Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News
Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News |
- Secular or non-secular?–What history tells us
- HSBC rakes in US$130 million bankrolling rainforest destruction and human rights abuses in ...
- Ask Lord Bobo: Of Frogs, Rats, and Penang’s Unconstitutional Anti-Party Hopping Law
- The fart-ology of it all
- Why I am suitable for Pekan
| Secular or non-secular?–What history tells us Posted: 06 Nov 2012 08:40 PM PST To begin with, article 3 (1) of our Federal Constitution provides as follows:- "Islam is the religion of the Federation; but other religions may be practised in peace and harmony in any part of the Federation." Initially, when the Reid Commission was set to draft our Constitution, the Alliance (UMNO, MIC and MCA) presented a 20 page memorandum to the Reid Commission. On Islam, the memo says: "The religion of Malaysia shall be Islam. The observance of this principle shall not impose any disability on non-Muslim nationals professing and practising their own religion, and shall not imply that the State is not a secular State." After 118 meetings, the Reid Commission wrote its report in Rome and published it in February 1957. On the position of Islam, it says: "We have considered the question whether there should be any statement in the Constitution to the effect that Islam should be the State religion. There was universal agreement that if any such provision were inserted it must be made clear that it would not in any way affect the civil rights of non-Muslims — 'the religion of Malaysia shall be Islam. The observance of this principle shall not impose any disability on non-Muslim nationals professing and practising their own religion and shall not imply that the State is not a secular State'. There is nothing in the draft Constitution to affect the continuance of the present position in the States with regard to recognition of Islam or to prevent the recognition of Islam in the Federation by legislation or otherwise in any respect which does not prejudice the civil rights of individual non-Muslims. The majority of us think that it is best to leave the matter on this basis, looking to the fact that Counsel for the Rulers said to us — 'It is Their Highnesses' considered view that it would not be desirable to insert some declaration such as has been suggested that the Muslim Faith or Islamic Faith be the established religion of the Federation. Their Highnesses are not in favour of such declaration being inserted and that is a matter of specific instruction in which I myself have played very little part." Justice Abdul Hamid, a member of the Reid Commission from Pakistan however disagreed. He proposed to include the following article; 'Islam shall be the religion of the State of Malaya, but nothing in this Article shall prevent any citizen professing any religion other than Islam to profess, practice and propagate that religion, nor shall any citizen be under any disability by reason of his being not a Muslim'. A provision like one suggested above is innocuous. Not less than fifteen countries of the world have a provision of this type entrenched in their Constitutions. Among the Christian countries, which have such a provision in their Constitutions, are Ireland (Article 6), Norway (Article 1), Denmark (Article 3), Spain (Article 6), Argentina (Article 2), Bolivia (Article 3), Panama (Article 36) and Paraguay (Article 3). Among the Muslim countries are Afghanistan (Article 1), Iran (Article 1), Iraq (Article 13), Jordan (Article 2), Saudi Arabia (Article 7), and Syria (Article 3). Thailand is an instance in which Buddhism has been enjoined to be the religion of the King who is required by the Constitution to uphold that religion (Constitution of Thailand, Article 7). If in these countries a religion has been declared to be the religion of the State and that declaration has not been found to have caused hardships to anybody, no harm will ensue if such a declaration is included in the Constitution of Malaya. In fact in all the Constitutions of Malayan States a provision of this type already exists. All that is required to be done is to transplant it from the State Constitutions and to embed it in the Federal." In proposing as such, Justice Hamid was actually mirroring the memo by the Alliance. He said, "It has been recommended by the Alliance that the Constitution should contain a provision declaring Islam to be the religion of the State. It was also recommended that it should be made clear in that provision that a declaration to the above effect will not impose any disability on non-Muslim citizens in professing, propagating and practising their religions, and will not prevent the State from being a secular State. As on this matter the recommendation of the Alliance was unanimous their recommendation should be accepted and a provision to the following effect should be inserted in the Constitution either after Article 2 in Part I or at the beginning of Part XIII." In "The Making of the Malayan Constitution" by Joseph Fernando, the author states: "The UMNO