Fishermen’s march: Something deeper, more corrosive lurks out there

5
811

We cannot – must not – let our fisherman be inconvenienced by insensitive political and business interests, writes Dominic Damian.


It is easy to identify corruption with 1MDB and all the other related scandals. The traditions of moral teaching and laws will challenge such conventional corruption.

We are led to believe and conditioned to think of corruption as a specific act of illegality: giving something in exchange for some favour or advantage.

But is there something deeper, far more corrosive and more deceptive that is being camouflaged – and which has far-reaching consequences and impact? Yes!

Consider the following:

  • An elected state or federal entity or government with majority support would be powerful. Conventional or unconventional abuse is bound to happen.
  • The most virtuous or righteous – elected based on electoral promises – may also be suspect. They can be compromised – by an act of commission (based on loyalty to party) or an act of omission (through silence, which will hurt innocent people).
  • There will always be the law-abiding ones. They will make strident declarations, fight for human rights and speak out against financial corruption. Yet they will not go against party ideology or other sacred cows.

Winning a majority can take politicians through a dark unknown tunnel, fraught with grave danger. We have supposedly changed a government for the better – or have we?

What about corruption of the conscience and soul? The best-intended laws and constitutional advancements are not designed to protect the vulnerable. Sometimes they can be an intentional impediment, with built-in escape clauses.

READ MORE:  The People v Najib Razak Ep 54: It’s all his fault

Why do fishermen have to march to Parliament to state their objections? Deprived of their potential livelihood and natural right to the seas, they are bound to be affected by reclamation projects. These projects will benefit the upper echelons of society with vested interests. The fishermen are deemed inconsequential.

The Orang Asli communities are struggling within a legal framework. Whatever rights they have may be a pittance. Isn’t the denial of their rights a corruption of the soul?

Missing or murdered persons have no recourse to any form of justice. There is an unholy and unbreachable wall of silence. A state within a state – a deep state – is believed to exist. Isn’t this corruption?

An election manifesto of promises has not yet been fulfilled. Citizens were enticed to vote for change. Citizens accepted in good faith the insurmountable difficulties in the path.

The government should demonstrate goodwill. A deficient response in fulfilling promises is a conspicuous sign of lack of respect: you and I are expendable.

All the above are possible signs of something deeper that often escapes the eye. After all, no one is seen and perceived to be actually ‘stealing’ anything. The justification for such acts is sanitised and supported by a coterie of laws.

The standard opinion that public acquiescence is needed to serve the larger good is contestable. Aquiescenece is nothing but blind slavery to enactments. It usually affects the most vulnerable and bows before the powerful.

The central question is, are people made for the law or is the law made for people? Soul-searching is a deep struggle.

READ MORE:  The People v Najib Razak Ep 6: Dapper suit, rempit talk

Is legality the exclusive foundation and perimeter for morality? Is legality the compass our parliamentarians use to forsake morality?

Will the ones we elect be illuminated by personal principles? Will they shine with deep compassion? Will they question the questionable and object strenuously to the objectionable?

It seems like we expect too much.

We are trapped in a pseudo-democratic system. Many parliamentarians invariably and slavishly toe the official party or government line. They seem unwilling to discharge their basic responsibilities to their constituents or to follow the dictates of their conscience. Often, their personal courage and conviction are but an illusion.

The nation has lost way too many battles over the environment. It is already proven from the past – as in the Taman Rimba case, where the direct beneficiaries could be those higher up and their cohorts. Isn’t this enough to say stop! Change!

The Bakun Dam, about the size of Singapore, has submerged and destroyed the natural environment. It has caused irreversible damage while a few reap billions. Isn’t this sacrilegious?

When will this madness end? When will we say no to this carnage by callous persons?

We must have a more meaningful alternative economic narrative. At present, the conventional financial growth and development techniques seem to profit the banks – and few others. The old methods take us down a repetitive never-ending cycle of death.

When will our parliamentarians accept real responsibility? When will they educate themselves about viable economic options or alternatives?

Are they aware that economic equality and economic equity are opposites? Equality doesn’t care who is able or disabled. Equity, on the other hand, ensures there is no disparity or disadvantage. There is a substantive difference.

So we need some clear legal checks and balances. Even the very best of our parliamentarians and government must never be granted blanket trust; otherwise, the potential for abuse would be like handing over a blank cheque. Some form of ombudsmen, constitutionally empowered and enabled, should be the last line of defence for the defenceless.

To witness the courage of old fisherman, walking in defiance to Parliament on 11 July 2019 was historic – and inspirational. But it was also gut-wrenching and painful to watch.

We cannot – must not – let our fisherman be inconvenienced by insensitive political and business interests.

READ MORE:  The Najib Razak 1MDB Trial Ep 17: Yes man

All photographs by Camden Damian

(Visited 780 times, 1 visits today)
Thanks for dropping by! Apart from the views expressed in Aliran's media statements and the NGO statements we have endorsed, the opinions in other pieces published here do not necessarily reflect Aliran's official position.

Our voluntary writers work hard to keep these articles free for all to read. But we do need funds to support our struggle for Justice, Freedom and Solidarity. To maintain our editorial independence, we do not carry any advertisements; nor do we accept funding from dubious sources. If everyone reading this was to make a donation, our fundraising target for the year would be achieved within a week. So please consider making a donation to Persatuan Aliran Kesedaran Negara, CIMB Bank account number 8004240948.

5
Join the conversation

avatar
750
3 Comment threads
2 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
4 Comment authors
Teo Chuen TickAliran adminIT.Scheisstunglang Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Teo Chuen Tick

I fear the worst – the wheels have been set in motion. The Penang state govt. has much invested – the fishermen’s protest is just a irritant that needs to be balmed over.
But I have to be honest – as a means to finance the PTMP, the PSR does appear acceptable, to me. What is important is the 72 recommendations in the EIA be made public to ensure the developer is held accountable.
In a development project of this scale, the fishermen’s livelihood will be impacted. We can only hope they will be adequately compensated.
The other issues all point to the betrayal of PH to the promise of change it gave prior to GE14. PH will be surprised if it think all rakyat who supported them in GE14, will give them a vote of confidence come GE15.

Aliran admin

The major issue here is, do we really need the RM46bn PTMP as it stands. Penang Forum has put forward a better, much cheaper, faster alternative – which has not been given the serious consideration it deserves.

Teo Chuen Tick

I agree totally. I have been following PTMP issue closely as well.
But the political decision was made during LGE’s tenure as CM – the Penang Forum’s suggestion was ignored.
The state govt. – I supposed we can take it as the DAP – considered the mandate it got in 2018 as a green light for its version of the PTMP.

IT.Scheiss

Good article.

Another key point is – Which interest groups are funding the governing party’s or parties’ coffers?

When in opposition, politicians will argue based on various ground, legal or moral but when their party is governing, they base their arguments upon existing legal documents, such as masterplans, environmental impact assesements, traffic impact assessments and so forth, which place the burden of objection along these grounds upon the shoulders of the people opposed to these development projects, which is time consuming and difficult for many.

I’ve experienced having to argue against developments in Petaling Jaya through submitting objections based upon the developments’ violation of points in the masterplan.

tunglang
tunglang

We now have a Pontius Pilate in CM Chow whose party was elected on the Pakatan Harapan bandwagon but who wantonly, arrogantly betrayed Penangites believing they are fools….