[youtube]G3r6xvwPGcY[/youtube]
“And that makes the two of us”:
[youtube]268ncnoitEc[/youtube]
Category: Politics & government
I thought we Malaysians had gone a long way in our methodology in seeking truth and justice. Apparently, I have been overly optimistic.
The Germanic people of the past subscribed to the idea of judicial duel. In absence of witnesses or a confession, they advocated the holding of a duel between the accused and the accuser to determine the status of a case. The winner will be acknowledged as being on the side of the truth. The loser meanwhile will be wrong.
After awhile and too many deaths later, enough individuals finally come to realize that this kind of trial is really about proficiency in weapon handling or strength rather than truth.
Not only law like this is barbaric, outcome of the duel has no bearing whatsoever on the truth.
In a more general sense and more widespread in other parts of the world in the past, trials by ordeal were favored. The status of the accused is determined by having him to undergo unsavory tests. Just like the judicial duel method, the result of any trial by ordeal has little correlation with the guilt or the innocence of the accused.
For the judicial duel, the accuser bears some cost in making any accusation without any proof since he could lose his life if he is not careful. This is a particularly important aspect of the method because the presence of cost acts to potentially discourage any accusation from being made so recklessly.
As for trial by ordeal, the accused cannot simply proclaim his innocence with impunity. There is no cost to the accuser however but at least, there is some still cost to one side.
Regardless, in both cases, words are not cheap and cannot be taken lightly.
In Malaysia at the moment, not only a number of individuals are mocking our judiciary system by debasing as well as preempting it, it has become a trend lately to swear on the Koran to prove one’s case. Somebody may argue that if the person lies, retribution may come in the afterlife but the reality is that, there is no cost in doing so in this life.
Hence, such oaths are cheap.
If such confessions are applied as the benchmark of truth, then desperate people could simply assert their innocence successfully even when all evidence clearly point to them. The acceptance of swearing on the Koran as the benchmark of truth is really about granting somebody a get-out-of-jail-for-free card.
Needless to say, it is impossible for justice to thrive in such situation; that card makes any judiciary system redundant.
On top of that, when such swearing and confession of innocence could be made so cheaply, is there a reason to trust the confession?
No, there is none.
If there were a reason, then we would probably be just as civilized as the barbaric society of the past in terms of dispensing justice. Just as the outcomes of judicial duel and trial by ordeal have little to do with guilt or innocence of a person, so too the oaths on the Koran.
In this imperfect world, it is only prudent to assume that every individual is interested in advancing his own interest. Whether we like it or not, it is safer to assume that the willingness to swear has more to do with promotion of self interest than anything else. Any more well meaning assumption only qualifies oneself as being naive.
Besides, does a person need to tell the truth only when he swears on over the Koran?
What an immoral world would we live in if the answer to the question is yes. Truly, the highest of all morals call upon all of us, Muslims or otherwise, to endeavor to be truthful even without the presence of the Koran or any scripture which any of us consider as holy.
It is possible that those whom swear on the Koran do not think much of the scripture but only do so to manipulate the masses. By merely taking an oath, the so-called confessors might believe that they could get away with anything.
If indeed this is what happening, it is no less than an insult to the Koran. This kind of insult is far worse than any cartoon or work of literature could ever throw to any Muslim.
The only way to know whether an insult has been committed is for Muslims to demand investigation into any oath made by citing the Koran. Any kind of serious investigation will impose a cost to the act of swearing on the Koran and this has the potential of discouraging brazen lies from being labeled as truth so publicly.
Moral and religion aside, apart from the obvious fact that these swearing and confessions are cheap, there are several reasons why swearing on the Koran or any scripture for that matter should be outright rejected in no uncertain terms.
One of them is the fact that such action, if it becomes accepted at the benchmark of truth, undermines our judiciary. What is the point of maintaining all the courts if the innocence and guilt of a person could be determined by a mere oath?
Surely millions of Ringgit could be invested elsewhere if we already had found a barometer of truth that is far more reputable than our jaded judiciary system.
