A Preliminary Thought
So, a lot of things are happening lately. All of which I have a mix feeling about.
1. A couple of new legislation by Parliament
2. Abolishment of PTPTN movement by University Students.
3. Bersih 3.0
4. The movement against Lynas operating in Malaysia.
5. Press Freedom
I am not going to pretend that I know everything here, so allow me to begin with what I learnt in my Public International Law lecture on the Wednesday that just passed. The lecture was on International Human Rights.
The good Doctor asked, what was it we wanted to know and we told him; Bersih 3.0 and he said something that answered a lot of my burning questions and my divided heart. He said; the freedom of expression does not include violence.
The lecturer then begins by stating that Human Rights is not something that is given to you. It is something that you already have. In the legal world, the word ‘inherent’ would often be used to refer to this type of situation. The lecturer then admits that every freedom must have a limitation. And this is something practical as we live in a society and our right to do something should not serve to interfere with the right of others. He then gave out examples like racist views and call for violence.
The lecturer then went on to add that; because Human Right is something inherent in us, our aspiration should always be for the recognition of complete Human Right. Therefore, though there have to be limitations towards our right, there should also be limitations imposed upon those limitations.
At this juncture, I started to get a clearer picture as to why it is, that when Parliament passes a bill that affects our freedom, within a short time frame of deliberation, cries of outrage could be heard from various groups.
The limit for the limitations imposed is not made clear or is absent entirely.
The lecture then proceeded with the history of the recognition of Human Right and how it became International.
From the lecture, I got this; what is it, that we have a right to?
Within the weeks that passed, two of our Freedoms took centre stage i.e. the Freedom of speech and the Freedom of Assembly.
Bersih 3.0 got a little bit murky for me. First, there was Ambiga and then there was the opposition. And though right now there are many calls for people to stop being neutral, I would like to reserve my right and remain one. Because for me, neutral is not the absence of an opinion, it is the freedom of one. Neutral does not mean the inability to make a decision, but an ability to make a decision free of any political ideologies. Basic Human Right at the forefront of our priorities. I am choosing to keep my loyalty to what is best for society as a whole, minority and majority combined and not a particular political party. For if there was one thing that Constitutional Law thought me it was this; ‘Power, corrupts and absolute power, corrupts absolutely.’
I watched the debate between Ambiga and Khairy Jamaluddin on youtube and for the sake of having a complete understanding of what the debaters were saying, I rewind a couple of times. Ambiga has a point. However, I believe she should’ve controlled the participation of the opposition in her mission. Though it is the principle of Bersih that anyone with the aspiration for a free and fair election is welcome to join the walk, having the opposition there and in a prominent role nonetheless, only serve to stir the waters as it, at least for me, gave a picture of an opposition versus government event. Bersih is about the people and the only flags that should be flown should be the Malaysian flag and the flags of the various States.
There are a lot of videos on youtube showing what happened on that day and I believe that all of us are fully capable of forming our own opinion on the matter.
A few weeks back, a friend of mine tweeted; Truth is what we perceive, facts are sacred.




button
