Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News
Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News |
- Umno, state your stand on hudud
- Stop political corruption: Stop party-hopping
- Sabah can’t be compared to Alaska and Hawaii
- BN confirms M’sia as a pariah state to the world
- Secular or Islamic State? Dr Farouk and the Peacocks
- JAIS arrest of book distributor an abuse of power and disregards legal rights
- Statistics Manipulation Allegations
- Statement by Sin Chew Daily
| Umno, state your stand on hudud Posted: 02 Sep 2012 01:41 PM PDT
Can Soi Lek give us an honest answer as to why the Trengganu state government under the Barisan Nasional has not repealed the Islamic Criminal Enactment, passed by PAS in 2002, when it ruled Trengganu state! Umno has had eight years (since it recaptured Terengganu in 2004) to prove its sincerity but has done nothing! P Ramakrishnan When Kelantan Umno chief Mustapa Mohamad demanded "why they (PAS) are unable to implement hudud laws in Kelantan", Malaysians would like to know what exactly Umno's stand on the hudud issue is. Is Umno for the implementation of the hudud laws in Malaysia? We know that Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak had stated that hudud is not suitable for a multi-ethnic society like Malaysia. But that is not enough. He must publicly, honestly and frankly declare: "Umno will not implement hudud laws in Malaysia." Only then would it be very clear what Umno's stand is. Otherwise, it would only be dithering without being specific. If Umno has no intention of implementing hudud laws in Malaysia, why is it then goading Pas to implement hudud. Why is it provoking PAS on this issue? Mustapa stated that "although the laws had been passed by the Kelantan state assembly in 1993, they were still in the 'implantation' stages and were not enforced". Surely he must know some facts and a little bit of Malaysian history. The Kelantan assembly passed the hudud laws in response to Mahathir's challenge to the PAS government to implement the hudud laws. He even promised to amend the Federal Constitution to enable the PAS government to implement the hudud laws. But when the PAS government went ahead and passed these laws, Mahathir did not honourably keep his word. He went back on his promise: he backtracked; he did not have the courage or the integrity to be faithful to his pledge. But that was history. But what is the reality today? PAS, to its credit, had moved away from the Islamic state and the hudud laws by adopting an inclusive philosophy which reaches out to every Malaysian. They have adopted, as a matter of policy, what is termed as a 'benevolent state', which addresses the needs of the poor, the marginalised, the voiceless and the helpless. For simplicity – but erroneously – it is commonly termed as a 'welfare state'. This shift is commendable. Instead of lauding this development in PAS, Umno is attempting to push PAS into the hudud territory. What is your game, Umno? Shame on you that you cannot, unlike PAS, change for the better! In the meantime, the MCA president Chua Soi Lek and his cohorts should stop baying like a pack of wolves on the hudud issue when they are unable to persuade Umno to state positively that hudud will not be implemented in Malaysia. Do that first, then you can take everybody else to task on the hudud issue. He realistically claims that if "PAS were to amend the Federal Constitution to suit its religious teachings, then all Muslim members of parliament would have to support it. "He said the situation would be similar to when PAS amended the state Constitution in Trengganu – all Umno assemblymen there had to support it." His memory of history is much better than that of Mustapa's! The simple question actually is whether Umno will support or oppose the implementation of hudud laws. As long as Umno remains ambivalent on the hudud issue, MCA should not be aiming its guns at others who have stated their position very clearly. Can Soi Lek give us an honest answer as to why the Trengganu state government under the Barisan Nasional has not repealed the Islamic Criminal Enactment, passed by PAS in 2002, when it ruled Trengganu state! Umno has had eight years (since it recaptured Terengganu in 2004) to prove its sincerity but has done nothing! This is a test case for Soi Lek. Get the BN to repeal this enactment in Terengganu. If he can display the moral courage so sorely needed and demand without any hesitation that Umno should immediately repeal this enactment, only then has he the right to talk about the dangers of hudud laws. Ralph Waldo Emerson would say, "Go put your creed into your deed."