Secondly, in a number of cases where the acts of swearing on the Koran have taken place, these cases do not exclusively belong to that of the Muslim community. Many of these cases are of national interests which cut well beyond boundary drawn by religions. The natural question arising from this fact is that why should any non-Muslim accept the Koran as the benchmark of truth?
Even if these cases were exclusive matters of the Muslim community in a way that both the accuser and the accused are Muslims, justice does not exclusively concern that of the accuser and the accused. A phrase commonly attributed to Edmund Burke puts it succinctly: all that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.
In the name of truth and justice, the issues should be brought to the courts. Let a neutral ground be the medium. Bring on the evidence, keep the Koran at home and let the jury deliberate earnestly.
A version of this article was first published in The Malaysian Insider.
From the very beginning, the 2008 Permatang Pauh by-election is not about whether Anwar Ibrahim will win it. It is a question of how much will he win. The magnitude of his win could answer several more questions too but not all.
The first question asks whether support for Anwar Ibrahim has changed since March 8. It is tempting to link the magnitude of his win with support which he will receive at the ballot box but a person makes such connection at his own peril. The reason is that there is really no benchmark to measure this in a conclusive manner.
The kosher way of measuring whether support for Anwar Ibrahim has increased or otherwise based on difference in magnitude: this win needs to be compared with Anwar Ibrahim’s last win in the same place. This method will reasonably control noise that would otherwise drown the signal which we seek.
The problem is that Anwar Ibrahim did not contest in the last election in Permatang Pauh. Instead, it was his wife Wan Azizah Wan Ismail. And the last time Anwar Ibrahim contested there was so long ago in 1995 when the situation was very different. The very different scenes make the comparison between the 1995 and the 2008 results useless in answering the question.
Any comparison between tomorrow’s by-election and the result of March 8 comes closer in answering which voters prefer better between Anwar and Wan Azizah. Even this pretends that the effect of their opponents is practically negligible.
The closest possibly way of measuring whether support for Anwar Ibrahim has changed for better or for worse based on tomorrow result is to assume that Wan Azizah is a proxy for Anwar. The assumption of proxy however ignores any individual effect that exists.
This same assumption however cannot be used to measure how damaging all the negative politics — especially the allegation of sodomy and the subsequent oath on the Koran — employed against Anwar.
While it is true that all that attacks launched by Barisan Nasional against the former Deputy Prime Minister will have an adverse effect to his prospect of being elected into office, it is really hard to know what is the exact or even the rough magnitude of that effect based simply on result of Permatang Pauh by-election. This is especially so when accusation of sodomy is really a weapon which cannot be used against Wan Azizah: Wan Azizah and Anwar are very different for the obvious reason even if proxy is a useful statistical tool. This difference renders the proxy method somewhat unreliable than it usually is.
A better way to measure the effect of the allegations made against Anwar Ibrahim is to have consistent polling, which we probably have thanks to the Merdeka Centre. Alas, that sample may not necessarily describe the preference of voters registered in Permatang Pauh. And result from the Permatang Pauh definitely cannot be used to gauge national sentiment in a satisfactory manner.
An easier question to answer with regard the upcoming by-election is which between Anwar Ibrahim and Wan Azizah Wan Ismail do voters of Permatang Pauh prefer. Another concerns the support level of Parti Keadilan Rakyat among the voters of Permatang Pauh. In both cases, the methodology in finding out the answers is straight forward.
So, do keep these things in mind before you read any political analysis by so-called pundits. Obviously, these questions put forth are not exhausting. Neverthless, the question are useful in identifying sweep conclusion. And sweeping conclusion is the last thing we need to understand the very messy political scenario we are currently in.
Categories
[1746] Of Hadi for PM?
Joke of the day:
Dewan Ulama head Datuk Mohamed Daud wants party president Datuk Seri Abdul Hadi Awang to become the Prime Minister if Pakatan succeeds in forming the new Federal Government on Sept 16. [Ban gaming and drinking joints: PAS Dewan Ulama. Sylvia Looi, Clara Chooi. The Star. August 14 2008]
Assuming that The Star reported this accurately, I think PAS are going over their heads. Maybe, they have been drinking a tad too much?
