aphorism : education x respect

Anyone who pursues education in order to obtain respect, is a fool.

Check : am I allowed to say X under the Sedition Act of Malaysia? #1531f

Malaysianisms : Yesterday, I engaged with some comments about the role of language in national identity, and the lenses that different demographics of Malaysia apply to this debate.

A very brief metaphysical overview ( ontological question : what exists, to be discussed? ) of this is :

** Under the Law / Formally **

1. The national Constitution differentiates 'classes of citizen' by certain 'traits', such as the use of a particular language.

2. Each class of citizen is subsequently attached to differentiated sets of rights.

3. There is no legal requirement to obtain knowledge of any language, unless one wishes to gain admittance to certain classes. The use of specific languages is necessary, but insufficient, for admissions to a class, based on the given class definitions.

** Under the Law / Less Formally **

4. Under the Constitution, but subsequently nuanced under subsidiary legislation, and at the whim of by executive policy, both drawn up over the years, there have existed ( and expired ) a number of policies with varying degrees of controversy. Some policies embedded specific structures into the the economic history of the nation, and in hindsight may or may not have been the best way to do things. These continue to be be an interesting class of contemporary debates.

** Above the Law / Informally **

5. There is a great discourse about national identity, and whether a certain language is necessary for informal assignment of national identity. ( Basically some believe that if you don't know language X, it makes you less Y. )

6. There remains room for (5.) to feedback to (4.), and even in the distant future maybe to (1-3.)

** Meta-philosophical Concern : Act 15, The Sedition Act 1948 ( Amended 2015 ) **

7. Most recently, the 2015 amendment to this law was "approved by the King on May 28, 2015 and published in the Gazette on June 4, 2015," thus forming the most recent official copy of the law.

8. As recently as 2023-SEP-08, officials such as the Inspector General of Police have called into question the citability of the correct law, as recent amendments may or may not have been included by recent publishers. ( https://www.malaymail.com/news/malaysia/2023/09/08/books-on-sedition-law-should-include-2015-amendment-to-prevent-public-confusion-on-3r-offences-says-ex-igp-musa-hassan/89637 ) An updated PDF could not be found under site:agc.gov.my via Google as of 2024-DEC-10. A Malay version updated to 2006 may be found here ( https://mediamalaysia.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/Akta-15-Akta-Hasutan-1948.pdf ).

9. The legality of discussions ** about ** items (1-6.) should be given due consideration in light of (7, 8.). 

10. Paraphrased, the Sedition Act, forbids causing :

• 10.1. ... { dissatisfaction, hated, contempt, disaffection/disloyalty } to any { ruler, government, administration of justice } ;
• 10.2. ... incitement of attempts to do anything illegal ;
• 10.3. ... incitement of ill-will or hostility between any groups ;
• 10.4. ... the calling into question ( Malay : "mempersoalkan", defined extrinsically by the Dewan Bahasa & Pustaka as "raising as a question, turning into a question, analysing, discussing, debating" ), matters discussed in Articles 152, 153 or 181 of the Constitution. ( Act 15, Section 3, Subsection 1,f ... which I shall find amusing to hashtag : #1531f ) ;
• 10.5. ... the (creation or distribution) of any (content with a tendency to be seditious), regardless of any intention or absence of intention ( 'actus reus', without 'mens rea' ) ... thus making it possible to be guilty by accident.

11. Therefore, in the BROADEST interpretation the stated topics are strictly taboo, not even to be discussed, which cannot possibly be the correct interpretation. However a NARROWER interpretation of "calling into question" may allow for statements to be made, as long as they comply with the rest of the Sedition Act.

12. So, in the discussion of (1-6.) it may be then be inferred, you DO NOT want to :

• 12.1. ... phrase any (sensitive matter) as a question ;
• 12.2. ... say that any (sensitive matter) should not be the case ; that it is the case in law should be taken as a given, if the law is clear ; however since the purpose of any law is to be read, interpreted, and enforced, it appears that interpreting the law must be allowed to allow the law to fulfill its own purpose ; this will probably have to go to court if you challenge it, and there may not be bail while you wait ;
• 12.3. ... incite any attempts to illegally modify (sensitive matter) ;

13. Finally, what does that leave us with allowances to DO in the discussion of (1-6.) ? Perhaps :

• 13.1. ... stating ( without question ) that something that is stated in law, any subsidiary legislation, and related executive policies, are facts ;
• 13.2. .... stating ( without question ) the observation that any items of (13.1) have had specific consequences, physical or mental, with evidences provided ; phrased in an arbitrarily non-seditious fashion.

That is probably hard!

14. The main concern I had across (1-13.) was, am I allowed by law to say some of the things I have said? For example, that the Constitution and its subsidiary executive policies over the years have caused division among Malaysians, that this is a fact, and that it is a grievous fact, of national proportions?

15. I have just said it anyway. But I grew up in this country assuming that I would be powerless to stop myself from being locked-up at anytime, so generally I am prepared for that. 

Good evening!

---

And other laws on speech? Would like to compile a list for my own interest.

• ... Printing Presses and Publications Act ( Act 301 )
• ... Communications and Multimedia Act ( Act 555 )
• ... Official Secrets Act ( Act 88 )

Komen atas : ketidakgunaan bahasa malaysia oleh sekelompok orang malaysia

Keterangan : Niat asal sesuatu bahasa kebangaaan, adalah sebagai kebangaan bangsa tersebut. Malangnya : konfabulasi dasar hak ekonomi dan dasar pendirian identiti membolehkannya terjadi sumber permisahan rakyat antara satu sama lain.

