IzniandHerThoughts

I once had the opportunity to assist in a case involving an undocumented migrant. He was from Myanmar, awaiting deportation after getting arrested for not having proper documentation. The deportation date has been fixed. There was no time to waste. When the case came to us, we were two or three days away from preventing the deportation from happening. Long story short, we were told that if he was deported back, he would face persecution by Myanmar’s authorities due to his past activities relating to the anti-government movement. We could not meet him. There was simply no time. We did what we could, hoping it would be enough. Now, under international law ( which I always believe is bullshit anyway, as the country’s sovereignty would always be an issue ), there is this principle of non-refoulment. Simply put, you are not supposed to send someone back to a place where there is a potential danger to their life.  However, international law is not binding upon us. Malaysia is also no...

I first came across the term strategic litigation when my boss forwarded us an event registration link via email. He wrote, sign up and the firm will pay . I checked the link. There, it stated that the training is fully sponsored by the organizer, the Malaysian Centre for Constitutionalism and Human Rights (“ MCCHR ”). So, I had no idea what my boss meant when he said that the firm will pay. ( But I later realized that he IS part of MCCHR, so maybe that's what he meant .) Anyway, I went ahead and signed up. I had no expectation or knowledge about what will happen. In the beginning, I even thought that strategic litigation meant selective prosecution. I later found out how wrong I was. Among others, the following was what I had learned in the training that spanned over 4 days: What strategic litigation is; What internet freedom is and how it relates to the freedom of speech and expression under Article 10 of our Federal Constitution; The relevance of international human rights...

When I was 14, I argued with a friend of mine about his views on JWW Birch abolishing the slavery system in Perak, which then, among many other reasons, led him to his death. It was the first time I was knocked with some sense that not everything in our history textbook is in the narrative that the authors want us to believe.  I was in disbelief when my friend told me that what Birch did was not wrong. His reason - slavery is indeed wrong anyway. But being 14 years old and as childish as I was, I immediately questioned his patriotism. From my point of view at that time, he was sympathizing with Birch. Standing with what the colonizer did could only mean one thing, that you're not being patriotic enough.  More to me being angry was because I truly believe that history was whatever that appears on the pages of my history textbooks. If the textbook says that this particular person is bad, then it only feels right and patriotic to believe it and adopt such a view as well. History ...