Date: 25 April 1999
Location: Xian Sheng’s house, Taman Melawati
(A) Musa Hitam signed Xian Sheng’s Restricted Residence Order.
Xian Sheng mentioned that he met Musa Hitam earlier, but did not get the opportunity to hold a longer conversation with him. Xian Sheng met with him at a school fundraising event.
At the event, participants could purchase RM50 coupons in a quid pro quo contribution to the school. Xian Sheng said that it was not exactly a donation, as they purchased coupons to exchange for goods at inflated prices. For example, RM2 for three small oranges. Xian Sheng spent RM10 worth of oranges, RM10 worth of green apples, and RM10 worth of red apples. He then quickly rushed to spend the balance RM20 coupons as he wanted to rush home for the Sunday sermon. In fact, he was the first to leave the venue.
When Xian Sheng ran into Musa Hitam, Xian Sheng asked him whether he recognised him, which Xian Sheng doubted he did. However, Musa Hitam said that he recognised his face and name, which Xian Sheng noted was clearly displayed on his name tag. He called out Xian Sheng’s name, “Chew”.
Xian Sheng reminded him that both of them used to serve as Secretary-General on the board of the Malayan Teachers’ Union (MTU) and the National Union of Day-Trained Teachers’ Colleges (NUDTC). Xian Sheng was also the Chairman of the Salaries Committee under the NJCT. Musa Hitam replied that he remembered, which Xian Sheng said he most definitely would remember.
However, Xian Sheng did not have the opportunity to tell him that Xian Sheng was placed under a Restricted Residence order (RR) during his tenure as the Minister of Home Affairs. Xian Sheng wanted to tell him that piece of information, but did not get the opportunity as they had to take their seats on the stage.
Xian Sheng made a sarcastic remark that the seats were reserved for old people to sit, specifically targeting Musa Hitam, and saying younger people like himself could stand. Xian Sheng noted that Musa Hitam was younger than him, but Xian Sheng could not care less about that when he purposely made that remark openly for everyone present to hear.
Xian Sheng told the motorcycle group that he would take his leave as he wanted to rush home. A female teacher stepped forward to shake his hand while thanking Xian Sheng for his participation. Xian Sheng told the teacher that if it were not for people like him, female teachers would not be enjoying equal salaries to their male counterparts. Xian Sheng mentioned that if they looked back at old newspapers, they would see the articles about equal pay for men and women. Those were the result of the hard work of the members of the NJCT, namely Xian Sheng and Mrs Bhupalan, who made the effort to apply for these rights. Xian Sheng said that during his tenure, he had applied for many rights besides equal pay rights.
Xian Sheng was not expecting Musa Hitam to participate in the school charitable event. Nevertheless, Xian Sheng noted that it was good as it would give him the chance to speak to Musa Hitam at the event. The motorcycle group suggested that Xian Sheng give Musa Hitam a ride on his Harley to the school. Xian Sheng turned down their suggestion as he refused to take Musa Hitam on his bike. Musa Hitam had to find another rider, Gary, who was willing to take him to the school event from the gathering place chosen by the motorcycle group. Xian Sheng reiterated that he refused to take Musa Hitam and there was nothing Musa Hitam could do about it. Even if Musa Hitam were to become the Deputy Prime Minister, Xian Sheng would still refuse to take Musa Hitam as he was nobody to Xian Sheng. Xian Sheng ended his sharing with the followers, making it clear that Musa Hitam was not worth talking about any further.
(B) Musa Hitam cannot be the Chairman of SUHAKAM.
Xian Sheng returned to his topic from the previous week about humans killing humans. Xian Sheng asked a basic and fundamental question: “Does anyone have the right to kill another?” His reply was that humans do not have the right to kill another human.
Xian Sheng gave a simple example of a criminal. If that criminal killed another individual, do we have the right to kill that criminal? Xian Sheng said that we actually do not have the right to kill a person. Unfortunately, the world and society have a bad record of killing people, often motivated by racial prejudice and division.
Xian Sheng read from the New Straits Times newspaper this morning that Musa Hitam personally suggested forming a Commission on Human Rights. Xian Sheng read this news in his hotel room after waking up at 6:00 am to perform his prayers and meditation.