|
| Stop political corruption: Stop party-hopping Posted: 02 Sep 2012 08:58 AM PDT
What must not be tolerated is the betrayal of voters who had cast their votes in favour of a candidate who then decides to party-hop after winning, says P Ramakrishnan in supporting anti-party-hopping legislation. P Ramakrishnan It is difficult to justify why anyone would want to oppose an anti-party-hopping legislation that holds out hope for morality in politics. Any sane person should welcome this move so that elected representatives who betray their electors cannot go scot-free. These renegades cannot ignore the mandate of the voters who elected them.The proposed legislation by the Penang State government does not prevent anyone from leaving their current party. They are free to go and join any party and associate themselves with whatever party they choose to keep company. There is no law to prevent them from jumping ship! All that an anti-party-hopping legislation seeks to do is to force a by-election so that the voters who had been betrayed could be given the opportunity to decide once again whether they still want renegades or defectors to continue as their elected representatives. Those who initially elected the renegades must have the right to decide whether they still want them as their elected representative. What must not be tolerated is the betrayal of the voters who had cast their votes in favour of a candidate who then decides to party-hop after winning. The voters' electoral decisions cannot be sidelined and totally ignored as if they were of no consequence. Besides, anti-party-hopping legislation also seeks to curb political corruption. Undoubtedly, there is always an element of corruption involved, some attractive inducement held out to corrupt politicians to switch sides. Unscrupulous politicians offer themselves for sale without a tinge of conscience. Otherwise there would be no reason to switch parties. We witnessed in horror how these unscrupulous politicians unconscionably frustrated the will of the voters in Perak by resigning from their respective parties to enable an ignoble takeover of a people's government by the Barisan Nasional. This shameful conduct was given so much prominence and publicity on TV with the then Deputy Prime Minister, who is believed to have orchestrated this despicable act, welcoming their decision as if these scoundrels have performed a fantastic feat! It was this morally contemptible act that toppled a legitimate government that was duly elected by the will of the people. When demeaning conduct is glorified with such pompous fanfare then something must be seriously wrong because it means that we are totally incapable of differentiating what is right and wrong! And when the Deputy Prime Minister, the second topmost leader of the country, was associated with this diabolical conduct what hope is there for integrity and moral conduct. When this despicable behaviour is upheld by the justice system, it is totally appalling and absolutely disgusting! Our courts have inexplicably defended the right of renegade representatives – at the expense of thousands of voters – on the premise of upholding the renegades' right of association. This is ridiculous. This so-called right of association was never in jeopardy. The right to associate was never the issue. That freedom was never denied. The renegades were free to defect. The courts strangely and jealously, in a convoluted manner, have ruled that if renegade representatives were to give up their elected positions, it would constitute an infringement of their right. The courts seem so concerned with the turncoats' right while completely ignoring the rights of thousands of voters whose electoral decision was betrayed and nullified by the unprincipled behaviour of these renegade representatives. Common sense would dictate that the courts should have decided in favour of the voters to uphold the democratic process – but the courts instead shamefully and willfully chose to sacrifice the rights of thousands of voters. It was so obvious that the freedom of association was not interfered with. Renegades would not lose their membership in their new-found parties if they were to resign from their elected positions. They say justice is blind in that it does not take into consideration the status of individuals or their position in society but in these cases, the judgments were blind justice in that they failed to see reason and overlooked what was very obvious. P Ramakrishnan, the immediate past president of Aliran, now serves on the Aliran executive committee.
