Thursday, 10 April 2008 08:15pm
Bon conducting a Nonviolence workshop in SingaporePublished by Singapore
Democrats.
Mr Edmund Bon is a practicing lawyer in Malaysia and the Chairman of the
Human Rights Committee of the Malaysian Bar Council. In 2007 he took part
in protests in KL which saw thousands of Malaysians engage in mass civil
disobedience.
He was recently in Singapore to help conduct a workshop on human rights
and the use of nonviolent action to effect political change. He
subsequently gave this interview to the Singapore Democrats. This comes
on the eve of Malaysian bloggers and Internet strategists speaking at a
few forums here.
SDP: How do you see your role as chair of the Human Rights Committee in
the Malaysian Bar Council in the development of democracy in Malaysia?
Bon: Section 42 of the Legal Profession Act, 1965 is very clear on the
Bar's role in the country: "To uphold the cause of justice without regard
to its own interests or that of its members, uninfluenced by fear or
favour."
The Bar has on numerous occasions since its inception stood for victims of
rights violations, and struggled consistently to improve the lives of
everyone in the country even at great personal risk to our members. The
Human Rights Committee is merely carrying on this tradition. Much of our
work is focused on law reform and advocacy. We adopted a "Blueprint for
Human Rights" last term as a road-map of the Committee, and it may be
accessed here.
Nevertheless, we are aware that there are limitations to our work - all of
us are part-timers involved in our own legal practices, and resources are
stretched. We can recommend changes but if the Government of the day
refuses to listen, there is little which can be done except to voice our
dissatisfaction through the ballot process.
Realising this, we are acutely mindful of the need to combine 'litigation'
with 'demonstrations' and 'legislation', or what Rev Jesse Jackson
describes as 'gotcha politics'. He was speaking on Martin Luther King's
civil rights campaign, and how you need lawyers to fight cases in court,
the people to make their views known through public assemblies, and
politicians to make just laws or undo unjust ones. Each of the three
cannot stand alone.
I think for the first time in Malaysia's 51 years of controlled democracy,
we have seen this brand of politics arrive in a full circle with the
recent election results. Malaysian lawyers have been instituting
constitutional cases and rights litigation for the longest time with some
successes.
It was evident that going to court to settle our problems was not going to
solve the larger policy problem of rights compliance in the country.
It was therefore quite natural that in late 2007 to early 2008, we saw the
massive rallies - first, the September 'Walk for Justice' by the lawyers,
the November Bersih rally seeking electoral reforms and the Hindraf rally
highlighting issues of the Indian community, the 'Human Rights Day Walk'
on 9 December 2007 and the GMI candlelight vigil protesting the use of
the Internal Security Act on the Hindraf leaders in January 2008.
The people were not afraid of the Government machinery anymore, much less
the tear-gas and water cannons! Many were arrested, and this really was a
wake-up call especially to the middle-class, and the usually ambivalent
'rakyat' that the Government did not really care about all of us. Another
interesting feature was the fact that you saw Malaysians from all walks of
life and from different ethnic groups and religions coming out to protest,
and the threats of inter-racial conflicts harking back to May 13 were
absolutely debunked.
The third aspect of 'legislation' required the people to elect friends of
the cause, and those who were sensitised to civil society activism into
Parliament. Many NGOs had their representatives seeking seats in
Government, and to our surprise, many of them got in.
Many members of the Bar have also been voted in, and they stand on both
sides of the divide - the Barisan Nasional and the Pakatan Rakyat
coalitions. This is most encouraging, but the hard work starts now. As
far as the Bar is concerned, so long we take our positions well, as we
have so far, we believe democratic reform will flourish. The Human Rights
Committee hopefully has contributed in a small way to this process.
SDP: What do you think were the benefits of the recent spate of the
protests to Malaysia?
Bon: It sensitised a lot of people. The Government could have done better
by allowing the protests and not clamping down on the same with the use
or threat of force. Malaysians have become very mature and rational very
fast. But we are still being treated like kids.
Having pictures of protesters being beaten or smoked by the authorities on
every alternative media site did the Government a lot of harm in terms of
public relations. Then, with the Hindraf rallies seeking improvements in
the lives of an ethnic minority - what does the government do? - they
refuse to talk to Hindraf, brands the organisation as having links with
terrorists and locks its leaders in Kamunting.
Is this how one runs a country? The way the protests were handled made
many people angry, and the message was to vote against the Government -
period. In fact, there would have been less damage to the Government if
the authorities did not act the way that they did. So, in hindsight, the
reactions to the protests had a greater impact than the actual protests
per se.
SDP: You were arrested in one of the protests. As a lawyer, do you think
it is wrong for a citizen, much less a lawyer to break laws?
