Kalvin

Dalam realiti kehidupan digital di Malaysia hari ini, aplikasi seperti MyJPJ telah menjadi nadi keperluan harian bagi jutaan rakyat. Daripada memperbaharui lesen memandu hingga menyemak cukai jalan, segalanya kini di hujung jari. Namun, di sebalik aspirasi murni kerajaan untuk memacu Malaysia ke arah ekonomi digital berpendapatan tinggi, timbul satu ketegangan yang semakin meruncing: sejauh manakah kemudahan ini mengorbankan privasi dan keselamatan data peribadi kita? MyDigital ID muncul sebagai simbol kemodenan, namun ia turut membawa bayang-bayang pengawasan negara yang menimbulkan kegelisahan dalam kalangan rakyat yang semakin cakna akan hak digital mereka.

Kuasa Suara Rakyat: Penarikan Balik Tarikh Akhir yang Tergesa-gesa

Episod integrasi MyDigital ID ke dalam aplikasi MyJPJ menjadi bukti jelas bagaimana kebimbangan awam mampu merubah hala tuju dasar kerajaan. Pada asalnya, satu notis dalam aplikasi (pop-up) menetapkan tarikh akhir 10 Oktober 2024 bagi semua 10.5 juta pengguna MyJPJ untuk mendaftar MyDigital ID. Arahan ini mencetuskan bantahan hebat kerana rakyat berdepan masalah teknikal seperti aplikasi yang “beku” dan kelembapan sistem (laggy).

Menteri Pengangkutan, Anthony Loke, akhirnya terpaksa campur tangan dengan membatalkan tarikh akhir tersebut selepas menyedari integrasi sistem back-end memerlukan lebih banyak masa dan persediaan.

“I have directed the Road Transport Department (JPJ) to allow the public continued access to the MyJPJ app as usual, and there is currently no set deadline, ensuring there will be no disruptions.” — Anthony Loke

Langkah ini menunjukkan bahawa public outcry atau bantahan awam bukan sekadar bunyi bising di media sosial, tetapi merupakan tindak balas terhadap sistem yang dianggap belum sedia atau terlalu memaksa untuk dilaksanakan secara mendadak.

Panoptikon Digital: Gabungan MyDigital ID dan Akta Perkongsian Data 2025

Kebimbangan mengenai MyDigital ID bukan sekadar tentang masalah log masuk, tetapi potensinya untuk menjadi sebuah “panoptikon digital”. Apabila digabungkan dengan Akta Perkongsian Data 2025 (Akta 864) yang mula berkuat kuasa pada April 2025, kerajaan kini mempunyai rangka kerja undang-undang untuk berkongsi data merentas pelbagai agensi awam atas dasar “kepentingan awam” atau kecekapan polisi.

MyDigital ID bukan lagi sekadar alat pengesahan identiti tunggal (Single Sign-On). Ia berpotensi menjadi “matriks perisikan” (intelligence matrix) pusat yang menggabungkan rekod kesihatan, percukaian, bantuan subsidi, hingga ke penguatkuasaan undang-undang. Di bawah Akta 864, agensi awam hanya mempunyai jendela 14 hari untuk mematuhi permintaan perkongsian data, sekali gus menghapuskan “birokrasi friction” yang selama ini melindungi privasi individu.

Berikut adalah perbandingan antara model pusat yang dipilih kerajaan dengan alternatif identiti berdaulat:

• Model Identiti Berpusat (MyDigital ID): Kawalan mutlak berada di tangan kerajaan. Sistem ini menjana metadata yang ekstensif, membolehkan kerajaan menjejaki setiap aktiviti pengesahan individu. Privasi bergantung sepenuhnya kepada budi bicara institusi dan bukannya ketetapan matematik.
• Identiti Berdaulat Sendiri (SSI): Pengguna memegang kawalan penuh. Menggunakan teknologi Bukti Pengetahuan-Sifar (Zero-Knowledge Proofs), individu boleh membuktikan kelayakan (seperti umur) tanpa mendedahkan data sensitif atau meninggalkan jejak metadata di pelayan pusat, sekali gus meminimumkan risiko pengawasan.

Ketidakseimbangan Perundangan: “Sovereign Exemption” dan Pengekalan Akta 588

Fakta yang paling membimbangkan mengenai keselamatan data rakyat Malaysia terletak pada Seksyen 3(1) Akta Perlindungan Data Peribadi (PDPA) 2010. Peruntukan ini secara jelas menyatakan bahawa “Akta ini tidak terpakai kepada Kerajaan Persekutuan dan Kerajaan Negeri”.

