Oct 31, 08 4:08pm
Let me start by inviting you back into history. Imagine that it is the
morning of the Aug 31, 1957. At midnight, an independent nation
calling itself the Federation of Malaya is to be unveiled. Conceived
as a cutting edge model of multiracial and multi-religious coexistence
and cooperation, it is poised to stand out as an example of what can
be achieved through diplomacy and a respect for the spirit of democracy.
It is of great historical significance that the transition from colony
to independent nation, so often achieved only at the great price that
turmoil and unrest exacts, has been achieved peacefully. Though this
is a process that may have been made more difficult without the skill
and fortitude with which negotiations to that end have been carried
out, they do not define it.
That honour goes to the aspirations of all those who call Malaya home.
The quest for self-determination has not been one that recognised
race. It has been, simply put, a Malayan one.
I would like to think that as midnight approached, one of the elements
that gave confidence to the Alliance leaders and, in fact, all
Malayans was the knowledge that a constitutional arrangement that
accorded full respect and dignity for each and every Malayan,
entrenched the rule of law and established a democratic framework for
government had been put in place.
The federal constitution was a masterful document. Inspired by history
and shaped lovingly to local circumstance, it was handcrafted by a
team of brilliant jurists who appreciated that they could not
discharge their burden without first having understood the hearts of
minds of those who would call this nation their home and whose
children would call it their motherland.
Hundreds of hours of meetings with representatives of all quarters
resulted in a unique written constitution that cemented a compact
between nine sultanates and former crown territories.
This compact honoured their Highnesses the Malay Rulers, Islam and the
special status of the Malays even as it seamlessly allowed for
constitutional government and created an environment for the
harmonious and equal coexistence of all communities through the
guarantee of freedoms and the establishment of the institutions that
would allow for the protection and promotion of these guarantees. If
at all there was a social contract, it was the guarantee of equality
and the promise of the rule of law.
I would say that as at Aug 31, 1957, the Federation of Malaya was set
to become a shining example of a working democracy. Though special
provisions had been included in the constitution to allow for
protective affirmative action measures where the Malays were
concerned, and later the natives of Sabah and Sarawak when these
states merged into the renamed Federation of Malaysia, and for
declarations of Emergency and the enacting of exceptional laws against
subversion, these provisions were not anti-democratic nor were they
undermining of the rule of law.
Conversely, if used as contemplated by the founders of the
constitution, they were aimed at protecting democracy from grave
uncertainties that could undermine the very foundations of the nation.
If I sound nostalgic, it is because in some ways it could very sadly
be said that democracy and the rule of law, as they were understood at
the time this nation achieved its independence, at a time when I was
much younger, have been consigned to the past. Events that followed in
history undermined and stifled their growth. To understand how this
came about and the state of things as they are, one however must have
an understanding of the politics of the country. I seek your
indulgence as I attempt a brief summary of key historical events.
A turn for the worst
After the euphoria of 1957, race-relations took a turn for the worst
in 1969. The race riots of that year have marked us since. As a
response, adjustments were made and measures introduced to keep what
was now perceived to be a fragile balance in place. The Rukun Negara
was pushed through as a basis of national unity and the New Economic
Policy (NEP) was unveiled by which the government was mandated to
address the disparity in wealth between the Malays and the other
communities, in particular the Chinese, that had been identified as
the root cause of the resentment that had exploded into violence.
These measures, in my view, were on the whole positive. They were
agreed to by all the political parties making up the government, in
part due to an understanding that the NEP was a temporary measure
aimed at assisting the Malays that would not disadvantage the other
communities. The late Tun Dr Ismail talked about giving the Malays an
opportunity to survive in the modern competitive world. It was readily
appreciated that unless society as a whole addressed and rectified
certain historical imbalances and inequities, the country would
flounder. In my view, these measures were easily reconciled with
democracy and the rule of law.
The 1980s presented a different scenario altogether. We saw a
unilateral restructuring of the so-called social contract by a certain
segment of the BN leadership that allowed for developments that have
resulted in our current state of affairs. The non-Malay BN component
parties were perceived by Umno to be weak and in no position to exert
influence.
Bandied about by Umno ideologues, the social contract took on a
different, more racialist tone. The essence of its reconstructed
meaning was this: that Malaya is primarily the home of the Malays, and
that the non-Malays should acknowledge that primacy by showing
deference to the Malays and Malay issues. Also, Malay interest and
consent must be allowed to set the terms for the definition and
exercise of non-Malay citizenship and political rights. This marked
the advent of Ketuanan Melayu or, in English, Malay Supremacy.
