Posted on by Kit

Four quotes from Gandhi

At last night’s DAP ceramah on “ISA detention of Hindraf 5” at the Penang Chinese Town Hall, with an overflowing crowd spilling out of the hall, I ended my speech with four quotes from Gandhi.

They are:

1. Satisfaction lies in the effort, not in the attainment, full effort is full victory.

2. In matters of conscience, the law of the majority has no place.

3. Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth.

4. I cannot teach you violence, as I do not myself believe in it. I can only teach you not to bow your heads before any one even at the cost of your life.

41 Replies to “Four quotes from Gandhi”

  1. 46 sets of screwdrivers bought for RM 224 per set when the market price is only RM 40 per set;
    • 82 sets of Staedler Mars technical pens bought for RM 225 per set when the market price is only RM 120 per set;
    • 90 sets of Faber Castell technical pens bought for RM 1,147 per set when the market price is RM 160 per set;
    • 17 sets of technical books consisting of 10 titles priced at RM10,700 per set when the market price is only RM 417 per set;
    • 5 units of 3.1 megapixel digital camera that was bought for RM8,254 per unit when the market price was only RM 2,990 per unit.
    • 650 sets of plastic vases bought at RM 42.80 per set when the market price is only RM 5.20 per set:
    • 3 sets of settee bought between RM 8,250-RM9.075 per set when the market price is only RM 1,500 per set;
    • two tower cranes bought for RM 5.72 million when the market price is only RM 2.98 million
    • 60 used cars bought at a price of RM 4.24 million when the market price is only RM 2.8 million an excess of RM 1.44 million;
    • 152 desktop computer packages bought for RM 4.5 million when the market price is only RM 1.4 million, an excess of RM 3.1 million;
    • 420 sets of cement mortar boards bought at RM 1,027 per set when the market price is only RM 150 per set;
    • 3 cabins bought for RM 141,900 per cabin when the market price is only RM 20,000 per cabin; and
    • 2 units of two-tonne car jack bought for RM 5,471 per unit when the market price is only RM 50 per unit.

    Is this true? If it is, what is the result after revealing this?

  3. What gandhi said is true does it apply to chinese as well.Why arent they coming out to support their fellow Malaysians in their pursuit of a better Malaysia for all Malaysians openly like our lks,Jeff,Tan(PKR) and others do.Their numbers are so few in comparison to their population.So far only the Malays and the Indians are standing by gandhi’s teachings.God bless them.The Chinese are only brave in front of the Pc and dare write besar besar.Just look at the just concluded demonstration on 26 jan 2008.Even in the Bersih the Chinese participation was minimal.

  5. “In matters of conscience, the law of the majority has no place”.

    I just wonder how lawyers and wannabes who frequent this site would think about this statement! I have heard views ad nauseam about the technicality of laws, the various provisions of the constitution, and the civil and criminal procedures of the courts and RCI, never mind that the laws and the constitution are baloney and the courts and RCI are kangaroo.

  7. Gandhi’s precepts are not able to be practiced here, in this Islamic Country – alaneth

    But they are. This is also what Gandhi said:

    “Hindus should never be angry against the Muslims even if the latter might make up their minds to undo even their existence.” Also: “They (Hindus) should not be afraid of death. After all, the killers will be none other than our Muslim brothers”.

  8. Jinnah, saw Ghandi as a man more worst then the worst Muslim individual.

    The concept of non-violence works for people with a consciousnesses, not for wild animals shaped like human beings, for you cannon reason with a wild animal.

  9. Itshowtime Says
    The Chinese are only “brave” in front of the Pc and dare write besar besar
    ———
    It took a while to swallow this, but now I learn not to be too provoked by this kind of statement

    Just to remind Itshowtime about the malaysian chinese militants not very long ago who had given up arms and replaced them pcs, not necessary that they are not BRAVE anymore or bowing down their heads.
    I don’t suppose you call “standing in the crowd” brave. Hasn’t done any damage yet to the BN..or has it ?
    The fact that matter here is we have UNCLE lim to speak for us at the Parliament. I would urge the Malay and the INDian to have more of their reps to voice for them in the parliament.
    That’s being smart …. what Gandhi trying to preach……

  10. Hi.. scorpian6666 says The fact that matter here is we have UNCLE lim to speak for us at the Parliament….Just know that uncle LIM is for all Malaysians not just for you.Uncle LIM is one of the few who have stood up against unfair practices throughout his life without fear or favour.REad my comments.I have indeed praised Uncle LIM as lks.

