| Last of Three Parts: Opportunities for Sultans as Head of Islam Posted: 09 Sep 2012 09:57 AM PDT 
The sultans have shirked their responsibilities because one, they are ill equipped to play this important role as head of the faith. They have severely limited knowledge of Islam and worse, they lack the curiosity to learn. They are Islamically-challenged in all spheres. M. Bakri Musa [In the first part of this essay I explored the myth to the sultans' claim of their special powers based on daulat (divine dispensation); in the second, I examined the dynamics that led them to claim that status today. In this third and last essay, I reviewed Zaid's novel views of how the sultans could indeed claim their "special powers" by virtue of the fact of their being head of Islam.] The constitution explicitly states the secular role of sultans. There are no penumbras or derived powers. In practice however, as Zaid noted with everything pertaining to the law, if you have money you could always hire a smarter lawyer who would argue otherwise. Indeed that is what the sultans are doing as they now can afford expensive legal counsel; hence their claim of "something extra" based on daulat. Legal theories do not arise out of nowhere. It is the current weak political leadership of Najib (and Abdullah Badawi before him) that emboldens the sultans to reassert themselves and challenge established principles and practices. That notwithstanding, there is one area in the constitution that is indisputable and unchallengeable: The sultan as head of Islam. This is where the sultan could rightly claim his special status as his authority there is absolute. Creatively managed, it could prove to be a splendid opportunity for them to serve not only Malays but also non-Muslim Malaysians. "Where Islam is concerned," Zaid writes, "the Malay Rulers have a golden opportunity to make their mark." That they do not is the greatest missed opportunity, for them as well as for Malaysians and Malaysia. This special role in Islam for the sultan has a strong foundation. The concept of a supreme head of the ummah goes back to the days of the Rightly-Guided Caliphs and indeed Prophet Muhammad, s.a.w., himself. Not surprisingly, modern Muslim leaders including our sultans have conveniently latched on to that symbolism. Historically and for very practical reasons, the British were only too happy to relegate matters of Islam to the sultans. That was also politically shrewd as it placated both the natives and their sultans. Conveniently, Islam was also then peripheral if not irrelevant to the politics and economics of the country. So that was an easy concession on the part of the colonials. Further, with Malays consumed with their sultans and religion, that eased the British to exploit the economic riches of the land with the help of immigrants who were unencumbered with either. Today the situation is very different. Malays are still obsessed with their religion and to some extent (although decidedly less so) their sultans. Islam today however, is central to everything that is Malaysian, especially politics and economics. The increasingly shrill contestation of Islam between UMNO and PAS attests to this. Islamic financial institutions are now major players, and zakat collections are in the billions. At one level, Malays' continuing obsession with religion and the afterlife distracts us from making our rightful contribution to the country, especially in matters economic. At another, this presents lucrative opportunities for the sultans to intrude into Islamic financial and economic spheres all in the guise of their being head and defender of the faith. With his legal background, Zaid rightly focuses on the increasingly assertive role of syaria in the administration of justice. In the past, syaria was concerned primarily with family law, as with divorce and inheritance cases. Now it encroaches into areas hitherto the purview of secular (both civil as well as criminal) courts. Syaria is now on par with and in many instances superior to secular courts, in effect above the constitution. Fatwas (decrees issued by religious functionaries) now have the power of law, thus usurping the legislature. If those were not problematic enough, with syaria usurping the criminal courts Malaysians face the reality that the punishment they get would depend not on the crime they have committed rather their faith. A Muslim caught committing adultery could face "stoning to death" under syaria while non-Muslims would not even be prosecuted, or if prosecuted would be slapped with a small fine for indecent exposure perhaps and suffer the wrath of their spouses. Even in matters pertaining to family law, they can get messier especially where one party to the dispute is a non-Muslim. The victims are not just the living. Recent cases of "corpse snatching" are but one ugly manifestation. This judicial abdication by the secular courts, in Zaid's view, occurred because their judges are mostly Malays who want to appear "pious and upright Muslims… want[ing] to fit into the 'correct' image of a good Muslim." Islam emancipated the ancient Bedouins and made them give up their odious practices such as female infanticide and "an eye for eye" sense of justice. Perversely today, the more Malays and Malaysia become "Islamized," the more backward, corrupt, polarized and dysfunctional Malays and Malaysia become. The irony! "Islam – the great purifier and liberating force in the world – had been reduced to an ordinary cult in Malaysia," writes Zaid. Not any ordinary cult but a rogue one, with corrupt, toxic leaders. As undisputed leaders of Islam, sultans have a major role to correct these obvious pathologies. That they have abdicated this crucial role is a major factor to Malays becoming deeply polarized and increasingly marginalized economically. That is a tragedy not only for Malays but also for all Malaysians. Ultimately this will also negatively impact the sultans. Read more at: http://www.bakrimusa.com/archives/book-review-zaid-ibrahims-ampun-tuanku |
