The Federal Government: Your Pursuit of Happiness

And in a Malay majority nation, the Malays are generally happy when non-Malays are bound by laws they are. 

Raggie Jessy

Does anyone know who Thomas Jefferson was?

Thomas Jefferson was the founding father of America and principal author to the Declaration of Independence. And almost three decades after penning the declaration, he went on to become the third president of the United States of America.

At this point, you’re probably trying to put your finger on contexts within which Thomas Jefferson concerns Malaysian politics. But don’t give your knack for guesswork a lick just yet. Rather, chew over this; we got in on the ground floor with Thomas Jefferson the day Tunku signed Malaya’s Declaration of Independence. We did, because modern democracies are pillared on Jefferson’s declaration of independence.

But the British cut Tunku some slack, reinventing the wheel as they placed him in the driver’s seat. And that is precisely why some quarters lose touch with reality at the mention of secularism. But we’ll mull over the Malayan chapter in due time. For now, let us ruminate on Jefferson’s declaration with a fine-tooth comb.

Now, the second sentence to the declaration reads as follows:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

Note how one’s liberty is assumed to be a right endowed by a God, the Creator, as is one’s right to happiness. We’ll come to the question of God later. But such were times, that the pursuit of happiness was considered potent enough a consideration to be accentuated through a declaration of independence.

You don’t see much enthusiasm in ‘one’s right to the pursuit of happiness’ among politicians here these days. You don’t, because politicians today are virtually out of sync with a people and times. Your pursuit to happiness would not cut their coats, because they think they have the size of their egos figured out.

You see, the general pursuit of happiness among Malaysians since independence has been pecuniary in nature. That is to say, the country slid along at a good clip, denying the opposition vantage points from which to contrive assaults. And that was just what the doctor ordered back in 1981.

Withal, we slid past that rainbow down a ditch in 1997. But that wasn’t the darkest hour. No. Somewhere over the rainbow, a storm was brewing, as people gradually got wise to matters of equity, liberties and rights. Pecuniary benefits no longer served as a sole requisite to happiness. People just wanted more of what they really could never get.

1. The Final Word

The general pursuit of happiness among a people today isn’t much like what it used to be. Today, people rant and rave on rights and freedom. But credos to one’s right or freedom are never the superlative. Rather, they’re run-off-the-mill principles adjudged by a sizeable group of persons belonging to an era, with a general acceptance of attitudes and practices deemed permissible. In essence, we’re shackled by conventions, because rights and freedom are just words. And beyond these words are the associated connections.

Take salvation as a case in example. Theologically, salvation is defined as the ‘deliverance from the power and penalty of sin’. But not everyone would be of the same mind. To Minah who loves Albert, the ardour with which he renounces his faith bespeaks undivided love and constitutes her act of delivering him from the power and penalty of sin. Ergo, the need for Albert to denounce his faith as a requisite to their matrimony serves her connections to the term ‘salvation’.

Conversely, Albert may find the need to denounce his faith a form of forced proselytism. That is to say, what Minah might construe as a form of salvation, may well be an imposed compromise to Albert. Therein the conclusion; the need for Albert to denounce his faith serves him connections to the term ‘religious imposition’. To him, it has nothing to do with salvation.

So you see, you could have a myriad of words with like connections. But they’re just words, and they’re distinguishable. But minds aren’t. And at some point in time, minds of an era may have thought it best to circumscribe words with definitions concurred by members to a collective. What I’ve just elucidated is as plain as the nose on your face. So it’s plain and comprehensible, when I say that such delineations intelligibly give rise to disputes, which may precipitate into crises and possible litigations.

Ensuing litigations culminate in judgments that circumscribe new precedents. These precedents wind up with newer conventions, which in turn, shape attitudes and practices of a collective over time. And that’s precisely how words are folded, spindled, or mutilated, over generations.

2. The Pursuit of Happiness

So, what is a right to the pursuit of happiness?

Well, it can mean anything from Mars to Venus, depending on your slant. All said and done, you’d have to cut your coat according to your cloth. That is, if you’re planning to pay pedantic attention to constitutional interpretations. You see, you cannot blindly decipher the constitution, much less the declaration of independence, with definitions off the Oxford or Cambridge.

Rather, you’d have to factor in precedents and conventions grounded on American history from the day Jefferson penned the declaration. Now, take the same declaration and apply it in Malaysia, and you’ll be astonished at just what words don’t really mean.

