The Story of Christmas

The Story of Christmas Understanding the Advent of the Christ through Scriptures On a fine Sunday afternoon, a talk was given. To be exact, on 2 December 2012 from 230pm to 830pm. It was hosted by the ATC Penang Christian Fellowship, students from both A-Levels and LL. B courses, who profess the Christian faith listened intently to Andrew Khoo. It was a story told time and time again for the past two thousand years. But unlike many stories, this story is not fiction. It was real, it really happened. This is not a story, but the story. A story that split the recording of time into two; BC and AD. It is the story of Christmas, the birth of Christ the Lord. The God-Man whose hands formed the stars, was born as a human child to save mankind from his sins.

 The talk encompassed a variety of themes unified under the focal point of the advent of Jesus Christ. We embarked on a journey throughout Scriptures, from the Old Testament to the New, and from the New back to the Old; there and back again. We were brought back into time, back into the ancient past. We began with the Annunciation to Zechariah at the temple in Jerusalem, beamed then into an obscure room where we witness the Annunciation to Mary in Nazareth. We climbed the hill country of Judea in where Mary visited Elizabeth, then we are transported to Bethlehem, beside ox and cattle in a cave and underneath a bright star, where the Child King was born. With each step taken, we deepen our understanding on the coming of Jesus Christ and his role in the history of mankind. The world truly is a stage, we are all actors in it and God is the Divine Director, orchestrating all the events of history. Indeed, history is His-story. What a comfort indeed, to know that all is in His hands. Here's a snippet of what had happened: 'Angels and annunciations, prophets and prophecies.

 A Child long foretold and destined to be the one to bring balance to the Force (OK Maybe not that). The hopes and fears of all the years come together one quiet nigh two thousand years ago in the little town of Bethlehem. With a cast of thousands from the emperor of Rome himself to the prophets of Israel, priests, shepherds and animals of various kinds, and amazing props such as the ark of the covenant and with the temple of Herod in Jerusalem as the backdrop. This tale of God's fidelity unfolds. Come and discover what Child is this and the amazing story of God's love in the Birth of Jesus Christ.' - Andrew Khoo Finally, I would like to express my gratitude to the many who made this possible. I would like to take this opportunity to thank Andrew Khoo for his effort in preparing for a most interesting and surreal talk, Amy Cheah as the Chief Organiser (special note on her persistence and insistence on having the talk), David John Au for leading the praise and worship, all those who had helped out in some way or another, and not to forget the students who have attended the talk as well. 

Mark Tan Lecturer Teacher-Advisor of the ATC Penang Christian Fellowship

Daniel Chua, The Best Speaker in LAWASIA International Moot Competition

Congratulations Daniel!! We are very proud of you!!!

ATC 2012 Induction

LAMA V BARU

Saya mendapat tahu mengenai perobohan Penjara Pudu apabila melihat rancangan video di internet baru-baru ini. Cadangan untuk menulis artikel ini membuat saya terpanggil untuk mendalami sedikit sebanyak rahsia penjara berusia lebih 100 tahun ini.

Mula dibina pada 1891, penjara yang menyerupai bentuk Penjara Kandy di Bogambia ini siap sepenuhnya pada 1895 dengan menggunakan batu bata yang dilepa dengan simen yang diimport dari negara jajahan British ketika itu. Menelan belanja sebanyak RM 15,360.90 (harga pada 1800-an), tidak hairanlah bahagian dalam penjara ini sejuk jika dibandingkan dengan keadaan cuaca di luar. Campuran bahan seperti granit (ada yang memanggilnya batu gua kerana dapat ditemui di gua) dan reka bentuknya ( kebanyakan bangunan kolonial British mempunyai 2 lapisan dinding) merupakan faktor penyumbang kepada keadaan ini. Ini sekaligus membataskan pergerakan para banduan yang terpaksa menghabiskan tempoh hukuman mereka di dalam sel penjara yang cukup menyeksakan. Tembok Penjara Pudu telah dibina pada Februari 1891 dan siap dibina pada Ogos 1892.  Sebanyak 2000 liter cat digunakan oleh para banduan untuk melukis mural telah mencipta rekod dunia dengan 384 meter panjang dan 4.5 meter tinggi.  Kini Penjara Pudu hanya tinggal sebagai kenangan sejarah. Patutkah Malaysia mengorbankan sejarah demi mengejar pembangunan? Inilah persoalan yang ditimbulkan oleh Profesor Emeritus Dr. Khoo Kay Khim.