| Merdeka and the rise of citizens Posted: 09 Sep 2012 09:52 AM PDT  (© KELANTAN JOTTINGS @ Flickr) (The Nut Graph) - THERE has been an unusual amount of bickering over the Merdeka celebrations this year. There have been public disagreements over the Merdeka theme, song and logo, and over the celebrations that have been held, plus who should be invited. There were the federal government-organised Merdeka celebrations at Bukit Jalil and the countdown at Kuala Lumpur City Centre, and the Pakatan Rakyat state government celebrations. There was also Janji Demokrasi, organised by civil society, at Dataran Merdeka. Individuals, including a teenager, have even been arrested, handcuffed and expelled from school over their behaviour at the non-government Merdeka celebrations. The Nut Graph speaks to political scientist Wong Chin Huat on the different celebrations of Merdeka and tries to pin down why this year's celebration is more contested than in other years. TNG: Why the tussle over Merdeka this year? Has it been this way before? What's different this time round? This is not the first time the official celebration of Merdeka and/or Malaysia Day has been contested. In 2008, some bloggers posted the national flag upside down to drive home the message of "nation in distress". In 2009, after the Perak coup, Teoh Beng Hock's death and the cow-head protest, some citizens called for a black Merdeka celebration. In 2010, on the eve of Malaysia Day, instead of having a loud countdown, concerned citizens organised "47 minutes of silence", a celebration to usher in Malaysia's 48th year as a country and reflect on what Malaysia was meant to be – a promise of fraternity through freedom. These were, however, mostly small-scale gatherings and expressions. What makes this year's state-citizen contestation more pronounced than before is the Barisan Nasional (BN) coalition's desperate move to push its electoral campaign into the Merdeka celebration by using "Janji Ditepati" – a self-praise slogan. Many Malaysians can no longer stomach such self-serving behaviour especially after their "baptism of fire" in the Bersih 2.0 and 3.0 rallies. This is something the BN government cannot or refuses to acknowledge. In the past, most people seem to have been happy to enjoy their public holiday or watch the Merdeka parade on television. This year, people have taken to the streets for their own Merdeka celebrations, ignoring or even mocking the government-organised celebrations. Why do you think this was the case? The fact that Merdeka and Malaysia Day are no longer just official rituals speaks volumes of the rise of citizens. They want to reclaim the country. They are not satisfied to be pushed around by politicians, bureaucrats and the police after paying taxes. They are putting their feet down and telling the state: "Hey, look. Who's the boss here?" Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak reportedly described the roughly 100,000-strong crowd at the government-organised Bukit Jalil celebration as the "majority … who are nation-loving citizens". Are those who snubbed the government celebrations then nation-hating citizens?  Thomas Paine (Wiki commons) It appears that "Najib the Moderate" has not read Thomas Paine, who said: "The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government." Or Mark Twain, who said: "Patriotism is supporting your country all the time and your government when it deserves it." The test of democracy is about living with people you don't like. State officials who cannot see themselves as serving the entire country should return the portion of their salaries that come from those who oppose or are critical of them. That would simply be the honest thing to do. Read more at: http://www.thenutgraph.com/uncommon-sense-with-wong-chin-huat-merdeka-and-the-rise-of-citizens/ |
| PAS berang tindakan MPS turunkan bendera parti Posted: 09 Sep 2012 09:45 AM PDT  Bendera BN telah berbulan-bulan berkibar
