RPK The Cyber Anarchist?

[kensington]

http://dq-liberte.blogspot.com/2010/01/kua-kia-soong-rpk-cyber-anarchist.html


Kua Kia Soong
Malaysiakini, Jan 7, 10, 12:23pm

I don't consider myself a “fanatical fan” of RPK (Raja Petra Kamarudin) nor am I a “bottom feeder” in the fetid Malaysian political aquarium. ('Cyber anarchist with belligerent agenda', Jan 2, New Straits Times) I have been observing Malaysian society since the 50s and the pretentious apologists in the mainstream media have never failed to amuse me by providing so much comic relief. To call them prostitutes would be a gross insult to sex workers.

Their attempts to discredit RPK will surely fail now that these formerly imperious state propaganda pieces have been reduced to “old newspapers” and have to compete with us, the people in cyberspace. What a leveler the Internet is!


First of all, is it Malaysian to discredit somebody by labeling him an “anarchist”? The obscurantists in the establishment would want Malaysians to believe that anarchists are irresponsible troublemakers who do not care about society.

Little do they know that one of the world's greatest public intellectuals, Noam Chomsky, is an anarchist by political persuasion.

The positive and constructive contributions by Chomsky to freedom, democracy and human rights in the post-war world have been universally recognised.

His commitment to the Palestinian cause precedes Umno's and he is consistent in championing many other anti-imperialist causes as well unlike the selective populism of Umno.

Anarchists (or anarcho-syndicalists) were in control of many areas of Catalonia during the Spanish Civil War, a war which inspired freedom-loving people like George Orwell and many other famous writers to fight fascism during the early part of the 20th century.

Michel Foucault, the well-known philosopher and profound critic of capitalist state institutions has sometimes been categorised as a neo-anarchist too.

What do anarchists stand for? Shelley has touched on its ideals in this poem:

“The man
Of virtuous soul commands not, nor obeys:
Power, like a desolating pestilence,
Pollutes whatever it touches, and obedience,
Bane of all genius, virtue, freedom, truth,
Makes slaves of men, and, of the human frame,
A mechanised automaton.”


Anarchists place a high premium on liberty.

They recognise, however, that individuality is a social phenomenon since we need other people in order to develop, expand, and grow.

Anarchists want to create a society based on three principles: liberty, equality and solidarity.

Liberty is essential for the full flowering of human intelligence, creativity, and dignity. One could say that these are also the avowed aims of education in so-called enlightened societies.

Domination stifles innovation and personal responsibility, leading to conformity and mediocrity. While liberty is essential for the fullest development of individuality, equality is essential for genuine liberty to exist. There can be no real freedom in a class-stratified and unequal society.

As Marx has analysed in 'Capital Volume I', liberty in capitalist society is at best the "freedom" to choose one's boss.

Finally, solidarity means working voluntarily and co-operatively with others who share the same goals and interests. But without liberty and equality, society becomes an exploitative system based on the domination of the masses by the ruling class.

Anarchists are not idealists who think that people or ideas develop outside of society. Individuality and ideas grow and develop within society, in response to material and intellectual interactions and experiences, which people actively analyse and interpret. That is why anarchists are also described as libertarian socialists.

So, would you call RPK an anarchist? I always say, “If the cap fits…” I notice he wears a red star on his green beret!

An apt epithet

Looking at the laudable efforts of RPK during the last decade, “cyber anarchist” would be an apt epithet to confer upon him.

He has done more than any politician in this country to expose the illegitimate institutions of the Malaysian state, as John Dewey has described the capitalist state, “domination by business for private profit through private control of banking, land, industry, reinforced by command of the press, press agents and other means of publicity and propaganda.”
libertarian
RPK has gone beyond the sociological theses about the shared interests of the ruling elite – he has literally stripped bare the integuments of the Malaysian state; exposed the machinations of the police and shameful harassment of whistleblowers.

He has posed questions surrounding the unsolved murder of Altantuya which all patriotic and justice-loving Malaysians want answered.

The “hapless prey” in this case happens to be the most powerful person in this country!

Far from throwing “fantasist allegations”, RPK has produced statutory declarations which should prompt any just and responsible public prosecutor to take action.

Besides these documents, he has produced video interviews on YouTube with the private investigator in the Altantuya murder case who has claimed that he was coaxed and harassed by interested parties to change his statutory declaration and to leave the country. “Get real!” as they say…

The nemesis of bumiputeraism

Bumiputeraism has been used as a populist ideology by the Malay ruling class in their ascent to political power after May 13, 1969. It was intended to rally the Malay community behind this ruling class as it reaped the economic benefits from this policy while discriminating against the “Nons”.

