Hastened Post

Such haste…

The on-going – can I say saga? – of JAWI versus Border’s on their charging of their staff Nik Raina Nik Aziz exposes further the kind of murky confluence that could occur in a two divergent legal system.

Blogger Din Merican has written extensively on the chronology of the whole drama from the raids on Border’s Mid Valley and Bangsar Village to the charging, the filing of a judicial review on the legality of the raid and consequent charging, the stay application, the request for a swifter hearing of the charging, the courts’ separate acquiescence to two completely conflicting sets of applications…

The three latest dates being bandied as thus as follows: hearing of an application for stay of the Syariah proceedings at the High court on July 30, new mention date for Nik Raina at the Syariah High Court on Aug 7 while the judicial review at the KL High Court on Sept 5.

Note that the original mention date for Nik Raina’s was Sept 19.

It could well be much ado about nothing as usually nothing of consequence occurs in mentions anyway which are often case-administration breathers.

Note also the original catalyst for the whole rigmarole - Irshad Manji's controversial book Allah, Kebebasan dan Cinta – is now pretty much yesterday’s news in especially the MSM.

It may well be down to PRINCIPLES.

That an offence has been committed and so the offender has to pay.

Yep. I really, really, really believe this to be it especially in the light of the many other similar instances where the application of the above PRINCIPLE is on display.

Typed straight faced. Honest.

The matter about principles also came up yesterday during the Q & A session post Professor Tariq Ramadan’s talk at ISTAC in Jalan Duta.

In fact, the start was quite a cringeworthy, but fortunately only a passing, moment: a participant stood and stated that he was asking a question from a “VVIP” who couldn’t make it to the talk / lecture who wanted to know if the Arab Spring was Islamic and if the same could occur in Malaysia.

I couldn’t quite recite Professor Ramadan’s answer in its entirety but the gist of his answer was that the majority of the protestors were in fact muslims, young and old, men and women.

And the principles are work are those which are Islamic in essence – good governance and justice, for example.

I’m paraphrasing, of course, as the good Professor - who is banned in a whole list of countries for speaking his mind out loud – provided a far more comprehensive view than I could ever articulate, ever.

As to whether something similar could occur here, his answer was simply: “I do not know. It is for you to tell me.”

VVIP, huh? Usual suspects, I presumed.

Treasonous Ingrates

During the course of an FB chat, a friend asks for my comments on a former reporter colleague’s posting of choosing between peace and prosperity, or freedom, rights, integrity and transparency.

In the Malaysian context, this is supposedly a Hobson’s choice.

As it was close to midnight, I yammered some incomprehensible reply before logging off but an article on the massacre of 57 people, including 31 journalists, on a November morningthree years ago in Maguindanao got me thinking again on the question.

Yes, we have been blessed with relative – the main blemish being the May 13, 1969 riots - peace and prosperity throughout the 54 years of the nation’s existence.

Why couldn’t we, then, put in place principles that upholds one's freedom and rights, governing integrity and transparency – and if I may add – moral and ethics into the way we administer the country?

Can’t we have both? What is it about the latter that is so threatening to the former that co-existence is supposedly impossible?

We are not talking about unbridled freedom and rights but in the context of the proper adherence to the Rule of Law; i.e. where EVERYONE knows exactly where the boundary lies and the penalties for transgressing this line.

Realistically, it is here that we have been found wanting for quite a while now with seemingly two sets of rules being in play: one for the politically favoured and, another, for the rest of us.

That, and the seeming politically-expedient way of our execution of some laws: the most recent being the charging of a Border’s bookstore staff over the banned Irshad Manji’s book.

At least, there is a Judicial Review on the matter.

The retroactive nature of the alleged offence and the seriousness of its outcome (for the staff’s livelihood and freedom) means that there shouldn’t be any other way forward than to contest the charge brought against her under the Syariah Enactment.

So, can it be argued that the Rule of Law is alive and well as such?

Before we come to the said conclusion, do remember that Borders is owned by Berjaya Books and in Malaysia, Berjaya is a biggie.

There shouldn’t have been a charging in the first place had the Rule of Law really been adhered to.

All things said, I have to admit that the country is a relatively peaceful place to live and work in.

Not necessarily play, though, (pun intended) – what with the, ahem, increased perception of lawlessness apparent amongst some of the populace.

What is also true, however, is that some of the natives are restless; a sentiment simmering just below the all-glossy,shiny surface of the nation’s peace and prosperity facade.

Restless over perceived and actual bias in the implementation of national policies, over the seemingly accepted culture of rent seeking as a valid method of earning a living, over a more apparent division of class on top of the already well entrenched polarization of race, over the increasingly burdensome chase of economic over social well being…

Perhaps these are just the middle class / urban suburban / Gen X manic responses to the crushing economic malaise of late.

Or mere ravings of the disgruntled, treasonous ingrates as purported by some of our politicians.

Sadly, the peace we’ve held for so long did not see the putting into place a system of governance where such grievances could have been amicably tackled.

I’ve often asked this question: how and when did the country go off tangent in its nation-building to come to this sad state?

When did we make peace and prosperity, and governance, rights, integrity and transparency a Hobson’s Choice?

To some, this was when the Doctor was in the house.

Was it? Why did we let it be so?

Did we want our people to be forever in hand outstretched for crumbs mode?

The Tyranny of Thanos the Titan

Dweebos

The residents lodged a general report to say the parade of a cow's head was not meant to insult Hindus.

The report stated that the cow's head was meant to be a symbol of the "stupidity of the state government" and it was not intended as a religious insult, he said.

He here refers to Shah Alam district police chief Assistant Commissioner Noor Azam Jamaludin.

And that supposedly makes it all better?

They spat, stomp and kick at a poor animal’s head (carcass) and that’s it?

These AHs risk racial/religious flare-up and that’s it?

That’s (blipping) it?

Please don’t bring up arguments in the spirit of Ramadhan and forgiveness.

These AHs insulted this revered month by bringing disrepute to Islam by doing something that has only receive condemnations and brickbats (with some notable exceptions; of course from the usual suspects).

Just because it’s against the PR state government shouldn’t matter.

The AHs could have applied more brain power to their protest and not the stupid route that they end up taking.

(Mengata Dulang Paku Serpih. Mengata Orang Dia Yang Lebih.)

Some of the “What Ifs” scenarios that can be imagined from this episode is disturbing and others downright horrific.

We don’t want that.

So cut the crap, please.

Someone thought up the “cow-head” insult.

That someone should now have also the guts and balls to face the law.

It is not healthy for this country to continue going its two standards in “Us” and “Them”.

Pleaselah.

It’s not a route we wish for the next 52 years or more.