Anwar Ibrahim verdict: Justice or conspiracy, or both?

Congratulations to Anwar Ibrahim and his defence team.  As we all know the court had returned a 'not guilty' verdict on the case, which must have surprised many, most of all I feel the Pakatan.

The opposition, the Pakatan, had braced itself for a 'guilty' verdict. All the posters reflected that, playing on the main theme of 'reject the lies, slander' and ' resist conspiracy'. Besides the posters, the stancing around 'the number game' (which normally suggests just a show of strength) of mobilising 100,000 for the verdict also indicated gloom anticipating an unfavourable verdict.

The actions of Anwar Ibrahim themselves seemed to expect an unfavourable outcome. His public statements, confined to the antithesis of ' not guilty' and ' conspiracy', placed greater possiblity on the later. There was much talk of 'never fleeing', ' possibility of accident', 'shot',  ' whether I am in or out of prison' and the like.

On the whole, given their determinism of either 'not guilty' or 'conspiracy', how would the Pakatan interprete the 'not guilty' verdict?Will it say that our judiciary is one with integrity? After all Anwar himself had responded with a 'justice had been served' statement. Given the verdict, will the Pakatan now accord a modicum of respect for our judiciary and other vital institutions?

Concerning UMNO, is the Pakatan capable of saying this case shows the inadequacy of the conspiracy theory, or will it simply say with an even greater tenacity that UMNO's idiocy pervades all areas, even that of conspiracy.

KEMPEN 901: HUKUM HAKIM MAKI MAHKAMAH

Dua hari yang lepas, Pakatan mengadakan satu kenyataan media yang amat menyedehkan mereka yang cintakan demokrasi dan keluhuran undang undang negara kita. Kenyataan Azmin Ali, Timbalan Presiden PKR, sebagai jurucakap kumpulan, dengan lantang dan cabul menolak prinsip kebebasan kehakiman , sambil mengugut dan mengancam mahkamah menjalankan tugas tugasnya ‘tanpa takut dan memihak’. Beliau mengugut akan menurunkan 100,000 penyokong Kempen ‘Bebaskan Anwar 901’ pada hari  Isnin ini, yakni hari mahkamah memutuskan kes Anwar Ibrahim.

Dalam video kenyataan media itu, Azmin Ali menegaskan butir butir berikut:

 Pertamanya perbicaraan kes liwat berkenaan didakwa ‘bermotif politik’ yang ‘berniat jahat’ untuk menjatuhkan Anwar Ibrahim. Jelas ini merupakan satu kenyataan yang terlalu umum yang sendiri ‘bermotif politik’ yang mungkin ‘berniat jahat’. Saya kira dalam politik setiap pihak ada kepentingan melihat lawannya jatuh. Dalam pengertian yang seumum ini, setiap gerakan Pakatan untuk menjatuhkan UMNO dan Barisan juga boleh kita anggap ‘bermotif politik’ serta ‘berniat jahat’. Tapi kenyataan umum seumpama ini tidak mempunyai kaitan langsung dengan ‘fakta’ dan ‘ hukum’ dalam kes.

Kedua, Azmin menuduh perbicaraan sebagai rencana kepimpinan UMNO menghalang Anwar Ibrahim menjadi perdana menteri. Bersabit ini semua orang yang berlaku adil dan bersikap terbuka tahu ini merupakan satu dakwaan yang kurang matang. Mereka tahu perjalanan undang undang atau ‘ due process of law’ itu ada prinsip prinsip, prosedur, dan kesatuannya tersendiri. Ianya bukan dapat diatur dengan sewenang wenang mengikut ‘rencana’ mana mana parti, baik UMNO atau Pakatan sekali pun. Justeru kenyataan  umum sedemikian itu yang sebenarnya ‘bermotif politik’ dengan niat  yang agak menyangsikan. Cuma sekadar menyauk dan memalit pihak pihak lain dengan kes untuk tujuan politik.

Ketiga, Azmin Ali memberi 'amaran keras'  sekiranya ada ‘konspirasi’ memenjara Anwar Ibrahim pada hari Isnin ini, mereka akan bangkit merobohkan tembuk kezaliman UMNO. Wow! Jelas sekali disini terdapat ‘motif politik’ dengan ‘niat jahat’. Mengikut pilihan dan susunan kata kata, sekiranya mahkamah mendapati Anwar bersalah, keputusan itu sudah sediakala dicap ‘konspirasi’ yang didalangi UMNO! 