Bon: Firstly, I did not intend to break any law. I was charged for
obstructing public officers in the execution of their duties. Secondly, I
was not involved in any protest. We were celebrating Human Rights Day when
I was arrested. I will leave the court process to take its course.
However, if one speaks of civil disobedience, there are times when it is
absolutely necessary. It really must depend on the issue in particular,
circumstances of the situation and whether there is a critical mass which
opine that the unjust law deserves to be broken.
In other words, if we did not break the law, would we be upholding the
cause of justice, and how would that impact society? The September Walk
for Justice by lawyers after we read and saw the Lingam video recording -
quite surely we were right to do it even without having a police permit to
walk.
Malaysians were proud we did it. Accolades are received even now, and some
say we were the ones who started the spate of rallies leading to the
results in the elections. More than 2000 members walked that day and I
can assure you that everyone knew what they were in for, and were ready
to be arrested.
Thereafter, the Government quickly established the Royal Commission, and
all the dirt on the Judiciary when we could then only whisper among
ourselves in our court canteens have been made public. And we can now
move forward, and find ways for genuine reform after 'cleansing' the
Judiciary.
Now, tell me whether it was worth it? Were we wrong to walk without a
permit? There will be opposing views on this even from within the Bar but
we must acknowledge that the process of democratisation has never taken an
easy course anywhere in the world.
As quoted in section 42, our own interests are irrelevant. We should be at
the forefront of opposing unjust laws and acts. Mandela, Gandhi, King and
the monks in Burma are some examples of citizens standing up with their
lives to fight repression and oppression. There can be little difference
if one is trained in the law or otherwise. The duty is incumbent on every
person.
SDP: What role do you see lawyers play in helping to bring about or
maintain democracy in a country?
Bon: Lawyers are to be in the frontline with the people. We are slightly
more learned and are trained to articulate our views in certain ways
where we seek to persuade. But if continuous persuasion fails, and the
people are still oppressed or marginalised or victimised, then we need to
take activism to a different level.
Lawyers provide both the tools and the leverage. We should not waste the
influence or perceived influence we have with the Government to represent
the interests of the people. I would dare say that because we walked in
September, the Government now lends a closer or larger ear to us when we
speak.
It used to be that few doors were open, but we have regained our
respectability. If our Bar is going to be mute, it is difficult to
continue regarding ourselves as an independent Bar. And it would be
difficult to say that we are fulfilling our legislative objects given to
us in Section 42 of our founding document.
SDP: Do you think the rule of law exists in societies like Malaysia and
Singapore?
Bon: It depends on how one defines the 'rule of law'. Unjust laws should
not rule any society. Laws which discriminate based on irrelevant factors
such as gender, ethnicity or religion are not laws by which we should live
by.
But if you have laws which are fair, then these laws need to be protected
and encouraged. Hence, international human rights treaties stipulate
certain minimum guarantees to ensure that the human person is granted his
or her dignity to live the life as he or she chooses. There are definitely
bad laws in both our countries - press freedom, detention without trial,
gender-biased provisions and the like.
Let us mirror some of our laws with the stipulations of the rights
conventions. If our laws are in accordance with the same, there is no
reason why we should not sign up to the conventions. If our laws are in
contravention, let us sit down and discuss it with the relevant
authorities and the human rights people. We need to see how we can agree
on some of the matters and move on.
SDP: Are you hopeful about the ASEAN Human Rights Mechanism?
Bon: Yes, of course. But it needs the support and political will of the
ASEAN member states. NGOs cannot do it alone. And civil society wants to
see real reform within the ASEAN system. If the people in power do not
want to change, then there is little hope.
Even an issue like Myanmar is at an impasse. It is time that ASEAN allows
greater lay participation by the people, and certain specialist
participation by for example, Bar associations, doctors' collectives and
social engineering experts.
SDP: Do you have anything to say to Singaporeans who are thinking of
getting into activism work?
Bon: Fear is the first factor which causes self-censorship. But much of
this fear is self-generated, and personal conditioning. It is easy to
break this type of conditioning if we intellectually survey the limits of
our self. There are ingenious ways to get round fear, but every person
needs good people around him or her.
You also need a strong and supportive collective, and enlightened leaders.
There are many levels of activism and it is not all about going out on the
streets to demonstrate only. Dialogue, negotiation and mediation should be
the first step.
But if the Government does not listen then the next level may be invoked.
Malaysians were unhappy that all the promises the Government made were
not being fulfilled. And doors were being shut. Our institutions were
being demolished systematically though not physically. There was
therefore no choice but to demonstrate. Yet, we need to always recall the
three areas - litigation, demonstrations and legislation. Only if we
partake in all three will there be real change.
----------------------------------------------------------------
This e-mail has been sent via JARING webmail at http://www.jaring.my
No comments:
Post a Comment