Be that as it may, you can be assured that ‘the pursuit of happiness’ drives our democracy as well, whichever way you may choose to deduce your choice of associations.

For instance, while UMNO imbued its faithful with partisan and supremacist attitudes in the recently concluded General Assembly, apostles to their vocations seem preoccupied with the indoctrination, one they seemingly felt would keep the peace and clinch their eminence within a multi-ethnic perspective. Others, Malays included, simply construe the calling as brainwashing that abases non-Malays into a form of remission and subjugation.

Put differently, UMNO, now playing both ends against the middle, is at a crossroad, playing dice with the antagonist while apologists inveigle a free pass towards partisanship, purportedly to preserve the peace and a birthright. And those who see the light to this would undoubtedly be elated, possibly jubilant.

And since politicians function as a people’s representatives, the end justifies the means to advocates, who are more than happy to vote an UMNO representative into office. Thus, voting an UMNO representative into office would be an act in pursuit of happiness. Conversely, intimidated factions would keep the UMNO representative out of office in their pursuit of happiness. They would, because they may perceive UMNO politicians as browbeaters.

Either way, your political choices or affiliations are in pursuit of your happiness. They are, because people are generally driven by a desire for governance of virtue, one that safeguards their interests through just representation. Almost everyone is in pursuit of leadership competencies that warrant equitable policies. But different strokes for different folks, as people connect with the words ‘equitable’ and ‘competencies’ differently.

Come what may, there aren’t likely to be legal disputes arising from your choice of representation, given that electoral processes are democratically regulated. And challenging democracy is a tall order that isn’t likely to be met within my lifetime.

Put differently, democracy guarantees you freedom of associations in your pursuit of happiness once every five years, following which, you’d be flogging a dead horse each time you attempt to push politicians to the wall. Basically, your pursuit of happiness almost always usurps your personal liberties where and when it concerns our democracy. But more of that later.

Suffice to say, there’s a little window to unlimited freedom; your choice of associations during elections. Beyond that, the world may not be quite the oyster you conjured it up to be.

Notwithstanding, should your average representative stack the deck in his/her favour, your pursuit of happiness would connote with his/her pursuit of power, and ultimately, happiness. You see, it’s always been about happiness. So be happy and read on, because one way or the other, your reading this political piece connotes to your pursuit of happiness.

3. The Malaysian Collective

So we have a pretty clear idea how and why the pursuit of happiness concerns us all one way or the other. And the pursuit of happiness may well mean the pursuit of power. Having said that, let us stretch the mile a little further, and see how deep this rabbit hole goes.

Now, let us say for the moment, that indulging in homosexual activity made you happy, to a degree that would likely irk religious authorities. Thus, engaging in a homosexual act would be your little pursuit towards happiness. But God-fearing authorities would find your choice of a pursuit despicable. That is to say, they wouldn’t be the least bit thrilled with your pursuit. Thence the conclusion; your pursuit of happiness doesn’t necessarily conform to another’s pursuit of happiness. In fact, it may make them anxious and unhappy.

Thus, they would find a way to censure and prosecute you for your homosexual acts. They would, because they have legitimate jurisdictions to do so. Now, my personal propensities to the notion are of no pertinence to this discussion. But trashing out these predicaments impartially are. You see, non-partisanship is an obligatory trait our politicians have a lot to learn about.

Coming back to the crux of our discussion, these jurisdictions (by God-fearing authorities) were driven off colonial conventions that criminalized sodomy, and further influenced by Islamic penal codes. Non-Muslims reserve the right to challenge those laws, simply because conventions aren’t absolute, but circumstantial. That is to say, these conventions emanated from precedents that may be revised or challenged pursuant to attitudes and practices of the day, which evolve over time.

Ideally, laws that censure homosexual acts must be exclusively subject to conventions peculiar to non-Muslims of the day. But that’s akin to asking for the moon, or getting blood out of a stone. It’s impossible.

Let us pore over the odds here. Conventions aren’t limited by attitudes and practices of non-Muslims alone, as the Federal Constitution governs all citizens, irrespective of race or religion. That said, Muslims would undoubtedly be contingent on Islamic laws, a provision made possible by Articles 3 and 121(1A) of the Constitution of Malaysia, which legitimizes a dual judicial system. Being in the majority, Muslims would incontrovertibly scorn attempts at revising Constitutional laws criminalizing homosexual acts.