(FMT) - Persoalannya ialah kenapa bendera BN yang turut dipasang di Dataran Senawang tidak pula diturunkan? Pesuruhjaya PAS Negeri Sembilan, Mohd Taufek Abdul Ghani hari ini melahirkan rasa berang terhadap tindakan penguatkuasa Majlis Perbandaran Seremban (MPS) yang menurunkan kira-kira 40 bendera PAS di Dataran Senawang pagi semalam iaitu tempat berlangsungnya Jamuan Hari Raya anjuran PAS Negeri Sembilan. Bendera PAS diturunkan Bendera BN telah berbulan-bulan berkibar "Kami memasang bendera PAS sehari sebelum (Jumaat) majlis ini berlangsung. Jamuan Hari Raya ini bermula 11.00 pagi dan berakhir 3.00 petang semalam. Kami sepatutnya menurunkan bendera PAS pada petang semalam juga selepas majlis berakhir. "Bagaimanapun ketika kami sedang menyiapkan makanan, minuman, kerusi dan meja untuk orang ramai, kira-kira pukul 9.30 pagi, penguatkuasa MPS menurunkan bendera PAS. "Kita tidak ada masalah dengan penguatkuasa MPS jika itu tugas mereka. Persoalannya ialah kenapa bendera Barisana Nasional (BN) yang turut dipasang di Dataran Senawang tidak pula diturunkan? "Bendera PAS diturunkan apabila baru sehari dipasang. Kita pasang bendera PAS pun kerana kita anjurkan majlis jamuan Hari Raya di sini memandangkan Dataran Senawang juga terletak di dalam Dewan Undangan Negeri (Dun) Paroi. Manakala bendera BN sudah dipasang sejak berbulan-bulan lamanya. "Jika memasang bendera di Dataran Senawang satu kesalahan, mengapa tindakan yang sama tidak diambil terhadap bendera BN di sini?," tanya Mohd Taufek yang juga merupakan Adun Paroi. Read more at: http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/nation/2012/09/09/pas-berang-tindakan-mps-turunkan-bendera-parti/ |
| Negri PAS under fire for segregating sexes at Raya open house Posted: 09 Sep 2012 09:38 AM PDT (The Star) - Negri Sembilan PAS has come under fire from several quarters here for segregating men and women at their Hari Raya open house held at Dataran Senawang on Saturday, who said that the move would only derail efforts to strengthen national unity. They felt that the rule imposed by the Islamist party was inconsistent with the open house spirit, which, among others, allowed Malaysians from all walks of life to mix and mingle freely. State MCA political and strategy bureau head Datuk Lee Yuen Fong said PAS' action only caused uneasiness among Malaysians. "Why do you need to segregate when it is an open house and held in an open area? This is a preview of what PAS will do if it ever gains power," he said. Lee said that in a multi-racial and multi-religious country like Malaysia, it was important for people to mix with one another as it would help promote understanding. "If you are not encouraged to mix at such events, then where are you supposed to know more about the people of other faiths who can be your neighbours or your colleagues?" he asked. PAS state commissioner Taufek Abdul Ghani said the move was to allow its guests, particularly women, to be comfortable. "I don't know why is this an issue as we have been doing this for years," he said, adding that the rule was similar to KTM Bhd's rule to have special coaches for women commuters. Taufek said the rule, which required men and women to sit and queue up separately for food, was not mandatory. Negri Sembilan Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Sikhism and Taoism council chairman Edward Lim said that having such a rule would not help foster unity. "We can understand if the rule is introduced to ensure women, girls and children get their food as there is always a scramble at such events," he said. National MIC information chief Datuk V.S. Mogan described the segregation as ridiculous. "It mocks the open house concept and doesn't help in promoting unity," he said. Mogan, who is an exco member, said it was acceptable if PAS had implemented the rule at a closed-door event. Meanwhile, state opposition leader Anthony Loke defended PAS on the issue. "I was seated on the same table with Mohamed Sabu (PAS deputy president) and his wife and no one told me anything. "Our detractors should know that such things are common at PAS-organised events," he said. |
| Explain Unisel debt, Khalid told Posted: 09 Sep 2012 09:36 AM PDT 
(The Star) - Selangor Umno is calling on Mentri Besar Tan Sri Khalid Ibrahim to explain a RM54.8mil debt incurred by state-owned Universiti Selangor. Its deputy chief Datuk Seri Noh Omar said the loss was sustained after Pakatan Rakyat took over the state in 2008. Showing a copy of the university's 2010 audit report to the members of the media, Noh questioned why the information was not made public. "He (Khalid) and the state financial officer signed the report on Aug 27. "So, what is he waiting for? The people of Selangor need to know the truth," he told reporters after the opening of the Tanjung Karang Umno division' meeting yesterday. Noh said the report showed Unisel had sustained losses in the past three years with a deficit of RM1.63mil in 2008, RM13.55mil in 2009 and RM39.68mil in 2010. "The losses are after taxes were paid. Khalid should stop blaming the former state government and explain this," he said, adding that the university was running well when Selangor was under Barisan Nasional's administration. He also believed that the losses had been a contributing factor to the university's inability to settle its debts with its hostel management Syarikat Jana Niaga Sdn Bhd (JNSB). Khalid had previously announced that the audit report on Unisel would be made public by the end of last month. Unisel had recently made headlines for the wrong reasons and fingers were pointed at the Selangor Government for not managing the university properly. |
| Ahmad Maslan Asks People To Reject Six Types Of Political Practices Posted: 09 Sep 2012 09:31 AM PDT 