Xian Sheng questioned whom the government would select to head this commission as the Chairman. Would it be someone from a Non-Governmental Organisation (NGO) or Musa Hitam himself?
Xian Sheng’s thoughts shifted to the reporters who were present during the announcement by Musa Hitam. He asked, if he were a reporter there, what question would he ask Musa Hitam, since he was the Minister of Home Affairs in the past? The right questions to ask Musa Hitam were: under his watch as the Minister of Home Affairs, how many individuals were imprisoned under the draconian Internal Security Act (ISA)? Under his watch as the Minister of Home Affairs, did he sign any orders to have people shot to death? Did he have blood on his hands, and were his hands clean from blood? If Xian Sheng were a reporter, he would dare to ask these tough questions.
Xian Sheng said that if reporters asked Musa Hitam these questions and he honestly replied that he did, then Musa Hitam was automatically disqualified from the post as the Chairman of the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia, known as SUHAKAM (a position that he nonetheless held from 1999 to 2002).
(C) Xian Sheng should be the Chairman of SUHAKAM.
Xian Sheng stated that one of the criteria for an individual to head SUHAKAM as the Chairman should be that they had experienced suffering under injustice and draconian laws, like himself. Xian Sheng said that he qualified for that reason.
Xian Sheng told the followers to refer to today’s New Straits Times newspaper. He said that if anyone were to write a letter to the Prime Minister, they should propose Mr Chew Choon Ming as the Chairman of the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia. They would also have to provide supporting arguments, justifications, grounds, and reasons.
Xian Sheng gave the following reasons for his suffering: he was wrongly detained in prison for 12.5 days starting on 27 January 1983, and he was subsequently placed under executive restriction pursuant to the Restricted Residence Act 1933.
The following were justifications that he fought for human rights in the past: when he was the Secretary-General of the National Union of Day-Trained Teachers’ Colleges (NUDTC) and Secretary-General of the Malayan Teachers’ Union (MTU) back in 1966, he fought for equal pay for women, parity (likely ethnic parity) and Senior Middle 3 qualifications (recognised as the Unified Examination Certificate or UEC today) to be accepted by the government.
The following were the grounds for his persistent struggle for freedom of religion: he went to court and fought for official recognition of the Baitiangong Spiritual Movement under Article 11 (Freedom of Religion) of the Federal Constitution, despite being charged with a one-man illegal assembly, until he finally won.
The following were the grounds for his ability to resolve a profoundly complicated failure of both the financial and bureaucratic systems, which was also a testament to his integrity and selfless service to society: politicians and notable individuals had failed to resolve the impasse in the Alam Jaya abandoned housing project for nine years. The purchasers had given up hope until Xian Sheng took the helm as Chairman of the Pro Tem Committee of the Purchasers of the Alam Jaya Abandoned Housing Project from 18 November 1993 to 10 February 1995. Xian Sheng managed to recover dollar for dollar, amounting to RM2.2 million in deposits directly from the bank for the purchasers. Xian Sheng even managed to get the main contractor, Time Engineering Bhd, to pay the fourth-tier sub-sub-subcontractors directly for work done on the site, despite the second- and third-tier subcontractors being legally responsible for the payment.
Xian Sheng had expressed his patriotism, loyalty, responsibility, and dedication to the country by writing many letters to the government to suggest and propose changes to improve the nation. Xian Sheng cited Brother Loh Soon Yew, who was well aware of the contents. Therefore, if the government required a person suited for that position, Xian Sheng said that he dared to volunteer himself.
Xian Sheng pledged to investigate with full diligence the reasons for every single person who was detained under the draconian ISA. Xian Sheng stated that he would similarly investigate the reasons for every single person who was held under the Restricted Residence Act 1933. This, he declared, was the true purpose of the Human Rights Commission.
(D) The Malaysian government would pay dearly for their human rights violations.
Xian Sheng noted that the Malaysian government had only recently begun to establish its national human rights commission. He pointed out that neighbouring countries such as the Philippines (Commission on Human Rights, established in 1987) and Indonesia (Komnas HAM, established in 1993) had already set up their own human rights commissions much earlier.