Mengikut kenyataan, Kempen 901 akan menolak keputusan Anwar bersalah, dan menerima hanya keputusan Anwar tidak bersalah. Maknanya hakim sudah sediakala dituntun,digiring, diugut dan diberi ‘amaran keras’ kearah sesuatu keputusan yang dituntut.

Keempat, Azmin, mewakili Pakatan,  ‘melantik’ dan ‘ mengisytiharkan’ Anwar Ibrahim sebagai perdana menteri yang ke 7. Ini agak janggal, memandangkan keadaan dan konteks kenyataan media. Adakah terserah kepada Pakatan untuk melantik perdana menteri dan bukan pengundi? Tambahan, apa kena mengena dengan pengadilan mahkamah kelak? Kenyataan ini dapat kita fahami hanya dengan membaca ‘motif politik’ dan ‘ niat’ yang mencurigakan.

 Mungkin PKR kini sedang cuba menerapkan prinsip prinsip shi'ah ke politik Malaysia, di mana kumpulan menentukan imamnya sendiri dan bermati matian mempertahankannya? Lebih lebih lagi memandangkan akhir akhir ini banyak gelaran yang telah dikurniakan kepada Anwar, termasuk 'imam besar silat gayung'  dan 'Imam Mahdi'? (yang amat berpengaruh dalam kepercayaan shi'ah)Secara ini  orang ramai dikondisi berfikir yang 'dizalimi' mahkamah kelak adalah 'perdana menteri ke 7', mengikut 'rencana UMNO' dan 'perdana menteri yang bertahan'. 

Pada keseluruhanya kenyataan Pakatan yang disampaikan Azmin Ali menerusi video yang tersebar luas itu tidak dapat menaikkan martabat dan perwajahan Pakatan dan Kempen 901. Niat politiknya amat menonjol dan mungkin mengaibkan. Kenyataan media ini bukan sahaja melanggar undang undang tetapi juga kesusilaan kita, sediakala menghukum hakim (sebelum hari keputusan lagi), menyeranah, mentohmah mahkamah , sambil mengugut menurunkan 100,000 penyokong buat mencabar prinsip keluhuran undang undang.

Dalam keseluruhan kenyataannya, Azmin Ali tepat hanya dalam satu hal, yakni keputusan mahkamah tidak hanya menyentuh ‘batang tubuh Anwar’ tetapi melibatkan orang ramai. Kami setuju walaupun kes ini melibatkan ‘batang tubuh’ Anwar, ia jauh lebih dari itu! 

 Dr Rani sebagai wakil Pas mengingatkan semua penyokong PAS, PKR dan DAP jangan membawa 'senjata tajam'. Mungkin 'senjata tumpul' boleh dibawa?   

Demonstrasi UPSI: Mahasiswa bebas atau terbabas?

Pada fajar tahun baru 2012, segerombolan mahasiswa mahasiswi berusaha ‘menaklok’ UPSI dengan kekerasan. Saya katakan dengan ‘kekerasan’kerana terdapat unsur unsur paksaan, desakan, tuntutan, kedegilan, yang kesemuanya menunjukan gejala gejala mengganas dan rusuhan. Apatah lagi dengan bibit bibit terpekik, terlolong,mendabik dada, menguji ketabahan pihak polis.

Kesemuanya sejajar dengan gaya ‘politik baru’ yang dicorak oleh pihak pembangkang. Sesunggohnya kebuasan yang merasuk sekumpulan mahasiswa mahasiswi di kampus kampus akhir akhir ini mencerminkan ‘angin perubahan’ dengan ‘trademark’ berikut: tuntutan, desakan, jalanan, tentangan,hasutan, tanpa arah dan persoalan pokok yang jelas dan rasional. Yang penting bukan persoalan, tetapi tangkal ‘lawan tetap lawan’. Persoalan tak penting, asalkan menimbulkan ketegangan dan keghairahan menggila.