But it was only a matter of time before the contradictions in the “bumiputera” policy imploded because their crony capitalist policies invariably create not only inter-ethnic but also intra-ethnic inequalities.

These fissures within the Malay community have appeared during the 70s (Baling and Hamid Tuah incidents), the 80s (the Umno split), the 90s (Reformasi) right into the 21st century.

Much to the chagrin of the Malay ruling class, more and more Malay intellectuals have risen up to question the legitimacy of this bumiputeraist policy and to expose the iniquities of the state.

RPK can be seen as just this nemesis of bumiputeraism and what a nemesis! He taunts them in cyberspace all the way to hell. You couldn't find a more exemplary model of the rational, non-racist Malaysian intellectual who is not afraid to castigate not only the ruling class but also the spineless and the opportunists in ALL the ethnic communities in Malaysia.

The wind is blowing
And thanks Pete for Malaysia Today! At no time in our country's history has alternative journalism been more exciting and refreshing and websites such as Malaysia Today under RPK has shown that we can beat these mainstream rags at their game.

For all the pompous braying by the apologists of the state, at least Malaysia Today has the graciousness to publish their pieces. Most progressives have given up writing to the establishment newspapers because of their shameless censorship. So who's afraid of rational debate?

So here's wishing RPK “Good Speed” and assuring him of our support in his campaign for truth, justice and democracy.

He is the best judge of the system of justice in this country, so if he decides to keep on running, we hope he keeps on writing and take comfort in these lines from the Song of the French partisan:

“Oh, the wind, the wind is blowing
Through the land the wind is blowing
Freedom soon will come
Then you'll come from the shadows…”


KUA KIA SOONG, a former MP, was principal of the New Era College, Kajang. He is also a director of human rights group Suaram. http://dq-liberte.blogspot.com/2010/01/kua-kia-soong-rpk-cyber-anarchist.html

 

[kensington]

Raja Petra Kamarudin

My simple observation on the Raja Petra Kamarudin issue is for him to stand up and be counted.

Opportunities rarely knock twice and his chance to defend himself and prove his allegations in open court came and went when he decided to flee.

However, since he has decided to forgo the opportunity, perhaps it is now a wiser option for the government to focus its attention on more pressing matters than attempting to extradite him, such as resolving the issue of Malaysians overstaying in Britain.

A person who has deep convictions in what he believes to be the truth would face the consequences of his actions head on, irrespective of whether there are unconditional guarantees to safeguard his safety and wellbeing.

NIZAM MOHD REZA, Kuala Lumpur (New Shit Times, 8 January 2010)


*************************************************
I do not blame Nizam Mohd Reza for arriving at this ‘simple observation’. After all, even Federal Court judges ruled that Anwar Ibrahim is guilty because he failed to prove his innocence. And this was what the written judgement said: the accused failed to convince the court of his innocence. Therefore, the court finds him guilty.

There are two issues here. First is that the accused does not need to prove his innocence. The Prosecution needs to prove guilt. The onus is on the Prosecution to prove guilt, not the task of the Defence to prove innocence. In a criminal indictment, all the accused needs to do is to raise doubt. And if the accused succeeds in raising doubt, then the court has to give the benefit of the doubt to the accused. That’s where the phrase ‘benefit of the doubt’ comes from.

Second, in the many charges that I faced (Sedition and Criminal Defamation), there is no avenue to prove my innocence even if I wish to do so (which, as I said, is not my job anyway). Sedition and Criminal Defamation is not about whether what I wrote is true or false. It is about whether I did or did not write what I was alleged to have written.

In other words, it does not matter whether what I wrote was the gospel. The court is not concerned about the truth of the matter. The court only wants to know whether I did write what I have been alleged to have written. If I did, then I am guilty and I go to jail. Never mind if what I wrote may be true. I will still be found guilty and will be sent to jail.

The fact that I was first hauled in and interrogated by the police on allegations that I had written lies and that I had signed a false Statutory Declaration, but later charged for something else, proves the mala fide of the police. The police reports against me stated that I had written lies in my article and that I had signed a false declaration. But if they charge me for writing lies and for signing a false Statutory Declaration then they would have to prove this.

The police then raided my house and confiscated two computers that they found in my house. The computers were then sent to the forensic people who tried looking for copies of the article on my hard disk plus evidence that I had uploaded the article onto the website.

But they found nothing.

Later they adjourned the trial and requested permission from the court to do a second examination of the computer but still found nothing. The police report, however, said I had lied and the charge, in fact, also stated the same thing. But how do they prove I lied unless they go through what I wrote in court, sentence by sentence, and examine the truth of the matter?