|
| Sabah can’t be compared to Alaska and Hawaii Posted: 01 Sep 2012 03:19 PM PDT
Daniel John Jambun Two BN leaders, namely Datuk Yahya Hussein and Datuk Donald Mojuntin, thought they had a good point when they said that we shouldn't be too fussy about the date of our National Day, that celebrating it on August 31st shouldn't be made an issue because it is not that important. Yahya had said that a good example is Alaska and Hawaii who joined the United States but never made a fuss about their national day or independence day. But several facts about history beg repeating to get a clear perspective of Yahya's argument. First, Sabah was not annexed into the Malaysian Federation like Hawaii was. Sabah, after becoming an independent nation for two weeks, teamed up with Singapore, Sarawak and Malaya to form a federation called Malaysia – as equal partners – on September 16, 1963. When Sabah formed Malaysia with the other partners, there was no Malaysia yet, unlike the case with Alaska which was acquired by the USA in 1867, 91 years after the independence of the 13 United States of America from Great Britain in 1776. Hawaii was annexed into the USA in 1898, 122 years after 1774. For the education of Yahya and Mojuntin, Alaska did not even 'join' the United States. It was bought by the USA from the Russian Empire for USD7.2 million. Russia, fearing a war with Britain that would allow the British to seize Alaska, wanted to proceed with the sale. Being a commodity which was the object of sales and purchase, Alaska cannot in any sense claim to have a proper national day, or least of all, an independence day of its own, because in reality it didn't get any sort of independence when it joined the US. In the case of Hawaii, the state was forcibly robbed from the hands of the powerless Hawaiian monarchy. Teri Sforza werites that in Hawaii's case "It's a story of money, power and betrayal. Hawaii was a proud and independent nation when Capt. James Cook [came] in 1778. Hawaiians had run their own affairs for some 2,000 years. The kingdom signed trade and peace treaties with the United States, England and other foreign nations, each recognizing Hawaii's independence. Flocks of American missionaries began arriving from Boston in 1820 and were welcomed warmly; many decided to stay on the islands rather than return to the frigid Northeast. Their new roots in paradise went deep: The missionaries became powerful sugar planters and politicians, often serving as advisers to the king. The monarchy was weakened. The planters' powers were strengthened. The United States was the biggest market for Hawaii's sugar. The transplanted planters longed for Hawaii to become part of the United States so they wouldn't have to worry about tariffs. The U.S. minister to Hawaii, John L. Stevens, was anxious to annex the islands as well. Sensing this, Queen Liliuokalani was on the verge of imposing a new Constitution shifting power back to the monarchy - but she never got the chance. On Jan. 16, 1893, U.S. Marines landed in Honolulu armed with Howitzer cannons and carbines. A group of 18 men - mostly American sugar farmers - staged a coup, proclaiming themselves the 'provisional government' of Hawaii. Stevens gave immediate recognition to them as Hawaii's true government. Imprisoned in Iolani Palace, Queen Liliuokalani issued a statement: 'I yield to the superior force of the United States of America, whose minister, his excellency John L. Stevens, has caused United States troops to be landed at Honolulu. ... Now, to avoid any collision of armed forces and perhaps the loss of life, I do, under this protest, and impelled by said force, yield my authority until such time as the government of the United States shall undo the action of its representative and reinstate me.'" The monarchy's power was never reinstated until today. So, Datuk Yahya, note that Hawaii did not gain independence by 'joining' America because it was annexed (forced to join) and thus LOST its independence. So how on earth can anyone compare Sabah's history of together forming Malaysia and Alaska being bought and Hawaii being forced to join a nation? I hope with this knowledge, the BN leaders can stop trying to fool Sabahans by using Alaska and Hawaii to justify the neglect of Sabah's demand for the recognition of September 16 as our common Malaysia Day.