Sebenarnya apakan ‘kebebasan akademik’? Kebebasan yang dimaksudkan adalah kebebasan mengasah otak, belajar, meluaskan ufuk pemikiran dan wawasan, tanpa berperangsaka, tanpa di pengaruhi politik memihak dan berkepentingan mana mana pihak. Idealismenya itu ialah melengkapkan diri untuk memberi kepimpinan kepada masyarakat kelak. Ditinjau dari segi ini, tidak mengira batasan AUKU, mahasiswa mahasiswi maseh banyak ruang untuk mendidik dan meluaskan ufuk idea idea mereka.

 Selalunya mahasiswa mahasiswi jalanan, tiduran (atas jalan), pekikan, lebih mempertikaikan batasan atau sempadan, tapi selalunya tidak sepenuhnya, malah sedikit pun, mengguna ruang yang maseh diberi. Sebenarnya undang undang dan akta akta berkenaan adalah bertujuan menjamin kebebasan akademik sebenarnya, yang justeru perlu ditentukan batasan dan sempadannya. Mahasiswa jalanan dapat diibaratkan pemain bola sepak yang tidak bermain dipadang tetapi menghabiskan masa dan tenaga membantah sempadan padang dan peraturan permainan. Yang lucu mereka menumpukan masa dan tenaga menuntut dimansuhkan peraturan permainan, agar mereka ‘bebas’ bermain!

Dinilai dari segi ‘kebebasan akademik’ tulen, mahasiswa mahasiswi jalanan ini  sudah jauh terpesong dan songsang. Kalau kita amati tindak tanduk dan perilaku mereka, kita lihat ciri ciri berikut: a)mereka mengaku sohor, tetapi sebenarnya tohor, b) konon mahu ‘membebas’ tetapi mereka sendiri terbabas dari landasan kebebasan akademik, c) menganggap diri ‘bebas’ tetapi sebenarnya kebas minda dan jiwa, dibelenggui, ditandu pihak pihak berkepentingan, d) mahu memupuk mahasiswa mahasiswi jalanan yang ‘bebas’, umpama lalang yang patut ditebas demi keutuhan kampus dan kebebasannya.

Saya harap 'mahasiswa bebas' memandu 'mahasiswa terbabas' ini pulang ke pangkal jalan!      

Judging the Judge, Courting the Kangaroos

There is a sense of impending chaos leading up to 9 January 2012. There is tension in the air, so thick one can actually slice it with a knife. Is it the calm before the storm? Why and who or which group is behind it?

Recently a group of university students went on a rampage, protesting against the AUKU, so it seemed. A closer examination however shows the action to be directed to UMNO, as symbolised by the act of contemptuously lowering UMNO's flags carrying the images of its leaders, replacing them with the students own. Video clippings of the students protesting showed excessive defiance, more abuse of UMNO than the issue of AUKU as such. This suggests UMNO is the target, AUKU merely the camouflage. The student protest seemed an act of conditioning public sentiment, a prelude for the real thing. What's the real intent behind the pretext? Could it be related to other development, a bigger picture or scheme of things?

At the conclusion of his trial, Anwar Ibrahim was asked by the press as to his chances of a favourable verdict. He gave an interesting reply to the following effect: If the judge goes by the facts and the law, he has no option but to acquit, unless he wants to take instruction from higher up...then we will deal with it politically later. Such statement has the consequence of putting the judge on trial, judging him. The logic runs: if the judge acquits, a pat on the back for applying the law, while a conviction can only evidence puppet of a judge  colluding with UMNO. Putting it differently, the ambit of the law runs only in acquittal, while a conviction lies outside or runs counter to it. A tough call indeed for the judge. 

In the meantime, about a month ago, at the PKR party convention, the youth leader had vouched should they be pushed to the corner ( alluding to an unfavourable judgment in the trial), they would topple the government from the street. The same group had a few days ago launched a 'Free Anwar' movement (901) The Deputy President of PKR, Azmin Ali likewise had separately vouched to break prison wall and free Anwar if convicted. Incidentally, the student protest and demands over AUKU exploded a few days after the conclusion of the trial, led by university students closely linked to Anwar Ibrahim, according to recent media disclosures.

It seems the ' Free Anwar Movement' has for its rallying call the slogan ' Rakyat Hakim Negara'. Of course this has been politically crafted for the maximum effect of undermining the government (taken as synonym with UMNO)  and the law. The term 'hakim negara' signifies both the Attorney General, as well as 'judge the nation'. Hence the slogan cuts both ways, either ' Rakyat the Attorney General' or ' Rakyat Judge the Nation'. All of which has the import, in the event of a conviction, 'the people reject the law', 'the people judge instead'. There is this simple deterministic formula: acquittal means the working of the law, conviction means the evil machination of UMNO!