Affirmative action and special status became a matter of privilege by
reference to race rather than of need and questioning of this new
status quo was not to be tolerated. As Ketuanan Melayu evolved and
entrenched itself, Islam became political capital due to the close
links between Malays and the religion. The constitution itself defines
a 'Malay', for purposes of affirmative action, as someone who amongst
other things professes the religion of Islam.
This over the years led to a politically driven articulation of
Malaysia as an Islamic state. Again, no questions were tolerated.
Majoritarianism had become the governing paradigm of governance as the
character and nature of rights were defined by Malay interests and
defined by them.
This new political philosophy in which the primacy of Malay interests
was for all purposes and intents the raison d'etre of government
naturally led to interference with key institutions. I say naturally
as it was, and still is, impossible to reconcile the principles of
equality and civil rights of the people of this country with the
primacy of one group over all others.
Needless to say, a new social order in which some are made to defer to
the primacy of others is not going to be easily accepted. As such, in
order to enforce compliance and to encourage acceptance harsh measures
would have to be taken to quash protest or disagreement. Policy
doctrine or diktat not supported by consensus will almost certainly be
a subject of contention.
It is for this reason that in the 1980s already harsh anti-democratic
laws that allowed for the suppression of legitimate dissent such as
the Internal Security Act, the Official Secrets Act, the Police Act,
the Printing Presses and Publications Act and the Sedition Act were
tightened further.
Where possible, reliance on them was made immune from judicial
scrutiny a feat achieved only through a constitutional amendment that
suborned the judiciary to parliament. It got to a stage where when
more than five friends got together, one wondered whether it was wiser
to obtain a police permit. Such was the state of the law, such was the
state of democracy.
Pandering to the Umno right
Mukhriz Mahathir will probably be the new Umno Youth leader. In saying
as he did recently that there is no need for law and judicial reforms
as it will not benefit the Malays, he typifies what is perceived as
the kind of Umno leader who appeals to the right-wing of Malay polity.
That he may be right is sad as it leads to the ossification of values
that will only work against the interests of the party and the nation.
This type of thinking may pave the way to a suggestion in the future
that we may as well do away with general elections altogether as they
may not be good for the Malays for if the justice that a revitalised
rule of law would allow for is not to the benefit of the Malays, what
is? More inefficiency, more corruption and a more authoritarian style
of government perhaps. We are a deeply divided nation, adrift for our
having abandoned democratic traditions and the rule of law in favour
of a political ideology that serves no one save those who rule.
How else can we describe the state of affairs in Malaysia? In a
country where the rule of law is respected and permitted to flourish,
just laws are applied even-handedly and fairly. I can point to
numerous instances where that has not been our experience. Let me
point a few out to you.
A gathering of one group constitutes an illegal assembly but not that
of another. A speech or publication is seditious or constitutes a
serious threat to the security of the nation such as to warrant
detention without trial under the ISA if published by one person but
not another. This cannot be right even if it were to be to the benefit
of the majority, which is not the case.
My belief in constitutional democracy and the rule of law is founded
on an acceptance of their functional qualities and the prospect of
sustainable and inclusive development that they offer. It is of no
concern to me whether Fukuyama was right when he declared that in view
of the success of liberal democracies all over the world and the
collapse of communism, mankind had achieved the pinnacle of success
and history was dead.
There are less esoteric reasons but as, if not more, compelling ones.
Indonesia's transition to democracy since the end of military rule in
1998 showcases these. The majority of Indonesians have embraced
democracy, religious tolerance, and religious pluralism. In addition,
a vibrant civil society has initiated public discussions on the nature
of democracy, the separation of religion and state, women's rights,
and human rights more generally.
These developments have contributed to a gradual improvement in
conditions for human rights, including religious freedom, over the
past few years. Since 2003, Indonesia has also overtaken Malaysia on
the Reporters sans Frontieres Press Freedom Index, moving up from
110th place to 100th out of 169 countries covered. Malaysia on the
other hand has dropped from 104th place to 124th place in the same
period.
I am not surprised. In 1999, Indonesia passed a new press law
that, in repealing 2 previous Suharto administration laws, guaranteed
free press through the introduction of crucial measures. This new law
allows journalists to freely join associations, guarantees the right
of journalists to protect their sources, eliminates prior censorship
of print or broadcast news and makes the subverting of the
independence of the press a criminal offence. It also establishes an
independent body to mediate between the press, the public and
government institutions, uphold a code of ethics and adjudicates
disputes.
