Just as history is written by the victors, stories are told by those in power (especially those who control the media). In court yesterday, the Attorney General, who was personally prosecuting the case against the lawyers and activists, repeatedly used the phrase “larger interest of the public”. He was attempting to persuade the court to deny bail on the basis that these people’s freedom would undermine the so-called larger interest of the public.

Now I wonder what he meant by that because to my mind the public will greatly value not only peace and prosperity but also justice and freedom. In any case, the peace and prosperity of Malaysia have been held ransom by Umno in the last few decades of tyranny and corruption. If we look at the bigger picture, we will see that if we had a government that genuinely respected human rights and upheld justice, there would be greater stability and investments for economic development.

The fact is, the lawyers and activists who walked for human rights on Sunday were peacefully walking for the larger interest of the public. However, the Umno government, through their – not the people’s – obedient police tried to create a fiction that the lawyers and activists were causing havoc.

Here’s another fact for consideration. The police could have easily kept public order by directing traffic around a relatively small group of people who planned a 15 minutes walk. At most, it would have required 50 police officers. Instead, to create the story that Umno wants to tell the public, the police sent hundreds of police officers to create a tense situation and scare people. Not only that, the police even sent a helicopter, which flew menacingly overhead throughout the time. A visitior not familiar with the antics of the Malaysian police would have thought that there’s a mob of parang wielding natives running amok in town.

Then, the Prime Minister himself tries to perpetrate another fiction – that he is a gentle and caring fatherly figure who is concerned for the public’s safety. The truth is, he is a desperate man who is willing to do anything, including telling stories, to preserve his own position.

According to a Malaysiakini report, he said that he has police intelligence of violent intentions. As far as I am concerned, the police have not shown any intelligence at all. It is very easy to say that there are violent intentions or even terrorist links when the control of the media are in their hands, but are there any real evidence?

If the government and the authorities want the people’s respect and trust, then they ought to be truthful with the people. After all, we know that justice can only be upheld when truth prevails.

It is disappointing and ironic indeed that the Bar Council have to kowtow to undemocratic and unjust laws on the occasion that is supposed to celebrate and advance human rights in our country. In light of recent events, I believe that there is all the more reason that the Bar Council and Malaysian Bar should be taking the lead to fight for rights and freedoms that every Malaysian is entitled to.

Despite what the Federal Constitution says, and what some laws require, we must first acknowledge that the right to freedom of assembly is an inherent and inalienable right of every single person, irrespective of her race, religion or political beliefs. And this is one of those freedoms that guarantee the dignity of the human person. After all, we must remember that that is what human rights are all about – human dignity. (See the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, in particular Article 20; and bear in mind that Malaysia is a proud member of the United Nations.)

In Malaysia, not only are the laws restrictive in terms of peaceful assemblies, it appears that the application of such laws are made in bad faith. The manner in which the police dealt with the recent large but peaceful assemblies as well as the venomous reactions of various government ministers are good starting points.

Right from the start, the police denied permits for the peaceful assemblies by giving the feeble excuse of maintaining public order. I wonder if such concerns only arise when organisations unrelated to the ruling Umno organise events because I note that a particular rally against the U.S. led by the Umno Deputy Youth Chief last year seemed to last three hours without wasting a drop of water from police water-cannons.

Indeed, I know that the Royal Malaysian Police are capable of handling peaceful assemblies and maitaining public order if they want to because I personally witnessed the recent demonstration (that included several marches from embassy to embassy in Kuala Lumpur) by a few thousand Burmese nationals against the cruelty of the Junta in Burma.

There ought to be a presumption that people’s assemblies are peaceful, and instead of giving excuses the police should be making the effort to maintain public order. The role of the police at peaceful assemblies ought to be supervisory, not chaos creation.

Moreover, if I am not mistaken, a government minister has recently made a blanket statement that police permits will not be given for assemblies, indicating that the laws on peaceful assemblies are only for show and there is no intent whatsoever to respect basic human and democratic rights.

Further, the recent absurd charging of Hindraf supporters for attempted murder and denial of bail reeks of malicious and punitive prosecution, and is clearly an abuse of the legal system.

There appears to be a mistaken belief by most Umno and Barisan Nasional politicians that democracy means an absolute absence of dissent and opposition. And they continue to delude themselves that they have the full support of the people because they keep winning heavily rigged elections where voters do not have the benefit of press freedom.

Just as we ought to pray for wisdom and strength to overcome difficulties and not the absence of difficulties in our lives, the government should be working towards policies that addresses people’s issues and concerns, and not the absence of these. If the government has confidence in its own policies, then it ought to have the courage to face public debate and discuss issues openly. In a democracry, differing views and criticisms are normal and ought to be encouraged for the progress of the country, not stifled and hammered down by using brute force.

