MARCH 8 — A light-year is a unit of equal to just under 10 trillion kilometres. The diameter of the observable universe is estimated at about 93 billion light-years. In our observable universe, Earth takes up only a tiny portion of our Solar System, with the latter forming part of the Solar Interstellar Neighbourhood. This neighbourhood sits in the Milky Way Galaxy. The Milky Way is in turn part of the Local Group of galaxies, which forms a sub-component of the Virgo Supercluster, which itself sits among other Local Superclusters, all in that order. In short, Earth is just an obscure point in a vast, all-encompassing, cosmos. In perspective - by taking not just the long view of history, but considering the titanic size of the universe compared to our inconsequential existence as well - I can very confidently say that a court judgement makes not history, and one man determines not the future. This is what we should keep in mind when talking about Malaysian politics, or any politics for that matter. It is therefore, very useful to always take an outside view of things in case we fall prey to our own sense of self-aggrandisement.
Now, more to the point.
Many would have had their say by now regarding the recent verdict passed unto a certain public figure. It appears that many are unwilling to put up with the supposed ‘politicised’ nature of the decision and point to a myriad of extra-judicial reasons as to why things played out the way it did. It would be reasonable, though not very accurately, to summarise (summaries have a habit of concealing rather than revealing) that for most people the developments and the blame of said verdict fall squarely on the awkward nature of the politics we have inherited. The final word in that last sentence, I will elaborate on at the very end of this article.
To me, I find it all too peculiar. Well at least more peculiar than most. I find it weird that most people are only discussing how politicised this whole episode has been. It seems as though no one is even bothered to chance their thoughts and view the case for what it is. I, for one, think that the state and the judicial system have no business regulating one’s sexual orientation. It certainly shouldn’t be present in my bedroom in such a meaningful way. Some of my peers, and I am certain, to a wider degree most of you readers, would feel that the Malaysian general public is not ready to even venture into this discussion preferring instead to dodge it wherever possible. But ultimately, this is what it boils down to. If it’s not rape, then it comes down to a question of to what degree the behaviour of two consenting adults should be regulated by the state. What we own now, handed down to us, with regards to the question of sodomy is as much a horrible colonial legacy as it is a thorny religious one. Pointing to the former means it’s outdated, while the latter takes a full discussion of its own. Understandably, there is of course a tinge of religious undertones to how some Malaysians view the conviction, although it’s not necessarily the only ideological motivation as social conservatism can equally have the same influence. I am tempted to segue at this point, but getting into a theological discussion will detract from the overall point of this piece. However, I will say this; that surely something that is meant to suit all humanity should be able to actually cater to all of humanity. Don’t get me wrong, I am indifferent towards the LGBT cause, which coincidentally is what I think should be the stance of the government on the matter — indifference. I am just against big governments is all I am saying.
Like most of us, I am neither a lawyer nor a politician, and I am equally exposed, as you are, to this blunt object they joyfully beat us with called ‘technicality’. After all, what do our substandard minds know about the sophisticated interplay between party politics and the judiciary? But I feel that it should be underscored appropriately that whether it be sodomy or otherwise, the case of said politician is an illustration of the dilemma of big government. It is, if anything, a case to ponder on the extents to which we wished to be policed, instead of a case revolving around party politics. Rather oddly, some would claim that they agree with the principle of the state keeping out of their junk (pun intended), while at the same time arguing that that this case is exceptional because it is politics driven though they still wish to enjoy less policing irrespective of the decision. However, viewing it such a way ignores the fact that this was a case of the highest pedigree involving some of the highest offices and echelons of society which could have allowed us to bring the discussion of big governments out. Instead it went amiss. It was a gateway case which could have led to further discussions of other right emancipating issues. As it stands, there is already a growing discontent simmering. It is not uncommon to hear that the state is already doing too much in terms of religion, and now with this recent development, it seems like it is now invading our bedrooms. So the question is; what next? Do our mating hours get regulated? Will we have a dresscode enforced? Perhaps a ban on music? Or a quota on how many children one can give birth to? Surely they can find justification on any number of these things. If it’s too farfetched to you, then consider our poor old friend, Ultraman — censored for no reason. It’s hard to feel like it’s not lurking just around the corner sometimes. But of course, I am well aware that no one likes an alarmist either.
