I have studied animal behaviour, as per studies in social science, and human behaviour as per its application to responsible, conscious, and accountable conduct of human beings. What is the real difference between these two studies and results?
A pack of dogs, even if they are tame individually, will turn aggressive with the power of pack behaviour. Can we also simply label ‘unruly behaviour of a group of human beings’ in the same way, call it ‘mob-psychology’ and therefore excuse them? Yes, and only if they accept that they themselves are behaving as a pack of animals; not humans. God-ordained humans are created in the image of God.
The root word, ‘unruly’ comes from the root for same word i.e. ‘rules’. Therefore the very judgment that their behaviour is ‘unruly,’ is a statement or judgment about ‘unacceptability of such behaviour or conduct’.
Now, the next question is, can we identify the ‘unruly individuals’ and can we precisely name them? Are they then normal human beings, of average human composure, and are not ‘crazy’ as in psychiatric terms, but are acting volitionally and with some clear and definable intent?
If they are, this is unlike the behaviour of animals in a pack, as those cannot be individually separated and held accountable. Even so, when a dog attacks any human being, usually the dog ‘is put to sleep’ especially if defined as ‘dangerous.’ What about these thugs, or are they not terrorists?
Unruly behaviour of Umno gangs
Former MCA president Ong Tee Keat has defined the conduct of such a group of thugs, ‘as unruly behaviour of groups which is unacceptable, regardless of which party they are affiliated with.’ I simply call them thugs, or ‘the noisy minority’ who hold good people to ransom by their immoral and illegal conduct. A real and bad example of such a group is the Boko Haram of Nigeria. They are terrorists.
Good people are those who understand the limits of such lawlessness and will not cross the boundary in undefined circumstances. Thugs or terrorists are those who use power or force to make their argument about things they believe in, but which the rest of the world do not concur with. They bully the silent majority by the application of fear and brute force. The UN is now trying to outlaw such terrorism; and, rightly so.
Now, was Seri Delima assemblyperson RSN Rayer ( right ) legally and morally wrong when he used the word, ‘celaka’ (really a Malay curse word) in describing some of the thugs currently associated with Umno Youth? Or, was he also simply being a thug or terrorist, as per the UN definition?
I believe he may have offended the feelings of his Malay friends, and he would also be hated by the Umno Youth if he targeted them for the specific application of the word. But why are these ‘Umno thugs or terrorists’ especially personally offended, as if he called them out by personal names? Did he not use the word in the legislative assembly, wherein there is legal immunity for most language?
Moreover, if my namesake and ally, the other KJ is worth his leadership mantle, and has any real ambitions about moving up his ladder, he needs to define such ‘incivility’ in the Malaysian public space, and define their unruly behaviour, or ‘thuggery as terrorism’! He must define wrong-doing precisely and name of the smell of such stink. Public display of emotion is never an excuse, or a basis to break laws; and is totally unacceptable.
It cannot be so in our rule-of-law country. Unless of course, the inspector-general of police (IGP) and KJ want to declare us a country administered as a ‘rule-by-law nation.’ Dare they; after all the IGP is sworn to enforce all rules and laws; and does it under oath and in the name of our Agong? Is that not also why they are called the ‘Royal Malaysian Police?’
Now, what else is ‘royal’ about them? Were they really born with a silver spoon in their mouths? The federal constitution defines the role and responsibility of public servants; and I hope they are both trained well about our civilised society.
Why unruly behaviour is terrorism
There is the world famous story of David and Goliath; a giant-sized bully who wanted to use the occasion of battles to exert his ‘power over his enemies’. He lost the battle to a clever and faith-full David who took offence that the Giant would abuse the name of his God. David got to cut off Goliath’s head using the bully’s own sword.
Humanity in the 21st Century has evolved into a framework of law and order we call the United Nations. This was premised and driven by both the first and second world wars. Do we then need to reverse and revise this order to fit it into some other systems of rules and laws today?
Can hudud ever be incorporated into this international system of laws and order? Who would frame and shape it? Would it be a group of Muslim nation-states and what can be the due process for all of such?
The most famous legal bully framework which currently exists globally is called the UN Security Council. The power brokers have been given the veto power for defining what is good, true, and right in any defined ‘security’ situation. Therefore, in the recent vote, the Russians and Chinese vetoed the UN Security Council proposal to declare the Boko Haram illegal. Why did they do it?
Was it purely a use-power-to-bully framework; given that the charge is being led by the victors of the Second World War, or was it because they are accused by Boko Haram of being the promoters of ‘western education, or what is considered taboo’? Can we ever taboo education?
It is time for the mainstream nations of the UN to vote and agree on a definition for ‘thuggery of terrorism’. Is not ‘terrorism’ any illegitimate pursuit of private or sectarian agenda through the use of illegal force?
The UN Security Council is accepted as our legal mandate for law enforcement but we, as a nation-state, have little say as a non-relevant actor in the defining world stage at the end of the end of the Second World War, and the setting up of the Bretton Woods institutions.
But, surely, the illegal use of force, as being practiced by Boko Haram, is ugly and illegal, so why are Russia and China vetoing these issues? Are we really a UN without a common set of universal values which we subscribe to? And is not Umno also skirting the issue by not condemning such despicable uncivil actions by sane but irrational and irresponsible thugs.
Here, I fully agree with my good friend Ong Kian Ming that Khairy Jamaluddin’s private apology is simply not good enough. May God bless Malaysia.