Progress has not stopped there. On April 3, this year, Indonesia
passed its Freedom of Information Act. This latest law allows
Indonesia's bureaucracy to be open to public scrutiny and compels
government bodies to disclose information. To enforce disclosures and
to adjudicate disputes, a new body has been created under the new law,
independent of government and the judiciary. While there remains some
debate about the penal sanctions for misuse of the law, the passing of
the act clearly is a step in the right direction.
The lessons of the African and the Caribbean states are there for all
to see. Do we emulate Zimbabwe or do we take Botswana as our political
and economic model? How is it that Haiti is far behind the Dominican
Republic in economic terms when they both achieved their independence
at about the same time, and have the same resources?
Singapore's success is mainly attributed to its commitment to good
governance and rule of law, even though political dissent is not
tolerated. Democracy, a system of government based on fair and
transparent rules and laws, and the respect people have for
institutions of government – these make the difference. Economic
prosperity drives democracy but stifle true democracy and the
inevitable outcome is economic ruin. It is useful to remember that
freedom is vital for economic development.
The critical feature of a constitutional democracy to me is the test
of constitutionality itself. Does the government allow its own
legitimacy to be questioned? Does it permit executive decisions to be
challenged? Written constitutions normally provide the standard by
which the legitimacy of government action is judged.
In the United States the practice of judicial review of congressional
legislation ensures that the power of government to legislate is kept
under check. Bipartisan debate and votes of conscience are not only
encouraged but also expected of congressmen and representatives. More
recently the basic law of Germany and Italy provided explicitly for
judicial review of parliamentary legislation.
We have the opposite situation here. The jurisdiction of the high
court can be, and has been, ousted when it comes to challenges of
executive decisions even if such decisions impact on fundamental
liberties and other rights under the constitution. For instance, where
government compulsorily acquires land for a public purpose, the courts
are prevented from questioning the bona fides of the acquisition.
Where a discretion is exercised by the minister of home affairs under
the Internal Security Act, the court is barred from examining the
exercise of the discretion except so far as to ensure that the
procedural requirements have been followed. Such detention without
trial would be considered repugnant in any system predicated on the
rule of law.
Nation building is not a simple process. It is not achieved through
tinkering with political ideologies or injudicious use of the coercive
powers of state. These do not promote the lasting peace and stability
that we crave for. We have failed miserably in dealing with complex
issues of society by resorting to a political culture of promoting
fear and division amongst the people.
A renewed national consensus needed
The Ketuanan Melayu model has failed. It has resulted in waste of
crucial resources, energy and time and has distracted from the real
issues confronting the country. Tan Sri Muhyiddin (Yassin), the DPM-in-
waiting it would seem, suggested that there is a need for a closed-
door forum for leaders of the BN to develop a common stand; a renewed
national consensus grounded on the social contract.
This is positive step but it should include all political leaders and
be premised on the social contract that was the foundation of
independence. The results of March 8 (elections) clearly show that the
BN no longer exclusively speaks for the rakyat. Promoting discourse
and dialogue is essential, as we must learn to talk and to listen to
one another again.
The recent pronouncement by the Malay rulers underscores the urgency
with which we need to look at rebuilding the politics of consensus.
Communication and trust amongst the people must be reestablished. The
founders envisaged a government for all Malaysians. Even Tun Dr
Mahathir (Mohamad) spoke about it. One of the elements of Vision 2020
as envisaged by Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamed was the creation of a united
Bangsa Malaysia.
How can such a vision be achieved if the government is not willing to
listen to the grievances of a substantial segment of Malaysians? Tun
Dr Mahathir Mohamad introduced the idea of Bangsa Malaysia in a speech
entitled "The Way Forward". This is one of nine central and strategic
challenges of Vision 2020. Although he only mentioned Bangsa Malaysia
once, its use had sparked enthusiastic debates.
The creation of Bangsa Malaysia is the challenge of establishing a
united Malaysian nation with a sense of a common and shared destiny.
This must be a nation at peace with itself, territorially and
ethnically integrated, living in harmony and full and fair
partnership, made up of one Bangsa Malaysia with political loyalty to
the nation.
