What the Sam Hill?!

Morality policing in Malaysia has certainly gone lopsidedly loony.

Who would have imagined a mere staff of Borders charged before the Syariah High Court for “distributing by way of selling the book entitled, Allah, Liberty and Love (The Courage to Reconcile Faith and Freedom”).

WTH???!

Technically, the charge could well be valid since Nik Raina Nik Abdul Aziz was the Mid Valley outlet’s store manager, but logically, neither the books by Irshad Manji nor the outlet, Borders, are hers to start with.

Nik Raina faces a RM3,000 fine or a maximum of two years' jail or both under Section 13(1) of the Syariah Criminal Offences Act (Federal Territories) 1997, if convicted.

Am really not sure how the charge is worded but going by the Star’s phrasing of “distributing by way of selling”; it seems to be one of strict liability. Legal eagles would definitely be able to explain this to all us layman.

A store manager, huh?

Didn’t have the balls to go after the real owner, is it? Borders, according to the Star, belong to Berjaya Books Sdn Bhd.

Look at the penalty for God’s sake and tell me if it’s just?

A bookstore staff…

Did she have like total control over the outlet? Over the procurement of all books?

How many books do Borders have in stock?

The one at the Curve in Damansara seems to have like a billion books from the most innocent My First ABC to the horrendously explicit Brian Azzarello’s 100 Bullets series (to cite an example).

But of course, the latter isn’t something that is "deemed to be against the Islamic Law (Hukum Syarak)" even if it does feature gratuitous sex and violence every other issue.

Is Nik Raina’s charging to set an example? Couldn’t she be just slapped with a mere warning to take the books out within a certain period - her convictions on the book’s contents and the banning act notwithstanding?

How in heaven’s name are Muslims supposed to show that Islam is the perfect Addin when you have something so logically, chronically unjust?

What others see is the authorities picking on the easiest of targets to make an example of.

Someone like Nik Raina. 

Uphill Gostanning

"The officers' misconduct violated regulations, so we're in the process of asking them to explain the allegations against them," said MACC chief commissioner Datuk Seri Abu Kassim Mohamed, according to Bernama.

Is “in the process of” the formalspeak of the more familiar “on the way” informalspeak?

“On the way”, by the way, is a way overused phrased which does not specify the when-about, the how-about or the where-abouts of its utterer to, usually, the question of: “Where are you?”

The officers’ in the above statement, of course, refers to the trio found by a Royal Commission Inquiry as having “driven to commit suicide by the aggressive and relentless interrogation” one Teoh Beng Hock (RIP), the former political aide to Selangor Exco, Ean Yong Hian Wah.

That was nearly three years ago (minus three months or so) on July 16, 2009 when the late Teoh was found dead at Plaza Masalam in Shah Alam.

Three years after the tragic incident and they are still “in the process”.

The RCI perhaps? Ah yes, the RCI.

But shouldn’t there be an internal procedure dealing with cases of death - especially one so suspicious – of accused (more so when involving a mere witness) in custody? Isn’t this supposed to be an automatic trigger for ALL legitimate enforcement bodies throughout the world?

They were suspended: Yep. So, weren’t there any “explanation” made then?

Really can’t recall if all three officers had their say during the RCI. If they had, then having another round of explaining is surely an exercise of repetitively recurring redundancy.

And, if they were suspended pre-RCI finding, what other “disciplinary actions” can be taken against the trio based on their explanations, which I supposed would be “on the way”?

By the way, according to Bernama, all three officers’ suspension has since been lifted and they are no longer with the Selangor office.

The wheels of justice are really “in the process” of turning in this one.