(Bernama) - Umno Information Chief Datuk Ahmad Maslan today urged the people to reject what he termed as six types of political practices of the opposition. He said these were the politics of rudeness, politics of liberty, politics of libel, politics of punishment, politics of disunity and politics of violence. An example of the politics of rudeness was the stomping on pictures of Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak and the intention to change the national flag with another, he told a news conference after opening the Klang Umno Division delegates meeting, here. The politics of liberty referred to the support for LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) activities which was contrary to Islamic teachings, he said. Ahmad said the politics of libel was evident from the slander hurled at Najib and his wife, Datin Seri Rosmah Mansor. |
| Suaram-funding NGO link to Soros probed Posted: 08 Sep 2012 06:39 PM PDT 
(NST) - The Domestic Trade, Cooperatives and Consumerism Ministry is investigating whether an American non-governmental organisation allegedly funding Suara Rakyat Malaysia (Suaram) is linked to currency speculator George Soros, Minister Datuk Seri Ismail Sabri Yaakob said today. He said the NGO was one of two based in the United States allegedly contributing a huge amount of funds to Suaram. The ministry was carrying out the investigation through the Companies Commission of Malaysia (SSM), he said after opening the Rasah Umno Division delegates meeting here. Ismail Sabri asked Bank Negara to investigate the matter under the Anti-Money Laundering and Anti-Terrorism Financing Act 2001. He also asked the Home Ministry and the Registrar of Societies to determine the status of Suaram.
|
| Why it is un-Islamic to arrest Ong Sing Yee Posted: 08 Sep 2012 04:19 PM PDT 
When I brought that poster back to Malaysia, my Tok Guru whispered to me that I should get rid of it because it is haram in Islam. I should not hang it up on the wall, said my Tok Guru. I should just burn it. Even if Khomeini is a revered religious leader it is still haram to hang his poster or photograph on the wall. NO HOLDS BARRED Raja Petra Kamarudin From the Islamic viewpoint, there is nothing wrong in stepping on statues, paintings, posters and photographs of humans and animals. In fact, the Talibans in Afghanistan blew up such statues. Remember the Bamiyan statues of Buddha that were blown up back in March 2001? 
Statues, paintings, posters and photographs of people and animals are forbidden in Islam. Some ulama' (scholars) say that 'exemption' can be given in certain instances such as when photographs are needed for passports, identity cards, driving licences, etc. However, if they are just for fun or for show, then, according to the ulama', they are forbidden. Hence are we allowed to hang photographs of rulers, political leaders, pop stars, etc., on the wall? Not if it is meant to revere these people or to 'honour' them. This would expose people to the danger of idol worshipping like how some people idolise pop stars. I know some kids will say that so-and-so is their idol. They idol worship these superstars. Well, in Islam that is wrong. Saudi Arabia would even confiscate photographs and posters of Imam Khomeini. I should know because I had to hide my poster to smuggle it out of the country. I was warned I might be arrested if I was caught but I took that risk (and got away with it). When I brought that poster back to Malaysia, my Tok Guru whispered to me that I should get rid of it because it is haram in Islam. I should not hang it up on the wall, said my Tok Guru. I should just burn it. Even if Khomeini is a revered religious leader it is still haram to hang his poster or photograph on the wall. I did what my Tok Guru advised although it pained me to do so because that was the poster I carried above my head in the Mekah demonstration that I participated in. Hence what Ong Sing Yee did was actually very Islamic. The Talibans would probably approve of what she did. So would the Salafis. In fact, even many Sunnis, the sect that most Malaysian Muslims belong to, would feel the same way. If Ong Sing Yee had stepped on a poster of Carlsberg beer or on a poster of Sports Toto, she would have been commended. Such things are haram in Islam. And so are posters of human beings, which are equally haram in Islam. Let those politicians and fake Muslims continue to foam at the mouth and whine away. We true Muslims who know what Islam is all about should commend Ong Sing Yee. More people should do what Ong Sing Yee did. Revering politicians and placing their photographs on the wall is considered idol worshipping in Islam. All these should be pulled down just like what the Talibans did in Afghanistan. Oh, and don't worry about the Sedition Act. That is an old English law that was created so that the people would not criticise the King. You see, the King went against the Pope and the people were not happy about it. In those days, many people were papists and they believed that the Pope was God's Wakil on earth and that what the Pops says is on behalf of God. The Palace, however, wanted the people to believe that the new Wakil of God is the King and not the Pope. But they had to stop the people from contradicting the Palace. Hence they created the Sedition Act so that those who said the Pope and not the King is the Wakil of God could be arrested. Basically, the Sedition Act was meant to defend the Church of England. Now, Malays use it to defend haram things like hanging photographs and posters of people on the wall. Actually, these are sesat Muslims. 