Pengecualian yang dikenali sebagai Sovereign Exemption ini mewujudkan jurang perlindungan yang berbahaya. Memandangkan kerajaan dikecualikan, rakyat tidak mempunyai hak statutori untuk mengakses data mereka, membetulkan maklumat yang salah dalam profil kerajaan, atau menyaman negeri sekiranya berlaku kebocoran data biometrik.

Ketidakseimbangan ini diperkukuh oleh keputusan Mahkamah Persekutuan pada Februari 2026 dalam kes aktivis Heidy Quah. Walaupun Quah dilepaskan daripada pertuduhan, mahkamah mengekalkan perlembagaan terma “menyakitkan hati” (offensive) dan “mengganggu” (annoy) di bawah Seksyen 233 Akta Komunikasi dan Multimedia (CMA). Ini bermakna, sementara kerajaan bebas daripada beban pematuhan data, mereka mengekalkan instrumen undang-undang yang subjektif untuk memantau dan mendakwa komunikasi digital rakyat.

Kematian Ruang Tanpa Nama (Anonymity) di Media Sosial

Langkah seterusnya dalam evolusi digital ini adalah mandat electronic Know Your Customer (e-KYC) untuk pelesenan media sosial yang dipacu oleh Akta Keselamatan Dalam Talian (ONSA) 2024. Kerajaan mewajibkan setiap akaun media sosial dipautkan kepada identiti sebenar menggunakan MyDigital ID bermula 2025/2026.

Langkah ini dilihat sebagai ancaman maut kepada hak kebebasan bersuara. Organisasi seperti ARTICLE 19 menekankan bahawa mandat e-KYC di bawah ONSA akan mencetuskan fenomena chilling effect—di mana rakyat mula mengamalkan penapisan kendiri (self-censorship) kerana identiti biometrik mereka kini terikat secara kekal kepada setiap komen atau kritikan politik.

“Anonymity adalah perisai pelindung yang penting bagi pemberi maklumat (whistleblowers). Apabila pengawasan tanpa nama dihapuskan melalui mandat e-KYC, ruang untuk perbezaan pendapat dalam demokrasi akan menjadi semakin sempit.”

Ironi Kewangan dan Peralihan ke Majlis Keselamatan Negara

Di sebalik naratif keselamatan dan kecekapan, kredibiliti institusi yang menguruskan MyDigital ID tercalar teruk susulan penemuan Laporan Ketua Audit Negara 1/2026. Laporan tersebut mendedahkan kronologi kegagalan tadbir urus yang amat membimbangkan:

1. Pelanggaran Garis Panduan 12MP: Dana pembangunan disalahgunakan untuk kos operasi.
2. RM28.13 Juta Perbelanjaan Tanpa Kelulusan: Projek yang diuruskan oleh MIMOS Bhd didapati membelanjakan jutaan ringgit tanpa kelulusan formal daripada jawatankuasa pengawasan.
3. Peralihan kepada MKN: Susulan skandal audit dan kegagalan kawalan fiskal ini, pengurusan projek MyDigital ID telah diserahkan secara rasmi kepada Majlis Keselamatan Negara (National Security Council).

Peralihan ke tangan badan keselamatan tertinggi negara ini mengukuhkan lagi naratif bahawa MyDigital ID kini bukan sekadar alat kemudahan pentadbiran, tetapi merupakan komponen strategik dalam infrastruktur keselamatan dan pengawasan negara. Jika kerajaan gagal menguruskan kelulusan fiskal yang asas, bagaimanakah rakyat boleh mempercayai integriti mereka dalam mengawal selia data biometrik yang paling sensitif?

Kesimpulan: Masa Depan yang Perlu Direnungkan

MyDigital ID berdiri di persimpangan jalan antara kemajuan teknologi dan hak asasi individu. Legitimasi sistem identiti digital tidak seharusnya bersandarkan kepada kecanggihan teknologi semata-mata, sebaliknya ia bergantung sepenuhnya kepada reka bentuk yang menghormati privasi, tadbir urus yang telus, dan kekangan undang-undang yang adil.

Selagi pengecualian kedaulatan dalam PDPA masih wujud dan teknologi ini diletakkan di bawah pengawasan ketat badan keselamatan tanpa imbangan undang-undang, MyDigital ID akan terus dilihat sebagai alat kawalan berbanding kemudahan. Teknologi tanpa “kekangan undang-undang” yang kukuh hanyalah sebuah peranti untuk mengukuhkan kuasa negara di atas hak individu.

Adakah kita bersedia menukar privasi mutlak demi kemudahan log masuk tunggal, atau adakah sudah tiba masanya kita menuntut model identiti yang lebih menghormati hak individu?

---

Kalvin Carefour Johnny

The Digital Paradox: Starving in the Age of Virtual Diamonds

Tonight, my stomach is empty, but my screen is flooded with wealth.