leaders contended that provision for an official religion would have an important psychological impact on the Malays. But in deference to the objections of the Rulers and the concerns of non-Muslims, the Alliance agreed that the new article should include two provisos: first, that it would not affect the position of the Rulers as head of religion in their respective States; and second, that the practice and propagation of other religions in the Federation would be assured under the Constitution. The MCA and MIC representatives did not raise any objections to the new article, despite protests by many non-Muslim organizations, as they were given to understand by their UMNO colleagues that it was intended to have symbolic significance rather than practical effect, and that the civil rights of the non-Muslims would not be affected. " Shortly after the London Conference the British Government issued a White Paper in June 1957 containing the Constitutional Proposals for independent Malaya. Paragraph 57 deals with the Religion of the Federation and reads:- "There has been included in the Federal Constitution a declaration that Islam is the religion of the Federation. This will in no way affect the present position of the Federation as a secular State, and every person will have the right to profess and practice his own religion and the right to propagate his religion, though this last right is subject to any restrictions imposed by State law relating to the propagation of any religious doctrine or belief among persons professing the Muslim religion." The Constitutional Bill was then was passed without amendment.
| ||||
| HSBC rakes in US$130 million bankrolling rainforest destruction and human rights abuses in ... Posted: 06 Nov 2012 06:07 PM PST Malaysia's Sarawak region exports more tropical timber than South America and Africa combined and now has just five per cent of its forests left intact following decades of industrial-scale logging and plantation development. The Global Witness report, "In the Future There Will Be No Forests Left", identifies loans and services to seven of the region's largest logging conglomerates that would have generated HSBC an estimated US$130 million in interest and fees. The companies supported by HSBC have devastated Malaysian Borneo's rainforests and carried out various abuses against indigenous communities. Sarawak's logging giants, all past or present HSBC clients, have since expanded their destructive model of business to every major tropical forested region in the world. These companies are currently logging or converting forests to plantations in 18 million hectares of concessions – an area three times the size of Norway. "HSBC has bankrolled some of the world's worst logging companies and in some cases got them off the ground with their first commercial loans. The destruction they have caused simply couldn't have happened without the services and kudos the bank provided," said Tom Picken, Global Witness Forest Campaign leader. By providing services to a sector notorious for corruption and high-level political links, HSBC is at serious risk of violating international anti-money laundering regulations which require it to carry out extra checks on clients linked to senior politicians. Sarawak is headed by Chief Minister Taib, currently the subject of a probe by Malaysia's Federal Anti-Corruption unit. Taib holds complete political control over the region's land allocation and forestry licensing, and is widely believed to use this power for the benefit of his family and associates. Several of HSBC's Sarawak clients are closely connected to Taib's family. Global Witness has obtained strong evidence showing Taib and members of his family are engaged in systemic corruption and money laundering. Global Witness Forest Campaign Leader Tom Picken said, "In light of recent money-laundering scandals, HSBC and its financial regulators urgently need to find out whether the bank is handling illegal transactions from this notoriously corrupt and destructive sector". The report shows how four of HSBC's current clients in Sarawak systematically violated the bank's 2004 forestry policies. These required the bank to drop clients that did not have a credible likelihood of having 70 per cent of their operations certified to the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) or equivalent standard by 2009. None of HSBC's Sarawak forestry clients investigated by Global Witness hold a single FSC certificate. This represents a 100 per cent compliance failure. Furthermore, Global Witness uncovered multiple instances of unsustainable and illegal operations by the companies, including the following:
Picken said "In 2004 HSBC brought in progressive world-wide forest policies designed to avoid precisely these sorts of commercial relationships and make the bank a market leader on sustainability. It has consistently traded on these commitments in public, yet failed to meet them in practice. The bank should hold its hands up, drop these clients immediately and compensate the victims for the mayhem it has helped cause."
