Progress has always been humanity’s ambition. It beckons with promises of ease, efficiency, and a better life. Yet, history bears witness to a darker truth: progress, untethered from principle, becomes a shadow that eclipses justice and human dignity. It is in this shadow that Ahmad’s fight is waged—a struggle not against technology itself but against the unchecked forces that wield it as a tool of domination.
In the courtroom of the High Court of Malaya, Ahmad’s voice cut through the illusion of progress as an unmitigated good. His arguments, layered and deliberate, revealed the hidden costs of the Fourth Industrial Revolution, the Great Reset, and the technocratic agendas reshaping the world. He painted a picture of a future where humanity, stripped of its autonomy, was reduced to mere data points in an algorithmic machine.
A Mirage of Advancement
“Progress,” Ahmad began, “is not inherently virtuous. It is a double-edged sword, capable of elevating humanity or binding it in chains.” His words reflected the disillusionment of a world that had seen advances in science and industry give rise to weapons of mass destruction, environmental degradation, and societies more divided than ever before.
Ahmad recounted how the Fourth Industrial Revolution (4IR) had been heralded as the dawn of a new era. With promises of automation, artificial intelligence, and interconnected systems, it was said to offer solutions to the world’s most pressing challenges. But beneath the surface lay a stark reality: these tools, designed without accountability, had become instruments of control.
He spoke of the Internet of Bodies (IoB), a technology marketed as a means of improving health and enhancing human capabilities. But Ahmad asked the court, “At what cost? When our bodies become nodes in a digital network, do we remain human, or do we become extensions of the system that governs us?”
The Court listened as Ahmad described biometric currencies—economic systems where access to resources was contingent on biological verification. He outlined how such constructs, masked as innovation, created a society of exclusion, where those who resisted compliance were left to the margins.
The Myth of Neutrality
Ahmad’s case shattered the myth of technological neutrality. “Technology,” he argued, “is not born in a vacuum. It is created with intent and wielded with purpose. And when those purposes are defined by profit and power, justice is the inevitable casualty.”
He illustrated this with the rise of digital identification systems, which, though presented as tools for inclusion, often became mechanisms of exclusion. He cited examples of nations where digital IDs were used to deny access to education, healthcare, and even basic freedoms, all under the guise of efficiency.
“Efficiency,” Ahmad said, “is not synonymous with justice. A system that prioritizes speed and convenience at the expense of humanity is not progress—it is regression.”
The Fourth Industrial Revolution, Ahmad contended, was not a revolution for the people but for the consolidation of power. It promised prosperity but delivered disparity, empowering the few at the expense of the many. It was, in Ahmad’s words, “a betrayal of fitrah—the natural law that upholds balance and justice.”
The Great Reset: A New Feudalism
Ahmad’s critique extended to the Great Reset, a vision promoted as the pathway to a sustainable and equitable future. Yet, Ahmad exposed it as a facade—a rebranding of old hierarchies under the guise of stakeholder capitalism.
“Stakeholder capitalism,” Ahmad argued, “is not capitalism at all. It is a system where power is centralized in global entities, where individuals are reduced to stakeholders without true ownership or agency.”
He drew parallels to feudal systems of the past, where lords owned the land and serfs worked it without rights or representation. “The Great Reset,” Ahmad declared, “is a new feudalism, where the lords are multinational corporations and the serfs are humanity itself.”
In this system, Ahmad explained, private property was redefined, economic participation was conditional, and freedom was reframed as compliance. He highlighted the role of Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs), which, when tied to biometric data, gave governments unprecedented control over individual transactions. It was a world, Ahmad said, “where dissent is silenced not through violence but through exclusion.”
The Courtroom as a Forum for Truth
Ahmad’s arguments were not mere rhetoric; they were an invitation to see the world as it was and not as it was portrayed. He urged the Court to look beyond the marketing of progress and to examine its impact on humanity’s most fundamental rights.
He spoke of the farmer unable to sell his produce without digital approval, the student denied education for resisting biometric compliance, and the elder stripped of autonomy by systems they could neither understand nor escape. These stories, Ahmad emphasized, were not isolated incidents but part of a larger narrative—a narrative where humanity’s essence was being redefined by forces beyond its control.
A Reckoning with Progress
The chapter closed with a challenge—not just to the Court but to society at large. Ahmad’s case was not an indictment of technology itself but of its misuse. “Progress,” he concluded, “must be guided by principle. Without justice, it is no progress at all.”
The gavel struck, signaling the day’s adjournment. But the echoes of Ahmad’s words lingered. They were a reminder that the shadow of progress, though vast, could not extinguish the light of justice. And it was this light that Ahmad sought to protect, for the sake of humanity’s future.
In the coming chapters, the battle would deepen, exploring the philosophical underpinnings of resistance and the practical steps to reclaim fitrah. But for now, the question remained: How can humanity navigate the shadow of progress without losing itself? The journey to answer that question had only just begun.
Similar Blogs
