Malaysiakini :: Letters
Malaysiakini :: Letters |
| Bkt Kepong: What happened to academic license? Posted: 21 Sep 2011 01:34 AM PDT I wish to respond to the hotly debated topic of the Mat Sabu interpretation of the Bukit Kepong incident and the fact that he was recently arrested and charged by the police force. My point in this short essay is simply; will we, academics face the same future as Mat Sabu for not supporting mainstream interpretation of not only history but also other social and religious matters? I have been an academic for 24 years and in the field of architectural history and philosophy. I have differed in so many issues from that of mainstream academia, architectural fraternity and religious authorities to the point that I have lost count! From now on, should I look over my back for a police radio car everytime I criticise mosque designs, housing policies, campus designs or the prime minister's office architecture in Putrajaya? From what I understand of Mat Sabu's position in this matter, he is simply saying that there are other people who were the first and also those who were most industrious at fighting the colonialist (or 'protectors'?) rather than Umno. Although I am not an expert in Malaysia's history, what I gather from reading books such as those written by Prof Khoo Kay Kim, there were a few groups who were seeking independence from the British. One was the Islamists who were the most active group whilst the other were such as those who wish to set up the Melayu-Raya idea as part of Indonesia. Mat Sabu mentions that there were also those who believed in communism who were also joining the struggle. In one sense it is quite easy to accept the statement that these were the original independence fighters. What is the problem? Of course now the contention is that we were not colonised but 'invited' or 'protected' by the British. That was news to me! Though I accept the explanation but I prefer Prof Dr Aziz Bari's statements and Farish Noor's writings that said in practice we were colonised. Raja Petra also published the Office of the Colonial Administration regarding Malaya. Whatever it is this has been a lively eye opener to a novice history student such as I. For the government to brand Mat Sabu as a a citizen who seems to be like some kind of traitor, to me is simply an overexuberence of political statements that has become the normal practice and I took no notice of it. But what irked and shocked me was when Mat Sabu was arrested! Will I be arrested for stating that philosophically our mosque designs are not within the Prophet's spirit of moderation? Will I be arrrested for saying that we can learn a lot from Frank Lloyd Wright's church designs and adapt the organic architecture philosophy to mosque design? Will I be charged in court for having the opinion that for a democratic country, Putrajaya shows a complete disregard for democracy in its planning and architectural approaches? Will I be stripped of my citizenship for saying that in campus design, UTM Skudai is totally student-unfriendly and that Taylors University is the best student-friendly design? I could go on and on for a few thousand more words about what I disagree in matters of architecture and many others on education, politics and religion. Those are merely the tip of the iceberg. I recall sitting in Dewan Sultan Iskandar and watched Dr. Mahathir being conferred a honorary doctorate by UTM and listening intently to Mahathir' rendition of Malaysia's economic and political history. I remember squirming in my seat when Mahathir criticised the monarchy for 'giving in' to the colonialists and preferring getting a pension rather standing with the people. The Sultanah of Johor was sitting barely 2 metres away! Now that was sheer academic guts! That was one thing I admired about Mahathir. In his paper, Mahathir never made any academic referencing and his paper would be thrown out in a thesis viva. But I do respect his viewpoint that was laced with his own interpretations of historical events. I have also read Lee Kuan Yew's version of the Singapore story and learned a great deal not about historical events in Singapore, Malaya and Malaysia but also I learned about his own interpretation of who actually caused the racial riots. I am still suspending my judgement on that issue until I have read a great deal more. So now what will happen to academia? Is it not enough that our Secondary school history books are interpreted in a singular manner that now even academics must support the winning political party's view of things? If so, we should close down our universities and start sending our children across the shores for real education. What is the National Professors' Council stand on the arrest of Mat Sabu, I wonder... I know that most of the NPC views usually seems to 'echo' the view of the ruling party. But perhaps they should clearly make a stand on what it means to have or have not; an academic license. |
| ISA reforms: More than a political smokescreen? Posted: 21 Sep 2011 12:19 AM PDT Credit must be given to Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak for announcing the abolition of the infamous Internal Security Act (ISA), the lifting of three states of emergencies and along with that the Emergency Ordinance. It is our hope that without these laws, detention without trial in Malaysia shall now forever be confined to the annals of history. The prime minister has won his plaudits, most noticeably from the United States, and rightfully so. I mean why not give the man credit for what he appears to be doing, even if it is for the wrong reasons? If our nation, which has been plagued by oppressive laws even before independence, can boast ourselves to be a progressive democracy, the detention of political leaders, NGO heads, and not forgetting newspaper reporters has to been gotten rid of. Naturally this optimism of reforms have been dampened somewhat by his announcement that there shall be two alternative laws which would then place preventative measures in place to counter terrorism, safeguarding public order and put in place race relations legislation. The fear is that these laws may be sufficiently ambiguous for politicians to be detained without trial under the purview of these new laws. De facto law minister Mohd Nazri Abdul Aziz announced that these laws would not be repressive, but as I know the learned minister would understand that this is wholly dependent on the scope of these laws and their enforcement. Furthermore, the two safeguards Nazri mentioned are sufficiently ambiguous that they can be subject to abuse. The first safeguard is that one cannot be detained on the basis of political belief. The second is that extended detention can only be approved by the courts. The first safeguard is purely the subject of interpretation. Where the police would see fit to charge a politician giving a ceramah regarding views that he or she may have about religious practice, under the new law they can be detained. I would go so far to submit that there no one was detained under the ISA based purely on political beliefs or alignment. Looking at the history of ISA detention, it is more as to what they had said, written or done which had landed them in hot soup with the government, not so much their political leanings. When elements of speeches can be taken out of context and the charges framed to interpret those elements as subversive, inciting racial hatred or disruptive to public order, charges under the new laws can certainly be laid. Perhaps the second issue, which is the judiciary, would be of another concern. This would be a safeguard only if we knew our judiciary was an independent body. With the farce of the Anwar Ibrahim case continuing, public opinion would not favour the judiciary to protect the interests of the public rather than the government of that day. If we were to have an independent and competent judiciary, our legal system would flourish. Would there still be bias? Certainly. However, we shall be assured that there would be no element of coercion for judges to make decisions pleasing to their political masters. In order for the prime minister to prove the sincerity about the reforms to be made, he should also ensure that there should be stringent laws enforced against any interference in the judicial process. Judicial reforms would additionally have a positive impact on the economy and boost foreign investor confidence. Perhaps the subsequent string of attacks on the opposition parties was not particularly fair. Yes, Najib is responsible for announcing the abolition of the ISA, but the constant pressure from the opposition, NGOs and the rakyat certainly led to the action finally being taken. Smear campaigns are certainly part of politics and Pakatan Rakyat has to quickly re-brand and re-position themselves for the upcoming elections. There is no doubt that the prime minister's image has improved as a result of this, but will it be a political smokescreen or is it possible that the BN leadership can actually show some forward thinking? We will be watching closely. DOUGLAS TAN received his law degree from the University of Nottingham. He blogs at dougtan.blospot.com |
| You are subscribed to email updates from Malaysiakini :: Letters To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
| Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610 | |
0 ulasan:
Catat Ulasan