Crime and punishment in Malaysia

In her seminal book ‘Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil’, German political theorist Hannah Arendt argues forcefully that those who were involved in persecution of Jews, the mentally ill, dissidents, homosexuals and Gypsies during the Nazi era were neither perverts nor sadistic, but people who were “too normal” to be criminals.

Thanks to Nazi propaganda and racist indoctrination, much of the German-speaking populations in Europe then subscribed to the evil idea that the victims’ lives were “worthless” and deserved annihilation.

Adolph Eichmann, the protagonist in Arendt’s book, was the bureaucrat Nazi who scheduled the deportation of Jews to concentration camps closely linked to the process of liquidation of Jews and others. To the author, who was of Jewish origin, there were many Eichmanns ready to be in the service of the state and adhere to the harsh and inhumane laws so that they might be regarded as “model citizens”, and this really is the scariest aspect of Nazism.

In a totalitarian regime, it matters not if one is able to think freely, critically and independently, for the paramount concern is to demonstrate unquestioned subservience to the government, the ruling party and the state. No doubt, the citizen is stripped of the right to ask whether the laws are rooted in natural justice and humanitarianism.

During the Third Reich, both Germans and other Europeans saw the extermination of the Jews as well as the “dangerous class and social scum” as normal and legitimate. Many even justified the evil act as performing a “divine’ duty.

Capacity for evil inside each of us

While many scholars disagree strongly with Arendt’s view that ordinary people are so corruptible, even to the extent of participating in mass murder, I tend to believe the capacity for evil is hidden deep inside each and every human being, the immensely destructive effects of which could be easily unleashed given the ‘right’ circumstances. Or how else can we explain the insane response of the Chinese to Mao Zedong’s catastrophic Cultural Revolution?

Why? Because we are in constant search of affirmation, and our self-esteem is, more often than not, premised on how others look at us. In other words, we yearn to be defined by others, the powerful assertion of individualism of the modern days notwithstanding.

Just ask ourselves this question: how do we perceive a criminal? Perhaps most of us would think he/she must be of no use to society, and no public monies ought to be wasted on rehabilitating him/her. Just send these evildoers to death and the problem would die with it.

Would it?

A few months back, 15-year-old Aminulrasyid Amzah was brutally shot dead. Public opinions on the excessive manner by the police remain split, with many arguing that in a time and age when youth delinquency is rampant, drastic measures are absolutely necessary.

But do we honestly believe Aminulrasyid’s tragic death would deter juvenile crimes ranging from drug addiction to speeding? What about social poverty, broken families and worsening education? Can one death - a needless one at that - solve all these issues?

Similarly, I have encountered quite a number of people who are opposed to clemency for Yong Vui Kong, the Malaysian youth on death row in Singapore for drug-trafficking. They obviously think the principles of retributive justice in the judicial process are essential to maintaining law and order in society.

Harsh punishment is necessary so that others would not follow suit, and no one should question the benign state, be it Singapore or Malaysia. Well, we all know the path to hell is paved with good intentions!

But will Yong’s death eventually expose the drug barons behind? Hardly. Rest assured, we will continue to be besieged with drug crimes in the years to come. Or visit a prison or rehabilitation centre in the country, and you may wonder how the dehumanising conditions there can revive a prisoner’s broken soul.

Recently, the cabinet accepted the proposal by the Women, Family and Community Development Ministry to charge anyone caught dumping babies with causing death. The offenders could face the death penalty if found guilty.

And the government found an unlikely ally in Hadi Awang, the president of PAS, who responded positively to the move. But what really heightens my concern is the pathetic silence of the Malaysian public. Are we not guilty of complicity?

Death penalty not the right solution

The death penalty is definitely not the right solution to stop youngsters from disposing of babies born out of wedlock. We need an environment in which young Malaysians are free to discuss with adults and qualified counsellors on sex-related issues.

We also have to create an atmosphere in which people are not stigmatised for doing something that is against one’s religious teachings. What the offenders need is understanding, concern, care, love and forgiveness, not condemnation and retribution that dehumanise both the victims and the perpetrators.

Furthermore, neither the government nor the opposition would be able to respond effectively to the challenge of baby-dumping without tackling the root causes: social poverty, lack of education, inadequate parental guidance, and excessive moral policing. Religious or social stigmatisation will only worsen the situation.

I am fearing the absence of ferocious objection to the government’s proposal is informed by the capacity for evil in Malaysian society. Why are we blind to the potential harms of this drastic measure? Is it because we do agree that these baby-dumpers are not worth our concern and should be ‘liquidated’?

If so, each and everyone of us are indeed too normal to be criminals. Selamat Merdeka!

---

JOSH HONG studied politics at London Metropolitan University and the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London. A keen watcher of domestic and international politics, he longs for a day when Malaysians will learn and master the art of self-mockery, and enjoy life to the full in spite of politicians.