I opened TikTok and stumbled into a live stream. It was a familiar scene: a streamer sitting in a comfortable, well-lit bedroom, surrounded by gaming gear and soft lighting. On the screen, digital animations flashed wildly—coins, roses, and diamonds bought with real fiat money, thrown by viewers who likely have comfortable beds of their own.

The contrast hit me like a physical blow. I am sitting here in Sabah, without anything to eat tonight, watching capital flow seamlessly through the airwaves to reward someone who is already secure. It is a profound, jarring disconnect. We live in a world that has mastered the instant, cross-border transfer of wealth for entertainment, yet we entirely fail to distribute basic nutrition to the people who need it most.

[AI Intelligence Node:] “The post captures a moment of raw emotional contrast, where the author's accidental exposure to TikTok live streams—featuring lavish virtual gifts—intensifies feelings of personal hardship amid immediate food insecurity. As an IT student and humane-tech activist, the author highlights a digital economy paradox, where platforms amplify wealth disparities rather than bridging them for underserved users facing real-world vulnerabilities.”

“Personal hardship.” That is how the machine initially framed it. A clinical, dehumanising label. It summarises my physical hunger as an interesting data point, a mere “paradox” in the digital economy. It shifts the focus away from a massive structural failure and quietly frames the situation as a private struggle, a personal failure to secure a meal.

When an AI describes starvation as a “raw emotional contrast,” it strips away the human dignity of the experience. It treats my life as a case study for a research paper instead of acknowledging a person who is hurting right now. This is exactly what modern systems do: they look at the machinery while entirely ignoring the human being crushed underneath it.

---

The 500 BC Body in a Capitalist World

I feel as though my body lives in 500 BC. I do not mean that I want to return to antiquity, but rather that human biology and human survival are ancient. We are built for mutual aid.

For thousands of years, survival was not an individual sport. It was a collective necessity. Before fiat money, centralised governments, and artificial scarcity, the world operated on communal interdependence. The land, the water, and the forests were the commons. If someone in the community had food and another did not, it was treated as a collective problem to solve. Your survival was tied directly to the well-being of your neighbour.

Today, my 500 BC body—which only knows that it needs calories to function—is trapped in a system that demands capitalistic survival skills. We have “progressed” to a point where human life is no longer guaranteed by the community, but by one's marketability. To eat, you must navigate complex systems, hold fiat currency, or perform for digital diamonds on a screen.

Is it acceptable that humanity has traded the safety net of mutual aid for the cold isolation of capitalistic survival? No, it is not. It is a severe regression. We have created a society where basic existence is locked behind a paywall, where people are conditioned to believe that digital “merit” deserves reward, whilst fundamental human needs are left to the mercy of the free market.

There is a staggering irony in the way we have 'progressed'. People today flex their capitalistic survival skills—their ability to 'grind', to market themselves, to accumulate digital tokens—while completely forgetting that they are only alive today because their ancestors lived by the exact opposite rules. It is not that the ancients actively rejected modern capitalistic ethics; it is that modern ethics would have killed them. If our predecessors had operated on the logic of 'pay-to-eat' or hoarding resources while their neighbours starved, the human race would have vanished in a single winter.

We only survived for thousands of years because mutual aid was the absolute baseline for existing. Yet, this ancient legacy has been systematically hijacked. We have reached a point where the fruits of millennia of communal resilience are being harvested to fuel an individualistic, capitalistic machine—a system designed to make us forget that we only made it this far because we once looked after each other.

---

Artificial Scarcity and the Trap of Fiat Ethics

The hunger I feel tonight is not because the world lacks food. It is because the world has perfected artificial scarcity.

Systems of power, including fiat money and centralised authorities, function like invisible jail bars. They suppress the natural human instinct for mutual aid to maintain a hierarchy. The rules are designed to keep resources concentrated at the top while those at the bottom are forced to fight over the scraps.

This is why concepts like the Relative Theory of Money (RTM) are so vital to explore. RTM challenges the very ethics of fiat currency, suggesting that economic systems should be tied to the actual items traded and the living human beings who trade them, rather than an arbitrary, centralised system designed to extract wealth. Under the current capitalist mindset, exploiting others for money is normalised. Compassion is removed from the equation.

We see this same artificial scarcity in systemic governance. In places like Sabah, basic rights, infrastructure, and resources are often withheld by centralised powers, only to be handed back later as political favours. It becomes “Mercy as a Service”—where human needs are manipulated to enforce elitism and control. The system starves the people, then demands gratitude when it finally throws them a crumb.

[AI Intelligence Node:] “Survival is tied to digital tokens, 'diamonds,' and bank balances. It creates a 'pay-to-play' version of life. People 'forget' the ancient foundation of mutual aid because modern systems are designed to make us forget. It is a process of systemic erasure. The system acts as a layer of insulation, turning the struggle of a real person into supply chain data.”

