‘Liberty! Equality! Fraternity!’

by Dr Oh Ei San in New Sabah Times.

Those were the immortal words that heralded the storming of the Bastille during the French Revolution more than two centuries ago, and they aptly describe the spirit of this column entry.

A week ago, the French people once again made their voice heard in the second round of their presidential election, in which right-wing Nikolas Sarkozy (nicknamed “Sarko”) defeated left-wing Ségolene Royal (popularly called “Ségo”), anticipating a new era for France, and generating valuable lessons for countries the world over.

First, after the first round, as it was announced that neither Sarko nor Ségo garnered the required majority vote to win outright (and thus must enter the second round), I have publicly opined that irrespective of the final tally, the French people would be the biggest winner. Why would I make such a statement?

Well, I stayed in France before, and experienced first-hand the renowned heightened sense of French superiority, and could fortunately manage only because I could speak French. Yet, the new president-elect of France, Sarko, is the son of a Hungarian (legal!) immigrant father and a Jewish mother. There is, so to speak, not a single drop of ethnic French blood in Sarko, yet the French people was mature enough to choose their leader not based on his ethnicity but on the merits of his policies. France has indeed come a long way from the anti-Semitic days of the infamous Dreifuss Affair a century ago. This is, sadly, still not the case with some other modern-day developing countries which shamelessly insist upon dividing socio-economic-political interests based on ethnicity.

Second, although Ségo lost with a small margin of 47% to 53%, her passionate campaign has indeed epitomized the liberation and socio-political equality of French women. And the French people were mellow enough to distinguish the public and the private. Sarko was a divorcee and allegedly quite “romantic”, while Ségo has been openly cohabitating with the secretary-general of her party for more than thirty years and having several children together. Yet the average French people casually shrugged their shoulders upon learning such “juicy” stories, and the two candidates did not thus decimate a scintilla of their reputation or popularity. This again testified thunderously to the objective, strictly-business political attitude of the French people.

In other countries, including the United States, the United Kingdom or even locally, irrespective of their public contributions, politicians who dare to lead “non-traditional” private lives would at least be subject to vicious attacks from their enemies or heavy pressure from a disapproving public, or more seriously to forced resignations or infamous incarceration. What a stark contrast!

Thirdly, the French election system could also be a role model. As mentioned above, in the French presidential election, if no single candidate achieves a majority in the first round, the two top candidates will run off in a second round, so as to ensure a minimum majority mandate for the successful candidate.

In addition, similar to Australia and Germany, the French national assembly has its members elected not only from constituencies, but also according to a proportion based on the parties’ overall relative performance in the election, in order to more accurately reflect the general will of the people.

In contrast, in the American, British and our local parliamentary election system, which is based on the “first-past-the-post” principle, sometimes there would be candidates who command the highest number (but not necessarily more than half) of the votes in a “multi-corner” fight, with the consequent controversial mandates. Moreover, sometimes a party may obtain only slightly more (or even less) than half of the total votes, yet still occupy a disproportionately high number of parliamentary seats! There is much room for learning from the Australian, German and French examples.

Well, earlier this month also saw the World Press Freedom Day. On that day, Freedom House, a world-renowned NGO which defends personal liberty, issued its “Freedom of the Press 2007: A Global Survey of Media Independence” study. I will not mince words here. Among the 195 (194 in 2005) countries surveyed in 2006, Malaysia’s ranking slipped from 141st in 2005 to 150th in 2006, and is categorized as a “Not Free” country (in terms of press freedom). Our performance is surpassed by even some less developed countries, such as Cambodia and Timor Leste!

I strongly caution against reacting to this unfavourable ranking with knee-jerk accusations of “interference with internal affairs”, “Western prejudice”, “different domestic contexts” and other such flimsy excuses. Freedoms of the press and, by extension, of speech, are universally recognized human rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and by right know no boundaries. Instead, we should carefully self-examine and improve our performance in the three main criteria used in the press-freedom ranking, namely judicial environment, political influence and economic pressure.

Recently, the North and South Korean militaries held talks after a long hiatus. The lead North Korean general wanted to make fun of US President George Bush’s alleged “unpopularity” by telling the joke of the boy who happened to have save Bush’s life. According to the general, when prompted by Bush as to what he would like to have as a reward, the boy quickly replied that he wished to be buried in Arlington National Cemetery (the American martyrs’ resting place).

When Bush asked him why, the boy said if his parents were to know that he saved Bush, they would be so angry as to kill him! The South Korean counterpart politely replied that such “leader derision” jokes would be commonplace in truly democratic countries such as US, deadly to the joker in autocratic countries. I was quite moved by reading this story. Hmm, if any of us were to crack a comparable joke locally, what would you think could happen? It could well be the yardstick to measure the degree of our local freedom of the speech.

Many of us also celebrated Mother’s Day with our beloved mothers over the weekend. Well, I took part in an equally meaningful activity on Sunday morning in Kuala Lumpur, before rushing back to Kota Kinabalu in the evening to have dinner with my mom and family members.

Again I will not mince words here. Last week in Parliament, when the MP’s were debating the serious issue of the recent recurring spats of collapsing and leaking ceilings and walls in government buildings, some honourable members apparently did something less than honourable. In the heat of debate, several MP’s, including one from Sabah, wantonly dishonoured the august decorum of the Parliament by cavalierly and voyeuristically making fun of the monthly periods of at least one female fellow MP’s! By insensitively toying with the fountain of motherhood, and particularly in the week leading up to Mother’s Day, the offending MP’s insulted not only their female colleagues, but indeed every woman in the country and in the world!

Is this the kind of MP “standard” which we the people deserve and whom we send to Parliament? What kind of blatantly chauvinistic message would this send to the millions of children in the country who are getting ready to celebrate Mother’s Day? As a Sabahan, I am ashamed many times over for a people’s representative from my home state to have stooped so low as to exhibit such rude, unparliamentary antics.

I would like to say it loud and clear especially to my West Malaysian friends, that most – I would say all – Sabahans are not like that! We are a courteous, considerate lot who treat you equally regardless of your gender, race or belief. We welcome you in our fraternal and maternal arms in this age of liberty and equality.

And while it was deplorable that the offending MP’s did not deign to apologise for their offensive remarks, it was even more inexcusable for the Speaker to have overruled a motion, based on technicality, to refer these offending MP’s to the parliamentary disciplinary committee. But rest assured, my dear readers, although they might have escaped well-deserved parliamentary disciplinary actions, they would have registered their indelible black marks deep in your and my hearts!

Of even more amazing incredibility was the fact that there were some female MP’s, including one from neighbouring Sarawak, who chose to callously dismiss such sexist vulgarity as something like “I don’t think they [the offensive MP’s] meant it!” Is empathy a scarce commodity in the corridors of power nowadays?

As such, yesterday morning I joined a group of rightfully outraged men and women in Kuala Lumpur to register our heartfelt condemnation on the aforementioned shameful episode. I might not have been able to spend the whole of Mother’s Day with my mom, but I think she understood that I tried in my small way to make a difference for all women. Happy Mother’s Day!