They had not yet decided who would take the helm as Chairman. It was highly likely that Musa Hitam was eyeing the post, as he was the person who had proposed the commission. However, Xian Sheng said that Musa Hitam was not suitable for this post, as he had blood on his hands.
Those who take on the fight for human rights must have experienced some form of human rights abuse in the past. Without enduring and experiencing that suffering, they cannot serve effectively on the commission. Furthermore, they must have helped others in the past without receiving payment for their assistance; only then would they qualify to be a member of the Commission on Human Rights. Xian Sheng re-emphasised that regardless of whether the post they sought was Chairman, a seat on the governing body, or a role in the administrative arm, all of them must have endured some form of human rights injustice and helped others without any form of payment, remuneration, compensation or gratuity.
Xian Sheng stated that if anyone who helped people had received some form of financial remuneration, gain, or reward—especially politicians in the Malaysian Chinese Association (MCA) and United Malays National Organisation (UMNO)—none of them was qualified to serve in any position in the Commission on Human Rights. He emphasised that this was a very important criterion.
Xian Sheng asked whether the followers had seen the New Straits Times article about the matter published that day. Xian Sheng switched to speaking in English and described the suffering he had personally experienced, which included arbitrary arrest, wrongful detention, and wrongful suspension from work without pay. Therefore, he asserted that this made him uniquely qualified and suitable to be recommended for the post of Chairman of the Human Rights Commission.
Xian Sheng said that if he received the five-year appointment as Chairman, he would tell the government that he did not want any salary for doing the job; however, the government would pay dearly for their past transgressions regarding the human rights violations they had committed.
(E) Government servants do not qualify as commissioners in SUHAKAM.
Xian Sheng explained that if the government were to accept individuals from non-governmental organisations (NGOs), those individuals must have suffered detention under the Internal Security Act (ISA), undergone executive restriction under the Restricted Residence Act 1933, or endured any form of wrongful, arbitrary detention. In his view, that would make those individuals suitably qualified to sit on the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (SUHAKAM).
On the contrary, those who gave orders to have people imprisoned, ordered people to be detained using the draconian ISA, or ordered people to be placed under restricted residence—people like Tan Sri Musa Hitam—cannot occupy the position of Chairman. Similarly, none of the officers who serve in the law enforcement sector, such as members of the police force, can sit on the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia.
Xian Sheng did not mince words when he said that the police were involved in bullying the people and the abuse of power against citizens, thereby disqualifying any of its officers from serving on the commission. In fact, he maintained that no governmental staff should be appointed to the commission, because they were working for the same government that violated human rights. Xian Sheng stressed that those appointed must be totally independent of the government or, at the very least, retired from government service.
Once again, Xian Sheng repeated that those who had gone through hardship or those who wished to serve without the aim of any financial returns were suitable candidates for the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia.
Xian Sheng encouraged the followers to write to the government and suggest the qualifications that would make a suitable candidate for a post in the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (SUHAKAM). Furthermore, he asserted that commission members must also be granted full statutory power to seek out and speak directly to victims of the Internal Security Act (ISA) and the Restricted Residence Act 1933.
(F) Musa Hitam ordered the shooting at Memali.
Xian Sheng explained that those who managed to join the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (SUHAKAM) had to be granted full statutory power to seek out and speak directly to detainees held under the Internal Security Act (ISA) and the Restricted Residence Act 1933. He asserted that if they were not granted these powers, it would defeat the purpose, rendering the commission nothing more than an instrument used to pull the wool over the eyes of the international community.
Xian Sheng said that the government was only talking about forming the Human Rights Commission because the General Election was around the corner. He stated that the government was trying to portray itself as righteous or pretend to be good, attempting to pull the wool over the eyes of the general public regarding its bad human rights track record. Xian Sheng asked the followers for their opinions, as Xian Sheng was not sure whether this was just another eyewash gimmick.
Xian Sheng was very adamant that Tan Sri Musa Hitam was not fit to take the mantle of Chairman. He declared that people had to press Musa Hitam to answer how many people he had put under restricted residence, and how many people he had wrongfully detained and placed under the Internal Security Act (ISA).