Well, there had been much aspersions against our vital institutions, the judiciary and the court included. The 'yellow shirts' had always denounced our court as 'kangaroo court'. Now the question is who is the one undermining the rule of law, judging the judge and mobilizing kangaroos to subvert and cower the court or the law?

I have a foreboding feeling, there will be many protests and street walking leading up to judgement day, on many seemingly unrelated issues, all of which are however united in demonising UMNO. I am sure the public  is not so credulous or gullible as not to see where all of this is heading!  

The Fool's Election Manifesto: We Are Wiser Now!

I am deeply concerned, so should you! The nation is in crisis. The ballot box had been transformed into feedlots. Everyone had been told they can now fly kite. Vital institutions such as the court, Parliament and house of worship had been violated by street walkers, soliciting and touting support. Vulgar banners replaced good manners. Speeches and statements of leaders no longer moral, merely preaching and screeching. Truth become excuse, muse, crafted to confuse. Ideals become idle talks. In public life there is no conviction, only misdeeds worthy of conviction. Not many leaders amidst the political divides, only office holders on the leash, manipulating and manipulated. The insane posing as saints, playing ascetics with antics. Lying about laying (in bed) has consumed and wasted national energy , both accused and accuser. What is to become of us! There is no more clean, serious, purposeful politics, there is only poly-ticks ( involving an infinite varieties of opportunists, materially, spiritually, sensually, or whatever)

We need genuine options, a new vision. Transformation has not penetrated enough into our crisis,what more resolving it. Reformation has been wanting too. Both Transformasi  and Reformasii  are indeed an integral part of our crisis. I shall not detail specific issues here, as this manifesto is not meant to be a comprehensive political critique of political parties, but merely to outline a new vision for our nation. Suffice to say that they are both locked in a deadly power struggle, driven by the will to power, which is not our game. We are about setting the nation on a new foundation, new chapter, new direction, new consciousness and conscience!

Given the depth of our crisis, we cannot be content with TRANSFORMATION or REFORMATION, since both confine themselves only to repairs and patchwork of existing conditions. We need to work on basic principles and values, we need to rebuild our future bottom up, from the ground. We need to rehabilitate our wounded and compromised institutions. We need to heal our spirit and material conditions. It is basic reconstruction that is needed. We need to erect, brick by brick, fibre by fibre, a better future. We need ERECTION!

Part of this vision is our quest for truth, not power. We demand leaders who do not balk in the face of it. They boast of courage in exposing falsehood and baring the truth. We resist leaders who excel only in deceptions, spins and cover ups. We expect and respect leaders who crusade the naked truth, in full revelation, no frills and smoke screens. They are uncompromising in stripping the truth off falsehood, shedding externals,going to the essence.We demand militant FLASHERS!

Our vision  resents deeply the inefficiency and red tape bogging down development. We oppose leaders who are fast in the mouth but drag their feet in moving things. We abhor the *ucker sort of leader  whose expertise is only in messing  things up. Neither do we need suckers.  We demand dynamic leaders who are capable of ridding dead woods and motivating lethargic politicians and public servants.They excel in shaking things up, bucking up our civic life. We don't want shirkers, what we need are committed SHAKERS. We rejcct leaders who suck up, and elect only those who BUCK UP!

Going by our vision, we are deeply concerned at the deterioration of morality and integrity in public life. The rate at which public morality and integrity is being eroded and subverted is phenomenal and epoch making . Instead of leaders on both sides of political divide living by those values and code of conduct, those very values had been relativised and undermined to accommodate their misdeeds or misconduct. Consequentially, the line between right and wrong had been blurred. In the ensuing moral crisis, right is denounced while wrong assumes the garb of truth. Immorality has become the norm while integrity and principles reduced to the status of the abnormal, the deviant. Unscrupulous leaders are fast winning converts and gaining the moral ground,  becoming the dominant influence. In such situation, we need courageous leaders who dare sail against the current. Yes, we need PERVERTS!

