KPUM as our Representatives

There has been a lot of criticism of KPUM as a representative body, and I guess for good reason. Most of the law students have not heard of us, and those who have don’t know what we do.

I quote our website: “KPUM is an umbrella body for all Malaysians studying law in the United Kingdom”. This is a strong statement to make. Firstly, like I said, a large proportion of Malaysian law students here don’t even know about us. Secondly, even if they did, there was no expressed consent to be represented by KPUM. Thirdly, because of geographical problems, and the lack of publicity of the AGM’s and other events, even if you did want to be involved, you either can’t or wouldn’t know how to.

The United Kingdom Executive Council (UKEC) faces similar problems. (If you haven’t heard of UKEC, well… I’m not surprised). But in their case, it’s not too bad because students don’t directly become members of UKEC. Instead, the Malaysian Societies of each university become members. So even though there is no direct consent by the students, there is indirect consent through the Malaysian societies, and that, I guess, is better than nothing. Of course the societies should individually vote on whether they want to be represented by UKEC, but that’s the societies problem, not UKEC’s.

So KPUM in on sticky ground. I understand the concern of all the law students. I was once very critical about this fact, and although it would be inappropriate for me to say this as a committee member, I still am. But in our defence, we have tried building a name and contact list of all the law students, but there has been little cooperation. They either couldn’t be bothered, or are sceptical about us. The committee of 2006/07 inherited a society with no money and no members and a bad reputation.

We have tried addressing these problems, but its easier said than done. We obviously can’t charge members fees. We no longer receive funding from the Malaysian Student Department. And as for sponsors, most are not willing for some reason or other. As for our reputation, we are seen to be lacking independence. This, i regret to say, is true to an extent. I assure you, the committee has no allegiance to the government, but matters are not as simple as that. We tried organising talks by controversial figures, but that was shot down. We could have gone ahead with it, but it would mean either losing our privileges in the Malaysian Hall, or losing our connections with people who can get things done. And even if we didn’t mind giving all that up in the interest of full independence, it would be a decision which will not only effect this committee, but the next. We are stuck. (and it would not only threaten the society, but the committee personally, since many of us are sponsored, if you know what I mean)

We are trying to achieve our objectives through other means. This forum is one way, and even this is on precarious ground. The issues are a little too controversial for the governments liking (as watered down and stale as they may be). My approach to these issues is not that of indifference, but of care, and although it was seem lacking in ‘conviction, zeal and passion’, I feel it’s a compromise I need to make to keep on doing this. It is you, the readers of this forum who are in a better position to say what has to be said. Someone brought up the issue of our logo (refer previous post), but even that was shot down by many for reasons I personally still don’t understand.

What I am trying to say is that we know what the problems are. I feel we are doing what we can, given our situation. Please feel free to criticise our approach. You can call us ineffective or immature or whatever, and we will swallow it and work on it, but just so that you know, it hurts when people say we are bias, because that couldn’t be further away from the truth.

Dear All,

Happy Chinese New Year.

May the year bring us all good luck, good health and more comments.
Have a great time everyone.

The Dacing and the Kris – A Story of Totems and Taboos

by Jann,

I was rather dismayed at your logo. The Society needs rebranding of sorts. Is it so closely associated with the political parties which are in power in Malaysia or it is an autonomous body concerned with issues of justice? I felt in our young citizens, the guilt of conformity and obedience to powers more mighty than the power of justice. Loosen up and reinvent yourselves as the future leaders of Malaysian society or the same process of conformity will drown you in the murky waters of mediocrity, doing what previous generations have done without fine tuning the path to just justice. Assuming that all governments are essentially concerned for just justice which may be ideologically true but in reality false, we need independent critical minds to thinks clearly about the direction we are going. We need more safety nets for the poor, comprehensive social, health and education insurance for the young to enjoy more equitable health care and fair education to map the future course of Malaysia’s history. We need minimal standards of social equity to understand that there is just justice, not only rhetorical but translated in concrete policies and action. We need a new generation of productive and critical leaders to reshape our thinking or another fifty years will be lost, so it is too much to ask if you could….