Xian Sheng said that this question had to be asked because Musa Hitam ordered the shooting of civilians during the tragic 1985 Memali incident. He declared that Musa Hitam had blood on his hands and could not simply wash his hands of that tragic loss of life.
Xian Sheng noted that the New Straits Times had published an article reporting that Tan Sri Musa Hitam had mooted the idea of establishing a national commission on human rights. Xian Sheng sneered at Musa Hitam, pointing out that human rights commissions had already been established in regional peers such as the Philippines and Indonesia years prior to his proposal. He observed that Musa Hitam was only beginning to speak about human rights after all these years.
Xian Sheng said that it was important for the commission to have the power to investigate the circumstances leading to why any individual was detained under the Internal Security Act (ISA). Based on the investigation, the commissioners had to possess the power to inform the police that an arrest was illegal and unlawful, and the police had to release the detainee immediately. They had to be able to declare that such an arrest was carried out without proper legal grounds and in the absence of credible evidence or reasonable suspicion.
Xian Sheng said that, based on the fundamental premise of human rights, the Internal Security Act (ISA) should be abolished due to specific flaws in its legal framework, such as an unclear scope, detention without trial, arbitrary arrest powers, a lack of legal safeguards, and ouster clauses. He maintained that there were already existing laws to prosecute an individual while allowing them to go to court to defend themselves. It was, after all, fundamentally all about human rights.
(G) The police concocted fake evidence to incriminate Xian Sheng.
Xian Sheng stated that after he was served with a restricted residence order, he approached and confronted the Director and his police officers in the Criminal Investigation Department (CID). He told them to beware, for one day, they would die.
Xian Sheng accused them of purposefully incriminating him by concocting false evidence. The fake charges were that he had cheated RM300,000 from the followers, cheated several female followers, and instigated the followers to intimidate and assault ex-followers who opposed him. He declared that these fabrications were preposterous as those events had never happened.
Xian Sheng reasoned that if state law enforcement could fabricate charges against him, it was therefore highly likely that others had been falsely incriminated as well. He posited that whenever individuals refused to capitulate to police demands or political pressure, authorities routinely deployed draconian instruments—such as the Internal Security Act (ISA) and the Restricted Residence Act 1933—to silence, suppress, and oppress them without judicial oversight.
Xian Sheng stated that if he were serving on the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (SUHAKAM) and his investigation uncovered such instances of state fabrication and arbitrary detention, the commission would exercise its legal mandate to issue a direct order for the immediate release of those wrongfully held—an order that the police would be legally bound to obey.
(H) There are no secrets in death: “天知，地知，你知，我知”
- Xian Sheng asked whether a Commission on Human Rights should be established in Malaysia, and he immediately replied that such a commission was not needed. He maintained that the idea should be thrown away, as it would only serve as another eyewash gimmick designed to project a false image of reform.
- However, he stated that if the commission were to be established, it should propose the total abolition of the Internal Security Act 1960 (ISA). Similarly, he argued that the Official Secrets Act 1972 (OSA) should also be abolished to achieve true transparency. Xian Sheng asserted that if 100% transparency was desired, the OSA 1972—which was enacted to protect genuine state secrets that could harm national security, defence, or international relations if leaked—had to be dismantled. He maintained that there should be no secrets regarding how the government deals with the public, manages public funds, or formulates policy decisions, emphasising that in a democratic nation, all dealings involving public interest must remain open and transparent to prevent Malaysia from becoming a laughing stock to other democracies.
- When it came to secrets, Xian Sheng used the phrase “天知，地知，你知，我知, translating it into the Baitiangong framework as “Heaven knows, Hell knows, you know, and I know”. He conveyed to the followers that there were no secrets in death that could shield an individual from ultimate spiritual punishment.
- Xian Sheng declared that any secrets involving the public should be abolished. He stated that the Printing Presses and Publications Act 1984 (PPPA), which regulates the use of printing presses and the importation, production, reproduction, publishing, and distribution of publications, had to be abolished too. He argued that there were already sufficient civil laws, such as criminal defamation under the Penal Code, to enable an individual to bring a civil lawsuit against any publisher responsible for defamatory statements.