Timbalan Menteri Kewangan , Datuk Dr.Awang Adek Hussin berkata di Dewan Rakyat bahawa, Penjara Pudu bukanlah sesuatu yang boleh dibanggakan oleh Malaysia. Kerajaan telah memutuskan bahawa Penjara Pudu bukan tapak warisan dan tidak harus dijadikan tapak warisan. Ya, saya akui. Tempat yang digunakan untuk “menyimpan” penjenayah bukanlah sesuatu yang boleh dibanggakan. Namun, senibina penjara tersebut yang berusia 118 tahun bukanlah sesuatu yang dapat dicari pada masa kini. Mungkin teknologinya tidak secanggih Menara Berkembar Petronas namun, nilai estetika yang dimilikinya tidak mungkin bertukar ganti. Terletak di radius segitiga emas di ibu negara, Penjara Pudu terpaksa akur kepada pelebaran jalanraya dan juga pembangunan yang dikatakan telah dapat menarik perhatian pelancong serta pelabur. Mengingat kembali petikan kata-kata bijak pandai, “Bangsa yang tidak menghargai sejarah sendiri, ia tidak akan menjadi bangsa yang berjaya”.

Penjara ini pernah menempatkan seramai 6550 orang banduan yang menyebabkan kesesakan sehingga memaksa banduan mengambil giliran untuk tidur. Akhirnya pada 1 November 1996, jam 9.05 pagi, Penjara Pudu dengan rasminya ditutup apabila kesemua penghuninya berpindah ke Penjara Sungai Buluh yang dapat menampung jumlah banduan yang lebih ramai. Sejak itu, Penjara Pudu terbiar kosong. Ia pernah dibuka seketika dan belanja sebanyak RM 1.7 juta digunakan untuk ubah-suai penjara tersebut untuk menjadikannya tarikan pelancong.  Malangnya, usaha tersebut hanya hangat-hangat tahi ayam.

Secara jujur, saya agak terkilan dengan jawapan menteri terbabit di Dewan Rakyat . Jika dilihat seperti di negara tuan rumah Piala Dunia 2010, Afrika Selatan, mereka masih mengekalkan penjara di Pulau Robben yang pernah menempatkan Nelson Mandela ketika beliau menentang dasar Apartheid di sana. Filipina juga masih membuka lawatan kepada pelancong untuk melihat penjara yang pernah digunakan untuk memenjarakan tokoh besar negara itu, Jose Rizal. Baiklah, mungkin hakikat ini boleh diterima sekiranya dikatakan penjara-penjara ini menempatkan tokoh-tokoh yang berjuang demi tanah air mereka. Bagaimana pula dengan Penjara Alcatraz? Drama bersiri “Prison Break” lakonan Dominic Purcell dan Wentworth Miller adalah adaptasi daripada kisah sebenar pembolosan banduan daripada Penjara Alcatraz pada tahun 1962. Penjara ini kini dibuka kepada pelawat.

Ini menunjukkan bahawa, walaupun tidak semuanya mengenai penjara adalah sesuatu yang baik, namun masih terdapat nilai yang dapat digunakan untuk peringatan kepada generasi akan datang. Antara penjenayah terkenal yang pernah mendiami Penjara Pudu ialah Wong Swee Chin atau lebih dikenali sebagai Botak Chin. Mendapat jolokan Robin Hood Malaysia, dia ialah penjenayah yang paling berbahaya pada ketika itu dan akhirnya menjalani hukuman gantung pada 11 Jun 1981. Blok D Penjara Pudu yang menempatkan bilik terakhir dan juga bilik gantung telah menyaksikan seramai 180 orang  yang menjalani hukuman di antara tahun 1960 hingga 1993. Bagi mereka yang mempunyai pengalaman di sini (banduan, warden penjara dan polis) pasti merasa kesal apabila kenangan mereka diragut dengan perobohan ini. Seorang warden penjara pernah menceritakan bahawa para banduan di blok D akan menyanyi sepanjang malam apabila rakan mereka bakal menjalani hukuman gantung pada keesokan paginya. Walaupun mereka merupakan penjenayah , orang yang pernah melanggar undang-undang, ternyata mereka masih mempunyai perasaan kemanusiaan.