    I don’t suppose you call “standing in the crowd” brave. Hasn’t done any damage yet to the BN..or has it ?…..just look at what hindraf has achieved which Mic could not achieve in 50 years.All ppl are taking note of the Indian problems only after the hindraf rally.Dap is going to win many a seats because thanks to hindraf……Do you want more….there is no end to what we can achieve if we are united as one….be objective dont be personal…..thank you

  11. Gandhi’s” famous quote – “ in matters of conscience, the law of majority has no place” – is fraught with philosophical and semantic problems of interpretation.

    Conscience is a moral sense of right and wrong but we’re not to sure about meaning of “majority” when applied in context of Hindraf’s struggles.

    Best guess is that majority means here the law passed by representatives of majority (in this case the BN) in parliament : the Police Act and the ISA, the first not granting Hindraf police permit thereby making its assembly unlawful and the second punishing its leaders for organizing it.

    But Conscience is a problematic concept. Most think its personal guide to universal truth and it is a duty to sacrifice and pay the price to try to do right, for justice and truth but how does one ascertain that one’s conscience is really right if not by the benchmark of the majority people around both at the time contemporaneous or way subsequent?

    For example if one were a suicide bomber crashing the plane in the twin towers for his faith, and peoples of his faith, can it be justified by Gandhi’s axiom “ in matters of conscience, the law of majority has no place”? Obviously not. The majority would say that it is not justice and truth to do it but then again it depends on which society. Western societies will say it is wrong but not necessarily a Taliban society – so the judgment of which society counts? Like Hindraf’s actions, whether they are right or wrong, they’re definitely right by minority Tamil Indians or even civil society but is it to be measured by their opinion alone or should we measure it against the majority segment of Malaysian society – the Malay Muslim segment? Even PAS in the Opposition said their actions were wrong. Now if the majority here don’t agree, should we use the majority of international society, and then who comprise the majority internationally?

    If this gets confusing – as to who’s to benchmark and who’s the majority – the other way to evaluate merits is the intrinsic goal of Hindraf’s actions.

    Here Hindraf is promoting freedom of the oppressed underclass – in this case the Tamil Indians. By universal benchmarks, that is, in the abstract, always considered good. Cases in point will for examples, be:
    · Mahatma Gandhi’s civil disobedience of British colonial laws to free Indians from colonial yoke of exploitation;
    · Another example is Rosa Parks who defied a law requiring black persons to sit in the rear seats of a bus leading to birth of American civil rights movement with US Supreme Court decision outlawing segregation on city buses;
    · Another example Nelson Mendela who paid price of 27 years in jail opposing Apartheid.

    It will be seen that goals by themselves no matter how noble are not sufficient to determine the issue. It also depends on (a) the means adopted to achieve these goals and (b) the consequences of executing such means for these noble ends.

    For example the famous “Doctor Death”, US pathologist Jack Kevorkian, who as matter of conscience defied law made by majority and administered euthanasia to end suffering of those afflicted by pain of incurable diseases. Do you think his conceince and methods justified?

    So Hindraf’s problems are also its means. Detractors ask why the movement does not embrace other Indians or better still the underclass of all other Malaysians?; is it necessary and right to adopt the means of vitriolic language (“ethnic cleansing”) to galvanize attention? Is it right to galvanize international attention to one’s noble cause by ignoring what wrong ideas the word “ethnic cleansing” would convey at the expense of one’s own country’s image abroad? Is it right to expand the arguments and fight for rights beyond Malaysians to outsiders? – and so on.

    So objectives have to be weighed against the methods and means.
    And besides that, the objectives have also to be weighed against the consequences of one’s methods.

    Here Hindraf scores better : the demonstration did not result in violence or riot harming innocent. It is able to achieve in a flash what MIC failed to do for years : draw urgent attention of govt to the Indian underclass problem of which granting a public holiday for Thaipusam for the first time is symbolic.

    How much will the govt do after this remains to be seen though one must concede that it does work – up to an extent – to deliver wake up call to the government. Whether further Hindraf like demonstrations for this issue or other issues will capture attention and produce albeit limited desired results remains to be seen.

    You see the judgment of whether what Hindraf or for that matter Gandhi, Mendela or Rosa Park did was a right thing is always measured by results of such actions, not just adjudged immediately but longer term by way of hind sight and how the government/opposing side reacted.