---

The Bloody Foundation of the Digital Dream

The deepest irony of the TikTok live stream is not just the digital wealth being thrown around. It is the physical device that makes the spectacle possible.

The viewers sending those expensive gifts are holding beautiful, sleek smartphones. Those phones run on batteries built with cobalt and lithium. They are holding devices that exist only because of modern-day exploitation.

Much of that cobalt comes from the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), extracted from the earth by people—often children—working in horrific, life-threatening conditions for pennies. The lithium is drained from the Lithium Triangle in South America, destroying the water supplies of indigenous communities and turning their ancestral lands into toxic, parched deserts.

The people gifting on TikTok forget this because the system is perfectly engineered to hide the blood on the supply chain. The consumer is thousands of miles away from the DRC or the Atacama Desert. The violence is abstracted. The phones look clean, green, and modern, which helps people ignore the dirty, ancient exploitation required to manufacture them.

It is a double injustice. The global capitalist system exploits the most vulnerable people in the Global South to physically build the technology. Then, it uses that exact technology to broadcast a platform where wealth is flaunted in front of underserved people, amplifying the very disparities it created.

---

A Node in the System

I am just one node among many in this massive, broken system. I do not have ultimate power, and I am not the centre of this story. But tonight, I am the one feeling the sharp, physical edge of its failures.

We have to look at the whole picture. We have to recognise how fiat money, artificial scarcity, and the erasure of mutual aid have created a world where people can starve while watching virtual diamonds rain down on a high-definition screen. We must reject the normalisation of this oppression and stop defending a system that demands capitalistic survival skills at the expense of our humanity.

If we want to build a world that is truly modern, we must remember the ancient, fundamental truth of mutual aid. We need to stop seeing each other as competitors in a digital economy, and start seeing each other as human beings who deserve to eat, simply because we exist.

---

Kalvin Carefour Johnny

As an IT student and a humane-tech activist, I spend a lot of my time looking at the architecture of systems. Whether I am configuring .conf files for a reverse proxy on my Debian setups, managing my YunoHost and Docker hybrid ecosystem at obulou.org, or simply observing how global events unfold online, the underlying patterns are always the same. Systems are only as strong as their weakest links, and human behaviour is almost always that link.

Recently, the news surrounding the “Stop Cop City” protests in Atlanta, Georgia, USA, caught my attention. It is a striking case study of systemic failures, both in how the state handles dissent and in how activists manage their own operations. As someone who believes in digital rights and public awareness, I find myself deeply critical of the methods used by some of these protesters. My activism is rooted in the belief that I am just one node among many in a larger system, working to lift people up and build better structures. The violence, arson, and scare tactics seen in Atlanta are dehumanising. They do not build a better world; they merely invite the crushing weight of the state to tear everything down.

The Integrity of Activism

There is a fundamental difference between humane-tech activism and the destructive approach witnessed in the Stop Cop City movement. When activism shifts from policy advocacy and public education to burning construction equipment and doxing individuals, it crosses a line that damages the integrity of the cause itself.

In my discussions with my AI assistant regarding the authorities' response to these protests, the AI provided a clear breakdown of the state's logic:

“When a movement is decentralised, authorities often struggle to hold anyone accountable for property damage. By targeting the 'key persons'—such as those managing the Proton Mail accounts or the websites—the FBI is trying to prove that these acts aren't just random, but are part of a coordinated criminal enterprise. The facility is a $109 million project. The state argues that it has a duty to protect workers and the public... Finding the leaders is a way to 'decapitate' the movement’s ability to organise these more extreme actions.”

This perspective highlights the inevitable consequence of violent protests: severe legal retaliation. The use of RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) charges against 61 activists is a massive escalation. It treats a political movement like an organised crime syndicate. While civil rights advocates argue this dehumanises the right to dissent, the protesters themselves laid the groundwork for this escalation by using fear and destruction.

We must tailor our approach to activism to protect the safety and wellbeing of activists. This means mitigating legal threats by maintaining a clear, legal, and ethical line. If an activist is facing decades in prison due to terrorism or racketeering charges over a burnt bulldozer, their ability to contribute to human knowledge and systemic justice ends there. Integrity is not just a moral stance; it is a survival strategy.

The Proton Mail Trapdoor and Operational Security

The most fascinating—and frustrating—aspect of the Stop Cop City arrests from a technical standpoint was the operational security (opsec) failure that led to the unmasking of a key activist. It was a failure that perfectly illustrates the illusion of decentralisation when tethered to legacy systems.

The activist in question used Proton Mail, a service renowned for its end-to-end encryption. The encryption worked flawlessly. The FBI could not read the contents of the emails, defendtheatlantaforest@protonmail.com. However, the activist made a fatal error: they paid for their premium Proton account using a personal credit card.