Penjara Pudu juga menjadi saksi kepada penahanan dua orang awam pada 1985 iaitu Dr. Radzi Jaafar dan Dr.Abdul Aziz Abdul Majid di bilik rawatan penjara tersebut oleh 6 orang banduan yang diketuai oleh Jimmy Chuah.  Penahanan ini berakhir 6 hari kemudian selepas banduan menyerah diri.

Tragedi yang menarik perhatian dari dalam dan luar negara ini seharusnya dijadikan iktibar. Presiden Persatuan Ekonomi Pengguna dan Keluarga Malaysia, Prof Dr. Jariah Masud memberitahu, tiada siapa yang boleh menyangkal Penjara Pudu mempunyai nilai sejarah, tetapi tiada siapa boleh menolak pembangunan. Pembangunan di kawasan itu dikatakan lebih positif berbanding dengan pemeliharaan Penjara Pudu sebagai tempat penyimpanan banduan. Saya tidak bersetuju dengan kenyataan ini. Seperti yang pernah diwar-warkan suatu ketika dahulu, rakyat Malaysia perlu mengubah minda untuk menjadi bangsa kelas pertama. Bagaimana? Adakah dengan pemodenan dan pembangunan, taraf pemikiran sesuatu bangsa dapat dipertingkatkan?

Melihatkan keadaan di Malaysia sekarang, kadar jenayah semakin membimbangkan. Kebanyakannya melibatkan golongan remaja. Pernah dengar mencegah lebih baik daripada mengubati? Undang-undang dan penjara tidak dapat dipisahkan. Tidak salah jika saya cadangkan jika Penjara Pudu ini digunakan sebagai medium untuk pemulihan dan menyedarkan mereka yang masih baru melibatkan diri dengan jenayah. Konsep “rehab” boleh digunakan dengan menempatkan atau mungkin membawa mereka melihat betapa sukarnya kehidupan di dalam penjara. Nukilan-nukilan banduan dapat dilihat di dinding-dinding sel, dan ini sedikit sebanyak dapat membantu anak-anak muda kita sedar sebelum terlewat.

Bangunan lama ini bakal digantikan dengan pembangunan yang menggunakan teknologi canggih. Persoalannya , adakah pelabur sanggup melaburkan wang di atas tempat yang pernah menjadi tapak untuk menggantung banduan? Adakah logik jika dibangkitkan isu “mistik” pada zaman moden yang serba canggih? Ketika manusia sudah dapat menjejaki kaki di bulan, ketika kita dapat berhubung dengan benua bersebelahan tanpa menggunakan burung merpati, adakah isu “hantu” ini relevan? Jujur saya akui, saya masih mempercayai mengenai kewujudan entiti ini. Ada warden yang pernah mendengar suara-suara tangisan dan meminta tolong di bilik terakhir ketika proses pengosongan penjara ini. Mungkin ianya kedengaran karut, tetapi itulah pengalaman mereka. Sedangkan ahli parlimen kita sendiri, Datuk Mohamad Aziz (BN-Sri Gading) ketika bersidang di Dewan Rakyat berkata, “Penjara Pudu itu banyak hantu! Siapa yang hendak beli? Beribu-ribu hantu berkeliaran kerana ramai banduan digantung di situ sejak lebih 100 tahun dahulu. Hantu memang ada dan bila mereka melihat ia dirobohkan, sudah pasti akan menyimpan dendam terhadap semua yang terlibat dalam perobohannya. Bodohlah siapa yang akan belinya nanti, sanggupkah berjiran dan duduk bersama dengan hantu!"