Different meanings have been given to that term Bangsa Malaysia. Many
believe that it was intended to bolster the non-Malays through the
envisioning of a united country where their cultural and religious
uniqueness would not be threatened; Tun Dr Mahathir in fact explicitly
mentioned this.
On the other hand, some believe that Bangsa Malaysia was just a neat
reference to a Malaysia united under Malay or, more appropriately,
Umno hegemony. Whatever the case, I would like to believe that whilst
the government of BN has done little other than pay lip-service to the
concept, principally by issuing pandering slogans, since Dr Mahathir
left, the country will nevertheless in the future move towards a more
pluralistic society.
The integration of different ethnic groups would occur naturally
through the expansion of economic life and through the unintended
effects of globalization so much so that ethnicity will be
depoliticised. We nonetheless need to actively promote efforts at an
institutional level if we want this notion of Bangsa Malaysia to
materialise. The political parties making up government may not want
to do so for their own short-term interests but as a whole, the people
will call for it.
This brings us again to the democracy and the rule of law. We will not
succeed in promoting, a united country and allow for the evolution of
Bangsa Malaysia if we do not subscribe to the rule of law. We need the
openness, freedom and social justice that will be possible only with
it in place. and democracy. How do we bring unity to the people if we
are not prepared to respect their dignity?
To achieve the aspirations of the New Economic Policy, bumiputras need
to be given thinking tools to participate in the global economy. At
present their attention is kept focused, almost on a daily basis, on
race related issues even though there are serious issues such as the
economy and the lack of trust in the institutions of government to
deal with.
The obsession with the Ketuanan Melayu dotrine has in fact destroyed
something precious in us. It makes us lose our sense of balance and
fairness. When a certain Chinese lady was appointed head of a state
development cooperation, having served in that cooperation for 33
years, there were protests from Malay groups because she is Chinese.
A new economic vision is necessary, one that is more forward looking
in outlook and guided by positive values that would serve to enhance
cooperation amongst the races. This will encourage change for the
better; to develop new forms of behaviour and shifts of attitudes; to
believe that only economic growth will serve social equity; to aspire
to a higher standard of living for all regardless of race.
We need to meaningfully acknowledge that wealth is based on insight,
sophisticated human capital and attitude change. A new dynamics
focused on cooperation and competition will spur innovation and
creativity.
Some might say that this is a fantasy. I disagree. How do we go about
transforming the culture and values of the bumiputras so that their
ability to create new economic wealth can be sustained? By changing
our political and legal landscapes with freedom and democracy.
Dr Mahathir was right to ask that Malays embrace modernity. He fell
short of what we needed by focusing on the physical aspects of
modernity. He was mistaken to think all that was needed to change the
Malay mindset was science and technology. He should have also promoted
the values of freedom, human rights and the respect of the law.
If affirmative action is truly benchmarked on the equitable sharing of
wealth that is sustainable, then we must confront the truth and change
our political paradigm; 40 years of discrimination and subsidy have
not brought us closer. There is a huge economic dimension to the rule
of law and democracy that this government must learn to appreciate.
Syariah or secular principles
Relations between Islam, the state, law and politics in Malaysia are
complex. How do we manage legal pluralism in Malaysia? Can a cohesive
united Bangsa Malaysia be built on a bifurcated foundation of syariah
and secular principles? Will non-Muslims have a say on the operation
of Islamic law when it affects the general character and experience of
the nation? This is a difficult challenge and the solution has to be
found.
Leading Muslim legal scholar Abdullah Ahmad an-Na'im is hopeful. He
believes that the way forward is to make a distinction between state
and politics. He believes that Islam can be the mediating instrument
between state and politics through the principles and institutions of
constitutionalism and the protection of equal human rights of all
citizens.
Whatever the formula, we can only devise a system that rejects
absolutism and tyranny and allows for freedom and plurality if we are
able to first agree that discourse and dialogue is vital. Democracy
and respect for the rights and dignity of all Malaysians is the
prerequisite to this approach.
A compelling argument for a constitutional democracy in Malaysia is
that only through such a system will we be able to preserve and
protect the traditions and values of Islam and the position of the
Malay rulers. For a peaceful transition to true democracy of this
country, one of key issue that requires care is the position of Islam
and its role in the political system of the country.
In fact I regard this to be of paramount consideration. Although the
expression Islamic state is heard from time to time, and whilst it is
true that Abim (Malaysian Muslim Youth Movement), PAS and lately Umno
had the concept a key part of their agenda, the areas of emphasis
differ and are subject to the contemporary political climate.