Our vision requires leaders who are free from our major moral afflictions. You name it, we have such afflictions. One major affliction is schizophrenia, leaders with split personality. There are too many examples to fit into a political manifesto. We have leaders who are paranoiac over conspiracies at home but work tirelessly in spawning conspiracies abroad. There are those who chant the slogan of freedom and autonomy at home, but invite foreign domination and interference in our domestic affairs. There are many among our leaders and activists who confuse the cause of freedom with that of free condom. And then there are those habitual kleptomaniacs plundering public funds. There are those mega shopaholics of epic proportion, maybe of ill- gotten wealth. We need leaders capable of counselling and rehabilitating such lost souls. In order to heal our wounds, restore our spiritual values and mental health, we need leaders with certain expertise, THE-RAPISTS!

Let our petty  politicians jostle and squabble over Putrajaya,  the seat of power. On our part we shall reclaim our countrysides, our cities and our vital institutions. We shall restore decency and conscience in our politics and civic life. We shall erect and reconstruct a new foundation for our nation . As an option to Transformation and  Reformation, we humbly  offer a new vision, Erection!

Fool's guide to instant politics: Election Survival Kit

The various 'perhimpunan agung' of recent dates (or should I say ' perhimpunan gaung' by virtue of the great echo and noises generated?) are over, be it PKR Johor skid, or UMNO's KL bonanza. While the one sent delegates into enemy's traditional stronghold, the other invited and entertained delegates to the capital for, politicking, as well as for the usual 'distractions' and' indulgences' of the city, a change from the province. But both lived up to the 'gaung' aspect, by way of fiery, theatrical and millennial packaging of speeches.

Judging by the tempo and temper of both, they were bracing for the major cockfight around the corner ( I am serious in my term 'cockfight', for it represents accurately the essence of election in this country, where it is mainly a question of winning or losing, never mind the issues)

One thing is clear, the war drums had been commanded and judging by post-gaung events, preparations for the election had been intensified or put on the highest alert to 'war'. The clear signs are there: the quarrels over candidature and seat allocation, and the intensification of mud slinging between parties as well as internally, and the intensification of servility, cringing and pledging of loyalty to the 'great leader', 'supremo', 'the sheikhul' the king maker, who decide which cock to feature in the pits.

In such moments, I truly feel sorry for the innocent clueless uninitiated, dreaming of becoming politicians, who stand absolutely no chance against the adept, the 'old hand', the invincible 'veteran', the well connected, those boasting of 'pedigree', or simply 'polticians'. So to even things up somewhat, I decided to share some of my scanty notes on politics, that they may fare better than me ( my notes are yellow (papers) due to the years, never succeeding even to nudge me into 'politics')

If you hope to be a candidate in the coming election or cockfight, which is around the corner, learn the following principles mighty fast. Your 'political' survival may depend on this.

Don't try to learn or deepen your grasp of politics and politicking. Above all else, politics is 'play', a 'play acting'. Pick up tips on theatre art or acting. Before you can dream of being a politician, you must brace up your acting. For instance you must know how to 'dress'. Actually it is not 'dress' , but more familiarising yourself with the art of 'costume'. For the Malay audience of a perhimpunan gaung, with a strong nationalistic and religious bent, dawn the bajung kurung and the tall deep songkok. For court sessions, with the more westernised audience, international media, dawn the stylish and posh western suit, saving the more flamboyant and striking graphic or batik wear for evening 'indulgences' or 'escapades'. Learn to pitch your 'scripts' and ' delivery' to the right crowd or audience. It is not about being 'sincere', 'being who you are', ' to be of 'conviction', it is really getting into role playing, into the script ' convincingly', to the point that the audience forget they are watching a play acting.

Those who miss this point, are usually confused as to Malaysian politics. They lament the inconsistency of principles, the lack of unity of vision and the almost schizhoprenic nature of our politicians. They are confused or disappointed because of their wrong expectation. They are looking for a 'leader' of a politician when there is none really, for most of our politicians are merely actors reading different scripts, on different stages, in different theatres, before different audiences. I am not here referring to contextualisation of speeches, with same principles or values of a leader with an integrated personality, which is of course necessary or unavoidable in politics.