“Go out of the state of mind of the political elite and go into the hearts and souls of the common people”. Go beyond social and biological origins into the heart bed of Malaysian experience and make a statement on the common Malaysian today, drowning sorrows in notorious traffic jams, notoriously deadly air, unbending wages and nightly jobs to keep the family going. We are doing well- local newspapers shout out the joys of a few winners of globalisation but who speaks for the millions of silent losers?

‘Are we in a play of sorts, a Macbeth tragedy? Have we adopted the symbols of power of rulers and forgotten we are the ruled? My esteemed young citizens, rulers are only ruled by the rules of ambition and the common man can set them free by the rules of responsibility”

“Is this a dagger which I see before me, the handle towards my hand?
Come let me clutch thee.
I have thee not and yet I see thee still
Art thou fatal vision sensible to feeling as to sight ?
Or art though but a dagger of the mind proceeding from a heat oppressed brain?”

It is not so much the spirituality of the kris or the equilibrium of the dacing which is in question but the minds which control them... How free is our freedom?

“Enjoy your freedom while you can for like romantic love, it goes even before you have found it…. “

ISA 1960

Brief Facts

The Internal Security Act 1960 (ISA) is a preventive detention law in force in Malaysia (and Singapore). Any person who allegedly threatens the national security may be detained by any police officer without a warrant or trail for up to 60 days. After 60 days, with the approval of the Minister of Home Affairs, the person can be detained for a further 2 years, and this is renewable.

This was enacted in 1960, while Tengku Abdul Rahman was Prime Minister.

Quotes

"The ISA introduced in 1960 was designed and meant to be used solely against the communists...My Cabinet colleagues and I gave a solemn promise to Parliament and the nation that the immense powers given to the government under the ISA would never be used to stifle legitimate opposition and silence lawful dissent"
Tunku Abdul Rahman

"The ISA is a measure aimed at preventing the resurgence of the earlier communist threat to the nation... During my term of office as Prime Minister, I made every effort to ensure that pledges of my predecessors, that powers under the ISA would not be misused to curb lawful political opposition and democratic citizen activity, were respected."
Tun Hussein Onn

Recent Application

Several opposition parties, including the Democratic Action Party (DAP) and Parti Keadilan Rakyat(PKR) have spoken out against the ISA. Many of them have leaders or prominent members who were held under the ISA, such as Lim Kit Siang , Karpal Singh and Kim Guan Eng of the DAP, and Anwar Ibrahim of the PKR. (wiki)

Further Facts

The ISA has been amended 18 times, giving it more power every time. In 1989, the powers of the Minister under the legislation was made immune to judicial review by virtue of amendments to the Act, only allowing the courts to examine and review technical matters pertaining to the ISA arrest. Application of habeas corpus cannot be challenged in court, since the amendment gave the Minister of Home Affairs complete discretion in determining whether an individual is a treat to national security.

Further Quotes

1988 – "If we want to save Malaysia and Umno, Dr Mahathir (then Prime Minister) must be removed. He uses draconian laws such as the Internal Security Act to silence his critics."

2003 (after became PM) - called the ISA "a necessary law," and argued "We have never misused the Internal Security Act. All those detained under the Internal Security Act are proven threats to society."
Abdullah Ahmad Badawi

1966 - "no one in his right senses like[s] the ISA. It is in fact a negation of all the principles of democracy."

At a BBC interview recently - "Which one would you prefer, arresting the bomber after the bomb explodes and hundreds of innocent lives are lost or arresting that bomber before the bomb explodes? Do you think we did that just for fun?"
Tun Mahathir Muhamad

Chicken Rice, Petrol and Politicians

Fact 1

Chicken rice in London Chinatown is usually around £5. That is roughly RM35. The average chicken rice (in a Penang hawker stall) is around RM3. So by direct comparison, chicken rice here is about 11 times more expensive.