---

Teks1 : Penulisan asal dari tangan : 

Bangsa Malaysia selalu mengidolakan bahasa sehingga termaktub dalam perlembagaan bahawa kelas/golongon berhak adalah terpisah mengikuti ciri seperti pengunaan bahasa. 

Ini bukan ciri setiap bangsa. Kita saja yang mewarisi keidolaaan ini.

Lebih lagi, kelas warganegara yang sudah dibuang hak keutamaannya, dia rasa tak perlulah mengejar ciri-ciri ini ... asalkan matlamat dan keutaman hidupnya tidak merangkumi kemasukan ke dalam kelas bumiputera, dalam fikirannya, ciri-ciri bumiputera hanya gangguan kepada jihadnya yang utama, iaitu kekayaan, sejenis gaya hidup, dan penjagaan hati dirinya dan ahli keluarganya.

Begitula masyarakat Malaysia, mungkin akan terpisah secara berpelembagaan, selama-lamanya.

Inilah antara kepiluan yang diputuskan bangsa kita.

Komen ini ditertetawakan pembaca ; saya teruja :

• "Saya tak faham tulisan saudara. Orang putih kata "verbose"."
• "Inilah kepiluan yang diputuskan bangsa kita. Really??? Did you just google translate this?? Hahaha."
• "google translate ke bro?"

Jadi saya ambil kesempatan ini untuk membuat penyelidikan dan perbandingan antara cara tulisan saya dengan tangan, dan kuasa penterjemahan Google.

---

Operasi / Perjalanan Pertama

Teks2A : Penulisan asal (teks1), diterjemahkan ke dalam Inggeris, oleh GOOG :

The Malaysian people have always idolized language to the point that it is enshrined in the constitution that classes/groups are entitled to be separated according to characteristics such as language use.

This is not a characteristic of every nation. We are the only ones who have inherited this idolization.

Moreover, the citizen class that has been stripped of its preferential rights, feels no need to pursue these characteristics... as long as its goals and priorities in life do not include entering the Bumiputera class, in its mind, Bumiputera characteristics are only a distraction from its main jihad, which is wealth, a certain lifestyle, and taking care of itself and its family members.

Thus, Malaysian society may be separated constitutionally, forever.

This is one of the sorrows that our nation has decided. 

Teks3A : Teks2A, diterjemahbalik ke BM, oleh GOOG :

Rakyat Malaysia sentiasa mengidolakan bahasa sehingga termaktub dalam perlembagaan bahawa kelas/kelompok berhak diasingkan mengikut ciri-ciri seperti penggunaan bahasa.

Ini bukan ciri setiap bangsa. Kita sahaja yang mewarisi pemujaan ini.

Lebih-lebih lagi golongan warganegara yang telah dilucutkan hak keutamaannya, berasa tidak perlu meneruskan ciri-ciri tersebut... selagi matlamat dan keutamaan dalam hidup tidak termasuk memasuki kelas Bumiputera, pada fikirannya, ciri-ciri Bumiputera hanyalah sebuah gangguan daripada jihad utamanya, iaitu kekayaan, gaya hidup tertentu, dan menjaga diri dan ahli keluarganya.

Justeru, masyarakat Malaysia boleh dipisahkan secara perlembagaan, selama-lamanya.

Ini adalah salah satu kesedihan yang telah diputuskan oleh negara kita.

---

Perjalanan Kedua

Teks0 : Pemikiran saya, sebelum tulis (teks1) :

Malaysians tend to idolise language, to the point where citizens are classified according to their use of language in the Constitution.

This isn't true of all nations, but it is true of Malaysia.

Citizen classes whose rights are deprioritised by law, have no incentive to learn Bahasa Malaysia, unless they aspire to ascend to the bumiputera class. Therefore this trait of bumiputeras is viewed as a distraction to one's primary pursuits of wealth, a particular lifestyle, and care of oneself and one's family.

So Malaysian society may be divided forever, constitutionally.

So it is one of our nation's decided tragedies.

Teks2B : Teks0, diterjemahkan ke dalam Bahasa Malaysia, oleh GOOG :

Rakyat Malaysia cenderung mengidolakan bahasa, sehingga warganegara dikelaskan mengikut penggunaan bahasa mereka dalam Perlembagaan.

Ini tidak berlaku untuk semua negara, tetapi ia benar untuk Malaysia.

Golongan warganegara yang haknya diketepikan oleh undang-undang, tidak mempunyai insentif untuk mempelajari Bahasa Malaysia, melainkan mereka bercita-cita untuk naik ke kelas bumiputera. Oleh itu sifat bumiputera ini dilihat sebagai gangguan kepada pencarian utama kekayaan, gaya hidup tertentu, dan penjagaan diri dan keluarga.

Jadi masyarakat Malaysia mungkin berpecah selama-lamanya, mengikut perlembagaan.

Jadi ia adalah salah satu tragedi yang telah ditentukan oleh negara kita.

---

Perjalanan seterusnya ... ( I don't know about you, but I prefer the final line as expressed in Teks1 )

Further banter :

1. Bangsa is interesting because it means alternatively, nation, or race. This leads to colloquial oddities such as 'bangsa Melayu/Cina/India' referring to ethnic origin, and 'bangsa Malaysia' referring to national identity.

This has caused confusion in speech, because when I say 'bangsa kita' to a Malay person, they may think I made a semantic error, whereas I referred to Malaysia. I recently wrote something complicated along the lines of 'kepiluan yang diputuskan bangsa kita' and everyone's first reaction was, did you get this from Google Translate. Lol