For reasons too lengthy to discuss now, I would say that the
"synthesis of reformist Islam, democracy, social welfare justice and
equity" would be sufficient to appease the majority of Muslims in so
far as the role of Islam in public life is concerned. This state of
affairs could be achieved peacefully and without tearing the
constitution apart.
The progressive elements in PAS, inspired by Dr Burhanuddin Helmi in
1956, are still alive. PAS leaders of today who have carried that
torch also make reference to a more accommodating vision of Islam that
puts a premium on substantive justice and the welfare of the people as
major policy initiatives.
Umno's approach (or more accurately Dr Mahathir's approach) to Islamic
content in public policies was articulated in the early 1990s. This
however achieved little in changing the political system. His
"progressive Islam" was more nationalistic than PAS, and designed to
usher new elements of modernity into Islam.
Science and technology were touted as the means to defend Islam and
the faith. The approach taken was short on the ideas of human rights
and social justice, and the rule of law and designed more to convince
the rakyat of Islam's compatibility with elements of modernity like
science and technology..
Anwar Ibrahim, the present opposition leader, articulated a brand of
reformist Islam that was more individual centered and liberal. Drawing
its humanist thought from the great Muslim scholar, Muhammad Iqbal,
Islam Madani gave emphasis on human rights and freedoms. Islam Hadhari
came on to the scene just before the 2004 general elections as another
form of progressive Islam, possibly inspired by the thinking of
another noted scholar, Ibn Khaldun. Unfortunately, nothing much came
out of this effort.
Whichever model or line of thought that will find permanence in our
political landscape, Islamic aspirations and ideals will certainly
become an important component in the realm of public policy. To
prevent conflicts and ensure that various beliefs are absorbed and
accepted into the political system, it is imperative that no force or
compulsion is used.
This is where the merit of a government adopting democracy and rule of
law becomes apparent. The discussions and deliberations of even
sensitive and delicate issues will make the participants aware of the
value of ideas and the value of peaceful dialogues. Managing disputes
through a determined, rules-based process will allow for a peaceful
resolution of problems.
The tolerance shown by the protagonists in Indonesia over delicate
religious issues bodes well for that country and serves as as a useful
illustration of what could be. Approached this way, Islam in the
context of Malaysian politics will be prevented from being as divisive
and as threatening as race politics.
In this, the issue of conflicts of jurisdiction still requires
resolution. Our civil courts are denuded of jurisdiction to deal with
matters that fall within the jurisdiction of the sharia courts. No
court has been given the jurisdiction and power to resolve issues that
may arise in both the sharia courts and the civil courts. The present
separation of jurisdictions presupposes that matters will fall nicely
into one jurisdiction or the other.
However, human affairs are never that neat. What happens to the
children of a marriage where one party converts to Islam and the other
party seeks recourse in the civil Court? Or when the sharia court
pronounces that a deceased person was a Muslim despite his family
contesting the conversion? Or where the receiver of a company is
restrained from dealing with a property by a sharia court order
arising out of a family dispute? Where do the aggrieved parties go? I
had suggested the establishment of the constitutional court, but that
plea has fallen on deaf ears.
Marked increase in draconian measures
There is marked increase in the use of harsh draconian measures in
dealing with political and social issues. Some people say that groups
such as Hindraf (Hindu Rights Action Force) advocate violence and
therefore justifies the use of such measures. They may have overlooked
the fact that violence begets violence. Was not the detention of
Hindraf leaders under the Internal Security Act itself an act of
aggression, especially to people who consider themselves marginalised
and without recourse?
It is time that the people running this country realise that we will
not be able to resolve conflicts and differences peacefully if we
ourselves do not value peaceful means in dealing with problems. The
situation has been aggravated by the absence an even-handed approach
in dealing with organisations like Hindraf.
While I applaud the prime minister for calling upon the Indian
community to reject extremism, should not a similar call be made on
the Malay community and Utusan Malaysia? I call on the prime minister,
both the outgoing and the incoming, to deal with such issues fairly.
Start by releasing the Hindraf leaders detained under the ISA. The
release would create a window for constructive dialogue on underlying
causes of resentment.
I also appeal for the release of (Malaysia Today webmaster) Raja Petra
(Kamaruddin) from his ISA detention. He is a champion of free speech.
His writings, no matter how offensive they may be to some, cannot by
any stretch of the imagination be seen as a threat to the national
security of this country.