Imagined Stupor

Should I care
That the moon shuns a cloudless night sky
Should the sun cools a breezy afternoon
When a river trickles through a land parched
If the wind skips a sail held limp

Do I dare
Mouth words written silently in my mind
Capture images floating in a imagined album
Deny a memoir sketch from memory
Cast gloom on a dreamy fantasy

Don’t we fear
When children are adults too fast
Where rulers and peasants crowd the market selling
(Who’s buying we say as we turn away)
Of trusts treated like a private cask
Since liars masquerade as heralds born

Are we to enjoy
A hearty laughter from a stomach empty
At salesmen selling imagination for a fee
The measured trusts of dueling racial rapiers
When piled the land’s riches on barges
(Traversing the sea to destinations unknown)

My frame slouches
As the mind doubts
Of feigned interests
And caring, hyped

So we leave things be
Figuring somebody else
Will carry the burden of ascendency
A life in a stupor of faked serenity…

Walking the Talk aka For the love of an Ice Blended Mocha

Marina Mahathir walked the BERSIH walk. Imagine that.

While I was following the whole rally via Twitter and Facebook in the comforts of my home, the daughter of Dr Mahathir is with the very people her father – and a host of like-minded others - so deeply detests.

She started her post with a simple sentence: So I went.

Marina, you have both my envy and admiration.

Having read Marina’s BERSIH 2.0 experience, I am ashamed on at least two counts: one, for not being there despite my belief in the thrust of the rally’s objective, and two, for having doubts as to whether the BERSIH was worth it.

The latter came after witnessing the torrent of propaganda masquerading as “news report” churned out by TV3 and RTM1 news much, much later in the evening.

A TV3 reporter, supposedly reporting at the scene complete with the irony of an empty street for a backdrop, even quoted “unnamed sources” – aren’t they always - warning of God-knows-what unknown threats of unspecified nature but connected with all probability with the Haram Demonstrators still lurking around somewhere.

Pure bollocks and baloney. Nothing’s changed, I thought.

On top of these were particularly venomous postings and comments from the FB circle of friends.

What the freezing hell was that all about? Why the hatred for people who were basically walking to highlight their constitutional grouse for fair elections.

I was thinking, thus, of posting something along the lines of “So, have BERSIH actually achieved anything despite the euphoria of its supposed success…” and, in my mind, its mostly in the negative.

That was before I read Marina’s post. I’ve realized thus that in many counts, BERSIH has achieved something after all.

BERSIH has shown that it is possible to rally to a Rights centric cause in a non -partisan way. The rally last Saturday is ironically a showcase of the much spoken 1Malaysia concept with its diverse composition of walkers.

I particularly liked her comments of “reformasi” chants being drowned by a bigger chant of BERSIH. Rightly so, this is one movement that no one can hijack as it belongs to the Rakyat.

Sure, as one FB friends puts its “… so what if you have 100,000..”

Numbers are just statistics. God knows the current Governments churns them out on a regular basis with the consistency of a well blended iced tall Mocha Latte with whipped cream.

Notwithstanding the almost haphazardly organized look of the rally, this was a group that truly believed in their ideals and keeping to it.

Imagine that by 5pm, everything was back to the way it was and my so many FB Friends who lamented being burdened with not being able to lepak around KL can do so with complete abandonment.

Some roads will still be jammed through, BERSIH or no BERSIH.

But, who cares, right?

Eyes Wide Open

First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me--
and there was no one left to speak out for me.

Martin Niemöller (1892-1984)

Beneath this mask there is more than flesh. Beneath this mask there is an idea, Mr. Creedy, and ideas are bulletproof.

V

The streets are extended gutters and the gutters are full of blood and when the drains finally scab over, all the vermin will drown. The accumulated filth of all their sex and murder will foam up about their waists and all the whores and politicians will look up and shout "Save us!"... and I'll look down and whisper "No."

They had a choice, all of them. They could have followed in the footsteps of good men like my father or President Truman. Decent men who believed in a day's work for a day's pay.

Instead they followed the droppings of lechers and communists and didn't realize that the trail led over a precipice until it was too late. Don't tell me they didn't have a choice.

Now the whole world stands on the brink, staring down into bloody Hell, all those liberals and intellectuals and smooth-talkers... and all of a sudden nobody can think of anything to say.