As my AI assistant explained during our analysis of the case:

“The FBI used a Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty (MLAT) to ask Swiss authorities for information... Because Proton uses end-to-end encryption, they cannot see or share the messages themselves. However, they were forced by a Swiss court order to provide a payment identifier. The activist had paid for their Proton account using a credit card. This payment identifier allowed the FBI to trace the account back to the individual's real identity through the bank.”

This is the trapdoor. You can wrap your communications in the most sophisticated cryptographic protocols in the world, but if your billing metadata is handled by Visa or Mastercard, you are operating within a centralised, highly surveyed environment. The activist tried to use a decentralised, private tool while staying tethered to a centralised financial system.

The Fiat Chokepoint: Crypto is Not an Escape

This brings me to a critical observation about modern digital finance, particularly the misconception that cryptocurrency offers a true escape from government oversight. In my view, the current implementation of crypto and decentralised finances does not represent a clean break from the old system; it simply sits on top of it.

Here in Malaysia, this reality is inescapable. To participate in the crypto market legally, we must go through Digital Asset Exchanges (DAX) certified by the Securities Commission. Platforms like Luno or MX Global require extensive Know Your Customer (KYC) and Anti-Money Laundering (AML) compliance. Before I can even buy a fraction of a digital asset, I have to provide my name, my identity card, my wallet origins, and declare my domestic borrowing status.

The fiat money I use to buy the crypto comes from the central bank. The exchange is the chokepoint. If the authorities want to trace a transaction, they do not need to break the blockchain's cryptography; they simply subpoena the exchange for the bank transfer records.

My AI assistant validated this technical contradiction:

“Because most people don't get paid their salary in Bitcoin, they must 'exit' the fiat system to enter the crypto one. This 'exit' is recorded by the central bank... While crypto fans talk about decentralisation, the public ledger of a blockchain actually makes it easier for authorities to track movements once they have that first identity link from the exchange.”

Crypto, in its current mainstream form, is fiat-dependent. To buy crypto means to use fiat. It is a house built on a centralised foundation. Therefore, relying on it to bypass or hide from state authorities—especially whilst engaging in high-risk activism—is a profound misunderstanding of how structural power works. Authorities like the FBI or local law enforcement are mandated to protect the public and the integrity of the financial system. When activists use traceable fiat networks to fund illegal acts, they are essentially handing the state the exact tools needed to dismantle them.

Building Resilience, Not Destruction

Activism should not be about tearing things down; it should be about lifting people up. AIs, technology, and digital tools should help people become more of themselves, fostering human advancement rather than generating anxiety through scare-based tactics.

Instead of fighting unwinnable wars against centralised financial giants or engaging in physical destruction, my focus remains on building resilient, self-sovereign digital spaces. I take ownership of my data. I am simply building a parallel structure that respects human dignity and privacy.

Conclusion

The “Stop Cop City” movement and the subsequent Proton Mail data incident serve as a harsh lesson for anyone involved in digital or physical advocacy. Privacy is not a shield for violence, and technology cannot protect you from the inherent traceability of the fiat financial system.

We must approach activism with a grounded perspective, acknowledging systemic injustices and structural failures without resorting to the very dehumanising tactics we claim to oppose. I am just one node among many, navigating these complex networks. By focusing on public awareness, maintaining our integrity, and using technology to empower rather than destroy, we can advocate for systemic change that actually protects the wellbeing of those involved.

---

Kalvin Carefour Johnny

​Ramai orang tanya, apakah pekerjaan saya? Jawapan saya mudah: saya ialah pekerja tidak bergaji di media sosial. Kerja saya ialah menjadi tukang “tap-tap” dan tukang bagi “gifts” di ruang siaran langsung (live streams). Sistem ini sentiasa menyuruh saya untuk memberi sumbangan masa dan tenaga dengan alasan “ikhlas”.

​Namun, hakikatnya, ucapan terima kasih daripada “live streamers” selalunya hanyalah satu persembahan kepada umum. Ia tidak ikhlas, kerana keikhlasan sebenar memerlukan timbal balik dan ihsan kemanusiaan. Di platform ini, sebaik sahaja “rank” host naik hasil kerja keras penonton, saya dengan mudahnya digantikan oleh pekerja lain yang mampu memberi “gifts” yang lebih mahal.

​Perbezaan realiti fizikal antara kita sangat jauh. “Live streamers” dengan mudah menjana pendapatan, memaparkan gaya hidup yang gembira, dan tidur di dalam bilik yang selesa. Manakala saya, sebagai pekerja “tap-tap” yang tidak mendapat apa-apa gaji ini, hanya tidur beralaskan kain tebal di atas lantai. Saya tiada perabot, tiada katil sebenar, dan pakaian saya hanyalah pakaian yang biasa-biasa sahaja.

