At whatever cost the greater good!

Hakim Joe

I absolutely make no apologies for some plain speaking on this day after the Merdeka Day. I write today more in compassion than anger or sorrow, fully hoping that my views will not be taken amiss. I am not beholden to anyone and to me, as a citizen of this, the country that I love and cherish; Malaysia’s interests come above all other considerations.

No one can deny us the exercise of our rights as enshrined and preserved in our Constitution except existing but yet conflicting laws that gives the impression that these contradictory laws cancel each other out but in reality legally permits the enforcer the inalienable privilege to interpret the laws in whatever manner the regulators desires; or the adoption of one conflicting law with total disregard of the corresponding conflicting law depending on what the circumstances are.

These immutable rights and privileges supposedly enjoyed by every member of a democratic society might seem and be perceived as absolute but ultimately comes with strings attached – government regulation. Henceforth, these definitive laws are in fact less than unconditional even though the verbiage in the Constitution might perceive it to being so. It is stated that, “For the greater good of society, they have to be regulated”. To what extent is never stated, neither does it state for the greater good of which (preferred) society.

The rights that we enjoy as citizens of a country are guaranteed by law, but they come with certain obligations or responsibilities that we are expected to fulfil in return. True. Unless we become denizens of an Illegal State, a government formed NOT by the mandate of the majority but constituencies and voting boundaries gerrymandered resulting in the minority winning about 63% of the available parliamentary seats.

The perception by certain individuals that within our society, there has developed an attitude of mind that seems to view human rights as rights without any obligation, is in actuality absolutely true. However, does this apply and relate to all and sundry, and under all circumstances?

There are two sides (or more) in a disagreement with either party both assuming that they are correct. To settle this disagreement, one side will have to give in or be voted to be incorrect – does this mean that the winning party has trampled on the rights of the losing party?

We do not exist in an ideal world where there is no good and no evil. For the good to triumph over evil, the former is impelled to trample on the rights of the evil. No two ways about it. The fallacy that a human being is able to enjoy one’s rights without intrusion into the rights of the opposition remains but a fallacy. I possess a right to be good just as you in return possess the right to be evil.

I will not get into the debate of whether BERSIH is correct, or otherwise. What I need to emphasise is that just as the non-participants possess the right to use the public thoroughfare, so does the participants. What if these people are all wearing the same coloured clothing? When was it legally permissible that a democratically elected government introduce a law (without due parliamentary process) that forbids its citizens to wear a certain type of colour clothing on any certain day?

A demonstration is held primarily to show discontent and its primary objective is to exhibit the extent of this discontentment via sheer numbers. This is what People Power means. It must be highly visible and the choice of Dataran Merdeka as its final destination is inevitable.

If the Filipinos decided to stage their protest in 1986 anywhere except in Metro Manila, Marcos will still be in power. If the Tunisians did not initially march against Ben Ali, he would still rule them with an iron fist and if the demonstration wasn’t visible and high profile, Algerians will not follow suit (lifting of 19 year state emergency), or Jordanians (dismissal of PM Samir Rifai and his entire cabinet), or Omanis (granting of lawmaking powers to Oman’s elected legislature), or Egyptians (overthrow of Hosni Mubarak), or Yemenis (overthrow of Ali Abdullah Saleh), or Sudanese (President Bashir vows not to seek re-election), or Iraqis (PM Nouri al-Maliki vows not to seek re-election), or Bahranis (Economic concessions by King Hamad), or Libyans (overthrow of Gaddafi) , or Kuwaitis (resignation of PM Nasser Mohammed Ahmad Al-Jaber Al-Sabah), or Moroccans (political concessions by King Mohammed VI), or Saudis (economic concessions by King Abdullah), or Syrians (resignation of the government)…you get the picture.

The keyword is maximum international media exposure but even if (hypothetically) Dataran Merdeka was not its final destination, Malaysians in over 50 different countries globally joined hands with their brothers and sisters here in Malaysia. The “gathering” was not predominantly to cause “acute embarrassment to the government” as one distinguished writer stated, as the government is well able to doing so without assistance whatsoever from any sector of the public. One may never know what the exact number of participants but to state as a fact that it is closer to 25,000 rather than the reported (by Al-Jazeera) 80,000 is below the same writer once affiliated with DAP. Perhaps a case of sour grapes?

Well, something I am unqualified to judge, and I won’t. Are all Malaysians in all 50 countries who stood up to be counted absolutely wrong and one writer together with his government absolutely correct?

No one expected an Arab Spring east of the Suez Canal except the one individual who stated it. We are Malaysians. We do not bear arms against the government. We try very hard to change them at the polls. That is what we do. In the last election, the majority voted opposition. That is a fact. Perhaps we will do better in the next election to force a change of government, perhaps not. That remains to be seen.

Let’s put it this way. A Dysfunctional Country is way better than an Illegal State. Old age is a nuisance to humans everywhere in this world. For one, once so distinguished and respected, to say that (and I quote), “…the Chinese have never identified with Merdeka through our 58 years of independence is not in dispute…” is rather disappointing when on the other hand he quotes, “…my record in fighting against any form of discrimination against non-Malays in employment and in the award of scholarships speaks for itself…”.

I am a Malaysian; born here, bred here and will probably be buried here after my death. Is this individual calling me a liar when I say that I have lived through May 13th but still joyfully and proudly celebrates Hari Merdeka as our nation’s Independence Day even though the government calls me a “pendatang”? Perhaps we see and identify the events leading to Hari Merdeka differently but that does not make me any less Malaysian or you any “more” a Malaysian.

For someone who has been in the political scene for such a long time and to state that the political opposition has muscled their way into the agenda as set out by Ambiga is rather hypocritical. The initial agenda for free and fair elections was political. 50.87% popular vote equates 37% parliamentary seats is political. 1MDB is political. The alleged monetary contribution from a foreign nation is political. The sacking of the AG is political. MACC was founded and established via politics. Henceforth, it does not come as even a mild surprise that the political opposition has added their two cents worth towards a gathering that was political from the very beginning. One would be disappointed if they didn’t.

Stay focused, Tunku. Your inclination is showing.