I am not a journalist; I am simply a writer of columns for a selected media and medium. My focus is topics related to good governance, transparency, and lack of systemic integrity in Malaysia. Essentially I am an organisational theorist with a focus on organisation development for excellence.

My partner and I do consult in this field for strategic management for good governance related issues. I have been writing with Malaysiakini for more than a decade, and the medium has been a good and friendly media partner all these years.

Malaysian sovereignty and public space

We are a parliamentary democracy defined by a constitutional monarchy. We have nine historical Malay monarchs even though our history does not recognise the original people of Malaya; the Orang Asal we call Orang Asli. Two of the states that make up Malaysia have governors instead of monarchs; and the same with the two former British Straits Settlements.

The Malaysian federal constitution defines what public space within the country is. Such space and jurisdiction issues are somewhat clearly defined by the Schedule II of the constitution. For example, media legislation and approval is a federal matter. Security, both national and geographic security, and national sovereignty is directly under the federal government jurisdiction and so are the ministries of Defence and Foreign Affairs.

Between 1948 and 1960 Malaya faced the most severe threat of external military and terrorist aggression through the Communist Party of Malaya supported by the Chinese Communist Party. We declared a national emergency and we were ruled under a litany of laws passed to anticipate and decimate the same threat.

We had many undemocratic and uncivilised rules and laws. The Internal Security Act (ISA) was the most famous example. That has now been removed, but the ‘emergency mindsets’ applied and used to justify the communist threat seems to remain until today. Why?

\"\"

Therefore, I agree with law professor Azmi Sharom that the Sedition Act is in spirit unconstitutional and simply a relic of a period of threat and terror faced by Malaya in the past. Although the Federal Court has ruled that it is a legal legislation, my question: Is the Act legitimate today in the context of a parliamentary modern democracy with the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights?

Text and context

In all of knowledge science studies, the nature of objective reality versus subjective reality is a serious issue of concern and reflection. For me, the way I like to frame this set of issues is with the language of text and context; from hermeneutics. There never is text without a context. In our discourse on legal jurisprudence there is also equivalent language of ‘the spirit of law versus the words of the law’; to describe the similar set of issues.

Therefore, allow me to reframe the context of Malaysia today; regardless of what we think history is, and who wrote such history, and what is the historical narrative that is taught as truth.

Malaysia today is unequivocally a nation-state made up of three and not thirteen components. Before they joined Malaya to make up Malaysia; the two Borneo States moderated their choice through an UN-moderated plebiscite of sorts. The UN was part and parcel of our formation and history.

We became Malaysia only in 1963; three years after the official ending of the period of Emergency period, but these ‘terror-related’ laws were not withdrawn. These laws have in fact inspired even more amendments to the federal constitution which were deployed to fully rationalise a ‘national feudal reality’ imposed on citizens which gives the federation more rights than individual citizens.

\"\"

The latest, the Security Offences (Special Measures) Act or Sosma, is among the worst of it because it is now being abused by the authorities for self-preservation against perceptions of ‘lies, untruths, and theft’. How else can the same law be used against a citizen and his lawyer for some undeclared emergency of crimes of ‘terrorising the national interests’? The citizen and his lawyer were only seeking truths.

National versus public interest

There was a time in Malaysia under Dr Mahathir Mohamad’s rule; when literally every crooked menteri besar was ‘dictating non-legal land acquisition’, but under the ‘misinterpretation of what was national interest as defined by partisan interests’. The net result was the abuse of public interest defined as national interest and specific plots of lands were acquired for such partisan interests, legally.

The Land Acquisition Act was subsequently amended to more clearly define what is considered federal national interest. The non-legal acquisition issue is less of a concern today but there is another equally serious issue emerging in all states. Theft of public spaces which pre-define our lived environment are now simply reclassified by capitalist interests working in collusion with political allies within local authorities and the Land Office.

Corporate Malaysia, i.e. companies that are close to the federal government (government-linked companies or GLCs, or otherwise) , or sometimes state governments (through state-owned enterprises), are able to ‘reinterpret public interest in specific localities’ and redefine the public interest through ram-rolling their interests through local authorities through lying, misleading and reinterpretation of rules and regulations.

One case story – UM housing land

The is a large tract of land in Section 12 of PJ which belongs to Universiti Malaya (UM) as a federal entity. UM is physically located in Kuala Lumpur and not in Petaling Jaya. There is now a corporate-driven interest lobbying a ‘no more housing for staff and faculty agenda in the same UM Housing localities’. This policy shift has never been explained to UM faculty and staff nor PJ residents and neighbours.

While that is simply bad public policy, the agenda seems to be driven from within the board of governors by a well-known developer assuming this lobby role publicly.

My question to the board of governors of the UM, of which I am an alumnus, is: Who defines what is public interest for Universiti Malaya? Do the faculty and staff associations have a say in this matter? Do ordinary citizens of PJ who bought and owned houses as neighbours of UM have a say? Does the Education Ministry representative on the board agree and drive this proposal? Who is lobbying and for whom, please?

As a resident of Petaling Jaya and as someone who has lived in PJ since about 1972, I attended the hearing and objected to this so-called plan to build a Health-metropolis in the specified lands belonging to Universiti Malaya. My reason is simple; it will destroy the quality of our lived neighbourhood.

Petaling Jaya has always had a properly approved structure plan; please follow the original plan, and not the new re-coloured version. We, PJ residents and home-buyer bought houses based on the original plans.

While it is legitimate to change some roads to semi-commercial ones, please bear in mind that PJ is already overcrowded and any more high rises cannot support the current road dispersal infrastructure. The talk of Kidex-type highways is totally irresponsible governance.

I have therefore stopped paying my assessments because of such abuse of many of our public lands in and around PJ; this is my conscientious objection for wrongdoing by the Petaling Jaya City Council (MBPJ).