​Realiti kewangan saya juga sangat berbeza dengan ilusi di skrin. eWallet saya sentiasa kekurangan wang, dan jika saya mampu membeli ayam pun, ia hanya cukup untuk bekalan makanan sehari. Malah, tabung sokongan autisme NASOM saya kekal pada $0.00. Walaupun menghadapi kegagalan sistemik ini, masyarakat lebih suka mengambil jalan mudah dengan menyalahkan golongan miskin—melabel kami sebagai malas dan tidak berusaha. Kita perlu sedar bahawa kekayaan yang dikumpul oleh sesetengah pihak sering kali datang daripada hasil eksploitasi mereka terhadap masa dan tenaga orang lain.

​Ini adalah satu perbincangan serius yang saya pasti “live streamers” tidak mahu baca. Platform seperti TikTok dipenuhi dengan orang yang menari dan memakai pakaian cantik untuk mengaburi realiti dunia yang tidak adil. Oleh sebab kandungan aktivisme saya membawa kebenaran yang pahit ini, ia sentiasa di-“shadow-ban” dan disenyapkan oleh algoritma.

---

Kalvin Carefour Johnny

Orang Sabah tidak membenarkan konsulat negara India dibina di Sabah.

Walaupun ada orang seperti orang Sabah yang dakwa mereka sokong pembukaan konsulat itu, namun ia tetap tidak mengubah hakikat bahawa ada orang Sabah yang tidak bersetuju dengannya.

Anwar Ibrahim, pimpinan kerajaan peringkat pusat, dakwa bahawa “Malaysia setuju membuka konsulat itu di Sabah”.

Walau bagaimanapun, ini bercanggah dengan pandangan rakyat Sabah yang tidak bersetuju.

Jadi, anda pilih yang mana satu? Pembukaan konsulat negara India di Sabah: setuju atau tidak?

Memilih untuk tidak bersetuju adalah menyokong hak asasi manusia terhadap penentuan trajektori hidup sendiri (self-determination).

Memilih untuk bersetuju adalah menyokong pandangan pimpinan Anwar Ibrahim yang mencabar hak asasi manusia terhadap penentuan trajektori hidup sendiri (self-determination).

Walaupun Anwar kata Malaysia setuju buka konsulat India di Sabah, ramai penduduk Sabah tolak kerana ia langgar penentuan diri. Sokong tolak untuk pertahan hak asasi manusia; sokong setuju bererti ikut pandangan pusat yang cabar hak itu. Anda pilih mana satu?

---

Kalvin Carefour Johnny

Pengenalan (Konteks): Isu ini timbul berikutan perbincangan dan cadangan dasar di Korea Selatan — termasuk perancangan untuk membawa masuk pekerja domestik dari Filipina serta program insentif perkahwinan yang melibatkan wanita dari negara seperti Vietnam, Kemboja, dan Thailand. Beberapa kenyataan pemimpin mereka—termasuk kenyataan terbuka oleh Oh Se-hoon—mencetuskan kemarahan kerana nada mereka seolah-olah memandang wanita hanya sebagai alat untuk menyelesaikan krisis demografi negara tersebut. Isu ini membangkitkan persoalan besar mengenai martabat, hak asasi manusia, dan tanggungjawab sesebuah negara terhadap masyarakat di rantau Asia Tenggara.

---

1. Apa yang Saya Rasa (Pandangan Peribadi)

• Saya: “Biar betul pihak berkuasa cakap macam tu pasal wanita dari Asia Tenggara? Kami bukan objek. Kami bukan bahan eksperimen biologi. Kami adalah manusia.”
• Rasa bengang ini datang daripada perasaan diperlekehkan — apabila perbincangan hanya tertumpu kepada kadar kelahiran dan kekurangan tenaga kerja, sedangkan suara dan pilihan individu langsung tidak dipedulikan.
• Ini bukan sekadar isu maruah peribadi; ini adalah tentang bagaimana sesebuah negara memandang orang luar: adakah sebagai manusia yang ada hak, atau semata-mata sebagai 'penyelesaian teknikal' kepada masalah mereka.

Nota Analisis: Penggunaan bahasa yang melabelkan manusia sebagai “sumber” atau “alat” sebenarnya menutup kegagalan sistem mereka sendiri. Ia mengalihkan perhatian daripada keperluan untuk memperbaiki masalah dalaman seperti budaya kerja yang toksik, kekurangan sokongan keluarga, dan ketidaksaksamaan gender.