- Xian Sheng noted that, on the contrary, the Printing Presses and Publications Act 1984 (PPPA) actively suppressed whistleblowers and citizens attempting to expose state misconduct or executive corruption. He cited the landmark prosecution of Lim Guan Eng under Section 8A of the statute—following his public advocacy and publication of materials criticising the authorities’ handling of statutory rape allegations against former Malacca Chief Minister Rahim Thamby Chik.
- Xian Sheng reiterated that if the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia were to be established, the selection of commissioners would be critical to its effective functioning. He maintained that the right individuals to serve were those who had personally suffered from human rights injustices.
- Xian Sheng maintained that these commissioners would then understand the necessity of abolishing all those draconian laws. Xian Sheng asked the followers if that was the correct course of action.
(I) Locking a murderer for 25 years in a room is the better choice.
Xian Sheng said that Malaysia’s standard legal framework already possessed sufficient non-draconian laws allowing individuals to seek legal remedies through open court proceedings. He argued that the government could not arbitrarily detain individuals simply because law enforcement lacked admissible evidence to formally prosecute them. On the contrary, Xian Sheng asserted that when the authorities lack concrete evidence of a crime, they possess no legal or moral right to detain them.
Xian Sheng explained that an individual is restricted under the Restricted Residence Act 1933 whenever the authorities lack admissible evidence to secure a legal conviction in open court. Furthermore, he highlighted that individuals imprisoned under the Internal Security Act (ISA) completely lost their fundamental right to judicial recourse. He criticised the state’s reasoning, pointing out that authorities openly conceded their lack of evidence to formally charge detainees, therefore justifying arbitrary detention.
Xian Sheng stated that, as a matter of fact, because of the lack of evidence, the authorities should not detain the individual. Nevertheless, he noted that the police possessed the resources to assign a dedicated four-officer surveillance team to conduct 24/7 monitoring—to lawfully gather the evidence for a formal arrest. Xian Sheng said he would readily commend the police force if they demonstrated such professional diligence and investigative rigour in apprehending suspects through proper investigation.
Xian Sheng suggested that if the Commission on Human Rights were established, he would propose to the commission that it should recommend removing capital punishment for convicted murderers. He argued that offenders should instead face 25 years of imprisonment, maintaining that while the government would bear the cost of feeding them, this was unavoidable as the 25-year sentence served to teach them a lesson. Xian Sheng pointed out that confining a murderer to a prison cell with four walls and a window—through which they could look out, but not step out- constituted a form of suffering that was more meaningful than capital punishment such as death by hanging.
He observed that a criminal would only suffer for a brief moment if they were hanged to death for murdering another person. Xian Sheng questioned whether there was truly a need to execute them, asking who gave the authorities the right to take a human life simply because they passed laws allowing execution.
Xian Sheng noted that people would sometimes rationalise that because a murderer had taken a life, they deserved to be killed as well. Nevertheless, Xian Sheng declared that taking a human life was permissible only in self-defence, which he considered an acceptable circumstance. He maintained that the only other circumstance where taking a human life was acceptable was during a time of war, when killing was unavoidable.
(J) ASEAN Commission on Human Rights to protect Baitiangong’s freedom.
Xian Sheng proposed that if Malaysia and all ASEAN member states were to establish their respective national human rights institutions, then all eleven nations should establish a Joint Commission on Human Rights for ASEAN. (ASEAN’s regional human rights body, the ASEAN Intergovernmental Commission on Human Rights (AICHR), was subsequently established in 2009).
Xian Sheng noted that both Indonesia and the Philippines had already successfully established their national human rights commissions, with Malaysia set to follow shortly.
Xian Sheng argued that if genocidal acts occurred in Indonesia targeting the ethnic Chinese, the ASEAN Joint Commission would require the Indonesian government to take immediate action to end the bullying and the systemic persecution of minority ethnic communities by the dominant population.
Xian Sheng asked why there was a need for an ASEAN Joint Commission on Human Rights. Xian Sheng stated that one of the primary responsibilities of the commission was to protect the interests, rights, and freedom of minorities, such as the Baitiangong Spiritual Movement.
(K) Commission on Human Rights must protect the rights of the minority.
