitors on the battlefield, the west is outraged. Maybe the classification of traitor needs to be defined but to the IS any Iraqi or Syrian who goes against the will of the people is considered a traitor and hence can be executed.

So that is the catch phrase here — the will of the people. And if you go against the will of the people then you are a traitor and since you are a traitor then you must be executed. (Even Pakatan Rakyat talks about the will of the people in the Selangor Menteri Besar crisis).

This is what the west does as well. They execute traitors. They did this in WWI. They did this in WWII. They did this in Vietnam. They did this all over the world for thousands of years. When the west does it there is no problem. But when the IS does it there is outrage.

So the west (and China as well) puts a bullet in your head while the IS cuts off your head. But the west, too, has been cutting off heads in many European countries for hundreds of years. They even cut off the heads of Kings and Queens in England and France. So what is the problem?

Are you saying that killing someone by cutting off his/her head is cruel? Are you saying that the firing squad, hanging, the electric chair, the gas chamber, lethal injection, etc., are more humane? At least when they cut of your head death is immediate and you do not suffer before you die. (That is why the French invented the guillotine).

Actually, I do not agree with what the IS does. I just want to use the IS as an example and play the devil’s advocate to demonstrate how hypocritical some arguments can be. You argue about the manner traitors are killed rather than talk about whether humans should even be killing humans in the first place.

So, is ‘legal’ or ‘constitutional’ killing considered moral? Or is killing immoral even when legally done? If killing is legal then why worry about how that person is killed? Why is one way of killing moral and another way immoral when the objective is to end life anyway?

So people like Dr Aziz Bari and those of his ilk debate the morality or immorality of HRH the Sultan in not allowing Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail to take over as the Menteri Besar of Selangor. And the reason they discuss the moral issue is because they know that there is nothing illegal about that. Hence they keep raising the issue of morality.

If people like Dr Aziz Bari and those of his ilk are so concerned about morality as opposed to legality, there are many other issues that are legal but immoral in which we can discuss.

Take the case of Islam as one example. A person born to Muslim parents is automatically Muslim. Legally that person would be considered a Muslim. But is that moral? Did this person choose to be born a Muslim? Why must this person because of accident of birth be forced to be a Muslim?

It is like a person who is born to slave parents would also automatically become a slave. Why must this person suffer slavery just because he or she happened to be born to slave parents? This may be legal but is it moral? Yes, it is moral because it is legal. There is nothing morally wrong for a person to become a slave because his or her parents are slaves. In fact, even the church allows this.

Bumiputeras in Malaysia who buy property can get a discount whereas Chinese, Indians and other non-Bumiputeras cannot. Only Malays can enter UiTM although UiTM is financed by taxpayers’ money and not only Malays pay tax but non-Malays do as well.

Dr Aziz Bari used to lecture in the International Islamic University that is funded by public money. But the government will not use public money to fund Christian, Hindu or Buddhist universities. In fact, are there even Christian, Hindu or Buddhist universities in Malaysia, whether publicly or privately funded?

There is nothing illegal about all this because this is the system in Malaysia and the law allows all this under certain Articles of the Federal Constitution. But then is it moral?

As I said, if people like Dr Aziz Bari and those of his ilk want to debate the issue of moral over legal, there are so many issues we can debate, not just debate the issue of the Selangor Menteri Besar.

I know many Malays who are successful because they were allowed a higher education, which they would have otherwise been denied had it not been for the New Economic Policy and Article 153 of the Constitution. Hence there is nothing illegal in the privileges, advantages and preferential treatment that the Malays receive.

However, in doing this, the more deserving non-Malays were denied places in local universities and had to pay their own way in private universities, locally as well as overseas. While this may be legal, is it moral that deserving cases are victimised because of an accident of birth (they were accidentally not born Malay)?

Yes, if we open the Pandora’s box and start discussing the issue of moral versus legal, then there are many more issues we need to discuss other than the issue of the Selangor Menteri Besar.