    Had the British killed Gandhi or Mendela died in prison (without De Kerk releasing him) or no successor like Dr Martin Luther King carried Rosa’s torch of liberty further), one cannot ever be sure whether India would not have otherwise fragmented into civil war, or Apartheid in South Africa still remains today, and civil rights movement in US postponed for another 50 years, for history to judge the actions.

    The quote “ in matters of conscience, the law of majority has no place” may also be interpreted from another angle as conscience versus the importance of respecting the law – which takes precedence the conscience or upholding of Law?

    Here again it is fraught with interpretations problem. Take Hindraf’s case. Those whom Lim Kam Put described as “lawyers and wannabes” with a tad of derision are likely those perceived by him to adhere to upholding the laws even if the laws are blatantly unjust.

    Here we have to be careful : the laws like Police Act may not be unjust by themselves – however it is their enforcement, the exercise of discretion by police in granting selectively police permits for assembly that may be unjust. That’s different from saying that the laws are themselves unjust.

    Then there’s another view from another quarter. This segment says that there is no conflict between conscience and laws in context of Hindraf if laws implies the central cornerstone of Rule of Law. They say Rule of laws means a set of laws that recognizes fundamentals of due process – for eg. fundamental liberties are upheld and no person can be arrested without a lawful warrant, imprisoned without charges, kidnapped in the streets, interrogated without a lawyer present, held indefinitely in remand or detention without being informed of the charges, or without trial (ISA) or tortured during interrogation or be denied the means by which to challenge the legality of their detention; that without an independent judiciary with all the judicial fixing and fixing of cases there is no rule of law.

    This group says that even if the laws are properly enacted by majority of parliamentary representatives, they or even the Constitution, without the freedoms and protective procedures above stated, will not qualify as “Rule of Law” and as such should not be followed and even purposely defied as bad laws. So this group says upholding Rule of Law and Conscience can be reconciled. They justify Hindraf’s breaking the Police Act and defying the ISA because these sets of laws are not Rule of Law.

    Here again, there are those who take a different view – eg prominent philosopher Socrates.

    In Ancient Greece he taught youths how to think logically by his “Socratic” question and answers method. Vested interest put him on trial for “corrupting minds of Youth, found him guilty and sentenced him to death by drinking poison hemlock. The only reprieve available was that he publicly recanted his teachings. Now Greek laws then had no Rule of Law. His students including Plato asked him to save himself – just recant; others implored him to flee. Socrates said his conscience did not permit him to recant; neither would he flee because laws, no matter how unjust and without Rule of law must be upheld and seen upheld. Otherwise they would be chaos. Everyone would use his own conscience to determine whether this law or that need to be followed or conform to Rule of Law. Civilised society would breakdown under such circumstances. Socrates believed laws that were unjust should be changed. It would be our sacred duty to fight for such a change. But until the unjust law was repealed and changed, it was however, still law – so no matter how unjust, it should be upheld by all of us for the higher purpose of order and stability. Consequently after explaining to his students this, he calmly drank the hemlock and went into his eternal sleep. I think this posting is long enough story for the day for reflection of complexities of Gandhi’s quote “In matters of conscience, the law of the majority has no place”. :)

  12. Great quotes Uncle Lim. If I may digress a little – since the quotes are very relevant in the struggle for justice and fairness, and we are at the cross-roads of getting a new government (whichever it may be), I mused, and penned this in Malaysia-Today.

    I think that to further improve on the chances of opposition gains in the coming elections, perhaps PAS and DAP could make some kind of conciliatory gesture without compromising anyone’s position:

    Coming from PAS, it would be:

    “Look, we understand and appreciate the stand that DAP is taking, that we are a secular democracy and we have a secular Constitution. Unlike UMNO, we will call a spade a spade.

    But we have an agenda that is popular amongst our supporters (Islamic State), and we suppose DAP can understand and appeciate that too (even if not acceptable), because they too have an agenda popular with their supporters (secular, modern democracy).

    So let me say this. We agree to disagree, and let’s say we do form government, PAS hereby pledge to seriously work out this difference with DAP. At no time will PAS unilaterally change Malaysian status as a secular democracy without widest possible consultation.

    But for now, and I believe I am also speaking for DAP, that it is important that we share the same goal – denying BN 2/3 majority, or better still remove BN from government. We can’t have BN anymore because of endemic corruption, tainted judiciary, failed law enforcement, failed financial management, and failed race/religious relations management.

