The Irreplaceable Voice: Will Artificial Intelligence Silence Human Song?

 The Irreplaceable Voice: Will AI Silence Human Song?

 

The first thing I do every morning is to turn on the music. I start each day with Carnatic music from CDs randomly arranged on the player. The music brings to life the stillness of the morning and starts my day on a positive mood. The language, genre and style of music may change but music remains in the background all day long, at home and at work.

As I write, Maharajapuram Santhanam's distinctive earthy voice fills the room. Like all great voices, his voice is unmistakable—one that I doubt any human or algorithm can ever replicate.

Yet synthetic voices pervade the media to communicate news and other information and to persuade people to purchase goods and services. All we hear are the same few voices repeated over and over.

As artificial intelligence grows ever more sophisticated, I wonder if this distinct—and, I believe, irreplaceable—pleasure of listening to a multitude of voices in Carnatic music will one day be replaced by synthetic voices? Is this the beginning of us humans abdicating our individual differences to machines?

The Allure of the Human Voice

What makes a voice like Maharajapuram’s so captivating is not just its pitch or clarity, but its humanity—the slight tremble in a long-held note, the improvisational flourish in a raga, the faint breath between phrases, a cough, a clearing of the throat. These are not flaws; they are the fingerprints of a living artist. Carnatic music, like all great vocal traditions, thrives on this individuality. One singer’s rendition of a song does not sound like the same song rendered by another. Nor is one recording of a song identical to a later recording of the same song.

This diversity is not incidental; it is part of the tradition. There are over a hundred singers I listen to, and only rarely do I mistake a rendering by one for another, and I am no expert in the Carnatic tradition.

The Rise of Synthetic Sound

Yet, AI now threatens to flatten this richness. Already, tools exist to clone voices, generate "perfect" singing, or even compose new "performances" by long-dead artists. At first, this may seem harmless—a novelty, a tool for experimentation. But the danger lies in normalisation. If listeners grow accustomed to synthetic voices, will they still seek out the raw, unfiltered beauty of human song? If record labels can license an AI "Santhanam" to sing endlessly without fatigue or ageing, will they invest in living artists? The convenience of artificiality could quietly erode our connection to the real.

A Call for Self-Awareness

Our greatest challenge is not to reject AI, but to awaken to what it means to be human alongside it. We must recognise two worlds—the organic and the artificial—without blurring their boundaries. Just as we teach children to distinguish a photograph from a painting, we must now teach them to discern a living voice from a synthetic one, a human choice from an algorithmic suggestion. But this awareness must extend beyond sound to touch, intuition, and creativity. Our selves—and our agency—are not relics to be archived, but flames to be guarded.

Teaching Humanity

AI’s greatest danger is that it will make us forget who we are as humans and forget the multiple talents we are born with. To counter this demands a reimagining of education. Let us teach students to wield AI as a tool—for drafting ideas, transcribing melodies, or exploring creative possibilities—while fiercely preserving the sanctity of human expression. The new curricula must emphasise:

• The role of human emotions and the human body in art (the breath behind a note, the callus on a violinist’s finger);
• The ethics of authenticity (when to label AI, when to privilege human creation);
• The courage of imperfection (why a cracked note can express more than a flawless one).

As Santhanam’s voice rises in a final, resonant phrase, I am reminded that technology has no inner life. A song synthesised by AI may delight the ear, but only a human voice can reach the soul of the listener. Our task is not to resist progress, but to insist that progress serves what machines can never replicate: the messy, glorious act of being alive, of being human.

"Let us use AI, but never mistake it for artistry. Let us listen to both worlds—but only bow before one."

The Exploitation of the Right to Pardon in Malaysia

 Legitimacy of the government in the eyes of the populace is critical as the public must recognise the law and the Government as legitimate, failing which, the public will not believe in, and follow, the rule of law. (Per Justice Christopher Chin Soo Yin J in Harris Mohd Salleh v. Chief Secretary, Government of Malaysia & Ors [2023] MLRHU 323)

The ongoing debate surrounding the pardon of Najib Razak has laid bare the troubling ways in which the power to pardon is being manipulated in Malaysia. This manipulation stretches public credulity and undermines the legitimacy of Government, which is anchored in the Constitution, the legal system, and the rule of law.

Najib was convicted on charges of corruption and abuse of power related to the 1MDB scandal, a case of unprecedented magnitude involving billions of ringgit and causing immeasurable harm to the nation's wealth and reputation. His conviction and sentence underwent exhaustive legal scrutiny, receiving the fullest review possible under the Malaysian legal system, with appeals right up to the Federal Court. This should have been the final chapter in a saga that saw the triumph of accountability over power.

However, recent developments surrounding his pardon and the controversial "addendum" have not only reopened this chapter but also distorted its narrative. Discussions about granting leniency, including allegations of allowing Najib to serve his sentence under house arrest, risk trivializing the gravity of his crimes and mocks the criminal judicial system of the country. Worse, they paint the perpetrator as a victim, undermining the justice achieved through a painstaking legal process.

