THE demonstration was illegal, plain, but not quite so simple.
The simple fact of the matter is that the law, promulgated in accordance with our parliamentary procedures and processes, has been on the statute books for as long as I can remember. (Just because it has been there for as long as you can remember, does not mean it is entirely right. For instance, the National Economic Policy has been around for more than 30 years, but does that justify it's continued existence? This, and also law that prohibits freedom of assembly, is discriminatory as it favours only the majority and disregards the minorities' interests.)
Whatever our views may be on whether peaceful assemblies should be proscribed or not is something else, and if we consider the law in question to be an ass, then we should persuade and encourage the government to consider repealing it. (There is only so much that civilians can do to persuade and encourage the UMNO-led government to amend legislations. But the simple fact of the matter is, more often not, these appeals have fallen on deaf ears. Parliament is dominated by the ruling party and opposition parties do not have enough seats to be in a position to make real changes.)
Taking to the street, and breaking the law, ostensibly to draw the nation's attention to the deficiencies of the electoral system, seems to me a little careless. (Careless is an inappropriate term to describe the protest. I suppose 'desperate' is a more accurate adjective, especially when parliament is predominated by the ruling party, and the all-powerful executive has divested the judiciary of their powers. In fact, what really is careless is for the Malaysian police to initiate the violent acts of spraying chemical-laced water and firing tear gas on the peaceful, nonthreatening and unarmed civilians.)
I take the simple view that what is legally indefensible cannot be morally or ethically right. Demonstrations, always promoted as peaceful, have a habit of spiralling out of control. We have seen this happening in this country and elsewhere. (The United States' constitution has rights for slave owners. That is legally defensible but does that mean it is morally or ethically right? Recent protests at the Puchong and Cheras tolls ended in violence because the police initiated their attacks on unarmed civilians. Furthermore, not all demonstrations end in violence. Countries like Taiwan, America, United Kingdom, Singapore allow demonstrations which end peacefully.)
The May 1969 race riots started off peacefully enough, and ended in a blood bath. It needs one mindless socially maladjusted individual bent on wreaking havoc on peace and public security, to provoke a massive backlash with the usual predictable consequences. (This point is irrelevant as the protest became violent due to the unwarned attacks by the Malaysian police, which was unnecessary. Otherwise, the protest would have been a peaceful and civilized one.)
A demonstration also provides an opportunity for "agents provocateurs" to manipulate demonstrators to engage in violence, a claim often made against the government when things go awry, as they inevitably will. (Again, this argument is irrelevant as it was the Malaysian police who initiated and engaged in acts of violence against the nonthreatening demonstrators.)
Those going against the law must be appropriately dealt with under the law. This should, by implication and simple extension, apply equally to the Mat Rempits against whose illegal and dangerous behaviour the police appear completely helpless to act. (Poor use of examples - Mat Rempits cause harm to society because ultimately innocent people are often the victims. The protest did not cause harm to society, in fact, it was demonstrators themselves who ended up being injured by the police who were, in this case, not helpless to act.)
They operate in large packs, demonstrating against social inequalities according to their world view. It has been suggested, no doubt tongue in cheek, that had the organisers sought the co-operation of these illegals on their illegally modified motor-cycles, heaven forbid, a new Malaysia's own brand of street "demonstration on wheels" would have made its debut, another first for us. (If that is your interpretation of the motivation of Mat Rempits, I suppose the government is really doing a poor job. But again, if the government had been effective and efficient in curbing social ills, Mat Rempits would not even be an issue.)
By all accounts, it would have been more successful and the petition would have been delivered to Istana Negara a great deal sooner to much revving of noisy exhausts. (How successful would the former method have been? Given the classic Malaysian 'Mudah Lupa' syndrome, it can be inferred that such a method would achieve low levels of success.)
The decision to involve the king made no sense at all. (Why not? He is not the constitutional monarch for no reason. When rights enshrined under the Federal Constitution of Malaysia fails to be protected and upheld by the government, the next best person is the King. As was the case in England, the King is perceived as the 'fountain of justice', who is responsible for redressing injustices and ultimately ensuring the wellbeing of society.)
It was politically motivated and mischievous because if the reason for the demonstration was unhappiness with the electoral process, and reform was thought to be necessary because many provisions appear to have become dysfunctional, then persuade the government to set up a Royal Commission to look into the electoral system. (If it were truly politically motivated, there would not have been participation from the 60 NGOs. In light of this situation, you have provided an inaccurate reflection of the protest as it is, at most, semi-politically motivated. Again, the Royal Commission is established at the whims of government. If provisions were really dysfunctional, would the government setup a Royal Commission and subsequently an electoral reform which would ultimately decrease its parliamentary status?)
