Category: Politics & government

Categories
Politics & government

[2217] Of it says not less than RM2,000!

I am busy but this controversy relating to Tian Chua’s sentence and his status as the Member of Parliament for Batu enrages me so much that I feel compelled to write something about it.

The law clearly states that an MP will lose his or her chair in the Parliament if he or she is ”sentenced to imprisonment for a term of not less than one year or to a fine of not less than RM2,000 and has not received a free pardon.” Any respectable college graduate — even those whom have passed their high school — will see that the equivalence is an MP will lose his or her chair if sentenced to jail for one year or more, or fined RM2,000 or more.

Surely, one does not need a law degree to come to that conclusion. Apparently, some in the legal profession believe that, as a friend of mine said, they can rewrite the laws of mathematics. They insist that legal precedent overrules mathematics!

Somebody should point out to them that this group of legal experts may lack knowledge of mathematics to undertake such a bold project.

This is probably a damning sign of the deplorable state of Malaysian education and legal systems. They do not know their inequality. Yikes!

Tian Chua the Batu MP at first was sentenced with a fine of RM3,000. In the name of public interest, the judge reduced the sentence to RM2,000 to avoid the need for a by-election, which will increase the cost of his judgment. Good intention, maybe, but RM2,000 will simply not do it. It has to be less than RM2,000.

Tian Chua’s legal counsel Amer Hamzah argues that ”not less than RM2,000” means more than RM2,000 and cites a legal precedent to back it up. Lawyers are lawyers. They want to win and I cannot blame them for that. They are paid to win. What more can I say?

Regardless of that, the truth is that the precedent is wrong and it has to be corrected.

Unless the judge believes in that argument by the lawyer, the judge has mistaken in his action. His action is not in line with his intention. Unlike Amer Hamzah, the judge does not have the room to perform ridiculous maneuvre. The judge should live up to the mistake and allow the next piece in the domino set to fall.

If the judge actually believes in Amer Hamzah’s argument, then the judge has to be an illiterate of mathematics.

A legal expert Shaq Faruqi states that ”[i]f the judge said he wished to avoid an election and to substitute the first court’s sentence with a sentence that avoids a by-election, then we should try to give effect to that purpose.” Professor, good intention is not enough.

It is not good enough because all this could have been avoided. It was not and we are at this juncture. Maybe, the judge is incompetent to do the necessary. Maybe, it is a plain mistake. Whatever it is, the right thing to do is to live with the mistake and live with the law. The law in this matter is quite uncontroversial anyway.

Furthermore, it is not good enough because there is a way to address this problem without bending the law too much. The next course of action should be an appeal.

But if Tian Chua refuses not appeal as he has indicated, then by all means, let us have an election in Batu. That is the rule of law. No to arbitrariness, please.

And let us blame the judge for incompetence.

Categories
Politics & government Society

[2216] Of solution to Methodist Church’s fear of politicization

The Methodist Church in Malaysia is apparently under heavy criticism after it accepted money from the BN federal government during the recent Sibu parliamentary by-election. Quite clearly, the context in which the money was given strongly suggests that the money transfer was political of nature. The transfer could have been done outside of election time but I am confident that without the election in Sibu, the money would not have found its way to the Church’s hand.

Bishop Hwa Yung of the Church’s Council of Presidents in defending the Church, among others, states that it is the responsibility of the government to give grants to religious bodies.[1]

The Bishop insists that the Church cannot takes sides in politics. Yet, the Church suffers from politicization and it was presented with difficult fork: accept the money and be dammned as pro-government; reject the money and be deemed as pro-opposition.

A pragmatist would look at the options, understand the inevitability of politicization under the scenario and settle for the least hurtful outcome. Between suffer politicization, or suffer politicization and be several millions richer, the optimal solution is non-brainer. The Church is a pragmatist. It took a pragmatist action. It took the money. It is as simple as that. Save the moral argument.

The fear of politicization issue would have been comprehensible if it is not how the Bishop defended the action of the Church. The Bishop writes “the problem in our country is that most of the money for religious bodies is usually given to one particular religious community, with relatively much smaller proportions given to other communities“.

