The PADU database, according to a government source, covering approximately 30 million Malaysian households, claims to offer access to everyone – government and the governed – about almost everything about everything that’s going on.
Somebody sent me a cartoon of a fox, after devouring a few chickens, promising he will become a vegetarian if elected. Somehow, PADU’s reason and purpose resonates with the promise of that wily fox.
The Official Secrets Act and the provisions of other pieces of legislation relating to the protection of personal data do not fail to create an orchestra of cacophony by arrogant, ignorant and incompetent election-winning lawmakers paying homage to ringgit-power.
Bill Moyers warned that “secrecy is the freedom tyrants dream of”. He certainly warned citizens that it’s their first civic duty to demand transparency as a fundamental right quite absent in the US Bill of Rights.
Almost as an after-thought, Economy Minister Mohd Rafizi Ramli announced that it is necessary for the government to now exactly and precisely where each citizen lives and works to obtain clear and precise data, details and particulars as to their choices, preferences, requirements, and by extension to not so very surreptitiously engage in further probes into their lifestyles.
If the government’s attitude is given such latitude, it is fair to say that fascism is alive and well in Malaya. Is this what the Madani government desires to promote and advance as Malaysian ethos? Where are we going with this outrageous pathos?
The United States Supreme Court once declared that the government has no business behind private doors, especially bedrooms, of its citizens. See Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557 (1969), not proscribing the ‘right to receive information and ideas regardless of their social worth’.
The apex court may have entertained the thought that privacy is not about hiding something. Instead, it could be to protect something. The flip side says publication is an invasion of privacy.
PADU stands at the crossroads of legality and validity. What may be legal may not be valid – like a bad law. What may be valid – like a religious tenet or law – may not be legal. So, where does PADU get its breath and life from?
PADU, apparently, was justified under the Personal Data Protection Act 2010 (Act 709) (PDPA) which, apparently, is a protection layer, but section 3(1) conveniently exempts the Federal and State governments from complying with the PDPA – the victors. And those that are not exempt – the people – become the victims.
Archibald MacLeish reminds us that “the business of the law is to make sense of the confusion of what we call human life – to reduce it to order but at the same time to give it possibility, scope and even dignity”. PADU and PDPA snatch every iota of dignity that’s left in the business of government.
The government is unable to fix simple things like bad roads, but it has the gall to assure citizens that they can control hackers from accessing personal data. It’s a burgeoning trade since IT became a fact of life. Politicians talk and talk about tackling many problems.
And that brings us to ponder and wonder whether the Dewan Rakyat can make decisions for its equal partners – Sabah and Sarawak – who are certainly not ‘States’ in the grand scheme of things (read: MA63). The word ‘States” is still in the Federal Constitution as a teasing thorn in the sides of the Borneo Territories.
Article 161E Federal Constitution, despite its awkward phraseology and scrivener errors and excesses, assures Sabah and Sarawak that the Dewan Rakyat cannot pass laws that infringe on the equal partner status of Sabah and Sarawak despite being erroneously referred to as ‘States’. Effective as a parchment promise?
To buttress my point, why doesn’t the Federal Constitution mention the ‘Additional Protections for States of Sabah and Sarawak’ in Part XIIA equally for Perlis, Kedah, Penang, Perk, Selangor, Melaka, Johor, Pahang, Terengganu and Kelantan? I believe the point is made.
Therefore, Sabah and Sarawak have a constitutional right to reject the PDPA and its illegitimate offspring PADU, under the provisions of their territorial constitutions. It is more than clear that federal laws have validity in the Borneo Territories only if their legislatures say so. I doubt it requires further belabouring.
The Madani government claims that PADU is necessary for knowing where and to whom subsidies are dished out to. Malaysian citizens’ identity cards ought to suffice for this purpose. The National Registration Department surely has tomes of data.
How many more laws do we need to invade our privacy? Why not instal CCTV cameras in every nook and corner of cities, towns and villages? Inside and outside our homes? Heck, how about mandating mini-cameras inserted into our brains to unpack our thoughts?
PADU seems to be a contrived distraction. Many such well-planned distractions are hurled at the public to keep the real issues from boiling over. The Umno Youth chief who inflamed the nation with his venom over the KK Mart socks issue is one such weapon of mass distraction. He is yet to be questioned and charged by the authorities.
Assuming PADU is necessary. Will the government also disclose everything they do? Like salaries, perks, and other emoluments; the location and worth of their assets; their bank accounts; their mobile telephone numbers; their identity card numbers; their residential addresses; the names, ages, and addresses of their immediate family members?
After all, what’s good for the goose is also good for the gander, right? Equal rights go in every direction unless the word ‘equal’ means something else for someone else with a different plan and programme. The recurring theme is: where the heck are we heading as a nation?
A review of the big picture reveals some dark comedy relief. Take Article 43(6) (cabinet) of the Federal Constitution requires ministers to take an Oath of allegiance and secrecy. One former prime minister surprisingly ignored this constitutional ‘get-out-of-jail-free’ card. Ever wonder why?
Then we have the Official Secrets Act doing its thing to keep secrets safe and secure in the ‘national interest’. The Freedom of Information Act is being worked out, said the minister in the PM’s Department in-charge of law reform in November 2023.
The irony begins with secrets, disclosure of information, and the protection of data promised by the Personal Data Protection Act 2010 (PDPA). To make the rojak complete, we have the Article 10 provisions of the Federal Constitution which guarantees freedom of speech, assembly and association albeit with tight controls and limitations.
PADU may be a government policy that is not bearing fruit, but is it legal in the matrix of jurisprudence based on social facts, existing law and coercive institutions that spend a great deal of resources deciphering and filtering fact from law? Institutional change and law reform seem destined for different minds and different inaction procedures.
At first blush, PADU offers free access to hackers and career criminals who use IT to further their nefarious wishes. The government obviously hires hackers to catch hackers so that they can be trained to become hackers instead of spending jail time and paying hefty fines?
PADU may have its reasons and purposes in urban areas. The Borneo Territories are largely rural – by choice – as a matter of tradition, mores and custom that sees PADU as a white elephant. The only purpose PADU serves in the eastern sphere is to give utterance and traction to federalism which really does not sit comfortably with the mandates of MA63.
Sabah and Sarawak must spare no effort, leave no stone unturned, and waste no time to pass its own legislation to deliberate on federal laws that encroach on them like an inevitable show of parliamentary force. That includes federal policies that try to shoehorn themselves into local culture.
An argument can be made for Sabah and Sarawak cultures to be forced into Malaya in the spirit of Muhibbah and Madani. After all, there is Article 153 Federal Constitution that allows for an interplay of privileges and special positions for some groups while the legitimate expectations of other communities are on the table.
Another perspective that PADU promotes is that we are aping western values and customs where fundamental human rights have taken off on an unknown and unpredictable trajectory. PADU represents more and more government.
PADU urgently requires public approval not at parliamentary and Cabinet niches of power and authority. Grassroots feedback is inevitable in any democracy if that’s what the government thinks it’s practising to appease the rakyat.
The Borneo States can create a black swan moment and stop PADU from finding a foothold in their soil.
The views expressed here are those of the writer and do not necessarily represent the views of New Sarawak Tribune.