Queen Liliuokalani
The original cheque used to buy over Alaska
|
| BN confirms M’sia as a pariah state to the world Posted: 01 Sep 2012 11:24 AM PDT
Instead of investigating a national laureate for reciting a poem on the eve of Independence Day, the time and manpower can be put to better use to help reduce crime. But, to Najib and Muhyiddin, that is not so. Anyone or party that do not agree with BN, it is a crime. Lim Victor
AS MALAYSIANS' fear of deteriorating crime rate grows day by day, the government of the day, that is Barisan Nasional (BN), continues with its nonchalant ways. Instead of showing deep concern and care for public safety, the BN continues to deploy the police force personnel to clamp down on political rivals and dissent. On the eve of Merdeka Day (Independence Day) on Thursday (Aug 30, 2012), when all Malaysians proudly declared their pride and loyalty to the country, the BN government misuses and abuses the power of the police to clamp down on public dissent, so much for independence and freedom of speech. The BN government does not realise that its mindless use of the police to clampdown on national laureate A. Samad Said for reciting a poem on Merdeka eve tantamount to ridiculing Malaysia as a pariah state globally. This is a quote from an internet news portal: "PDRM (Royal Malaysian Police), it's not a crime to disagree with BN. I think PDRM has to get their brains checked." I like the quote but I do not think it is accurate. The police don't need to get its brains checked. It is the BN government, led by the fake 1Malaysia Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak and his deputy, Muhyiddin 'Malay First Malaysian Second' Yassin, who need the brain scans. The police, like all other government enforcement agencies, and including the judiciary, are under the influence and control of BN-Umno (United Malays National Organisation) which has ruled Malaysia for 55 years. Instead of investigating a national laureate for reciting a poem on the eve of Independence Day, the time and manpower can be put to better use to help reduce crime. But, to Najib and Muhyiddin, that is not so. Anyone or party that do not agree with BN, it is a crime. However, there is still hope for Malaysians to pull themselves out of the rot. Despite an eleventh hour police declaration that the Janji Demokrasi (Democracy Promise) gathering on the eve of Merdeka is illegal, some 10,000 Malaysians turned up in yellow tee-shirts to defy and display their displeasure, swamping Merdeka Square (Independence Square). This time around, the police did not use force – chemical-laced water cannons and tear-gas canisters – on the Merdeka Day celebrants. At least there is still that pea bit of brains left in the police and the government not to blatantly expose its shameless abuse of power on the rakyat (people). To me, what the world witnessed, and without doubt, is the maturity of Malaysians of all races today – that they can gather peacefully in public for a cause if there is no violence or agitation from the BN-led police. As long as Malaysians - especially the Malays, Chinese and Indians – continue to be united and not swayed by the seditious racial and religious slurs spewed by the evil Umno-BN and its cohorts, we have hope to pull the nation out of the doldrums for a new dawn. |
| Secular or Islamic State? Dr Farouk and the Peacocks Posted: 30 Aug 2012 11:37 AM PDT
What I find egregious about the attack on Dr Farouk by Imran Mustafa and Wan Mohd Aimran Wan Mohd Kamil in The Bankruptcy of the Islamic vs Secular State Debate is their insinuation that they are "learned scholars and men and women of spiritual discernment and of pure and upright character; scholars and saints," while Dr Farouk is ignorant, superficial, devilish, pretentious, brazen, blind, debilitated, obeisant, simplistic, unreasonable, unfair, futile, inflexible, hypocritical, schizophrenic (I may have missed a few). Rama Ramanathan I do not know Dr Ahmad Farouk Musa, whom I believe is a medical doctor who lives in Kuala Lumpur. I do know that he is a Muslim who is being belittled and mocked by some others who also speak for Islam in Malaysia. I say this because soon after his 2,000 word piece Arguing for a Secular State appeared, a 5,000 word piece was loosed upon him by 2 writers from Himpunan Keilmuan Muslim. What I find egregious about the attack on Dr Farouk by Imran Mustafa and Wan Mohd Aimran Wan Mohd Kamil in The Bankruptcy of the Islamic vs Secular State Debate is their insinuation that they are "learned scholars and men and women of spiritual discernment and of pure and upright character; scholars and saints," while Dr Farouk is ignorant, superficial, devilish, pretentious, brazen, blind, debilitated, obeisant, simplistic, unreasonable, unfair, futile, inflexible, hypocritical, schizophrenic (I may have missed a few). When respondents resort to name calling, we know the author of the original paper has either exposed a glaring weakness, or has proposed something which could displace the entrenched. Thus my interest in what Dr Farouk has to say. His is a wide ranging article. In the interest of brevity, I'll restrict myself to 6 themes. Hudud. Dr Farouk feels compelled to write about the Islamic/Secular state at this time because the Islamic state, especially in it's manifestation as Hudud, is often raised in the build-up to General Elections. I note that Hudud is the rod MCA repeatedly uses to beat the DAP for the latter's willingness to work together with PAS, the Islamic party in Malaysia. Dr Farouk indicates that PAS is divided over whether the Hudud penal code (which to me means cane those who consume alcohol, cut off the hands of those who steal and stone women who commit adultery) should be implemented. He labels those who support such penalties "medievalists," and labels those who do not support such penalties "Erdoganists." He highlights an alternative view of Hudud which space does not permit me to discuss here.