The Malays are now a clear majority in numbers. The fear of their
being out numbered is baseless; they are not under seige. The
institutions of government are such that the Malays are effectively
represented, and the there is no way the interest of the Malays can be
taken away other than through their own weakness and folly.
The BN government must abandon its reworked concept of the social
contract and embrace a fresh perspective borne out of discussions and
agreements made in good faith with all the communities in this
country. It is time for us all to practice a more transparent and
egalitarian form of democracy and to recognize and respect the rights
and dignity of all the citizens of this country.
At the end of the day, we must ask ourselves what it is that will
allow us to protect all Malaysians, including the Malays? Good
governance is about good leadership; and good leadership is all about
integrity. We must have leaders of integrity in whom people can place
their trust.
If there is no integrity in leadership, the form of government is
immaterial – it will fail. Integrity in leadership is the starting
point to creating a just and fair society. Integrity of leadership
does not lie only with the prime minister or his cabinet. It needs to
permeate through all the organs of government. A key organ of
government, the one tasked to protect the rights of the common man
against the excesses of government, is the court. The rule of law in a
constitutional democracy demands that the judiciary be protective of
the nation's subjects be they, I would say especially, the poor, the
marginalised and the minorities.
The courts must act with courage to protect the constitutionally
guaranteed rights of all citizens, even if to do so were to invoke the
wrath of the government of the day. Even though not all judges will
rise to be chief justice, in they own spheres they must show courage.
For example, in PP vs Koh Wah Kuan (2007), a majority bench of the
federal court chose to discard the doctrine of separation of powers as
underlying the federal constitution apparently because the doctrine is
not expressly provided for in the constitution.
This conclusion is mystifying as surely the court recognizes that
power corrupts absolutely and can thus be abused. If the courts are
not about to intervene against such excesses who is? Checks and
balance are what the separation of powers is about. Surely the apex
court is not saying that the courts do not play a vital role in that
regard?
The reluctance of the court to intervene in matters involving the
executive is worrying. In Kerajaan Malaysia & Ors v Nasharuddin Nasir,
the federal court ruled that an ouster clause was constitutional and
was effective in ousting the review jurisdiction of the Court if that
was the clear intention of parliament. The apex court so readily
embraced the supremacy of parliament even though the constitution
declares itself supreme.
There is nothing in the federal constitution that explicitly sets out
the ability of parliament to limit the court's review jurisdiction.
The court could have just as easily held that as the constitution was
the supreme law, in the absence of express provisions in the
constitution the court's review jurisdiction remained intact.
Is it not possible that in vesting the judicial authority of the
federation in the high courts the framers of the constitution intended
the review powers of the courts to be preserved from encroachment by
the executive and legislature? In India, the supreme court has held on
tenaciously to a doctrine of 'basic structure' that has allowed it to
ensure the integrity of the democratic process and the rule of law.
Any attempt to denude the courts of the power to review by amendment
of the constitution has been struck down.
The rule of law has no meaning if judges, especially apex court
judges, are not prepared to enter the fray in the struggle for the
preservation of human rights and the fundamental liberties. Supreme
court judges in other jurisdictions have done so time and time again.
Though it is far less difficult to accommodate the will of the
government, that must be resisted at all costs, particularly where
justice so demands.
Only then can we say that Malaysia is grounded on the rule of law. To
all our judges I say discard your political leanings and philosophy.
Stick to justice in accordance with the law. As Lord Denning reminded
us: Justice is inside all of us, not a product of intellect but of the
spirit. Your oath is to the constitution; shield yourself behind it.
Without your conviction, democracy is but a concept.
I would like to say more about law, democracy and about our beloved
country. But time does not permit. In any event, I have to be careful.
The more we say, the more vulnerable we become. But my parting message
is this: The people of goodwill must continue to strive to bring about
change, so that we can rebuild the trust of all Malaysians.
From that trust, we can rebuild the country where we do not live in
fear, but in freedom; that the rights of all Malaysians are
acknowledged, respected and protected by the system of law that is
just and fair. There is no quest more honourable and a struggle more
worthy of sacrifice.
This is the full speech delivered by former de facto law minister Zaid
Ibrahim at the LawAsia 2008 conference in Kuala Lumpur this morning.
----------------------------------------------------------------
This e-mail has been sent via JARING webmail at http://www.jaring.my
No comments:
Post a Comment