It is hard for me to sympathize with the Church when it uses that reasoning as its shield. First of all, the Church should realize that this is an arbitrary gift from the government. The grant in no way solves the problem of unfairness that the Bishop raises. Besides, no wrongdoing should be used to correct a wrong. The act of justifying the arbitrariness is thus problematic, making the Church’s fear sounds hollow.

As a secularist, his statement that it is the responsibility of the government to give grants to religious institutions makes it impossible for me to sympathize with the Church.

Perhaps such dilemma would not have existed if the state was secular. By secular, it is the idea that it is not the responsibility of the state to provide religious bodies with money.

If the Church does not want to find itself in such dilemma ever again, it should support such secularism. Under such secularism, the Church will never have to face the oh-so-painful problem of accepting or rejecting money from the government.

Secularism solves the dilemma cleanly. Why not try it?

But really, is it a dilemma to start with? Who are we kidding? A lot of us can do with a little bit of money. That includes religious institutions as well.

Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved

[1] — Many of our church members are aware of the reports in the media that the government made grants to four Methodist churches in Sibu, on the eve of the recent parliamentary by-election. The Council of Presidents discussed this matter at its May 25 meeting.

Pending fuller deliberations on the matter by the General Conference Executive Council at its upcoming meeting, we wish to issue a pastoral letter stating the following:

1. First, the giving of grants to religious bodies for the advancement of religion, as well as to other bodies like schools, etc, is a government responsibility. To receive such is a citizen’s right. After all, the money given is actually taxpayers’ money. [Church is non-partisan, grants put us in dilemma. Hwa Yung. Malaysiakini. May 28 2010]

Categories
Politics & government

[2201] Of wait, did I endorse them?

Through these hectic times, I have not got much time to say too much.

But let me say just this: I endorse the Tories.

Categories
Politics & government

[2199] Of Obama says Go Blue!

[youtube]pcNXFz_QCVU[/youtube]

Categories
Politics & government

[2198] Of either empower it or be done with it

In an ideal world, the Dewan Negara would serve to strengthen division of powers in Malaysia. It is supposed to represent the interest of member states of the Malaysian federation. In the world we live in, such idealism is as mythical as a unicorn. If being a glorified rubber-stamp is not insulting enough to the idea of federalism, the upper house functions as Santa Claus’ sack, with the prime minister as Santa. Every time he reaches in to reward his political allies, the farther the myth of federalism floats beyond memory.

Yes, this refers to the recent appointment of four new senators to the Dewan Negara.

Put aside the issue of appointment as political reward for a moment. Put aside even questions regarding the capabilities of these new senators.

Consider what the appointment does to power of the 13 member states vis-à-vis the federal government, which for years appeared to be more of a central government for a unitary state than that of a federal one. Each time the prime minister plays the role of a generous political master, the 13 member states lose their rightful influence to shape the course of this country.

The line where the Dewan Negara begins to stop functioning as protector of state interest has long been crossed. What else is there to say when the number of senators speaking on behalf of the federal government is nearly double that of those who truly represent their states?

For federalists, a discussion on capabilities of these senators is a worthless exercise to have. For them, the Dewan Negara is dead. It is dead as a symbol of federalism and it is dead as the protector of federalism.

Life can only be injected into it by relieving the prime minister of power to advise the Agong with respect to the appointment of senators, as well as convincing the Agong and relevant institutions to give up the power to appoint senators. Without such power, there is one fewer avenue for the federal government to bully the states.

Efforts to convince the rulers to give up the power might not be as hard as it sounds. After all, it is in their best interest to have a functioning Dewan Negara, where the interests of each state can be properly forwarded without being beholden to the federal government. With greater say within the federation, member states will attain prestige. That prestige will come in the form of a more balanced relationship between the states and the federal government.

Without such power, the Dewan Negara, again, is dead. One buries the dead.

Yet, the institution and its senators walk aimlessly and pretend to debate matters of national importance with nauseating pomposity, as if their debates and votes matter. At times, these senators even have the audacity to request for more public money in the name of serving the people. The dead cannot serve the people.

Either empower the Dewan Negara, or be done with it altogether. Rather than let the dead walks to consume precious public funds the living need, it is better to let the dead be dead.

Federalists would mourn the demise of the upper house. Know however, that to mourn once is far less painful for federalists than to suffer mockery all the time.

Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved Mohd Hafiz Noor Shams. Some rights reserved

First published in The Malaysian Insider on April 30 2010.