Complaints, Complaints

Amused I am at V.K. Chin's column on public gatherings, where he sounds off (once again) about rallies and how bad they are, etc. etc. Of course, he like everyone else is entitled to his own views, but alas, let's see how easily his argument falls apart when we start playing (one of my favourite games) reductio ad absurdum.

Let's see:

Every applicant will always claim that his or her gathering is peaceful and that there will be no trouble. But as far as the cops are concerned, any peaceful procession can be made use of by unruly elements out to disturb the peace.

True, true. But then he unfortunately goes on to say (I quote select portions here):

In such cases, it is better to err on the side of caution than to please. The police also want a good public image and to show their cooperation by allowing such public gatherings.

Past experience has shown that such events can turn nasty, with participants in illegal rallies or processions giving the police no choice but to use tear gas and water cannons to disperse them.

However, the force cannot and should not entertain applications from unregistered bodies championing free and fair elections or human rights. Many of them do it just to put the Government – and the force –in a bad light.

But there is no valid reason for groups to want to organise public rallies in busy centres in the city, which can cause serious disruption and inconvenience to motorists and businesses in the vicinity.

I pity the licking he's going to get at particular blogs and websites, but let's be civil here: good points, but bad conclusion. I do not agree with the "therefore" in his argument for his criticisms (besides missing the point) can be applicable of, well, Gandhi to UMNO (pre-independence), all of which led movements that were deemed illegal by the present government.

Surely the monks and their exploits inconvenienced a whole lot of people, too. It's a small step from here to Myanmar's junta, for is not shooting a few folks here and there better than allowing a protest foment into a (possibly bloody and certainly inconveniencing) revolution?

Likewise, if protests are to be banned because they "can turn nasty" means that there ought to be not protests at all, not by Gandhi, not by anyone. But that's part of the risk. It is, as someone put it, this or an AK-47. Let's hope people express themselves in the former way.

Well, my goodness, I find myself repeating the same old answers again and again. Which suggests that some people aren't getting the point. But, of course, to each his own, and I am probably just as stubborn, stuck here in my righteous position. Hehehe. Ah well, I'll probably write a letter to The Star or something, because it's well annoying reading this stuff. Also, I'm bored.

Moving on to international news...

Boy, you have to pity the HFPA (organisers of the Golden Globes). This is an especially painful year for them. Perhaps it would have been more painful for the producers of Atonement, who had half a moment of glory when it was announced that it won Best Picture (Drama). This is somewhat of a surprise, but a panel of 90 members or so probably will differ with a 6,500 strong voter base which is AMPAS. I say, let them enjoy it (er...did they?) while they can. Pity pity. And I had my whole Monday free to watch the Globes.

Oh, and this op-ed from the NY Times says things well, although I sense that the author sees teenage pregnancy as something that must be avoided. I say that being pregnant at one's teenage years is not necessarily bad (as the author implies) although it is quite obvious that our culture (in this case, American but of course, there are lots of overlap with Malaysia's) does not see a pregnant 16 year old as something to be happy about.