Ini mungkin, sekadar khabar angin. Sejauh mana kebenarannya masih belum kita ketahui. Sekiranya ia betul , maka negara kita bakal mengalami kerugian berbillion ringgit.

Namun kini, semuanya telah terlambat. Tanggal jam 10.20 malam pada 21 Jun 2010, Penjara Pudu sedikit demi sedikit menyembah bumi. Yang tinggal hanyalah nama. Namun, kita masih mungkin menarik lafas lega apabila pihak yang terbabit bersetuju untuk mengekalkan pintu gerbang serta 2 lukisan mural yang terletak di bahagian kiri dan kanan pintu utama. Sekurang-kurangnya, masih terdapat sedikit sisa untuk tatapan generasi akan datang dan mungkin juga untuk mereka yang belum berkesempatan mengunjungi Penjara Pudu seperti saya. Walaupun projek Bukit Bintang City Centre

( BBCC ) yang akan menelan belanja lebih kurang RM 5 billion ini bakal menggantikan Penjara Pudu , hakikatnya Penjara Pudu tidak akan hilang begitu saja……..

~Cik Musleeha Muhamad ~

Intermediate Jan 2010

Speaker’s Square, Penang

On Sunday, June 27, 2010, Public Law Lecturer Mr. Mark Cephas Tan took his class of Intermediate students to the Speaker's Square inPenang. It is truly unique in the sense that it is the one and only in this country.

Speaker's Square seems rather out of place here in Malaysia. It sounds more like a fancy foreign thing. We are indeed lucky and indebted to the Penang State Government for this privilege.

It was drizzling slightly and grey clouds hung ominously. Still, upon arriving there, there was a sizeable crowd. I spotted my friend among his Gerakan comrades. They spotted us too, and before long, we engaged in a conversation. The awkwardness with the new place quickly disappeared. More and more people came and gathered. The Gerakan group seemed poised to talk. Mr. Sanjay Kumar Kanchanlal, Senior Public Law Lecturer, joined us halfway with his wife.

With half the crowd folding their arms, the first speaker, from the Gerakan group took his place and started speaking. Catering to the majority of the crowd, he spoke in Mandarin about issues beleaguering the island and directed his jabs at its Chief Minister.

Though the drizzle showed no signs of stopping, the crowd increased steadily. I noticed a small group, distinct from the crowd, armed with notebooks, pens and some with cameras. As the speaker spoke on, they were jotting down notes and snapping shots. Immediately after the speaker was done, they surrounded him and posed questions, chimed in by snapshots of large cameras.

The chain of speakers continued with the second speaker taking the centre stage, also from the Gerakan group.

It was not long until a few senior citizens started to get rowdy and  jeered at the Gerakan speaker. One passion driven uncle took the front page of a Chinese daily and pointed to the words out loudly. Together with his gang, they were rather affluent with Hokkien vulgarity. Later on, I learnt that they were Rocket supporters, and the issue at hand was politicised. 

I had fun and some real insight. Regardless of our political affiliations, school of thoughts, I think (in general) Malaysians are not up to that kind of standard of maturity just yet.

Most people just want to talk, or they want to hear want they want to hear. No one is listening properly, and almost certainly, no one has bothered to research an issue thoroughly enough.

Though I believe the establishment of such a place is 'coming of age' for Malaysians.

There were also claims saying that the place is merely a political agenda of politicians. Despite its triteness, people still do not seem to grasp the saying that politicians are politicians, and the ultimate goal of any politicians is to gain power. I doubt the existence of a 'kind and fatherly politician’. They will have their own agendas, because that's what they do. However, we as the people could control and subject them to responsibility and accountability, through our identity as voters. So, to me, *even* if the Speaker's Square is part of any political agenda, there is nothing wrong with it. The people want it, the people like it. Politicians usually do what the people want and like to gain support. So we end up with a place where we can talk freely and exchange ideas and speak in the public because politicians built it, in their quest for power. Is it a bad thing? I doubt so. The voters are only fulfilling their function, and their function is to make them politicians *work* for power.

I'm already thinking of going for the second time.

