Er...politician first, public servant second?

Whatever the merit of the High Court's ruling that non-muslims can use the word "Allah" is not my primary concern, read here for a piece of some other people's opinion. ("ISNA Commends Malaysian Court Ruling")

What I am more concern about is the stand adopted by consumers of tax payers' money. (Fine if their livelihood is not entirely dependant on it .... but leave this issue to another day, ok?)

Home Ministry to allow protests against ‘Allah’ ruling


PUTRAJAYA, Jan 6- The Home Ministry will allow a public demonstration against the “Allah” ruling, planned by Muslim groups this Friday at the Kampung Baru mosque here, to proceed and will only take action if “things get out of hand.”


“There is a balance that needs to be addressed. We (the Home Ministry) have faced this situation before. Right now, if you do not allow the protest, it will cause a lot of emotional reaction. But if you also allow it, it might turn into a security threat,” explained Hishammuddin.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Are they suppose to be be public servants first and politicians second or politicians first and public servant second?

Politics is a game about whipping up enough support for oneself and even generating ill-feelings towards your opponent. However, there must be a limit to this. There must be an application of good taste, common sense and accountability in playing these mind games; especially one is holding a ministerial office and getting paid by tax payers of all race and religion.

The political currency of BN component parties are well known so after getting numb initially reading the above piece, I suppose there is no surprise at all, given Hishammuddin's keris exploits pre-GE12. I anticipate the Court of Appeal will overrule the High Court decision, why much ado over something so little?


I expect an elected administration to be consistent in application of laws.

If stern police action has been taken against cyclists, coffee drinkers, teddy bear givers, candle light holders and even lawyers trying to see their clients in the police station, why is there exemption for this one?

If the Minister says he is giving in into emotional reaction, then he is saying that he will bend the law because of emotions. By the same token, if a judge feels sorry for a rapist with blue balls syndrome then should the judge apply the relevant sections of the penal codes differently?

The Minister has to be consistent. Anti-ISA protest on 1 August 2009 was an emotional event. The Perak DUN grab generated emotional gatherings as well. The street protest after Anwar's conviction by the late Augustine Paul was also an emotional event but on all occasions, the need to let people pour out their emotion, in Hishammuddin words, takes a second seat. Tear gas, mass road blocks and detention were the call of the days.


The position of judiciary in Malaysia also needs scrutiny. By holding such mass-demonstration, can this be construed as a state of lawlessness and contempt of court? An orderly society with respect to laws and regulations will progress economically and socially. All this talk about creating high value income jobs in Malaysia, Vision 2020 can go out of the window if we degenerate into that.


Najib once said we need to go Glokal. Fine dump the Jaguh Kampung tag. If the protesters have such strong conviction then for goodness sake extend your protests to Indonesia and Arabia whereby non-muslims there have been using the same term as well. Take your protest to the relevant international forum, why stop at Kampung Baru? It would be heartening for me to see Malaysians taking a firm stand and getting international community backing for their stand, whether the stand is on human rights, religion, environment issues etc.


This term usage term has been around for ages and yet, only now it was raised as an explosive issue. If our grandfathers and fathers did not kick up the fuss, why now?