Fact 2

Minimum wage in London is around £5+ an hour. Minimum wage in Malaysia (I’m not sure if there is any, but I’m guessing) is around RM3. So the purchasing power parity in relation to chicken rice is the same here as in Malaysia.

Fact 3

Price of 1 litre of petrol in Malaysia now is almost RM2. Price here is around £1 (RM7) per litre. So by direct comparison, price of petrol is Malaysia is less than 1/3 the price of petrol here. But 1 hour of work in Malaysia buys you 1.5 litres, whereas 1 hour of work here buys you 5litres.

No real point. Just decided to point out the obvious.

Every time they increase the price, our government says our petrol is still the cheapest in the world. It maybe true, but does it really mean anything?

Rafidah Aziz when she was here said we can’t compare this way, since UK is developed, and we are not. It’s true. We are not. So our politicians should just say that then, rather than just trying to be sneaky by deceiving us with meaningless statements.

Our Constitution and Islam

Constitution of Malaysia
PART I - THE STATES, RELIGION AND LAW OF THE FEDERATION

3 (1) Islam is the religion of the Federation; but other religions may be practised in peace and harmony in any part of the Federation.

This is our constitution. What do you guys think?

This whole discussion is rather fragmented. Just random things that come to mind.

What is the purpose of having a national religion? It is just a pointless statement, or does this imply that there is a hierarchy of religions in Malaysia? Or does it mean that the constitution should be read from an ‘Islamic’ point of view? Lets assume the constitution writers did not put it in for fun. What did they aim to achieve from this provision?

From the wording, Islam is the religion of the federation. Firstly, can a state adopt a religion? I’m not too sure what this means. It doesn’t say Islam is the official religion. It says it IS the religion. Secondly, it says other religions may be practiced in peace and harmony. Does practice here mean merely privately, or openly? There is a ban in propagating other religions other than Islam to Muslims, a fundamental part of some religions. Is this a justified limitation of our freedom to practice religion? Thirly, what is ‘other religions’? Is Scientology a religion under out constitution. Malaysia has banned books by Shi’a Muslims, and has restricted their practices. Is this a restriction against religion?

Islam is the religion practiced by the majority, around 60%. However, this can be misleading because Malays are required to be Muslims by the constitution Article 160. This effectively means that Malays may not convert out of Islam because without losing their status as a Malay, and will have to forfeit all their privileges. Similarly, it is legally possible for a non-Malay to enjoy Bumiputera status under Article 153 of the constitution if they convert into Islam. Special rights for Muslims then, not Malays? Orang Asli’s are usually animist. What about them?

In practice, for Muslims to convert out of Islam is extremely difficult, and the legal process uncertain. In 1999 the High Court ruled that secular courts have no jurisdiction to hear applications by Muslims to change religions. According to the ruling, the religious conversion of Muslims lies solely within the jurisdiction of Islamic courts. Perlis passed a Shari’a law subjecting Islamic "deviants" and apostates to 1 year of ‘rehabilitation’. Negeri Sembilan is the only state which allows Muslims to convert into another religion. No other state allows Muslims to officially convert. In five states, Perak, Melaka, Pahang, Sabah and Terengganu, conversion is a criminal offense which can be punished by a fine or jail term. In Pahang, convicted converts may also be punished with up to six strokes of the cane. (wiki)

In my personal opinion, the constitutional writers did not intend to imply anything. They did not intend to give Malaysia a religion, or expect it to make a difference. I think the only reason it is there was to appease the Malays at that time, who feared their land and religion were being taken away from them. In my opinion, government and society has put more than deserved emphasis on this clause. It is in my opinion, the constitution of this country should remain secular. People can practice whatever they want, but the government should not interfere with this. As it is now, the government is active in infusing Islamic values into the administration of the country.

Note : Issues regarding religion and Islam is under the authority of the state, and not the federal government.