Some of the points I like in the article by Rehman Rashid which appeared in the New Straits Times 16th November 2007.But what they were really up against were the provisions inserted into the Constitution as a caution against mass rallies turning into mass murder.
Perhaps the 47 years since the Emergency and 38 years since the May 13 riots are sufficient to prove that Malaysians can be trusted now to assemble without let or hindrance; that the police should be expected to perform only traffic management, not crowd control.
Had that been the point of it, Saturday's rally might have helped prove that point. Breaking the law to change the law may be justified if "the law is an ass, an idiot", as Dickens' Mr Bumble fatuously remarked in Oliver Twist. But changing the system to change the law is oxymoronic.
I could sympathise, therefore, with his insistence on "changing the system". That's where he and the rally made perfect sense: Why respect a system you want to change? So my only question to him was: Change to what?
But is that what our reformists want? If so, no one's saying so. "Clean Elections", "Judicial Reform" or "Burn Baby Burn" all lack the specificity that would help the rest of us know exactly what they're selling. What exactly do they see as a better future for all? Where would they take us? What's the end they have in view?
Yes, it is still a blur to me too. Better the devil we know?
No comments:
Post a Comment