Xian Sheng stated that in order to protect the interests, rights, and freedom of minorities, the Joint Commission should investigate the Baitiangong Spiritual Movement for any wrongdoing. He maintained that upon doing so, they would conclude that the spiritual movement taught its followers to do good, as its core purpose is to save souls.
Xian Sheng stated that commissioners should observe the Baitiangong way of obsequies and all its spiritual activities. He argued that if, after an exhaustive investigation, the commission found that the spiritual movement’s activities were purely for the betterment of its followers and the surrounding community, the commission had a duty to challenge the Registrar of Societies (ROS) over its persistent refusal to grant official registration—a practice that left the movement exposed to administrative harassment and threats of an unlawful society over minor technicalities. Xian Sheng maintained that the commission should then submit a formal petition to the government requesting that the spiritual movement be officially registered as a religious association, thereby enabling it to conduct its activities in peace.
Xian Sheng asked the followers whether they understood that the primary purpose of the Commission on Human Rights was to protect the rights and independence of the minority from being bullied by the majority.
(L) International Commission on Human Rights.
Xian Sheng referred to the ethnic cleansing of Kosovar Albanians, noting that there were two schools of thought that argued for and against military intervention by the United States.
Xian Sheng argued that the conflict should be settled by an international Commission on Human Rights comprising members from their respective national commissions across Asia, Europe, the United States, and other countries. (Note: Xian Sheng was not referring to the United Nations Human Rights Council).
Xian Sheng stated that if the investigation by the proposed International Commission revealed that the Serbian regime had perpetrated genocide against the Kosovar population, NATO would be fully justified in launching military strikes. Xian Sheng added that even ASEAN member states should dispatch their national troops to assist in the military operation.
Xian Sheng asserted that the proposed International Commission should deploy military forces not only in Kosovo, but anywhere in the world wherever systemic genocide or ethnic cleansing takes place. He asserted that international coalition forces must neutralise hostile aggressors until all genocidal campaigns are completely halted. Furthermore, Xian Sheng stressed that the commission must enforce unyielding, impartial measures against all warring factions to prevent any further killings of innocent lives.
(M) The Commission on Human Rights must operate independently.
Xian Sheng stated that it was very important to establish a Commission on Human Rights, noting that Malaysia had begun forming such an institution. However, Xian Sheng raised the critical question of who would be invited to serve as commissioners. For this reason, Xian Sheng asked those who possess the necessary knowledge to write to the government to propose him, Chew Choon Ming, to serve as the Chairman of the Commission.
Xian Sheng referred to the arguments he gave earlier as reasons for his proposed appointment, such as helping others without expecting remuneration. He emphasised that the first core reason was to help people without expecting financial remuneration or gratitude. He asserted that if the commission expected reward or appreciation, it would be better to close it down, as it would no longer be focused on human rights.
Xian Sheng gave an example where the commission was asked to assist in releasing an individual detained under the Internal Security Act (ISA) under the pretext of human rights. Here, Xian Sheng adamantly stated that the commission could not be used by any person or parties, especially by the government. He emphasised that maintaining complete independence was the true role of a Human Rights Commission.
Xian Sheng laughed as he said that if the commission could be used by the government, then it would be better not to call it a Human Rights Commission. He remarked that they should simply name it a government lackey commission or Mahathir’s lackey commission. Xian Sheng maintained that this demonstrated how critical and uncompromised human rights advocacy had to be.
(N) Many white Americans despise the blacks, Jews and Hispanics.
Xian Sheng asked the followers whether they heard about the two students involved in the Columbine High School massacre. He observed that many would question their motive for killing people and wonder why it happened.
Xian Sheng expressed his view that the shooters were heavily influenced by what they had seen on television. He noted that television broadcast films about indiscriminate killings and hatred. These films portrayed heroes, whom Xian Sheng called vigilantes, wearing tall hats and long black trench coats who killed aggressors to protect the public. Xian Sheng clarified that these vigilantes no longer existed in contemporary society, but were recreated in films and books. The two students likely lived in a fantasy world where they believed they were modern-day vigilantes.
Xian Sheng observed that another reason besides direct influence was observational learning or social learning. He pointed out that the news media frequently showed that many white Americans hated and despised Black, Jewish, and Hispanic communities.