For heaven sake, don't be stiff! Learn how to use you body language. Use you hand gestures. Watch the master actor-cum-politicians. Practice on that sharp downward double thrust of the elbows, followed by the double clenching fist, give it several shakes or twang reflecting intensity, and with boisterous voice and extreme emotionalism say your script, ala Hitler, or Soekarno.

Learn the proper diction and the voice control. Know when to go soft and seductive, boisterous and commanding, secretive and slimy, glib and gossipy. But above all never, never neglect to cultivate the deadly 'nasal'. This is particularly potent and hypnotising. Pick up some points from yoga manuals on breathing control and practise. You must be able to switch from normal to 'nasal' at will. The 'nasal' represents many things, among others learning, profundity, depth, piety, saintliness, eroticism, exoticism. Based on my observations of our actor-cum-politicians, including the most adept, I recommend that the nasal be reserved for the fatal blow, involving key words like ' corruption', 'cronyism', 'akhlak', or arabic based etymology with roots in Islamic history. All in all the 'nasal' works wonders for your political 'telo' or 'lingo'.

And lastly, don't learn only from dictators, great leaders and orators, learn from fine actors too.! If you study closely many of our prominent leaders, they incorporate many elements from no less than characters played by the late P.Ramlee himself. Pick old videos, whether of UMNO days or post-UMNO era, note the smug, the rolling of the eyes, the hand gesture, the disguised naughty eroticism, the 'boyish', 'cutish' 'shy' quality (malu-malu kucing), faked humility, feigned lurking behind flamboyance and craftiness. Learn to use smattering of dialects or multilingual expressions, which is nothing more than popular racial stereotypes really, for effects. The late P.Ramlee was a master at this. He could swith smatterings from Javanese, Arabic, English, Tamil, Chinese, German and many more, in slang in not the actual language. In this respect observe and learn how a prominent contemporary opposition politician avail himself of bollywood materials and javanese. Don't forget also that P.Ramlee was himself a great 'nasalist', who used it deadly for effects. 

In tight corners learn how to take the fight to the street. Learn how to roll up your sleeves in public to indicate readiness to brawl . It is a refined art. The rolling of street brawlers is quite different from that motivated by fashion style. There must be strength to it, with clenched fist packing mighty punches. This seemed to be very effective for ladies and lady audience, as evident in the last perhimpunan gaung Wanita UMNO when it worked a frenzy. It was most effective in hand-offs and in deflecting issues at hand. 

Always takes lesson from history. Take the example of PKR AMK during the last perhimpunan gaung ( or was it AMUK?) The youth leader has learned well from his French history perhaps, that bit on the storming of the Bastille. In high drama, he solemnly vouched to break prison wall or topple the goverment from the street if they have to! ( is this constitutional or in accordance with the law?)

And by the way, if ever you are caught with your pants down (metaphorically or otherwise) in any compromising situation, deny, deny and deny to the hilt.  If confronted by strong evidences, deny that you were' you', attributing the act to a double acting as' you', put up to it by others. To pull this off successfully, your acting as you will have to be better than the double playing' you', for in all probability the double would be a splitting image of you.   

I have to stop now. My warranty ends here. This manual is only for aspiring members of parliament.I hope these notes are of some help to you. Those aspiring for more, perhaps an MB or PM, are well advised to learn or understudy elsewhere. Anyway, good luck in the coming general election, or shall I say the cockfight!

P.s I am posting this unedited in view of the fact that the election in around the corner, hence time is of the essence!I  absolve myself of liability over any loss of deposit for the advice tendered in this manual.

Peaceful Assembly Bill 2011: The Rule of Law or the Rise of Mob Rule?

Parliament is deliberating on the Peaceful Assembly Bill, the essence of which is what is best for the nation in terms of balancing freedom of expression with regulating anarchic tendencies in the garb of it. As predictable, the opposition and anti-establishment elements have gone to town to oppose the proposed law, which recommends in principle that demonstration and assemblies be better regulated and channeled with the view of ensuring public order.

What is the bone of contention between the opposition and the legislators behind the move? Again as predictable anti-establishment elements wish to preserve the anarchic and emotive elements, while the advocates work towards neutralising them. The opposition rejects the proposal to ban street demonstration, to restrict assemblies to specific and confined avenues such as the stadium, and the stipulation of longer notice of intention and application to the authority. Those advocating the change in the law of course insist on those very things.