The Prosecution knew that to prove I had lied was an uphill task. I need not prove what I wrote was true. Instead, the Prosecution has to prove that I lied. Knowing they would not be able to do this without opening a can of worms, they decided to dispense with the true or false exercise and instead just charge me for Sedition and Criminal Defamation -- which does not need to touch on the truth of the matter but just whether I did or did not write what I was alleged to have written.

In other words, the government wanted to avoid discussing what I wrote but instead just focus on whether I did write it. Furthermore, they would avoid discussing whether what I signed in the Statutory Declaration is true or false and instead just focus on whether I did sign that Statutory Declaration.

So all this talk that I should attend trial and prove my innocence is pure hogwash. I would not be able to prove my innocence because I would not be asked to do so. In fact, in the first place, I should not even be asked to prove my innocence, as the Prosecution has to prove my guilt. But with what I have been charged with, that does not even apply. All they need to do is prove that I did it (true or false as the case may be notwithstanding). And even then they could not do that because the computers they confiscated were not my computers but belonged to someone else and they just happened to be in my house at the time the police raid occurred.

The fact is, even if I did do it they can’t prove it because the computers I used to update Malaysia Today were not in my house at the time of the police raid and what they confiscated were not the ‘offensive weapon’.

Let me put it another way. I do own a gun. And I did use my gun to commit murder. But I have since thrown that particular gun into the river and the gun they found in my house belonged to someone else and was not the gun that was used to commit the murder.

Now do you get it?

So what do the police do? Knowing that they were losing their case and would never be able to prove that I did write that article and/or uploaded it onto the Internet, they decided to detain me without trial under the Internal Security Act. And in my Detention Order it stated that my offence was for writing that exact article that I had already been charged for and was facing trial. (Plus they threw in ‘insulting Islam’ as additional charges to strengthen their case so that if they get knocked out on one charge they still had others to hang on to).

In other words, I was being punished twice for the same so-called crime. And you just can’t punish someone twice for the same crime. And since I was now serving my sentence under detention without trial, they should have dropped the charges against me.

But they did not. Even as I was under detention they kept dragging me to court to face trial. I was already serving a sentence under the Internal Security Act. Yet they were still trying to convict me for that same crime. And if they succeed in convicting me then I would be serving two sentences simultaneously, both for the same crime.

This, the government-owned mainstream media has kept hidden from the public. They are making it appear like I am a fugitive who refuses to face trial. What they failed to mention is that I have already been punished for that crime and should not be punished a second time for the same thing.

That is the law.

And, to make matters worse, the High Court declared by detention illegal and released me. The fact that the High Court released me does not mean I have not served my sentence. I have. It is just that the court views my detention as illegal.

Not happy in leaving things alone, the government appealed my release (at the same time they announced they will not appeal the Razak Baginda acquittal). And the Federal Court gave me hell. Every step of the way the Federal Court put obstacles in our way. They even sat with a two-man quorum to hear our objections to Augustine Paul being one of the judges. The court just can’t sit with a two-man quorum. But in my case they did although it violates the constitution.

We then filed an appeal in another Federal Court and the second court agreed that a two-man quorum is just so wrong. So the first Federal Court was given a slap in the face. But instead of re-sitting, this time with a three-man quorum to hear our application for Augustine Paul to recuse, they adjourned indefinitely without fixing a new hearing date.

It is almost one year now and still the Federal Court refuses to continue with the appeal against my release. Why? Well, because if they do then they would have to sit with a three-man quorum to hear our application to kick out Augustine Paul. And note that I do not have to be present in this hearing because it is the Prosecution that is appealing the High Court’s decision to release me from Internal Security Act detention. I have not been arrested or put on bail. So I need not be present in court. The hearing can proceed without me. But it has not proceeded for almost a year and the court has not explained why this hearing has been frozen and put in limbo.

Anyway, Augustine Paul refused to recuse and the Federal Court wanted him to stay as one of my three judges. But God stepped in and removed Augustine Paul as one of my judges. So, like it or not, the Federal Court no longer has any choice but to replace Augustine Paul since he is already food for worms in the ground.

But why have they not done so? What’s to stop the Federal Court from replacing the now very dead Augustine Paul with another half-dead Federal Court judge and proceed with hearing the appeal by the government? My presence is not required. I do not have to be in court because I am not under arrest or out on bail. It is an appeal by the government and only the lawyers need to be in court.

Yes, the government-owned mainstream media is not talking about all this. Instead, they are spinning stories that I am a fugitive who refuses to appear in court to prove my innocence. Where the fuck did they learn their law from? I never went to law school and even I know how it is supposed to work.

Hmm…maybe I will become a lawyer when I grow up.





http://malaysia-today.net/index.php...n-this&catid=20:no-holds-barred&Itemid=100087
(Malaysiakini, 9 January 2010)