Dhimmi. Dr Farouk says many Islamists think an Islamic State is comprised of three groups of people: Muslims, Dhimmis and Harbis. Dhimmis are those who agree to submit to Muslims by paying a special tax called jizyah which buys them the protection of the state; Harbis are people who are hostile to Islam. He even points out that well known, centuries-old Islamic laws prohibit Dhimmis from riding animals within city limits and require Dhimmis to wear distinctive clothing and even bells so that it will be clear to all that they are Dhimmis. Tolerance. Dr Farouk's purpose in pointing out those features is to state the obvious: those "medieval" laws are now common knowledge for most Malaysians. I have known about those laws for many years – thanks to the extensive coverage of Islam after 9/11. Dr Farouk is challenging Malaysian Muslim scholars and leaders to recognize that there is a diversity of opinion amongst Muslims about these matters. He's pointing out that large numbers of Malaysian Muslims are also eager to recognize the rights and aspirations of non-Muslims, who are equally citizens of Malaysia. He's pleading for tolerance. Diversity. Dr Farouk brings up the very practical question of "who interprets"? I think immediately of the practice of various difference forms of government in "Islamic" countries – for instance in Indonesia, Jordan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and the various expressions of Islam, e.g. Ahmadiyyas, Ismailis, Shiites, Sunnis, Wahhabis, etc. He points out that there is no one person whom Muslims can claim is the final authority, not even the Grand Syeikh of al Azhar and the Saudi Mufti. Further, he points out the difficulty of arguing against those who say "it's mandated by the divine will of God." I recall that this is why churches often caution Christians not to say "God says." Citizenship. Dr Farouk explicitly mentions citizenship. His critique of "medievalism" is not that it's old (which his attackers obtusely say is what he is claiming). His critique of medievalism is that it doesn't have room for present day realities – which include the constitution of Malaysia, the understanding of citizenship and universal human rights. It's easier to attack Dr Farouk for his purported ignorance and deprecation of history, than to face his challenge and answer how the proposed "Islamic state" will work with modern realities. Piety. One of the most compelling of Dr Farouk's passages concerns true piety. He says: "Any regime that imposes piety because of the belief that it is part of the doctrine "commanding the good and preventing the wrong" like Saudi Arabia for instance, is basically creating a community of hypocrites [rather] than genuine piety. Genuine piety only arises through personal choice. And that choice only becomes possible when there is freedom. In other words freedom to sin is a necessary medium to be sincerely pious." That made me think immediately of the hypocrisy in the current regime in Malaysia after 55 years, so eloquently expressed by Tengku Razaleigh: "[Tengku Abdul Rahman] called a press conference and had a beer with his stewards when his horse won at the Melbourne Cup. He had nothing to hide because his great integrity in service was clear to all. Now we have religious and moral hypocrites who cheat, lie and steal in office but never have a drink, who propagate an ideologically shackled education system for all Malaysians while they send their own kids to elite academies in the West." Imran and Aimran's bitter attack caused me to study Dr Farouk's paper carefully. They flaunt their ability to quote stellar Muslims from the history of Islam; they think they show they're "cool" by making reference to the RSA; they choose to ignore the history of Malaya and Malaysia and current realities. I am repelled by their response. I am attracted to Dr Farouk's thought. I respect Dr Farouk for thinking deeply about 20th century realities in our ethnically fractured Malaysia, for taking seriously his neighbours and digging deep into his heritage to unearth and courageously promote such views. You've probably heard the saying "as proud as a peacock," and you may have seen peacocks displaying their feathers, preening, showing off. Do you know that peacocks are worthless and that they can barely fly? They can fly about six metres, but they can't land. They can only crash.
