What is the cost of one human life? What if the person is an Islamic State (IS) terrorist? Does his life cost any less? What if the person is a Palestinian? What about an Israeli? Are there different rules of human value for different peoples? What would be that basis? Would it be colour or ethnicity or looks or brains? What then do we humanly mean by rule of law, in any state; is it not more like, all men are brothers, but some are more equal than others?
Recently, a court in Israel found a soldier “guilty of manslaughter, rather than murder”. I do not know the full facts of the case, nor am I really too interested in specifics, but suffice to know that I heard three versions of news reports on the matter; from Al Jazeera, BBC and CNN. To me, it was a simple case story of an act of cold-blooded murder.
All three channels spoke of “obvious and willing killing of the injured Palestinian with a shot through his forehead by that lone soldier”. It was a military court in Israel that found him guilty of manslaughter but my question is, why was it reframed as “manslaughter” when it was obvious that the criminally-convicted soldier knew that the Palestinian was already badly injured and “essentially captured”?
But this soldier still chose to put a bullet through the Palestinian’s forehead. Did we not already deal with such concerns at the Nuremberg Trials? Adolf Eichmann claimed he was following orders and was declared guilty by an Israeli court.
Culture of closing one-eye on facts
The scientific method of verification of truths in a modern court is based on two equally rational systems of fact-finding; one based on evidence-based facts, and then there is a due process of rule-making and decision-taking but all designed to questioning and challenging these methods for certainty assertion. The judges decide finally.
Therefore, when all such due processes are followed, in all matters, the question of how the judgment is received is moot and quite irrelevant! But, in the above specific case, my concern is that “the system had compromised justice even before the case started”. Why do I say this?
Why would the public prosecutor agree that the original charge made, after police investigations, to be reduced to manslaughter? Why would the Israeli military court allow such a negotiated compromise even before hearing the facts in this case? The soldier shot the injured Palestinian through the forehead 11 minutes after he was lying on the ground. It was murder by most definitions.
Is this ‘really showing grace’ or was this not really ‘an abuse of the due process of law?’ There are already international rules of conduct in public places under non-war conditions. Even if their Israeli mindset is in a constant state of war-mindedness, is such an act and visible breach of human lawof mutual regard, by another human being, right, good, and true?
How then can an entire onlooker global and Israeli system choose to close one eye if the appeal of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to abrogate the verdict is subsequently taken seriously? Are we not creating and promoting a culture of obvious wrong-doing and closing one eye to all such wrongs?
High-level collusion for corrupt motives
Whether in Israel, or Myanmar, or ‘Melayusia’; are not a culture of collusion in favour of corrupt values, and the consequent abuse of democracy, a denial of our only real ideal?
In my current lived geography, quite unaware of what they are really doing, a group of vigilantes have been doing almost a similar thing, as follows:
1. Some volunteers formed a society and registered it with the Registrar of Societies (ROS). But their constituent members are only selective members (of only four roads) even though they claim to represent the entire community or settlement with their name ‘Katura’ or Kampung Tunku Residents Association which should theoretically represent all 30 roads of the Kampung Tunku settlement, and not just the selected four.
2. They claim to have got the Petaling Jaya City Council’s (MBPJ) agreement with their ‘illegal and unrepresentative proposal’ to create a pseudo-guarded community made up of only four out of 30 streets.
3. I have registered more than one complaint with the mayor, and another with the council and a third with the police and to date there is still no hope on the horizon for those of us who feel like Palestinians in an Israeli-claimed geography.
4. Recently also, all others who are badly affected by the programme’s road closures are also protesting. These three road closures are affecting drivers who access these roads to get to where they are going. My understanding is that such closures should only be at midnight, but obviously these vigilantes are self-made heroes, right? They follow their own rules.
5. My police report to police HQ by Internet filing no is: RMP.008579. They promised a response in three days and so I will choose to wait before I pursue the matter with them.
My core question to all in local governance is“when was security of our lives privatised to Nepali guards by the Royal Malaysian Police?” When was the Federal Constitution amended to make the this concession? Even the National Security Council (NSC) Act does not allow this, yet.
Privatising motives to ‘illegal others’
Ever since ‘the government’s privatisation policy’ was abused, over time, into a policy for cheating, stealing and lying, or CSL, to achieve specific agenda of promoters, those perpetrators began a culture of cheating, stealing, and lying to cover their tracks. But such rape and theft continues unabated in spite of a change of government at the state level. Now, proofs are made available by the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) arresting a secretary-general.
I have always labelled such an abusive policy, a ‘piratisation policy’, or a policy that seeks to use public assets and resources for private motives, including for a political party’s sectarian goals or agenda. Public Policy always exists to protect and preserve Public Interest.
The world famous Malaysian Official 1 (MO1) is one classic case of such a ‘piratisation’ agenda as revealed by evidences from the US Justice Department (DOJ), the Swiss and the Singapore government agencies.
In fact in a different way, I heard even Dr Mahathir Mohamad say that “such stealing” was not so blatant under his governance of Umno; he in fact even argued that he was always concerned that more than one trustee was appointed to manage all such Umno funds. He also claimed that he never allowed such monies into private accounts of any one person.
Now, is my geography also adopting such a CSL policy with impunity? I have acted against these illegal actions every step of the way, in the last 30 years, but I have not been successful to stop this rot and growing culture of corruption. The sad reality is that such abuse has continued, even if at a slower rate, with a different political alliance leading the state. Nonetheless, it still appears like more of the same even if at a slower rate. Power does in fact corrupt all.
If Anwar Ibrahim was charged with abusing political influence wrongly, and for improper motives, my question to the MACC chief commissioner is, while you appear to be a new broom sweeping our dirt clean; why only pick on public servants and not yet the most important politician? And, especially those who by default have been proven to have abused public funds by putting them into personal accounts; even if unknowingly?
By the way, was tax paid for personal funds in the account held by MO1?
As a Malaysian, I am also frankly tired of seeing everything wrong with every Israeli action but with an inability to seeing wrong with similar issues in our own country. Actually, we govern ourselves almost exactly like the Israeli’s govern their system with two different sets of laws; one for the governed and another for the governors.
Rakyat Malaysia, how can we change this form of mis-governance for the good of every citizen; and especially those who have greater needs?
KJ JOHN, PhD, was in public service for 32 years having served as a researcher, trainer, and policy adviser to the International Trade and Industry Ministry and the National IT Council (NITC) of the government of Malaysia.