In 1997, the secretariat for the National IT Council, which is all but dead today, hosted a Virtual Commonwealth Teleconference. It included three nations and seven speakers. The keynote speakers were Dr Mahathir Mohamad; the late Othman Yeop Abdullah, then-CEO of the Malaysia Digital Economy Corporation (MDeC); Tengku Azzman Shariffadeen, the CEO of Malaysia’s national R&D centre in ICT, Mimos; and Dr Chandra Muzaffar, representing an NGO.
The external speakers vide video-conference included an African, a Harvard professor, and the president of the European Union (EU). They were early days for video-conferences and most everyone thought we were crazy to try it when multimedia connectivity was not yet stable. Telekom Malaysia backed us and we did it.
Today, the Virtual Commonwealth is more real after the Brexit vote. The UK has voted to return to its older heritage and legacy in the rest of the world, and leave EU to handle their own issues unlike after World War II. UK has basically told Europe to grow up and mind itself; Germany has by default assumed leadership of the EU, becoming the economic anchor for the EU.
The US would do the same; if they have to choose to drop Latin and South America and seek realignment with Canada, for example.
Politics of bigotry and deception
Donald MacD (see my earlier columns) is exactly the proponent of such bigotry and deception which reflects the real politics of today; with one difference though: multi-media technology can quite easily find and demonstrate truth matters as soon as it is required, premised upon the spoken word!
Personal accountability has never been more shrewd and discerning; all that we say or speak on social media can now be accumulated to keep one accountable.
Nevertheless, the reigning logic of governance is that one can do anything if one does not get caught doing wrong by others. No one still argues that the moral dimension is a requisite for the premises of Good Governance in the politics of power.
Our nation-state is today governed fully under the divide and rule philosophy of real-politics. The ketuanan Melayu is the unchallenged premise of any government appointment today; whether in cabinet or in other executive or oversight agencies under the current governance jurisdiction.
Former minister Rafidah Aziz was recently asked why no non-Malay was a vice-chancellor of any public university and she retorted that it was the wrong question. Really, Rafidah Aziz?
Against bigotry and corruption or ABC4Malaysia
All English-speaking moderate Malaysians living in urban areas must stand up and speak out, if we do not want to see our version of a Brexit; i.e. Sarawak and Sabah leaving Malaysia. Now, am I simply being a naysayer or rumour-mongering?
Let us consider some facts of history; one I did not study per se but rather witnessed and lived through as in lived experience; both, as a citizen and taxpayer but also as a public servant in the federal public service.
I would argue that the public service of Malaysia has morphed over the years from a rational policy-making body with leadership of integrity towards an emotive and irrationally-driven public policy apology for skewed politics which does not serve the public or national interests.
The rise and speaking out by the G25 and since then the G40 (mainly made up of former public servants and public appointees), Bersih 2.0 and Negaraku as citizen groups are all voices against bigotry and corruption being displayed and deployed by the federal government in selected areas of jurisdiction while violating the constitutional principles and rule of law in Malaysia.
Referendum on hudud for federal criminal law
When peninsular Malaya, Sabah, and Sarawak agreed to form Malaysia; it was premised upon the 18 and 20 point arguments put forward by the two Borneo states. Singapore formed and then left Malaysia over the Malaysian Malaysia idea and ideal by 1965.
Obviously some of the deep-seated fears and concerns of the two Borneo states are now coming to haunt the Federation of Malaysia. Singapore was clever enough to understand and appreciate these and left earlier.
Peninsular Malaya provided leadership and governance principles premised upon core foundations agreed earlier by all political forefathers but which are now being denied by different but similar leadership of the federation. These then call for a fundamental review of the basic structure of the federation as originally agreed and documented by the Federal Constitution.
Therefore, to my mind and heart, the only credible way that the Syariah Enactments for family and personal Islamic laws can be made to become federal criminal law is by holding a referendum on the matter. I do not think we can, and I will never agree with it, if we close one eye over violation of original principles already agreed and documented as the basic structure of the Federal Constitution.
Backdoor Islamisation is not acceptable
The Federation of Malaysia was negotiated by Tunku Abdul Rahman premised on front-door negotiations. Syariah-enablement in the Federation of Malaysia as criminal law is being done vide the backdoor by Umno and its allies.
If this is a serious political agenda of Umno plus PAS; they have to do it vide the front-door, but that opportunity also gives Sabah and Sarawak the ability to invoke the failure of their two Malaysia Agreement arguments over the 18 and 20 points. Revisits may need a referendum.
If such is not done properly, I really and truly believe that the Federation of Malaysia will see an exit, like the Brexit, come October 2016, if and when the Syariah enactment is made federal criminal law.
If this happens, I hope Sarawak will allow me and family to migrate to the Bario Highlands, and not bar my entry as a foreigner any more; as I have equal rights as every Sarawakian does to choose any other permanent habitation location in Malaysia before such a voluntary break-up.
Maybe therefore we need a referendum regardless. Let us pray that Malaysian political leadership applies more wisdom than play with fire.