Walter Kovacs/Rorschach

Coffee Tablogs

A line from the Federal Court’s on Nizar versus Zambry decision:

“..terbuka untuk pemohon (Nizar) untuk membawa usul tidak percaya terhadap responden (Zambry) di LA (DPR) atau membuat representasi untuk Kebawah Duli (Baginda Sultan Perak) bila saja jika ia berfikir bahawa responden tidak menikmati sokongan daripada majoriti ahli LA..”

What exactly do these words mean?

Long, long ago, I learned of two Latin phrases – Ratio Dicedendi and Orbiter Dicta.

Both are concerned with legal decisions, but they are of different weight.

Ratio Dicedendi is the rationale behind a decision, while Orbiter Dicta are statements said in passing on certain issues which does not per se affect or influence the ultimate ruling.

The first is binding and sets a precedent, the latter does not.

What of the above remark by the Federal Court in the case? A plain reading seems to suggest it is mere Obiter Dicta as it doesn’t seem to have any weight on whether or not Nizar could succeed in his action against Zambry.

Bar Council’s Edmund Bon – who is also Nizar’s counsel – says it is an “escape clause” for the applicant.

It does suggest routes that could (should?) be taken when a government no longer seems to command the majority.

Two methods are spoken of: the motion of no confidence and a representation before the Ruler.

The first is quite common, but in reality, more a move to embarrass than to really do what it is supposed to be doing.

A move for such motion is usually proposed through the Speaker who will invariably be from the Government of the day. Enough said, I suppose.

More effective are those impromptu (technically speaking) vote of no confidence: Remember the Budget 2010 debacle when the Government scrapes through with only three (if I am not mistaken) votes?

That is one way of doing so without having to even raise such a motion in the first place.

Hypothetically, though, the government of the day can call such motion against itself and then represent to the Ruler dissolution of the State Assembly from loss of majority.

Will anyone do so, though? Nizar argued that he had attempted the same in his case.

In the MI article, Bon suggested the following to be truer to (political) reality: “If a Mentri Besar thinks he has lost the confidence already, he is never going to ask the Sultan to dissolve the Assembly anymore because backdoor dealings will be a better route to maintain or seize power.”

More curious bit is the part about “the applicant”.

WHO exactly did the decision mean with respect making representations to the Ruler? The opposition? The prospective would-be Menteri Besar? The Speaker? Whosoever thinks that the majority is lost?

While Orbiter Dicta may well be opinions / legal views said in passing, but at the same time, they are persuasive in nature.

These are hypothetical suggestions but still very much based on legal applications, which later decisions can quote as persuasive views.

Weird, this one.

PS: As I am not a legal practitioner or a current student at law or even someone remotely related to the practice, the above are rants from one with the most basic of legal knowledge.

In other words, coffee table talk stuffs.

Naif Expectations

Federal Court’s decision (as per The Star):

The Apex court ruled that if a Mentri Besar refused to resign, his office was deemed to have been vacated.

The bench ruled that the vote of no confidence could be determined by other means than from the Perak Assembly.

Now let’s have some dissenting notes, shall we?

This one is way out of my bounds, but I’m betting some legal scholars can do justice with a detail discussion on the above two items.

Let’s talk layman like, though:

1. Who “deems” a Menteri Besar office is vacated? The courts? The Rulers? The State Assembly?

2. “Other means” – legal “other means”? Ruler's exercise of discretions “other means”? Any other means as practicable “other means”?

Going the logical route would mean that a Menteri Besar is thus supposed to resign when he no longer commands a majority in the State Assembly.

(This is from my reading somewhere that once appointed he can't be sacked. I stand to be corrected.)

As such, the second reasoning comes into play, doesn't it?

But when is this point of "losing a majority" reached? How is this read? A show of hands? Newspaper reports? The Blogs (kidding, of course.)

What of "Vote of No Confidence"?

By who?

The State Assembly, shouldn't it?

This mess is such a Chicken and Egg that it boggles the mind.

Curious to see how the Federal Court debunks the initial High Court’s reasoning, too.

Ho hum..

UEA's Ziggurat