The government, no doubt, will want to take advantage of the opportunity provided by the setting up of the Royal Commission to put matters right so that the same old election-time refrain heard every five years about "free, yes, but fair, NO" can be put to rest. (Why would it do so? Why would it take steps that would that causes great disadvantage to the incumbent government? Furthermore, it has done so for the last 50 years.)
The king is above all of this, and to drive a wedge, as the organisers did on this occasion, between the king and His Majesty's prime minister, was mischievous and irresponsible. (Is the government's actions of turning a deaf ear to the peoples' appeals and constantly reciting the illegality of the protest equally as mischievous and irresponsible as well?)
The king should not be dragged through the political mud of the Lower House. (Unrelated to politics, but the welfare of society for free and fair elections; this is a civic matter.)
One of the most unfortunate and unintended spin-offs of the Nov 10 affair was the unseemly and highly unprecedented attack on the Al Jazeera cable network by the Information Minister for what he claimed to be unfair and biased reporting of the event.
The minister, himself a distinguished former Malaysian journalist, has taken the BBC to task for a similar "sin" over another issue.
It worries me when a respected organisation such as Al Jazeera known the world over for its professionalism is subjected to this form of high-handed treatment in a country that promotes Civilisational Islam and liberalism. (Fascism is a more accurate term.)
I have watched the video clip of the interview and the transcript, and I must say the minister could have come out of the interview better, but he cannot blame anyone for the outcome of that unfortunate interview.
To make matters worse, the education minister should not have seen fit to join in the fray by accusing Al Jazeera of biased reporting. (A good example of the over-dominating executive who is biased and fails to see both sides of the picture.)
The information minister is naturally entitled to his opinion, but, I presume, as a spokesperson of the government, he clearly has a duty to express the official views, if indeed they were on this occasion, in an agreeable manner. He strikes me as a gentleman imbued with a highly developed sense of equity and fair play, and a relentless seeker after the truth.
It would be well for him to start by looking at the sort of treatment meted out by our TV stations to parties perceived to hold different views from those espoused by the administration.
The question I am asking is whether the same "standards of truth" demanded of others apply to our Malaysian public and private TV stations. I am sure we would not want to be judged any differently, and on our current record, I fear we are in no position really to point a finger at anyone.
In its editorial in the Nov 12 issue, the normally staid and highly respected New Straits Times was moved to question whether the concern about the electoral process was not just "a pretext for an expression of free-floating anti-establishment angst?"
The administration, whatever its interpretation of the motive behind the event on that wet and blustery Saturday episode in the life of Kuala Lumpur, should, as the NST put it, "pay heed" to what could well be problems in the making.
As we have come to experience in life, what is apparent is not necessarily real. (Perhaps that is just your life that you are talking about. You certainly cannot eliminate the possibility that what is apparent can be real too.)
Whatever our views may be on whether peaceful assemblies should be proscribed or not is something else, and if we consider the law in question to be an ass, then we should persuade and encourage the government to consider repealing it. (There is only so much that civilians can do to persuade and encourage the UMNO-led government to amend legislations. But the simple fact of the matter is, more often not, these appeals have fallen on deaf ears. Parliament is dominated by the ruling party and opposition parties do not have enough seats to be in a position to make real changes.)
Taking to the street, and breaking the law, ostensibly to draw the nation's attention to the deficiencies of the electoral system, seems to me a little careless. (Careless is an inappropriate term to describe the protest. I suppose 'desperate' is a more accurate adjective, especially when parliament is predominated by the ruling party, and the all-powerful executive has divested the judiciary of their powers. In fact, what really is careless is for the Malaysian police to initiate the violent acts of spraying chemical-laced water and firing tear gas on the peaceful, nonthreatening and unarmed civilians.)
I take the simple view that what is legally indefensible cannot be morally or ethically right. Demonstrations, always promoted as peaceful, have a habit of spiralling out of control. We have seen this happening in this country and elsewhere. (The United States' constitution has rights for slave owners. That is legally defensible but does that mean it is morally or ethically right? Recent protests at the Puchong and Cheras tolls ended in violence because the police initiated their attacks on unarmed civilians. Furthermore, not all demonstrations end in violence. Countries like Taiwan, America, United Kingdom, Singapore allow demonstrations which end peacefully.)
The May 1969 race riots started off peacefully enough, and ended in a blood bath. It needs one mindless socially maladjusted individual bent on wreaking havoc on peace and public security, to provoke a massive backlash with the usual predictable consequences. (This point is irrelevant as the protest became violent due to the unwarned attacks by the Malaysian police, which was unnecessary. Otherwise, the protest would have been a peaceful and civilized one.)
A demonstration also provides an opportunity for "agents provocateurs" to manipulate demonstrators to engage in violence, a claim often made against the government when things go awry, as they inevitably will. (Again, this argument is irrelevant as it was the Malaysian police who initiated and engaged in acts of violence against the nonthreatening demonstrators.)