    I wish we could have a formal pack, but I appreciate and understand that such a pack is counter-productive as DAP supporters will see this as a betrayal, rightly or wrongly so, even though we have this very important common agenda.

    If you would permit me, I would also like to say this to DAP supporters. The sentiment against BN is strong now, and there is a possibility for an alternative government to take over this country after the next elections, or perhaps to be pessimistically realistic, in another 5 -10 years.

    So it does not matter whether many Chinese will vote for MCA or Gerakan, because you will also need to start looking for a balanced alternative government.

    On top of that, you will notice that UMNO hasn’t paid very much attention to MCA or Gerakan in its decision making. Truth is, UMNO fears you more when you are in opposition, because it would mean that BN is no longer multi-racial, and as a result of which UMNO will lose its influence.

    Therefore, I implore you to vote for DAP.

    Let’s make this elections a watershed moment for Malaysia. Thank you”

    And DAP could reply:

    “We thank PAS for extending the olive branch. We wish to state in no uncertain terms that we remain set against Islamic State, and we are still not forming any coalition with PAS, but we can agree to disagree.

    At the same time, there are larger, pressing issues confronting this nation, which is the persistently failed policies of BN, and we must do what we can to bring about effective change, starting with crippling BN’s presence in Parliament.

    If indeed the voters decide to give the opposition parties a chance to form the next government, then yes, of course, DAP and PAS will need to sit down and discuss our differences seriously, and we hold PAS to its pledge.

    Now, let’s give BN a run for their money. Thank you”

    Malays would then be less disinclined to vote for DAP, and perhaps the Chinese will consider PAS. The parties need all the voters they can get their hands on, so perhaps this could be a way out.

  13. “I just wonder how lawyers and wannabes who frequent this site would think about this statement! I have heard views ad nauseam about the technicality of laws, the various provisions of the constitution, and the civil and criminal procedures of the courts and RCI, never mind that the laws and the constitution are baloney and the courts and RCI are kangaroo.” limkamput

    Your point being….? It sounds like you have more to say.

  14. Oppp .. Itshowtime
    I merely hate the statement you quoted “the chinese are only brave on their pc”
    and by the way, i thought Uncle lim is a malaysian of Chinese origin proving your quote a “bla bla bal”
    Maybe you don’t mean it…
    The Hindraf may have voiced out loud but without the pc, i might not have hear anything about it. The pc have done more than you believe !!!
    …. sorry for being “Chinese” la and wanting to save “FACE” only okay

  15. Limkamput is suggesting that we burn the Constitution because it has been mutilated by some 600 plus amendments (according to ALtPJK) under Alliance/BN rule – never mind it is still law. Aren’t you insulting YB Kit here since he attends Parliament to fight for justice and to give voice to the ordinary working Malaysians whose voices are seldom heard?

    Change can only be realized through anarchy. Is that what you’re saying – that you’re an anarchist? Seeking change through the ballot box is futile because the election laws are skewed to favor the ruling party?

    You believe we should boycott the elections?

  18. Aren’t you insulting YB Kit here since he attends Parliament to fight for justice and to give voice to the ordinary working Malaysians whose voices are seldom heard? Diaperhead

    Hi Diaperhead, it has been quite a while this handle was not used. I guess the rotation has reached you. Where is laifoong? May be she has chameleoned into something else? It is so interesting to see so many cowardly acts unfolding here.

    Sdr Lim is beyond my or your insult. So, please don’t think too highly of yourself. And why are you constantly running to him? Are you trying to get his attention to help you to return to Malaysia? Sorry, this country, despite our problems now, does not need you.

    Sdr Lim knows what he is doing in and out of Parliament. You don’t have to put forth altruistic arguments like giving voices to ordinary working Malaysians. That is not you. You can’t even hear views that are different from yours here.

  19. Darkhorse, what else do i need to say. Ghandi has said it, and Sdr Lim has quoted it. This a group of wannabes who know law (oh sorry, jurisprudence) a little and think they know the whole world.

  22. Undergrad2, I am not interested in debating with you. I don’t have to answer to you. You have no right to ask or compel me on anything. I have my right here to express my opinion. I don’t care whether you agree or disagree, understand or don’t understand. I don’t have to clarify, expand or explain to you anything. It is up to you to say and respond whatever way you want. Don’t ask me as if you are my master. You are nobody to me. Typical ego.