|
| Tanda Putera: Deconstructing Prejudice Posted: 08 Sep 2012 04:04 PM PDT 
I really doubt the capacity of Ms Shuhaimi to "look at all angles" if after looking at the records produced in my book she still insists that the communists were responsible for May 13. Dr Kua Kia Soong, SUARAM Adviser I am in full agreement with the director of the forthcoming film 'Tanda Putera', Shuhaimi Baba that we should withhold any critique of the film until we have seen it. I have so far merely warned Malaysians about the record of the Barisan National in resurrecting the spectre of 'May 13' at every general election since 1969. Others have protested against some of the images posted on the Facebook for the film. But judging from Shuhaimi's interview in an online media (FMT, 6.9.2012), I am not too sanguine about her impartiality and capacity to discern fact from prejudice in a mature manner: "When I first read Dr Kua (Kia Soong's) book, I thought what came out first and shining through was his prejudices against Malays and his resentment against the office of the prime minister then. His accusations – alluding to who was responsible for May 13- that is, Tun Razak, was not only atrocious but irresponsible. But then he knows that, I am sure, since he's more intelligent than most men, and he does it for effect and propaganda and to rile up Chinese sentiments. It was too easy for him. As a writer, he preferred to be biased and did not shed any light on the riots but even considered the communists had nothing to do with it. His obvious biasness – not questioning why in Tunku's own book, and later in an authorised biography of Tunku as late as 1990 – Tunku did not cast aspersions on Tun Razak. There were reports and books written by people who were not present during May 13. Some were based on third party reports. Yet in one publication, no mention was made that the writer was not in the country, the author did not point out he was not present but his comments and observations on May 13 were like a first-person report. Complete with prejudices against the Malays and the Malaysian government. How is it that this author can be quoted as a reliable source? He had deliberately too omitted details of what were the insulting behaviours towards the Malays before May 13. I find the NOC (National Operations Council) report on May 13, 1969, may not be as complete, but it was more useful and reliable because they were verified with statistics and signed support reports and documents. The NOC report was also verified by a committee appointed by Tun Ismail. The head of the committee was a person of high integrity. So that's where I am coming from when I say I looked at all angles…" Prejudices against Malays? First, I would like to thank her for reading my book although I am very disappointed that she has drawn very odd conclusions from it. I have read such accusations of my supposed "prejudices against Malays" among the mindless blogheads in cyberspace but I would expect better of an artist who seeks a reputation for integrity. For a start, she fails to provide any evidence for my supposed "prejudices against the Malays and (my) resentment against the office of the prime minister". Many respected Malay intellectuals have critiqued my book and made no mention of it being "prejudiced against Malays". I may be guilty of using class analysis in my writings but you will not find a more committed anti-racist crusader than me in this country… The late Rustam Sani (bless his soul!) wrote in his blog on 13 May 2007 after attending the launch of my book: "May 13: A Sunday morning well-spent at the book launch. There was absolutely no doubt in my mind that Dr Kua had penned a very important book – indeed, to my mind, he has made "publishing history" of sorts. I came out of the book launch feeling only half-satisfied with the discussion that took place and half-pessimistic about the future. It did not, however, diminish my appreciation of Dr Kua's book as an important contribution to my understanding of Malaysia's contemporary history, and for such interesting and thoughtful presentations by the guest speakers." Among the guest speakers was highly respected Malay intellectual, Professor Syed Husin Ali who disputed my "coup detat" thesis but he did not think that my book displayed "prejudices against the Malays". Azmi Sharom, writing in The Star on 31 May 2007, had this to say about the book: "As with Kua's earlier works, it is written in a passionate style that drives the narrative forward with a sense of urgency, so much so that reading it was a pleasure. I think that this is an important book. It raises issues and questions that challenge the official story of the riots and it adds new information that is vital if we as a nation are ever to truly understand that horrible period of our history." Again, he did not get the impression that I was "prejudiced against the Malays". Likewise, my socialist comrade Dr Mohd Nasir Hashim has not mentioned to me that he finds my account "prejudiced against Malays" because he also subscribes to class analysis of society and history. I