|
| JAIS arrest of book distributor an abuse of power and disregards legal rights Posted: 28 Aug 2012 11:26 PM PDT  Faisal who was today summoned for questioning, on advice by his lawyer Afiq M. Noor of Lawyers for Liberty had informed JAIS that he was exercising his right to silence as provided for under the law. In response JAIS informed Faisal that he was under arrest under section 215 of Enakmen Tatacara Jenayah Syariah (Negeri Selangor) 2003 for failing to answer the questions of religious officers. Jabatan Agama Islam Selangor (JAIS) today arrested Faisal Mustaffa, Managing Director of independent book distributor Merpati Jingga in connection with Irshad Manji's Bahasa Melayu translation of Allah, Liberty & Love - Allah, Kebebasan dan Cinta. Faisal who was today summoned for questioning, on advice by his lawyer Afiq M. Noor of Lawyers for Liberty had informed JAIS that he was exercising his right to silence as provided for under the law. In response JAIS informed Faisal that he was under arrest under section 215 of Enakmen Tatacara Jenayah Syariah (Negeri Selangor) 2003 for failing to answer the questions of religious officers. If convicted, he can be fined up to RM2,000 or one year imprisonment or both. His lawyer who was accompanying Faisal was also ejected from the interview for advising his client. Faisal was however released on the same day after bail was obtained. The arrest makes a mockery and a serious contravention of Section 61 of the same enactment which prohibits any religious officers from making any threat, inducement or promise in order to obtain a statement. This arrest followed JAIS' raid on Merpati Jingga office on 12 June 2012 where they confiscated 28 copies of books found in the premises including Allah, Kebebasan dan Cinta. Lawyers for Liberty views with serious concern JAIS' harassment, abuse of power and complete disregard for the legal rights of an accused person which amounted to a serious assault on the freedom of speech and the legal safeguards as guaranteed by the Constitution and the law. |
| Statistics Manipulation Allegations Posted: 28 Aug 2012 11:20 PM PDT  Based on statistics provided by PDRM, "index crime" has dropped from 209,572 in 2007 to 157,891 in 2011, or 24.7% over the period. However, "non-index crime" has on the contrary, increased from 42,752 to 72,106 or a massive 68.7% over the same period. The clarification over crime statistics by the Royal Malaysian Police (PDRM) does not at all exonerate the government but instead clearly indicates data manipulation by the authorities. After nearly a week of silence, the Royal Malaysian Police (PDRM) finally provided a lengthy reply to the allegations made in an anonymous letter that the authorities have manipulated crime statistics in Malaysia to give a brighter picture. According to the letter, crime cases were being methodically shifted into "non-index" offences that were not registered as part of official statistics presented by efficiency unit PEMANDU. Index crime is defined as crime which is reported with sufficient regularity and with sufficient significance to be meaningful as an index to the crime situation". "Non-index crime", on the other hand, is considered as cases minor in nature and does not occur with such rampancy to warrant its inclusion into the crime statistics or as a benchmark to determine the crime situation. For example, robbery cases, Section 392 (Robbery) and Section 397 (Gang Robbery), under the Penal Code are classified as index crime. This offence will be re-classified as non-index under Section 382 (Theft with Preparation to Cause Hurt or Death) of the Penal Code. Since, Section 382 of the Penal Code is a non-index crime, therefore will not be reflected in the crime statistics. PDRM has defended itself from the above key accusation by claiming that even after taking into account non-index crime, "overall crime (Index + Non-Index) has in fact reduced in 2010, 2011 and 2012 (year-to-date)". PDRM claimed that the total index and non-index crime has dropped 7%, 9% and 5.3% respectively in 2010, 2011 and 2012. Hence PDRM concluded that the allegation is erroneous. On the contrary, this simplistic and misleading reply from PDRM has in fact exposed the likelihood that crime data manipulation had indeed taken place extensively. The Government had in fact boasted its achievement of 15.4%, 11.1% and 10.1% reduction in the crime index over 2010, 2011 and 2012 respectively as its remarkable achievement under the Crime National Key Result Area (NKRA). The fact that after non-index crime is taken into account, the crime-fighting performance dropped significantly provides strong evidence of manipulation. Based on statistics provided by PDRM, "index crime" has dropped from 209,572 in 2007 to 157,891 in 2011, or 24.7% over the period. However, "non-index crime" has on the contrary, increased from 42,752 to 72,106 or a massive 68.7% over the same period. What is even more glaring is the fact that "non-index crime" is increasing annually as a proportion of