If the public chose to be partisan over the issue, it is clear how the alignment would polarise or gravitate.Basically the PR elements would oppose the proposed change, seeing it as 'draconian', out to neutralise their basic weapon or modus operandi, while BN elements would be in vehement support, seeing it as 'disarming' or putting the straight jacket on the opposition.

But then this is a serious issue involving public order, security and perhaps the very survival of our democracy. I propose we the public look beyond partisanship and the 'prankish' stances of both political divides.

The fact is that our democracy depends on public order and the rule of law.In our history in sombre moments, we admit our democracy cannot be of the puristic western type which can afford greater leeway to racial and ethnic sensitivities. Our democracy cannot!

Reflect upon our dark moments in history of ethnic relations, and you would know what I mean. Yes, some will be accusing me of raising the dark spectre of racial riots. But no, this is not 'raising the scare', 'the spectre of bloodshed' for ideological reasons, but facing history in its cold brute facts and learning instructively from it. We imperil our democracy in failing to distinguish between these different approaches to history. Machiavellian abuse of history should be distinguished from sincere learning from it.

Which brings to mind the recent scathing but historically accurate attack on the DAP and its leadership in Parliament by YB Zulkifli Nordin. Actually far worse abuses had been hurled at the Malays, besides those cited by YB Zulkifli Nordin, which had been left out perhaps due to sensitivities. There were abuses even to the effect of  compelling the Malays and Muslims to consume pork during the heated campaign of 1969. Incidentally, the remarks of YB Zulkifli Nordin should be taken together with his blog recounting his PKR or youth movement days as able lieutenant to Anwar Ibrahim. In the language of a direct participant and eye witness, he recounted the planning and deliberations that transpired in organising a street demonstration (peppered by emphatic 'I was there' ) . By his account, it was planned by the organisers which street to block, where to congregate in case of police action, at what stage cars were to be torched for maximum effect! These are disclosures not to be taken lightly.

Actually street demonstration is by nature violent. There is no such thing as ' peaceful' street demonstration. In this matter, it would be foolish for us to go by the pledge or pronouncement of organisers themselves. No sponsors or organisers of street demonstration would ever say they wish to organise a violent or anarchic one. It is axiomatic that all would say their intention is 'peaceful demonstration' in the name of 'freedom of expression' and 'democracy'.

A close examination of the structure and contents of street demonstration shows the following elements, regardless of the pronouncement of sponsors: a) defiance towards the law and authority, b) militancy and aggression in its style of political mobilisation, c) limited room for  genuine dialogue or reasoning, despite its surface appearance to the contrary, d) confrontational and antagonistic towards authority and other views e) heavy reliance on sensationalism or emotionalism, f)) anarchic psychology of the mob, g) authoritarian and oppressive towards the public in the sense of an 'imposition', 'loud', ' indoctrinating', and 'forced down their throat' , h) nihilistic, relativistic and Machiavellian contesting of social norms and limits, i) highly propagandist and manipulative of public opinion and mass medias, k) show of strength, brute power through sheer numbers, l) highly provocative (towards the law and authority), with latent intention of sparking conflict, m) dangerous play of bravado and populist 'heroism', secretly wishing for an iconic 'martyrdom', to be manipulated for escalating open violence, n) and many others.

 All of which enable me to say indeed street demonstration is by nature and structure a violent process. Of course I say so with the caveat that street demonstration is to be distinguished from the 'Salt March' or 'Spinning Wheel Movement' of Ghandi or  'We Shall Overcome' of Martin Luther King. These pacifist and civil right protests are by content and structure a different phenomenon altogether. They have nothing to do with the 'street demonstration' of Adolf Hitler towards seizing power, and its  variations we are witnessing in many Southeast Asia countries. .

Setting aside partisanship, I wonder just what are we witnessing before us? Where do we stand? How do we best preserve our democracy? How do we build a nation? What do we want really, transcending partisanship, populist tendencies, abstract liberalism and 'human right', bourgeoisie rhetoric, dangerous and convenient Machiavellian politics and uncritical personality cult? Of course by the' rule of law' we do not mean either a rubber ruler, pliable and malliable to vested interests. Such abuses should not be admitted into the conception of 'rule of law', nor compounded with it.

What is our choice effectively speaking, one we are willing to back morally or politically. The rule of law or mob rule?