In support of just societies
IN a just society, the rule of law applies to everyone irrespective of their station in life. However, a just society that abides by the utopian principles of humanism, justice and fair play is a rarity – if it exists at all.
History is replete with dictatorships, potentates and religious figures who governed based on their draconian or prejudiced dictates. The people existed at their behest and many were reduced to the status of chattels.
Vestiges of such societies exist today in the guise of democracy, socialism, totalitarianism and religious governance. There are numerous examples of evils and atrocities perpetrated in these various systems in the contemporary world.
Open and outright belligerence are committed by countries such as Myanmar, Syria, Israel, Serbia, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and several African nations. Camouflaged atrocities are perpetrated by so-called democracies like the United States of America, Britain, Australia, France and China (in the case of Muslim Uyghurs of Turkic origin).
The world is teeming with the asymmetrical concept of justice and injustice, with justice skewed to the interests of the powerful. For example, the US declared the 9/11 Twin Towers attack as an act of injustice but prided itself in imposing justice with the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan. It misrepresents justice in proposing Israel’s annexed Golan Heights as its sovereign territory, and acquiesces to the blockade of Palestine as an act of justice in the interests of Israel’s security while at the same time inflicting injustice on the Palestinians.
There are other examples of asymmetrical misrepresented justice in other countries where leaders repress the general populace or segments of it to serve their vested interests, such as in Myanmar, Rwanda, Serbia, Cambodia and Ukraine. There is no avenue to seek justice for the common people.
Thus, the United Nations established committees, courts and agencies to redress these repressions in the quest for a just and humane world.
Among these committees, courts and agencies are the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Icerd) and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC).
Most member states that uphold the international principles of justice subscribe to the UN initiatives for inter and intra state jurisdictions.
On the other hand, those who opt out of these initiatives are usually involved in both internal and/ or external repressive conflict, as in the case of Myanmar, Israel and the US. There are states that have not ratified the Rome Statute, and Malaysia was among them.
But on March 4 this year, the Malaysian government took the initiative to ratify the Rome Statute when our Foreign Minister signed the Instrument of Accession to the ICC in the pursuit of a humane and just world.
However, Malaysia withdrew from ratifying the Rome Statute not long after to allay confusion stoked by opposition politicians who actively played the 3R card – royalty, race and religion – to spread unfounded fears of threats to the royal institution, Malay privileges and Islam.
It is rather odd that the Pakatan Harapan government decided to withdraw from the ICC as our country has absolutely no history of having committed the four categories of crime, namely genocide, crime against humanity, war crimes and crimes of aggression.
In fact, this territory now called Malaysia has been a peaceful and docile nation. All aggressions and wars in Malaysia’s history were committed by external powers for the purpose of occupation.
The Portuguese invaded Melaka but were later displaced by the Dutch and their Malay allies. British colonisation was not violent but had a lasting impact on the country and the Japanese occupation was definitely a war crime.
The communist insurgency was an internal threat against the state and the Indonesian Confrontation was an external aggression against the formation of Malaysia.
All of these conflicts and wars were initiated by external forces against Malaysia.
And there is no possibility of Malaysia being involved in any of the crimes stated in the Rome Statute. Thus, there is no logical basis to oppose it other than to gain political mileage.
It is also mind-boggling that certain academics in cohort with opportunistic politicians advised the rulers in a white paper that ratifying the Rome Statute would undermine the immunity of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong and the Sultans and compromise Malay privileges and Islam, which parrots the unfounded sentiments against Icerd.
They distorted the facts on royal immunity. They are constitutional monarchs and do not enjoy absolute immunity as the absolute monarchs of yore. In fact, immunity against civil and criminal prosecution was annulled in the 1993 Constitutional Amendment Act, which also established a special court to adjudicate misdemeanours by members of the royal families.
Therefore, the Rome Statute will not have any impact on the position of the royals because, as constitutional monarchs, they act in accordance with the advice of the government of the day.
It is also fallacious to imply that ratifying the Rome Statute would undermine the privileges of the Malays and the position of Islam. These unfounded fears are perpetrated by politicians to generate apprehension and tension for political gains.
Ratifying the Rome Statute would in fact augur well for Malaysia’s international image as a country that seeks a just society in both words and deeds.