total crime since 2007 based on PDRM data. It has increased from 16.9% of total crime in 2007 to 21.9% (2008) to 22.8% (2009) to 29.8% (2010) to a record of 31.4% in 2011. The clear-cut disjoint between the significant drop in "index crime" versus the drastic increase in "non-index crime" points strongly towards data manipulation, and validates the accusation by the anonymous letter writer that the PDRM is systematically re-classifying "index crime" to "non-index crime" cases. If there is indeed no manipulation of data as claimed by PDRM, how else can they explain the shockingly divergent trends between index and non-index crime? Under normal circumstances, if the crime situation in the country has improved as much as boasted by the authorities, then both index and non-index criminal cases should show a declining trend. While the total index and non-index crime cases based on PDRM data has indeed dropped over the past 2-3 years, it appears that the data has been systematically manipulated to present an inflated over-achievement under the Najib administration. The Government Transformation Programme (GTP) Annual Report 2011 has for example, boasted that street crimes have been reduced by a "phenomenal" 39.7%. If the manipulation of crime data is indeed true, the there is no assurance that no other steps have been taken by PDRM or the authorities to use other measures to further reduce the crime index data in order to achieve the desired outcome under Najib's NKRA programme. There is hence a complete absence of credibility in the data presented by the Government and it explains clearly why all the chest-thumping by the authorities over its crime-fighting achievements are not translated into greater sense of security by the ordinary man-on-the-street. |
| Posted: 28 Aug 2012 09:37 PM PDT
The reporter sought to clarify from Mat Sabu, "Bolehkah kami kata sebegini, PAS memang berhasrat membuat amendment konstitusi melalui Parlimen untuk melaksanakan semua undang-undang, termasuk undang-undang Hudud?" Mat Sabu replied, "Boleh." Sin Chew Daily Sin Chew Daily published on its August 28 edition a news article titled "PAS to implement Hudud Law if it wins the election," quoting PAS deputy president Mohamad Sabu. On the following day, Mat Sabu told the online media that Sin Chew Daily had published a news report which was factually incorrect. He also pointed out in the party's mouthpiece Harakah that Sin Chew Daily had misinterpreted him. Some online media had accused Sin Chew Daily of intentionally marring the image of Pakatan Rakyat through the manipulation of this issue. As a matter of fact, our reporter conducted an interview with Mat Sabu pursuant to a statement issued by PAS president Datuk Seri Hadi Awang after the party's political and election bureau meeting on August 25, stating that the party had the intention of implementing the Hudud Law through democratic process, as reported on Harakah. Since the issue is a major concern of the Chinese community, our reporter followed up the issue to fulfill his journalistic obligations. The reporter sought to clarify from Mat Sabu, "Bolehkah kami kata sebegini, PAS memang berhasrat membuat amendment konstitusi melalui Parlimen untuk melaksanakan semua undang-undang, termasuk undang-undang Hudud?" Mat Sabu replied, "Boleh." Mat Sabu also said his party had yet to discuss tabling the motion in the Parliament, and would only take the next course of action after Pakatan had won the next general election. The above had become the basis of our article. Immediately after Mat Sabu made the accusation through other media that Sin Chew Daily had misinterpreted him, the paper had been trying to contact him through phone and SMS in hope of obtaining clarification from him but to no avail. Prior and after this incident, Sin Chew Daily also reported the views of other PAS leaders such as the party's spiritual leader Nik Aziz, secretary-general Mustafa Ali, information chief Tuan Ibrahim Tuan Man and PAS Supporters Congress president Hu Pang Chaw. Their views are consistent with what had been reported in our news article. Hu Pang Chaw, a member of PAS' political bureau, confirmed that the bureau had indeed made a decision to try to implement the Hudud Law. On August 28, Sin Chew Daily also published the full statement issued by PAS president Datuk Seri Hadi Awang on the Harakah webiste about the implementation of the Hudud Law. The article included many advantages and positive aspects of the Islamic faith. In addition, we also interviewed several leaders from other Pakatan parties such as DAP and Keadilan Rakyat, and published their feedback on the issue. We strongly believe that all our news reports on this matter have been written in compliance with the principles of comprehensive, objective and factual news reporting as required by the journalism ethic.
|
| You are subscribed to email updates from Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
| Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610 | |
0 ulasan:
Catat Ulasan