Thus, the Malaysian Bar ought to take the lead to defend justice and reclaim our rights and freedoms in Malaysia. And if we have to defy some unjust laws in the process, so be it.

Just to clarify, I don’t condone anyone insulting Christians and Christianity, or any other religion for that matter. However, I do have a problem with condoning the use of sedition legislation.

I know that it’s a tactic often used by opposition political parties to highlight the double standards of the authorities, especially the police, but I strongly object to the use of such a crude and heinous piece of legislation for political purposes.

If we bother to look at the history of sedition laws around the world, we’ll discover that, from America to India, they have been used to defend the position of the establishment and/or the ruling elite. And this is simply achieved by shutting people up and not allowing them to speak out or even question matters that are deemed to be “sacred” and/or “sensitive”.

In any real democracy (I don’t consider USA to be a democracy), the freedom of expression is one of the most fundamental civil rights that the people have to promote and protect their own freedoms and interests, not only vis-a-vis other groups but especially the state.

Hence, if we were to support the use of such a law, we are essentially shooting ourselves in the foot. We are basically telling the authorities that it is “okay” for them to use the Sedition Act against any of us, regardless of whether we are bloggers, politicians, religious leaders or even entrepreneurs who simply speak up against injustice.

Sometimes, it may be painful to hear some people say some stupid things, and it may even anger us. However, if we truly believe in human rights, and that only with such rights we can preserve our dignity, then we must respect other people’s rights, too (no matter how stupidly they exercise those rights).

In any case, for these people to say such things, it merely shows their malice and/or ignorance. Most of us can see through the words, and know their true intention. Frankly, I find some of their writing and arguments childish, and simply not worth commenting on.

Instead of wasting our energy pointing fingers at others, I reckon we should rally behind people like Namewee (of Negarakuku fame) and defend them if they are actually charged under the Sedition Act. And if Johari Baharum, the Deputy Internal Security Minister, wants to do some real work, please ask him to instruct the police force to protect the people against criminals, instead of wasting time “investigating” bloggers and other netizens.

Well, I was prompted to write this by an email from a friend that contained a news article on Zam’s comments on another but somewhat related issue. Anyway, I think it’s time he and other like-minded Umno-BN politicians stopped misleading the people about how independence came about in 1957 and the current social realities.

First, I would like to know what social contract Zam is talking about when he says, “the social contract that has been well received by the Malays, Chinese and Indians.” For lack of any point of reference, I would use Merdeka for current purposes; especially when he has omitted the Orang Asli, the peoples of Sabah and Sarawak and other minority racial groups.

From what I can see, the non-Malays were put in a bad bargaining position and, thus, did not have a fair deal when independence was negotiated with the British colonisers. A couple of books, Merdeka Rakyat & Keadilan and May 13, would shed some light on this.

With this as the background, I would hardly consider the “social contract” as something that the peoples of Malaya voluntarily agreed to.

Let’s say you wanted to buy an apartment in Puchong because you have lived there for decades, because your aged parents still live there and also because you intend to send your children to school nearby. However, you are told that you must either accept a term in the sale and purchase agreement that provides special privileges for a class of majority purchasers – which you are not a member of – or you must leave Puchong. Would you be in a position to say otherwise? Do you think that’s fair?

Second, is our “social contract” really time-tested, as indicated by the genius Information Minister? If that were the case, why did May 13 and the Kampung Medan incidents happen? In any case, whether or not something is time-tested is not and must not be a bar to press freedom. Indeed, it is the unquestioning and apathetic attitude that causes the ruin of nations and whole civilisations.

Third, he goes on to say that “matters agreed to in the social contract should not be questioned by the media”. Now, I am really curious to know what was “agreed to” by our forefathers. (Yes, I intentionally use a masculine word to reflect the male-dominated political scenario in those days.) Was it ever agreed that we should not discuss riots that affect our entire nation, the way our country’s major commercial banks do business with lawyers or the state of repair of buildings with national importance?

As I indicated earlier, the Umno-BN politicians are misusing the term “social contract”. If we bother to study it, we will note that it goes hand in hand with “the notion that legitimate state authority must be derived from the consent of the governed.”

Frankly, I consider the current government of Malaysia to be illegitimate. It has deceived the people and abused its powers to remain in power. Just look at how elections are held in Malaysia. To start with, the delineation of the constituencies are gerrymandered to suit Umno-BN. Then, the Elections Commission is influenced to manipulate the voter rolls in each and every constituency. On top of that, Umno-BN uses all the might of money, media and machinery to enforce submission by the people. What legitimacy are we talking about here?

If anything, what we’ve got here is not a social contract but a bad case of social engineering.