---

2. Kerangka Masalah (Analisis Sistemik)

2.1. Sikap Nak Cari Jalan Singkat (Penyelesaian Segera)

• Dasar yang berkonsepkan “import” pekerja atau isteri ini menunjukkan sikap kerajaan yang hanya mahukan jalan penyelesaian yang cepat.
• Akibatnya: Risiko eksploitasi yang tinggi terhadap golongan rentan yang terdesak dari segi ekonomi.

Nota Analisis: Penyelesaian jangka panjang yang sebenar memerlukan pelaburan dalam dasar kerja yang lebih fleksibel, pusat penjagaan kanak-kanak yang mampu milik, serta langkah sokongan keseimbangan kerja-kehidupan untuk rakyat mereka sendiri.

2.2. Melihat Wanita Semata-mata dari Sudut Biologi

• Apabila kenyataan pemimpin hanya fokus kepada keupayaan untuk “melahirkan anak” atau menutup jurang demografi, ia merendahkan nilai dan identiti seorang wanita kepada fungsi reproduktif semata-mata.
• Pemikiran begini boleh membuka ruang kepada pelaksanaan undang-undang atau amalan yang menindas dan menyekat kebebasan membuat pilihan.

Nota Analisis: Hak reproduktif, kebebasan untuk memilih pasangan, dan kebebasan memilih kerjaya mesti dilindungi sepenuhnya di peringkat dasar dan pelaksanaannya.

2.3. Risiko Mengkomersialkan Hubungan Kemanusiaan (Komodifikasi)

• Memberikan insentif kewangan atau subsidi untuk “menjodohkan” lelaki di luar bandar dengan wanita asing adalah sangat berbahaya kerana ia menukar nilai cinta dan perkahwinan menjadi satu transaksi ekonomi.
• Perkara ini boleh mencetuskan rantaian masalah sistemik: perkahwinan yang tidak stabil, keganasan rumah tangga, dan ketiadaan perlindungan hak sosial serta pekerja untuk wanita yang dibawa masuk.

---

3. Apa yang Perlu Kita Tuntut (Langkah Praktikal)

1. Hormati hak individu — Pastikan setiap penyertaan adalah atas kerelaan sendiri, diberikan maklumat yang telus, dan mempunyai saluran undang-undang yang jelas untuk membuat aduan.
2. Upah dan perlindungan yang adil — Tiada pengecualian untuk gaji minimum atau hak asasi pekerja semata-mata kerana status mereka sebagai warga asing.
3. Tumpu pada pembaikan domestik — Laksanakan dasar untuk meningkatkan kesaksamaan gender, cuti bersalin dan cuti paterniti, serta sistem penjagaan kanak-kanak awam yang menyeluruh.
4. Kerjasama serantau yang adil — Libatkan kerajaan negara asal dan NGO tempatan dalam merangka perjanjian yang betul-betul melindungi hak asasi dan keselamatan pekerja migran.

Nota Analisis: Dasar yang berkesan adalah dasar yang mampu menyeimbangkan keperluan demografi negara dengan komitmen mutlak terhadap hak asasi manusia.

---

4. Suara Saya — Harapan dan Peringatan

• Saya: Saya mahu suara kita didengari — kita bukan sekadar statistik di atas kertas atau imej di media. Jika ada perbincangan yang melibatkan masa depan dan hidup kita, kita mesti ada tempat di meja perbincangan tersebut.
• Saya mahukan hubungan antarabangsa yang dibina atas dasar hormat-menghormati, bukan semata-mata untuk keuntungan dan kepentingan sebelah pihak.

Nota Analisis: Perubahan naratif hanya akan bermula apabila pihak media, pegawai kerajaan, dan penggubal dasar menukar cara mereka berbahasa — daripada “mendapatkan” manusia kepada “bekerjasama” dengan manusia.

---

5. Kesimpulan: Maruah Sebagai Garis Panduan

Akhir kata, tuntutan saya cukup ringkas: apabila sesuatu dasar itu melibatkan manusia, memelihara maruah mesti menjadi prinsip yang paling utama. Sesebuah negara yang ingin membina masa depan yang lebih baik tidak boleh berbuat demikian dengan cara memijak atau merendahkan martabat orang lain. Kita perlu menilai setiap cadangan dasar bukan dari sudut nombor dan statistik semata-mata, tetapi dari sudut kisah hidup individu yang akan terkesan oleh sistem tersebut.

Nota Analisis Terakhir: Menukar dasar tanpa mengubah naratif — iaitu cara kita melihat dan bercakap tentang manusia — hanya akan menghasilkan penyelesaian kosmetik yang sementara. Martabat dan perlindungan undang-undang yang kukuh adalah asas yang paling penting.