~ Daniel Teoh ~

Intermediate Jan 2010

5th LAWASIA International Moot Competition

LawAsia Moots The Law Asia Moot may be imagined to be a fun and beneficial event to a minority of law students and a nightmare to the rest. Having been a participant myself, I'd take a mid-point stand to say that it was indeed fun and beneficial but the workload is a nightmare without a doubt. In class, we are faced with an approximate 10-line question of facts. In the Lawasia Moot, you would face an approximate 10 page question of facts in a field of law so random you might not even be in relation to.

 However, if you can and want to withstand that pressure put upon you to overcome all obstacles thrown upon you to get to that judgmental Moot Court, I assure you that it will be a magnificent feeling when you are able to present your ideas, your arguments and your confidence to the judges who consist of big shot Lawyers, High Court Judges, Court of Appeal Judges, Federal Court Judges and even the Lord Chief Justice himself. You will feel like a lawyer. You will appreciate the mechanics of law and most significantly, you will be able to apply your new found argumentative knowledge to your present syllabus of study to create an explosion within your personal boundaries with regards to the field of law. ~ Daniel Chuah~ Intermediate 2010

Ms. Irene Kam (ATC KL, extreme left), Kuhen Gopal (second from left) & Daniel Chua (third from left) Daniel Chuah, Kuhen Gopal and Saravanesh Supramaniam did well to reach the Semi-finals. They had no formal training and emerged champions in their own right . ~The Gavel

Saravanesh S (third from left) & Daniel Chua second from right) at the Law Asia Moot.

Democracy's Christian Roots

‘just as our language and culture is steeped in the Bible, so too is our politics. From human rights and equality to our constitutional monarchy and parliamentary democracy…’ – David Cameron

Ain't this an intellectual blow upon the face of atheistic secularism? Prime Minister David Cameron in his King James Bible speech showed an understanding that the democratic project began way before the Enlightenment, it is rooted in biblical religion, in Jerusalem.

Equality – due to the fact that God made us, that we are all made in the image of God.

Constitutional monarchy and parliamentary democracy – due to the fact that since we are equal, one should not be made an unwilling subject of another.

Fundamental human rights – are inalienable due to the ontological view of man that biblical religion has proposed. Christianity offers a dignitarian view of man. That man has rights not because legislatures say so, but that it is God-given, by man's nature as children of God.

Lex Iniusta Non Est Lex

Law is a distinct form of political order. But order is not for order's sake. Order is a means to an end. Nobody, except those with OCD, would desire order as an end. But 'order for order's sake' is what is argued by legal positivists. H. L. A. Hart, J. Raz, H. Kelsen and those of the tradition of analytical jurisprudence claim that law is nothing but a social instrument to regulate human behaviour. The question that is left unanswered here would be 'why should we regulate human behaviour?' I hereby postulate that legal positivism provides a deficient, if not dangerous, view on the nature of law.

It is deficient in the sense that it fails to see law as moral enterprise. Positivism has been highly effective in discerning the function of the law, but not its purpose. The purpose of a particular instrument cannot be detached from its function. It would be silly, for example, to understand the functions of a car, how the pistons and brake system works and forget about the purpose of the car; which is to be able to ferry people around to places. Similarly, the order that the law provides for society, is for a certain telos or purpose; towards what Aristotle calls as human flourishing.

Law cannot be detached from the goal of human flourishing, all its norms and regulations should be directed towards this goal. If a law departs from this goal (eg. permitting the mass murder of its citizens), then that particular law has departed from what John Finnis refers to as the focal or central meaning of the term law. An unjust law is not law in the truest sense of the word.

One may argue that such a view of law would only be tenable if the criteria for human flourishing is objective.  And since moral relativism is slowly taken root in society both in a de jure and de facto sense. The view of law as a moral enterprise would not be a practical option.