Xian Sheng clarified that Hispanics comprised individuals of Cuban, Mexican, Puerto Rican, and South or Central American descent with ancestry tracing back to Spanish colonisers. Xian Sheng reiterated that many white Americans disliked Hispanics—who were descendants of Spanish people—as well as Jewish people and Black people. He observed that the aggressors would kill people belonging to these groups on sight.
Xian Sheng returned to the two students, observing that it was strange how they also harboured hatred for the school jocks, regardless of their ethnicity or race. He explained that these male students involved in sports and athletics frequently made fun of the two of them. Xian Sheng maintained that this constant intimidation and ridicule aggravated the anger of the two students, contributing directly to their violent outburst.
Xian Sheng stated that the school administrators and teachers should have known about the potential threat posed by the two students, because they constantly bragged in school to other students about the weapons they possessed and the bombs they were making. Nevertheless, the school did not have the necessary monitoring measures to track student activities.
(O) Xian Sheng’s intelligence network of snitches to deal with school gangsterism.
When Xian Sheng served as a teacher and Discipline Master at S.M. Kepong, he had an intelligence network to keep track of students’ extracurricular or criminal activities in all the classes. He placed a snitch in each class who would report to him any students involved in thievery, gang affiliations, or extortion within the school. These reports were conducted in total secrecy, as it was Xian Sheng’s personal network.
He clarified that through his network of snitches, he knew of a student who brought a 10-inch kitchen knife to extort money from other students for his pocket money. Xian Sheng approached the victim and asked whether the rogue student had threatened him with a knife, asked for his allowance, and then took the money. When the victim confirmed his inquiry, Xian Sheng called the rogue student to his office and caned him hard three times on his backside.
The rogue student’s father went to Xian Sheng’s home and rudely demanded to meet with him. Because Xian Sheng was out at the time, he later drove directly to the student’s home upon learning of the visit. Driven entirely by impulse and anger, the father threw a punch at Xian Sheng without listening to any explanation, seeking revenge for the caning of his son. Xian Sheng employed a “block and attack” defensive strategy and simultaneously delivered a powerful counter-punch directly to the father’s face, sending him staggering and falling backwards a considerable distance. Xian Sheng reiterated that he maintained his personal intelligence network to protect students and maintain order.
Xian Sheng was very certain that there were no teachers like him anymore, because no teachers would dare to infiltrate the various gangster networks in schools. Xian Sheng stated that after he left, none of the teachers had the courage to do what he had done. Xian Sheng possessed the courage to do what was necessary, despite constant threats from various student gangsters. Xian Sheng did not negotiate with them, but spoke the language they understood—a solid punch. Xian Sheng learned that students who showed him the middle finger or made rude gestures were active in the underworld, and Xian Sheng showed no quarter to them. They were normally greeted back with a punch. Any student gangster who dared to escalate would be met with even more severe punishment from Xian Sheng.
Xian Sheng reiterated that there were no more teachers like him. In fact, he stated very frankly that during his tenure, no teachers were as daring as he was. He noted that he was the only rare teacher of his kind in the whole of Kuala Lumpur—in fact, across the whole of Malaysia. When it came to school gangsterism, there were no teachers who had the time or courage to challenge them in the whole of Malaysia, except for Xian Sheng.
(P) Xian Sheng bought boxing gloves for students to fight each other.
Xian Sheng explained that human rights were fundamentally about protecting individuals from being bullied. He asserted that this protection against intimidation and abuse constituted the essential core of what human rights were all about.
Xian Sheng possessed extensive experience from dealing with bullies and coaching them to overcome their natural tendency to bully the weak, because he strongly disliked bullies. His dedicated efforts allowed these reformed individuals to change their character and integrate smoothly into society.
Xian Sheng shared his method back when he served as the Sports Secretary at La Salle School Brickfields in the early 1960s. When students got into fights, he would not stop them immediately, but asked them to put on boxing gloves and fight until they vented their aggression on each other. Xian Sheng would then ask them to shake hands, have a drink together at the school canteen, and become friends. Xian Sheng explained that if they were to fight bare-fisted, they could hurt each other badly, but with boxing gloves on, serious injuries could be prevented. Furthermore, Xian Sheng would act as the referee to ensure the fight remained strictly under control.