  23. “You have no right to ask or compel me on anything. I have my right here to express my opinion. ”

    It distresses me to read comments like this on a political blog. The reader is not forcing you to do anything. On the other hand he is politely asking for your response.

  25. Darkhorse, please don’t talk about reputation and quality of this blog because by saying that you really are insulting your own intelligence. Why don’t you reproduce here what you and Dracula wrote about me for being a pimp and thief while showing your half bake prowess in legal matters?

  26. That was a brief discourse we had, if I could call it that, about “the law is not all about being fair and justice is not about fairness”. I understand why you want to take that out of context.

    I made out a story so you could understand why YB Kit’s old Mercedes though stolen by a thief, and is now in Jeffrey’s legal possession could not be returned to YB Kit because he (Jeffrey) had paid full value, without notice and in good faith from the seller. The law is on the side of Jeffrey. Justice is done when he resisted successfully attempts by the real owner to take possession. But it is not fair to the real owner of the car.

    Sorry if you took offense. It is not meant to be.

  27. Now back to what I wrote earlier:

    “…never mind that the laws and the constitution are baloney and the courts and RCI are kangaroo.” limkamput

    The law may be baloney to you, but it is still law.

  28. Let’s not do injustice to the memory of a great leader of men Mahatma Ghandi by squabbling over nothing. Kit has seen it fit to use his famous quotes. Let us therefore try to learn something from them:

    1. Satisfaction lies in the effort, not in the attainment, full effort is full victory.

    2. In matters of conscience, the law of the majority has no place.

    3. Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth.

    4. I cannot teach you violence, as I do not myself believe in it. I can only teach you not to bow your heads before any one even at the cost of your life.

    These are not empty words by someone who believes and practices passive resistance.

  31. Truth : you think the BN cares about truth., they claim themselves to be holier than thou ( by using religion ), they flaunt thier power blatently, engage in massive corruption and then by acting like clowns , cover it up., just like the RCI.,

    Minorities : what rights do they have in this country.,don’t suprised very soon the NEP would be extended to sporting events too, just to show that they only want thier creed to succeed , for 100m event , the nons would b required to start 30m behind the bumis., this is a joke , but knowing the gomen is bunch of clowns , it might even come true.

  32. Here’s what a student of the Ghandian philosophy has to say:

    I firmly believe that the Gandhian philosophy of nonviolent resistance is the only logical and moral approach to the solution of the race problem in the United States.
    –Martin Luther King, Jr., 1957

  34. Hi.. limkamput Says:
    Today at 00: 51.37…well said.There are few who behave like they are the eyes and ears of lksand his blog .I am pretty sure if we go overboard lks will tell us so.Barking dogs never bites so the saying goes…

  35. “I am pretty sure if we go overboard lks will tell us so.”

    Many postings by limkamput were deleted in their entirety. If that is not a message, then we do not know what is.

    Can we keep to the topic of the thread? Please.

  36. It is interesting that Kit should quote Ghandi at the Ceramah in Penang. There seems to be a clash of sentiments when we talk Makkal Sakti and preach passive or non-violent resistance at the same time.

  38. Undergrad2, I apologise for my outburst earlier. I was just fed up at that time.
    There are probably a few ways to look at the statement by Gandhi, “In matters of conscience, the law of the majority has no place”.
    First, laws are cold hard reality; they have little conscience especially when made by the majority and applied to the minority.
    Second, when a person (particularly a leader) makes a policy decision, he probably can’t satisfy the majority because by satisfying the majority, he is satisfying nobody, an idea Mahathir often used when he was in power. So what Gandhi argued was: when making a decision, one should try to satisfy one’s conscience rather than trying to satisfy anybody.
    Undergrad2, I am answering specifically to you. So if you want to comment and disagree, you are welcome, but please don’t ridicule or belittle me in anyway. From the rest of your friends, I am not interested to read what they have got to say.

  39. Duly noted. I praised you earlier for a reason. I almost withdrew my earlier endorsement of you. But now that Obama has received powerful endorsements from Jacqueline Kennedy and Ted Kennedy which sends very strong signals to the party’s leadership, it’d not be in keeping with that spirit for me to do different!

  40. In a democracy especially one involving ethnic minorities, laws introduced by the majority apply equally if we allow such laws to be guided by our conscience. Otherwise a democracy, a government of the majority by the majority, for the majority is in danger of slipping into a tyranny of the majority over the minority.

Leave a Reply