Any action that minimizes the severity of these charges or downplays their devastating impact on the nation must be met with firm resistance. The pardon power, while necessary for exceptional circumstances, should not be used to shield individuals from the consequences of their actions, especially when those actions have betrayed the trust of the people and weakened the foundations of the country's governance.

A Tool of Justice or Political Expediency?

The power to pardon, historically a royal prerogative, has evolved into an instrument of state policy in modern constitutional democracies. While it serves as a necessary safety valve in exceptional circumstances, ensuring justice where the rigid application of law might fail, the current scenario in Malaysia demonstrates its potential for exploitation. Politicians are wielding the pardon as a tool to maintain political alliances, reward loyalty, and secure their hold on power, rather than upholding principles of justice and public interest.

The controversies surrounding the pardon of Najib highlight how the boundaries of this power are being stretched beyond recognition. The constitutional framework clearly delineates the limits of the King’s power to pardon, requiring the advice of the Pardons Board, adherence to transparency, and alignment with principles of justice. However, the alleged issuance of a mysterious addendum allowing Najib Razak to serve his sentence at home is a glaring example of these boundaries being ignored.

Undermining Public Trust and the Rule of Law

Nothing is more important in a system of government than the trust of the people in the rule of law. When the pardon power is perceived as arbitrary or politically motivated, it erodes public confidence in the integrity of both the legal system and the executive. The use of the pardon to rehabilitate convicted politicians sends a dangerous message—that those with influence can escape accountability.

In the Harris Mohd Salleh v. Chief Secretary, Government of Malaysia& Ors., the High Court emphasized that the legitimacy of government actions is essential for maintaining public trust.

The foundation of our democracy is the Federal Constitution. So long as laws, the citizens, the legislature, executive and the judiciary are or act within the confines of the Federal Constitution, there is law and order. With such mutual compliance comes an innate sense of legitimacy by the citizens of their Government. This sense of legitimacy is critical for society to survive and thrive. You are all in Court today because you believe in the legitimacy of this Court as an arbiter of the prevailing dispute. If the Courts have no legitimacy, disputes will be resolved by armed conflict and society will dissolve into chaos. . . . Legitimacy of the government in the eyes of the populace is critical as the public must recognise the law and the Government as legitimate, failing which, the public will not believe in, and follow, the rule of law. (Christopher Chin Soo Yin J)

Yet, the recent exercise of the pardon power in Malaysia appears to subvert this principle. The lack of transparency, conflicting reports, and the mysterious nature of decisions like Najib’s addendum only deepen the public’s scepticism about the legitimacy of government.

When Pardon is Justified

In many Commonwealth jurisdictions, pardons are reserved for those who are morally or factually innocent. They are tools to correct injustices, not to circumvent the judiciary for political convenience. However, in Malaysia, the boundaries of this power are being extended to favour elites and shield them from accountability. This deviation from constitutional and traditional norms undermines the separation of powers, judicial independence, and anti-corruption efforts.

Reform of the Process

To restore the integrity of the pardon process, the Government must adopt reforms that ensure its exercise is guided by principles of justice and public interest rather than political expediency. These reforms include:

1. Transparent Processes: Publicly documenting the reasons for pardons and the recommendations of the Pardons Board.
2. Independent Oversight: Strengthening the independence of the Pardons Board to prevent undue executive influence.
3. Public Accountability: Requiring disclosures that align the pardon process with public expectations of fairness and justice.
4. Judicial Review: Allowing courts to scrutinize the constitutionality of questionable pardons or addenda.

Conclusion

The power to pardon, when exercised responsibly, complements the criminal justice system by addressing exceptional cases. However, its exploitation for political gain, as seen in Malaysia, threatens to undermine the very foundations of the criminal justice system and principles of governance that bind politicians. By reaffirming principles of legitimacy, transparency, we can reclaim the pardon power as an instrument of justice rather than a tool of manipulation.

 

6 Jan 2025

Government Actions Must Be Seen as Lawful and Legitimate by the Public- High Court

 Every legal power must have legal limits, otherwise there is dictatorship. In particular, it is a stringent requirement that a discretion should be exercised for a proper purpose, and that it should not be exercised unreasonably. In other words, every discretion cannot be free from legal restraint; where it is wrongly exercised, it becomes the duty of the courts to intervene. The courts are the only defence of the liberty of the subject against departmental aggression. In these days when government departments and public authorities have such great powers and influence, this is a most important safeguard for the ordinary citizen: so that the courts can see that these great powers and influence are exercised in accordance with law.

HRH Azlan Shah in Pengarah Tanah dan Galian Wilayah Persekutuan v. Sri Lempah Enterprise [1978] 1 MLRA 132; [1979] 1 MLJ 135 (FC) as quoted in the Harris Mohd Salleh case.

 

At a time when government actions are seen to be taken without regard to public expectations of transparency and accountability, the 2023 ruling in Harris Mohd Salleh v. Chief Secretary and Government of Malaysia sends a powerful message that government actions must not only be legal within the terms of the Constitution but must be perceived as lawful and legitimate by the public.

