Friday, October 06, 2006

"Equality" does not denote "Equal" per se

Equality does not mean all are absolutely equal; that, includes Karl Marx's theory of equality.

It is universally impossible to make everyone equal. The police have power to arrest where ordinary citizens don't have. Diplomats have immunity, judges have immunity, legislators have immunity, the king is above law... all of which ordinary citizens do not share the same privileges. These are references that indicate equality does not mean being equal, per se.

Socio-political realities dictates that where a section of the community had distinct disadvantage or handicap, good government must take positive actions to assist and help elevate the lessers of the society and those deprived of a reasonable standard of living. In other words, the poor needs some help more than the rich and those in destitute conditions will need to have some privilege over those who are better off who may not enjoy those specific benefits. It's all about social leveling as can be referred to the guidance and teaching enunciated in the Bible and Quran - it is enunciated clearly - help thy neighbour and love thy neighbour.

In jurisprudence and the theory of good government, in order to provide social justice to the communities as a whole, those who are blessed must be willing to assist or accept sacrifices to benefit those in need. At such, socio-political realities dictates the existence of a balancing act. The fundamental is that the rule made to benefit some should not deprive the others to the extent that it is a detriment and empirical marginalisation.

Take another example: the rich pays income tax of which, theorethically, the monies are used for development projects, education, health care, etc of which the primary beneficiaries are the poor who didn't pay tax. So, if you talk in literal sense, it is unfair as the monies contributed by the rich in the form of taxation did little to benefit them. In Western countries, they had social security of which the rich are taxed heavily to subsidised the poor via social security schemes. You see, it is socio-political jurisprudence, the application of good governance and natural law theory. We got to be open minded; likewise, it should be remembered that the poor, must include all within the community - the Malay, the Chinese, the Indians, Sarawakian and Sabahan natives, etc; all do deserve aids and assistance.

However, note that two wrongs do not make one right. If there is a wrong, the government had to be corrected and if it is not, then the citizens had to put their voice in the ballot boxes. That's democracy.

A law is a command which obliges every citizen to a course of conduct and proceeds by way of a relationship of "superiority"; we can call it positive law.

Human power is embedded in reciprocal relationships and government can be toppled by the peoples' resistance.

The science of jurisprudence distinguishes positive law and the rules created by political will which are called "the reasons". The key is understanding the nature of command that is positive law. A command is an expression of a wish, a significant desire, which is distinguish by the power and the purpose of the government commanding to inflict pain (sanctions) in case the desire be disregarded. Being liable to evil, the government commanded is bound or obliged by the same command and are equally placed under a duty to obey it.

Secure knowledge will provide and serve as the foundation and structures of the new social order. The modern science of government is to be a governmentality of law and knowledge, not of arbitrary desires; while society is a relationship of men dominating another men and women; the domination structuring modern society is to operate according to law, guided by knowledge and confidence in its justice (utility).

This essay is dedicated to my esteem blogger pal, Lucia, sister in Christ.


lucia said...

wahh!! so deep! me no understand some.

ok ok lah mave, didn't know my little comment can prompt a long deep thought from you.

i do know generally there is no equality, just as we like to say 'nothing is fair in this world'. sure i do know too that it is impossible to make everyone equal. that is an obvious fact. i'm just pissed off at the UMNOputera's call for priority to be given to them, and at the time when we were talking about marginalisation and all that, when i see priority given to them, it means to me no equality within all races.

i remember at one time you were really pissed off at the quota given to bumis for U entrance because... one of your child was deny the right to enter U?? (correct me if i'm wrong). see, that's what i mean but not fair... but ok ok i know life is not fair. :(

mmudahlupa said...

lucia, wahhh!!not so deep. i get you.i think Mav, you miss one very impt. grp of ppl here. The `18 high profile corrupted citizen'who still enjoy their `immunity' b'cos AAB still tak tahu & he'll take note of them.he will ask for more time & beg to be elected for the next 5 yrs.

What A Lulu said...

"Equality" does not denote "Equal" per se

This reminds me of Animal Farm, written by George Orwell.

1. Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
2. Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
3. No animal shall wear clothes.
4. No animal shall sleep in a bed.
5. No animal shall drink alcohol.
6. No animal shall kill any other animal.
7. All animals are equal.

by the end of the book, what was left is

welcome to Malaysia where all people are equal, but some people are more equal than others!

Maverick SM said...

Lucia, you have pointed out clearly, every point in your comment is correct. When I made the point of inequality, it was because there is an empirical evidence of marginalisation and discrimination. What I emphasise is that if there are rules that was made to grant a community some privilege of which they were social disparities, the socio-political realities dictates that a good government will help and assist to balance the disparities, but it should not be done at the expense of another; like robbing Paul to give to John. Example: the 30% privilege to buy a house for Bumis had no effect on non-Bumis as property developers will be far happier to built more if there is demand. At such, the non-Bumis don't suffer any form of discrimination and at the same time, the Bumis are given the opportunity to own homes. It's win-win; why not? Why should we be upset? At the same time, this policy should be extended to those poor people who are non-Bumis (example: the 15% discount). The objective of the NEP is to help the poor, irrespective of race and creed. So, if you need what PCCC was trying to change, they did not propose to extend the 15% discount to non-Bumis; they wanted the 30% reservation for Bumis to be removed so that property developers will reduce their holding cost and make more money...nothing beneficial to house buyers, bumis or non-bumis. As an ordinary citizen, we can see claerly that they are doing this in the name of non-Bumis citing equality, equal opportunity and as if it was meant for the benefit of non-Bumis. It's absolutely frivolous and vexatious.

lucia said...

don't worry, mave, i do get what you mean. looking at the perspective of the housing developers, yes i do understand this 30% quota for bumi is ok.

anyway, you mentioned the objective of NEP is to help the poor, regardless of race and religion BUT everybody now knows that NEP is for the bumis only!

Maverick SM said...

That's right Lucia. We stand by the "right" but fight the "wrongs"... We don't object for objection sake. The NEP is to help the poor, irrespective of races; that's what we must stand firm.