Let us consider this further. If we reject the notion that there are moral truths, then this rejection does not correspond with empirical data. If moral values are nothing but social preferences, then we would not argue about it. For example, we would not argue with one who insists that vanilla ice cream is better that chocolate, the reason being that it is a matter of preference. But we would argue about a particular action (eg abortion, euthanasia) as unjust or immoral. Such an argument would only make sense if there is an objective standard to appeal to. Such an appeal to external moral demands would refute the notion of moral relativism which interpret moral values as preferences rather than objective standards.

The argument above may indicate that there is an objective standard of morality, but this would not solve the issue that there is much controversy over what is the content of this objective standard. I would have to concede that there is difficulty over ascertaining moral truths purely through reason. This perhaps is due to the fact that man's reason is confined to certain boundaries, to his mental faculties and observational senses. However, this does not mean that one should abandon the search of objective moral standards.

Controversy should not deter us from seeking the truth, in fact, such controversies should serve as a form of motivation instead; that one should desire more to transcend moral uncertainty. I see no such desire in legal positivism, I see only intellectual laziness, a refusal to pursue the truth to the end.

Legal positivism cannot depart from the idea that it is force or coercion that legitimizes the law. Legal positivism may try to justify that the systemic validity of laws lie not in coercion but in, for example, a social norm or custom; it cannot depart too far from the notion of might is right, or might is law, for there is no conceptual link between law and morality. Since there is no such conceptual link, this would substantially weaken the ability of one to appeal to standards of morality against an unjust government. This would also absolutize the state, in the sense that its legal norms ought to be obeyed regardless of whether or not it has failed to abide to the standards of justice. This indeed is self-evidently dangerous.

Only when we view the law as a moral enterprise would we be driven to ascertain first, objective moral principles, and then, its practical implications. Only by cultivating such a view through the education of future politicians, judicial officials and lawyers would the state understand that its role is limited, and is always at the service of human flourishing.

Ignorance and Abortion

From the vantage point of a Catholic, life begins at conception. Life, in this sense, would mean ‘personhood’. If one is a human person, then it would be morally wrong to kill him.

But even if one would not accept the proposition that life begins at conception, one must at least be humble enough to accept that there is no conclusive evidence as to when life begins. If this is the case, abortion would still be morally wrong.

This is due to the following proposition: that if one is unsure as to when ‘life’ begins, it would be morally irresponsible for one to engage in an abortion. If we are unsure as to whether ‘personhood’ is conferred upon an embryo, for example, then there is a possibility of the embryo being a person.

If there is a possibility of the embryo being a person, then it would be, by analogy, like shooting a moving bush (unsure of what’s behind it) hoping that it be a deer rather than a human being. In such a circumstance, if the ‘thing’ behind the bush turns out to be a human, there is gross negligence on the part of the shooter.

In a similar way, going for an abortion, not knowing whether the embryo is a person or not shows moral irresponsibility and may constituted as gross negligence.

The Tyranny of the Majority

'Why do we follow the majority? It is because they have more reason? No, because they have more power.' - Blaise Pascal, Pensees

It has often been said,'the majority wins'. But why must the minority yield to the majority? Upon what basis should this be done? If the majority is of the opinion that good is evil and evil is good, would it be so? If the majority is convinced that cannibalism is perfectly moral, would it be morally acceptable to eat you?

The purpose of this short article would be to put forth the argument that there is no rational basis to obey the majority. It is not based on reason that we abide to the view of the majority. If this is so, then why is the majority view so often accepted? I believe that there are two reasons behind this.

Firstly, it is due the fact that we fear. We fear what is stronger than us. And the majority is stronger than the minority. The 'general will', a term I borrow from J. Rousseau, is homogeneous, and is not a representative of all. But since it exercise dominance over the minority, the minority would express acquiescence to the majority. In a sense, the minority is actually coerced to agree with the majority.

Secondly, and more importantly, it is due to the fact that we are creatures of our environment. We are shaped by our environment. We also generally assume that our environment is natural. And since the majority has power, it would be their views that shapes society. It would be the view of the majority which would be made to seem 'natural'. Thus, we accept the majority will merely because it is customary to do so. We do not question it for it seems so 'natural' to us.

As a conclusion, I would appeal to all to be critical of accepted traditions, majority views, etc. For only when we do so would there be a progress of the mind.