Thus, it becomes clear as crystal, that the Federal Constitution couldn’t possibly be construed as a secular charter, so long as the Malays remain a legion. Unfortunately for some within the opposition, the notion seems quite the bitter pill to swallow, as they stay ostentatiously recalcitrant.

Put differently, it no longer is between you and God even if you weren’t Muslim, because Malaysia isn’t entirely secular. It wasn’t the day the British convoluted archaic laws with Islamic law in a manner that circumscribed what was right or wrong for you to sexually perform with a consenting individual in your bedroom. And politicians from both ends of the divide continue to speak of the laws of God to this day, even when engaging in constitutional colloquies or deliberations.

4. Was Thomas Jefferson Right?

Constitutional laws aren’t straightforward, because they incorporate the liberties of every citizen in a holistic rather than distributive sense. As we’ve seen, my ‘unrestricted’ personal liberties end where yours begin, within context of the Malaysian Constitution and public.

We’ve deliberated on precedents that lead to conventions, and vice versa. We’ve scrutinized the Malaysian collective, reaffirming a Malay dominance that usurps some of your rights by virtue of conventions. And as long as conventions remain, laws are drafted and approved by members to the collective to oversee the perseverance of certain attitudes and practices.

Thus, laws may well be regulatory frameworks in preserving attitudes and practices acceptable to a collective, as they may be shackles that prevent intellectual evolution over time.

You see, politicians are people who preserve shackles that conserve ‘good’ attitudes and practices these leaders reckon necessary.They acknowledge your right to freedom of religion, but restrain your personal liberties with digressive conventions hinged on theological dogmas you may not be inclined to observe. That is to say, you may be non-Muslim, but you’re inadvertently bound by non-secular constitutional paradigms.

But the shackles are deemed necessary. They are, because these shackles help leaders stay in power, resonating with the Malay majority. And when a leader benefits from the shackles he and his ancestors painstakingly preserved in governing a collective, he becomes a liberalist in pursuit of happiness.

Thus, non-secularism within the Malaysian context has given rise to a form of liberalism. It has, because liberalists tend to preserve practices or attitudes that they deem to be good in protecting liberties and virtues of a collective that seem at ease being shackled. That is to say, attitudes or practices deemed bad or injurious to others must be scorned, as conventions are such, that the collective would not tolerate such attitudes or practices. And in a Malay majority nation, the Malays are generally happy when non-Malays are bound by laws they are.

Yet, Thomas Jefferson was far from wrong.

All men are created equal indeed, and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights. And among these rights are liberty and the pursuit of happiness. He spoke of the creator, and it was the creator who gave us those rights.

But let us now take a look at Tunku’s ‘declaration of independence’. The last sentence to our variant reads:

“…and with God’s blessing shall be forever a sovereign democratic and independent State founded upon the principles of liberty and justice and ever seeking the welfare and happiness of its people and the maintenance of a just peace among all nations.”

The operative words in both these declarations are Creator (God) and happiness. And while we think modern democracies as upshots of Lincoln’s 1863 Gettysburg Address, Malaysia’s democracy is not.

Lincoln alluded to the second sentence of Jefferson’s declaration, making it the centrepiece of his rhetoric. His “government of the people, by the people, for the people” catchphrase fast delineated democracies that followed, somewhat adopted even by the British. But the condescendingly astute English Joe traded democracy for a lesser variant, one that has us in a quandary we may never get to the bottom of.

That’s right; unlike the second sentence to Jefferson’s chapter, the Malayan variant irrevocably consigned your right to a pursuit of happiness exclusively to the State. That is to say, it is the State, and by extension, the Rulers, who seek for your happiness. By extension, you may ‘assist’ them in comprehending your desires, but it is they who ultimately decide what makes you happy. If Thomas Jefferson or Abraham Lincoln were to be alive and in Malaysia today, they’d likely denounce our democracy, because Jefferson never intended for the state to exclusively delineate your right to a pursuit of happiness.

But Malay Rulers needn’t give two hoots what Jefferson or Lincoln may or may not think, and aren’t about to rescind on constitutional tenets that impede secularism, which include provision made under Articles 3 and 121(1A) of the Constitution of Malaysia.

But Pakatan Rakyat has you believing that circumstances could change. They’ve imbued their faithful with a sense of invincibility, setting the races against one another. But things are just the way they were designed to be, because God’s in his heaven; all’s right with the world. Pakatan Rakyat or Barisan Nasional, these laws are here to stay as long as the Malays remain a legion.