| ||||
| Ask Lord Bobo: Of Frogs, Rats, and Penang’s Unconstitutional Anti-Party Hopping Law Posted: 06 Nov 2012 04:44 PM PST Unfortunately, as at the date this article was written, the precise terms of the Bill remain unknown, as the Bill could not be located anywhere on the Penang State Legislative Assembly's website. So much for Penang's much heralded commitment to "Competency, Accountability, Transparency" (saved somewhat only by virtue of proceedings in the State Legislative Assembly being broadcast live on the Internet). Nevertheless, going by news reports the Bill apparently:
Simply put, as far as Penang is concerned no elected representative can party hop or cross the floor, and if they did so, they must vacate their seat. Proponents of the Bill argue that there is a dire need for such anti-party hopping legislation. Governments, they say, should only be formed as a consequence of voters expressing their will at the ballot box. So when Malaysia has Sabah (1994) and Perak (2009) as part of the tapestry forming the nation's political past, an anti-party hopping legislation is vital. Even so, let's abandon subjectivity and embrace something more objective, that orphan child which is hailed as sacrosanct one day, and ignored the following day – the Federal Constitution. The right to party hop or to cross the floor is part of the freedom to freely associate with whosever one wills. This right is a fundamental liberty guaranteed under Article 10(1)(c) of the Federal Constitution. Of course, like most rights under the Federal Constitution, it is subject to exceptions. Legislations can be enacted to limit or regulate the right to freely associate with whosoever one wills. Does this therefore mean that the Bill is constitutionally valid? The short answer to that is no. A very clear no. The Bill is unconstitutional, as legislations limiting or regulating the right in question cannot be passed by State Legislative Assemblies. Only Parliament can enacts such laws. This much is evident from Article 10(2)(c) of the Federal Constitution and confirmed by the Supreme Court decision in 1992 in Dewan Undangan Negeri Kelantan & Anor v. Nordin Salleh & Anor.
| ||||
| Posted: 06 Nov 2012 04:22 PM PST Scene 1: A politician farted loudly while making a pre-election campaign speech. Unabashed, he smiled and even giggled, and the news media subsequently reported his audience roared with laughter. He was said to have quipped: "I had a hearty breakfast, a blessing of Allah swt who allowed me to be born in this wonderful country of plenty. But I must tell my dearest wife to cut down on the beans." Again, the news reported the reaction of the crowd as favourable, with the applause deafening.  Scene 2: A politician farted loudly while making a pre-election campaign speech. Embarrassed, he smiled and even giggled, and the news media subsequently reported his audience roared with disgust. He was said to have quipped: "I had a hearty breakfast, a blessing of Allah swt who allowed me to have such a wonderful wife who prepared the great meal for me, but I must tell my dearest one to cut down on the beans." Again, the news reported the reaction of the crowd was of total disgust, with the booing deafening.  Yes, of course they were from opposite side of the fence, and the news media reporting on the two incidents was known to be highly partisan. Irrespective of the actual reaction of each crowd, the one-sided and highly biased reporting was already determined, to boost the picture of the former and demonize the latter. It's politics at its dirtiest.  Last year, DAP ADUN M Manoharan called for a redesign of the Malaysian flag because it looks too much like the flag of the USA. In fact, Manoharan was very careful in his proposal not to undo the crucial core of our flag, stating "The jalur (stripes) need to be changed. The red and white is causing a lot of confusion. I think the star, crescent and royal yellow should be maintained." Despite his harmless (in fact constructive) proposal, low brow Muhyiddin Yassin jumped on him and condemned the ADUN for showing disrespect to (what Muhyiddin termed as) our 'national heritage'.  He indicated that Manoharan's proposal was indicative of a likelihood that Pakatan would even amend the Constitution, of course without revealing to his target audience that the UMNO-led government had already amended the Constitution more than 200 times, a Boleh-Land world record yet to be surpassed. And what was Muhyiddin's bull about 'national heritage' when any commonsense understanding would tell us that a national flag, while a symbol of national identity, pride and belonging, is not exempt from changes, as per our national anthem having had its tempo changed. Canada has made one of the most improved changes to national flags. The striking red maple leaf on its flag shows indisputably its Canadian identity – see below and understand how the maple leaf design stands out remarkably and uniquely as Canadian, making the revised Canadian flag renowned as one of the best flag designs – a design which came about through deliberate change.  And like Canada, it's only a matter of time before Australia and New Zealand will change theirs as well.