Those going against the law must be appropriately dealt with under the law. This should, by implication and simple extension, apply equally to the Mat Rempits against whose illegal and dangerous behaviour the police appear completely helpless to act. (Poor use of examples - Mat Rempits cause harm to society because ultimately innocent people are often the victims. The protest did not cause harm to society, in fact, it was demonstrators themselves who ended up being injured by the police who were, in this case, not helpless to act.)
They operate in large packs, demonstrating against social inequalities according to their world view. It has been suggested, no doubt tongue in cheek, that had the organisers sought the co-operation of these illegals on their illegally modified motor-cycles, heaven forbid, a new Malaysia's own brand of street "demonstration on wheels" would have made its debut, another first for us. (If that is your interpretation of the motivation of Mat Rempits, I suppose the government is really doing a poor job. But again, if the government had been effective and efficient in curbing social ills, Mat Rempits would not even be an issue.)
By all accounts, it would have been more successful and the petition would have been delivered to Istana Negara a great deal sooner to much revving of noisy exhausts. (How successful would the former method have been? Given the classic Malaysian 'Mudah Lupa' syndrome, it can be inferred that such a method would achieve low levels of success.)
The decision to involve the king made no sense at all. (Why not? He is not the constitutional monarch for no reason. When rights enshrined under the Federal Constitution of Malaysia fails to be protected and upheld by the government, the next best person is the King. As was the case in England, the King is perceived as the 'fountain of justice', who is responsible for redressing injustices and ultimately ensuring the wellbeing of society.)
It was politically motivated and mischievous because if the reason for the demonstration was unhappiness with the electoral process, and reform was thought to be necessary because many provisions appear to have become dysfunctional, then persuade the government to set up a Royal Commission to look into the electoral system. (If it were truly politically motivated, there would not have been participation from the 60 NGOs. In light of this situation, you have provided an inaccurate reflection of the protest as it is, at most, semi-politically motivated. Again, the Royal Commission is established at the whims of government. If provisions were really dysfunctional, would the government setup a Royal Commission and subsequently an electoral reform which would ultimately decrease its parliamentary status?)
The government, no doubt, will want to take advantage of the opportunity provided by the setting up of the Royal Commission to put matters right so that the same old election-time refrain heard every five years about "free, yes, but fair, NO" can be put to rest. (Why would it do so? Why would it take steps that would that causes great disadvantage to the incumbent government? Furthermore, it has done so for the last 50 years.)
The king is above all of this, and to drive a wedge, as the organisers did on this occasion, between the king and His Majesty's prime minister, was mischievous and irresponsible. (Is the government's actions of turning a deaf ear to the peoples' appeals and constantly reciting the illegality of the protest equally as mischievous and irresponsible as well?)
The king should not be dragged through the political mud of the Lower House. (Unrelated to politics, but the welfare of society for free and fair elections; this is a civic matter.)
One of the most unfortunate and unintended spin-offs of the Nov 10 affair was the unseemly and highly unprecedented attack on the Al Jazeera cable network by the Information Minister for what he claimed to be unfair and biased reporting of the event.
The minister, himself a distinguished former Malaysian journalist, has taken the BBC to task for a similar "sin" over another issue.
It worries me when a respected organisation such as Al Jazeera known the world over for its professionalism is subjected to this form of high-handed treatment in a country that promotes Civilisational Islam and liberalism. (Fascism is a more accurate term.)
I have watched the video clip of the interview and the transcript, and I must say the minister could have come out of the interview better, but he cannot blame anyone for the outcome of that unfortunate interview.
To make matters worse, the education minister should not have seen fit to join in the fray by accusing Al Jazeera of biased reporting. (A good example of the over-dominating executive who is biased and fails to see both sides of the picture.)
The information minister is naturally entitled to his opinion, but, I presume, as a spokesperson of the government, he clearly has a duty to express the official views, if indeed they were on this occasion, in an agreeable manner. He strikes me as a gentleman imbued with a highly developed sense of equity and fair play, and a relentless seeker after the truth.
It would be well for him to start by looking at the sort of treatment meted out by our TV stations to parties perceived to hold different views from those espoused by the administration.
The question I am asking is whether the same "standards of truth" demanded of others apply to our Malaysian public and private TV stations. I am sure we would not want to be judged any differently, and on our current record, I fear we are in no position really to point a finger at anyone.
In its editorial in the Nov 12 issue, the normally staid and highly respected New Straits Times was moved to question whether the concern about the electoral process was not just "a pretext for an expression of free-floating anti-establishment angst?"
The administration, whatever its interpretation of the motive behind the event on that wet and blustery Saturday episode in the life of Kuala Lumpur, should, as the NST put it, "pay heed" to what could well be problems in the making.
As we have come to experience in life, what is apparent is not necessarily real. (Perhaps that is just your life that you are talking about. You certainly cannot eliminate the possibility that what is apparent can be real too.)