Christopher Chin J’s decision applies the test of legitimacy (the first time a court has applied the test) to balance state rights with the rights of the public. Central to this test is the principle that the public must perceive government actions as lawful and legitimate. The judgment emphasises that "the legitimacy of the government in the eyes of the populace is critical; the public must recognise both the law and the government as legitimate. Otherwise, the public will not trust or adhere to the rule of law." The case marks a potential turning point in actions for judicial review, suggesting that public trust and perceptions of fairness are factors that courts may take into account.

Facts of the Case

The case concerns a judicial review application by Harris Mohd Salleh, former Chief Minister of Sabah, for the declassification of a government report on the airplane crash on June 6, 1976, known as the Double 6 Tragedy.

The crash killed 11 people, including the then Chief Minister of Sabah, Tun Fuad Stephens, and several cabinet members. Harris Mohd Salleh, who was appointed Chief Minister immediately after the crash, was directly implicated in the tragedy due to ongoing public speculation that the crash was politically motivated. 

The Malaysian government investigated the crash, but the findings were classified under the Official Secrets Act 1972 (OSA) in 1976. Despite repeated requests over the years by the people of Sabah, politicians, and the victims' families, the report has remained secret. 

Harris Mohd Salleh applied to the Minister of Transport to declassify the report under discretionary powers vested on the Minister vide s. 2C of the OSA, but there was no forthcoming decision by the Minister. The judicial review application challenged the Minister’s refusal to exercise the discretion to declassify the reports allowed by the OSA and sought orders from the court to compel the declassification of the Double 6 report.

The government, however, maintained that the decision to keep the report classified was within the discretion of the Minister under the OSA. The Minister did not provide any reasons for continuing the classification, citing national security and governmental discretion.

The Judge’s Dilemma

The court faced compelling arguments from both sides. On one hand, the government maintained that the OSA conferred absolute discretion on the Minister, who was under no express obligation to provide a reason for continued classification. On the other hand, the Applicant argued a constitutional right to information as a corollary to free speech, suggesting that the doctrine of proportionality required the Minister’s power to declassify to align with the importance of the right to information. 

The court found it difficult to choose between the two sides because of the respective weight, legality and cogency of the arguments. He found the scale of justice was “finely balanced,” leading to a judicial dilemma: Should the court defer to the minister’s broad discretion, or should it enforce the Applicant’s and the public’s right to information in the interest of transparency?

Legitimacy

Confronted with the dilemma, the judge invoked the test of legitimacy to resolve his dilemma. Legitimacy, he observed, was a “common underlying and unmistakable thread running through all these precepts and doctrines” that were applied in an action for judicial review.

“For example, we have judicial review by the Courts, the basic structure represented by separation of powers and the doctrine or proportionality, are all to ultimately afford legitimacy to the actions of the legislature or of a statutory act or decision by the executive.”

His Lordship expanded on the test of legitimacy in the following passages.

“The foundation of our democracy is the Federal Constitution. So long as laws, the citizens, the legislature, the executive and the judiciary are or act within the confines of the Federal Constitution, there is law and order. With such mutual compliance comes an innate sense of legitimacy by the citizens of their government. This sense of legitimacy is critical for society to survive and thrive.”

“Legitimacy of the government in the eyes of the populace is critical as the public must recognise the law and the Government as legitimate, failing which, the public will not believe in, and follow, the rule of law.”

His Lordship went on to add that the legitimacy of any law will be established if it conforms to the Federal Constitution. At the same time, the legitimacy of the exercise of statutory discretion will depend on the wider perception of the people of their government.

Applying the test of legitimacy to the case before him, the judge concluded that although the Minister had the right under the OSA not to declassify, by not declassifying the report, his legitimacy as the people's representative in our democratic Government is diminished and further prejudices the legitimacy of the Government he serves. 

The judge felt resolved in his dilemma because by applying the test of legitimacy, he found the balance of the arguments before him was no longer finely tuned but had tipped in favour of the Applicant. After 47 years, there was no compelling reason for continued classification, and the judge ordered the declassification of the report, reinforcing that the public’s and the Applicant’s right to information was crucial to maintaining trust and the legitimacy of government actions. 

Conclusion

Harris Mohd Salleh is the first reported case to apply the test of legitimacy to assess government discretion, although the judge was at pains to point out that the concept of legitimacy pervades “landmark decisions of the Federal Court on the standing of the basic structure, proportionality and judicial review, among others” and that the ultimate aim of those decisions was to preserve the legitimacy of the legislature and the executive. While the judgment may seem groundbreaking, the judge remained firmly within the boundaries of judicial decision-making. By carefully anchoring the legitimacy test in the principles of public trust and constitutional conformity, the judgment respects established doctrines while also setting a framework that future cases testing government actions may build upon.

Ultimately, the court’s decision in Harris Mohd Salleh invites a more transparent and accountable standard of governance in Malaysia, highlighting that legality alone may not be sufficient - legitimacy, as seen through the eyes of the public, is equally essential to uphold the rule of law.