PAS are definitely still grappling with the fact that they are now the most junior member of the Pakatan Rakyat.
But if PAS are serious, to signal my disapproval of the proposal, I would rather have Abdullah as PM. Heck, I would rather be in Avril Lavigne’s concert!
Unity is a popular concept nowadays. It began with the Malay unity talks and in response to that, M. Kulasegaran of the DAP called for Malaysian unity talks to bring the Barisan Nasional and Pakatan Rakyat together. How close is still unclear.
Meanwhile, the harsh bipartisanship that exists at the moment has prompted fears that this country is falling apart and real issues are not being addressed. All that, however, is nonsense. The political competition we are seeing today is one of the few good things that have happened to this country in a long time.
The uncertain political climate brought about by the ongoing political competition has been cited every now and then as being detrimental to economic growth. I agree with this premise to some extent but that does not necessarily make me wish to turn down the volume. On the contrary, I am excited to witness this chapter of Malaysian history.
Opinion on whether this uncertainty is unfavorable really depends on the time horizon one wishes to adopt as a frame of reference. In the short term, the political uncertainty caused by various factors — from allegations of sodomy and the Altantuya trial to political defection — does indeed shoo away business. The simplest indicator would be the Composite Index. Each time another factor amplifies our political scenario, the Composite Index takes a nosedive.
Looking beyond the hills, beyond instant gratification and beyond quick bucks, what we are experiencing provides us with the best chance to improve our institutions, from the courts to the legislature and to the executive branch of our government. A chance to fix our institutions is a chance to take our economy to greater heights. Laid out in front of us is a rare opportunity to fix our illiberal democracy.
We Malaysians have proven our capability at building skyscrapers, dams, bridges and cities out of nowhere, though cracks do emerge from time to time. At this juncture, I do believe we are in need of abstract rather than physical developments. Among these abstract developments is the strengthening of our institutions.
Strong institutions are an important check-and-balance mechanism and its importance is self-evident. Strong institutions enable the state to play out its foremost function and that is the protection of individual liberty. Strong institutions keep the state honest and true to its citizens.
A strong government, however, has no incentive for such a mechanism. History has proven this; after years of having a strong government, this country has seen its institutions weakened and subservient to the executive. If this country had continued to see a strong government, the chance to fix our institutions would be delayed further into the future while the decay continued.
That has slowly eroded credibility in our institutions as their independence has been continually suppressed for political purposes. As a result, trust in our institutions is probably at its lowest point ever. The civil service, for instance, once the pride of this country, is now a laughing stock.
This is especially worrying if the judiciary is involved. If the system is perceived as incredible and not neutral, it would be incapable of dispensing justice in the eyes of the public. Peaceful arbitration would be hard to achieve and might even give rise to a culture of vigilantes with gross disregard for the rule of law. Having that happening would be far worse than going through whatever we are experiencing at the moment.
This scenario may suffer from a little exaggeration but the first sign of trouble and the rationale for vigilantes is when the citizens themselves begin to frequently question rulings passed by the courts, believing that the institutions are unable or refuse to do their job.
Contrary to strong government, a small government does not have the power to undermine various public institutions such as the courts even if it wants to. A small government, in fact, gives a chance for these institutions to regain their independence once robbed by the executive.
The current political competition also puts pressure on these institutions to become more neutral, as they should be. Whereas once our institutions under strong government had only one political master to answer to, now the monopoly of power is broken.
With stronger institutions, people would have greater confidence in doing business in this country because they know that their rights would be secured. Corruption could be weeded out and this would bring the cost of doing business down as individuals feel empowered with credible public institutions. The improvement and newly rebuilt trust in these institutions could be one of those structural changes which would only benefit us.
To achieve that possibility, it is imperative for us to continue to fuel the flame of bipartisanship. Let the politicians squabble and continue to weaken the government. I am more interested in the rejuvenation of our institutions.
A version of this article was first published in The Malaysian Insider.