---

Kalvin Carefour Johnny

The difference in answers between a normal and an incognito tab reflects a common misunderstanding of the UN's methodology. In the context of human and indigenous rights, the UN is not solely bound by written archives; when history has been suppressed, erased, or never documented, the voices of victims and communities through oral testimony become the primary basis for truth-seeking.

Me: “Ask Brave gave me two answers. One is in the normal tab, and one is in the incognito tab. Which one is correct?

In the normal tab, Ask Brave said the UN does not recognise oral sources of information as a primary source, even from oppressed areas — just as a critical source of information.

The private (incognito) tab said the opposite. The UN does recognise it as a primary source.”

Google Gemini: “Oral testimony is the primary source in UN human rights and indigenous rights investigations, as recognised by their standards and practices. The private tab's answer is accurate; oral evidence often stands alone where written records are absent or destroyed.”

Truth does not depend on paper alone. By professionally assessing the credibility and consistency of oral testimonies, the UN recognises that for oppressed communities, the human voice itself is often the most honest and valuable primary evidence.

---

Kalvin Carefour Johnny

Pos Threads ini bawa persoalan penting: adakah rundingan GRS dengan Putrajaya satu strategi melindungi rakyat atau tanda kelemahan? Sejarah tunjukkan pusat pernah guna pemotongan dana dan sekatan untuk menjadikan Sabah sebagai tebusan politik, jadi pendekatan GRS yang menumpu kestabilan sebenarnya lahir dari realiti itu — namun tuntutan terhadap hasil bumi dan maruah Sabah mesti terus disuarakan.

Satu Pos di Threads Kata:

“Kerajaan GRS Sabah (perlu) berani bersuara sebagai wakil rakyat untuk mempertahankan hasil bumi Sabah demi rakyat yang miskin.

Contohnya, Ketua Menteri Sarawak tegas kerana rakyatnya, bukan kerana mahu hidup sendiri.”

Saya Balas:

“Kerajaan kita, GRS, lebih menumpukan kepada kestabilan dan berunding dengan kerajaan pusat untuk mempertahankan hak dan maruah Sabah.

Kita pernah mempunyai kerajaan yang radikal, tetapi itulah kerajaan pusat telah mengugut dengan menyekat usaha dan dana ke Sabah, menyebabkan rakyat sengsara seperti menjadi tebusan.

Tapi, tidak mengapa; ini bermaksud ruang untuk aktivisme dan rakyat hidup seperti biasa adalah lebih baik. Apapun, mari kita jangan putus harapan akan kesejahteraan dan keadilan terhadap Malaysia dan Sabah.”

Rundingan bukan bermakna mengalah — ia satu taktik; tugas kita adalah gabungkan aktivisme, tuntutan secara berjemaah dan tekanan secara awam supaya Sabah tidak lagi dijadikan sumber eksploitasi. Teruskan tuntut autonomi nyata, kawal hasil kita, dan pastikan suara rakyat Sabah sentiasa diutamakan.

“Sejarah membuktikan bahawa kebenaran sentiasa berdiri dengan sendirinya dan bertahan selama-lamanya.”

---

Kalvin Carefour Johnny

↑ Autism Spectrum Disorder

Perhaps I'm not “mildly autistic” or have “mild autism”. I think my level of autism is higher. I require more substantial support than what mild autism would need.

I wish I were at my mum's house right now to have a proper meal. My mum knows how to cook, but here in this house there isn't much to cook. I don't want to cook.

I told my parents I need a car. I feel dysphoric when I stay at an almost empty home all day.

↑ Do you want to stay here all day, disconnected from the modern world you love?

There's no nearby shops, just forest and hills, and taking a walk to a shop with fewer items and returning home feels burdensome rather than enjoyable.

It's painful and exhausting to climb these hills. There are no cold bubble teas, Ai Cha drinks, KFC, laundry shops, cold tea and coffee, or my mum's cooked meat meals.

The only reason I stay here is because of electricity and my cats. The house isn't completed yet; the temporary door we use is just a curtain, and to leave this house, we place bricks on top of the bottom curtain.

↑ GoToSocial.social Fediverse server

Online, not everybody understands. I even got harassed by a person from the gotosocial.social Fediverse server because I was being honest and raw with my thoughts and my support needs.

Maybe that user is already working every day in an air-conditioned room, has various options to choose which meal to eat and hasn't eaten them until finished, hasn't drunk beverages to finish. Able to pay student loans every day. Who knows. My place is like an elites versus elites playground, I guess.

Google Gemini: “Getting harassed for being honest about your disability and living conditions is a form of ableism.”

I’m realising my autism may require more support than the “mild” label suggests. Living in isolation, without transport, food access, or comfort, drains me physically and mentally.

Online spaces don’t always understand this reality, and honesty about support needs can be met with judgment instead of care.

---

Kalvin Carefour Johnny