Years later, an army officer approached Xian Sheng, addressing him respectfully as “Sir,” and asked if Xian Sheng recalled who he was. Xian Sheng recognised him immediately as a former student from La Salle School Brickfields. The officer inquired whether Xian Sheng still remembered instructing the students to settle their disputes through boxing. Xian Sheng replied that he remembered, noting that no other teacher would ever have told their students to resolve conflict through boxing.
Xian Sheng clarified that the boxing gloves used by the students were not theirs, but were purchased for them by Xian Sheng with his own money. He provided the equipment so that the students could blow off steam, ensuring that they did not go around picking fights in the school. Xian Sheng reiterated that he served as a referee to protect them from serious injury.
Returning to the fundamental purpose of human rights, Xian Sheng stated that society must protect minorities, including students, from being bullied by the majority. He emphasised that for this reason, it was essential for individuals responsible for human rights oversight to possess practical experience in handling all aspects of human rights protections.
(Q) Everyone deserves the right to live out their full examination in life.
Examining the issue through the lens of human rights, Xian Sheng asked who had the right to take the life of another person. Xian Sheng replied unequivocally that no one possessed such a right.
The special exception occurred when an evil spirit had taken possession of the body of a recently deceased person whose soul had already departed from the physical vessel. Even under such extraordinary circumstances, Xian Sheng stated that killing the possessed body was not recommended, because the evil spirit could simply seek another host. Xian Sheng explained that the proper spiritual protocol was to engage it in meditation and directly confront the evil spirit until its energy was thoroughly dispersed.
Xian Sheng drew this conclusion because he had an encounter with a Satan that spoke in Malay, which had managed to possess a Chinese boy at the exact moment the boy died. If Xian Sheng had left the Satan possessing the body of the boy, he would have grown up and created all types of chaos in our world. This is why Xian Sheng said that we have to protect the public, because if that Satan had learned to possess this boy, it could learn to possess other children as well.
Xian Sheng classified Satanic possession as a violation of human rights as well. He maintained that we could not allow a Satan to possess and abuse the body of a child, who would later grow up to commit all types of chaos, including killing people. In that state, the possessed boy was literally a devil and could not be allowed to grow up to harm others. Xian Sheng maintained that other than this specific type of scenario, no person possessed the right to kill another human being.
Xian Sheng reiterated that death row executions for inmates convicted of murder and scheduled for death by hanging or lethal injection should be commuted, and that the authorities should simply subject such individuals to solitary confinement alone for 25 years inside a four-walled room with a single window to the outside world.
Xian Sheng noted that many jurisdictions across the world were seeking to reinstate the death penalty. In the United States specifically, several states had moved to revive the death penalty. They even offer the condemned inmates a choice of the execution methods—hanging, lethal injection, or the electric chair.
Xian Sheng asked which form of execution was the preferred, less painful method of dying. The followers held different opinions, but mainly agreed that hanging to death was the worst form of suffering the inmates had to endure.
Xian Sheng replied that the best approach was to abolish all forms of execution, and instead place the convicts in solitary confinement alone for a term of 25 years, as this severe punishment was meant to teach a very bitter lesson. After their 25-year term ended, they should be released and monitored to see if they had changed. Xian Sheng acknowledged that recording and tracking their activities would require significant time and effort.
In response to a follower who remarked that it would be better for everyone to just execute the inmate, Xian Sheng replied firmly that no one possessed the right to kill another person. He emphasised that we need to understand the core Baitiangong principles, namely that every human being deserved the right to live out their full examination in life.
Xian Sheng stated that the duty also fell on those who advocated for human rights to inform their respective governments not to execute their prisoners. He acknowledged that managing long-term incarceration was an unavoidable inconvenience, and that we could only hope that after 25 years of solitary confinement, the severe punishment and bitter lesson endured would ensure they would never think of killing again.
Xian Sheng trusted that individuals who had suffered 25 years locked in solitary confinement inside a four-walled room with a single window would have learned from their bitter lesson and would never kill again.