It is quite unfortunate that none of our judges would ever think of finding him innocent, dissent, and point to the flaw in the law itself. Of course you could say that they are mostly helpless and only judge based on what the law is, but then again, activism is not foreign to judges. It often is a privilege which they can choose to indulge in if they wanted to. The truth is the discussion of big government is not one which vanishes if we pretend it’s not there. Perhaps it’s a discussion more appropriate for a different case when it’s not centred on this particular man in question. But whether we like it or not, the principles apply to all cases which necessitates it, whether it involves a common farmer or a celebrated nobleman. The justice system is inevitably tied to the bigger picture, and the bigger picture here is what the law is, in its current form, and what the law should really be like. There is much futility in saying that one prefers less invasive governments but then accepts this case in the way that it is as an exception to the preference. If the state has no business intruding into our bedroom then, any law which permits it; is wrong. There is also no use dichotomising the situation and say that it’s unfortunate that the law is wrong, and instead only focus on whether that mistaken law has been implemented properly by the court. If the law is wrong, then that’s the core of it. The proper execution of a bad law makes the proper execution; bad, perhaps even worse than a badly implemented good law. There is no such thing as properly implementing the improper, and that the bad becoming good when it is well executed. In what world is the proper execution of a bad law a good thing? There is of course a procedural distinction, that implementation must come after enactment, but they are invariably connected and distinguished only by semantics. What is the value of said distinction if ultimately an individual is wrongly punished anyway?
A society cannot be held victim to a set of laws which are outdated on the basis that it takes too much effort to change all of it, or that we are too shy to address it. Allowing it to continue in the way that it is, only means the death of activism and the continued survival of subservience. Changing laws is the reserve of parliament, true. But as I’ve mentioned earlier, the judiciary can play a role as well. Perhaps an argumentative lawyer, prompting a judge to take a more activist stance could be the difference.
I am not coming in defence of anyone with this piece. The point of this article is to consider an outside perspective, one which falls on neither side, or more appropriately, neither camp. I am the first to point out that the fact that said convicted person has an acronym so recognisable to his name and to the way Malaysians address him means that he is already too big and too institutionalised for us already. I can only think of POTUS as an equivalent example, but that acronym stands for the office he occupies, and not his persona. And of course, there is no such thing as PMDC (Prime Minister David Cameron) by any stretch of the imagination.
Are the events of the past few days not simply a re-run of the same drama of 1998? Perhaps it’s time we should start praying for an outside group to emerge; a third option or coalition that we’ve badly craved for and deserve. If we continue to just watch this show, and follow the tide that sweeps us with it, we will be no better than where we are at the moment, sixteen years from now. Shouldn’t we at this point consciously choose to avoid birthing the next generation of campers, and instead walk away from both and find an outside choice? A recent tweet by another public figure illustrates what I am talking about. The tweet points to 1998 as a watershed year in accelerating his involvement into politics, almost radicalising him to the cause of one camp and vowing to sternly uphold it. While this is admirable, it brings with it baggage - which is why even after over a decade we are still struggling with the same old situation as the generation before us. In short, I have inherited it, we have inherited it. Many of these individuals we see today are products of a yesterday. Often analogs stuck in the digital age. I can even point to one racist who brings his 1970s tactics to 2014.
The failure to speak honestly about the greater principle at play with a case seemingly steeped in party politics only drowns us even more in this old charade which we need not partake in anymore. It seems like the adage homo homini lupus, that man is man’s wolf, applies very appropriately in Malaysian politics. But as an on looking public, we can regulate the carnage. If we show disinterest in the bully and have less pity for those too willing to play victim, then perhaps those who know that we are watching will start to behave in a more civilised manner, even hopefully in a manner fit to take public office, who knows. I, for one, am desperately calling for anyone out there who can offer me a chance to cast my vote for an option which is ambitious, determined, and free of baggage from the yesteryears – one that offers a fresh start, one that can finally, although fourteen years too late, take Malaysia into the 21st century and beyond. God help us all.
* Meor Alif is pursuing a PhD in Political Science at the London School of Economics and Political Science. He tweets at @thisiconoclast .
** This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of The Malay Mail Online.
See more at: http://www.themalaymailonline.com/what-you-think/article/the-verdict-pondering-the-next-sixteen-years.-meor-ali#sthash.tGncW5UX.dpuf