Spain on the other hand has switched from and back to its original royal flag, abandoning its Republican motif. Estonia is now preparing to change its flag, which I suspect is a political move to be more identified (politically, economically, socially?) with its neighbouring Scandinavian countries.   But it was Malaysian politics at its dirtiest when a DPM saw fit to exploit an innocuous and quite constructive proposal from a citizen, all for grubby political gain. But then that's Muhyiddin who excels in Machiavellian triviality - nonetheless like all political pygmies, he deserved "thunderous applause" for his nonsensical brand of politicking, wakakaka.  But it should have been a salutary lesson for Manoharan and other Pakatan pollies to be more careful with what they say publicly (and for Penang DCM Mansor Othman, even privately, wakakaka) in that a desperate BN will stoop down into the gutters to scrounge for any material to add sh*t to it before hurling the lot at Pakatan. And that's because they don't have the teflon-coated backsides of UMNO (or pro UMNO) people like Ibrahim Ali, Utusan Malaysia and pro UMNO bloggers, ... ... or for that matter, those UMNO MPs who committed lèse majesté with teflon-coated impunity on 10 December 1992 in describing the rulers as known robbers, adulterers, drunkards and kaki pukul.  Compare that vile vicious venomous comment of gi-normous lèse majesté implications with the sound advice that poor Nizar Jamaluddin gave to HRH Johor, namely, that half a million ringgit (regardless of who owns it) would be better spent on the people's welfare than on a car licence plate, which on top of everything, has nothing to show a relationship with Johor State or even royalty, or ...  What's good for the goose is, unfortunately in Malaysia, certainly not for the gander. So today we see Nurul Izzah caught offside by her very innocent naive statement about freedom to follow a religion, undoubtedly addressed more to non-Muslims more than anyone. But regardless of the exact words she had said or her intended target audience, it's a wonderful 'heaven-sent-come' opportunity for UMNO to excoriate her, and accuse her of apostasy. And like a Bulldog holding on to a piece of bone in its mouth, UMNO won't let go (at least for a while). I'm afraid she's on her own because daddy has been remarkably silent on her naive slip-up. But she'll survive.
| ||||
| Posted: 06 Nov 2012 10:12 AM PST When a nice journalist from The Star asked me why I had decided to resign as KITA chief, I said that I wanted to focus on the General Election and leave the running of the party to all my friends. My health dictates that I do not suffer too much stress. I also said that in case Dato' Seri Abdul Hadi Awang declined to contest against Prime Minister Dato' Sri Najib Tun Razak in Pekan, then I would gladly do so. This is not a desperate act to look for a seat to contest as some have claimed. It is also not true that I have applied to PKR or any Opposition party to be the Pekan candidate. I have said it before and I will say it again: I will not apply to any political party to be a candidate. I made this statement to tell the Malaysian public that I want to help the Opposition in any way I can. My party is too small and new to give me a credible platform. Hadi will face a tough time in Pekan, and I wonder why he should be put there at such risk. He is PAS President and for the sake of its own long-term viability, PAS cannot afford to have a President who loses in an election. That sort of risk, however, can be undertaken by someone who is not interested to be a Minister or national leader, and who is willing to contest just to move the country forward on the right footing. That person must also have the capacity to debate the Prime Minister on issues that are important to the country. I am interested to take on the Prime Minister because he represents all that is wrong with Malaysia today. Read more at: http://zaiduntukrakyat.com/index.php?mact=News,cntnt01,detail,0&cntnt01articleid=354&cntnt01origid=58&cntnt01returnid=80
|
| 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