am therefore dubious about the amount and the quality of research done by Ms Shuhaimi on May 13 and whether she seriously read my book. She says that "no mention was made that the writer was not in the country, the author did not point out he was not present but his comments and observations on May 13 were like a first-person report." The Full Story of May 13 is Yet Untold First, my book uses declassified documents which I researched first-hand in London and made available in The British Public Records Office, Kew Gardens. That's a lot of valuable legwork that is potentially helpful research for Ms Shuhaimi's film. The suggestion that I was trying to portray this as a first-hand account is puzzling, as the title itself clearly states the fact that such first-hand accounts are extracts from the declassified documents themselves. Ms Shuhaimi is certainly the first person to make such an observation. The reason my book created such a sensation was because many Malaysians do not find the official versions credible. Contrary to what Ms Shuhaimi says, the official statistics on the casualties during May 13 are the least credible of all. I may not have been there but my brother in law was a professor at the University Hospital at the time and my brother was a medical student at Malayan University too. They saw the number of bodies that were tarred to conceal their ethnicity and they certainly exceeded the official figures. The documents in my book testify as much to this fact. I provided a class analysis based on the available evidence provided by the records at the time. A fuller story will only emerge with a Truth & Reconciliation Commission when families of the victims, the police, the army, hospital doctors and staff come forward to tell us their stories. A serious artist should welcome as many stories from the people as possible and not be beholden to the official version. The Tunku's Views on Tun Razak Ms Shuhaimi accuses me of bias and claims that the Tunku didn't cast aspersions on Tun Razak. Again, this reflects on the quality of her research and her capacity to weigh historical documents. Obviously Ms Shuhaimi does not consider the documents produced in my book to be worth consideration or to be objective. She falls back on the Tunku's early writings and apparently, "the Tunku's authorised biography". For the information of Ms Shuhaimi, K. Das was the Tunku's official biographer and they had carried out a series of interviews which can be read in my 2002 title: "K. Das & the Tunku Tapes". Yes, a copy of the tapes was given to me by K.Das' family. Can any records beat these audio recordings done in the twilight of the Tunku's life when he could finally speak his mind? Will Ms Shuhaimi challenge me to produce the Tunku tapes to verify if the Tunku actually said these words to K. Das? "You know Harun was one of those – Harun, Mahathir, Ghazali Shafie – who were all working with Razak to oust me, to take over my place…" (Kua Kia Soong, 2002: 112) For the further information of Ms Shuhaimi, I am not the first person to see May 13 as a coup detat against the Tunku. A Malay (yes, Malay!) intellectual, Subky Latiff had already put forward this thesis in an academic journal, Southeast Asian Affairs, Singapore in 1977. Although I was not at the seminar when Subky Latiff presented his paper, I am sure there were no gasps of "how atrocious and irresponsible!" among the academics gathered there. Why the deference to Authority? We can understand deference to authority in a feudal society. But why do we need to be deferential to the people we elect? Ms Shuhaimi refers to the Prime Ministers as if they are deities to worship. In fact, whenever a general election approaches, that is the time when the politicians including prime ministers eat humble pie and plead for our support. What are prime ministers but the leaders of the respective parties who happen to win a majority in the general election? If we take the trouble to research into Malayan/ Malaysian history, we will invariably find that the leaders of political parties often use foul underhand means to maintain their political positions. This goes not only for the incumbent but also for the opposition parties. My recent "Patriots & Pretenders" gives an account of the way the British colonial power connived to ensure the victory of the Alliance in the pre-Independence manoeuvres. Take UMNO as an example. If political chicanery had not come into play, Dato Onn Jaafar leading the Independence of Malaya Party could have become Prime Minister at Independence. If the British colonial power had not backed the Alliance, the PMCJA-PUTERA coalition could have given the Alliance a good run for their money and we could have had a socialist prime minister who would not want such feudal deference from the people! The proclamation of The Emergency in 1948 through to 1960 was to ensure the British colonial power passed political power onto their local custodians at Independence and not to the PMCJA-PUTERA coalition. Then again, if it had not been for Dr Mahathir's "tengkolok trick" in 1990, Tengku Razaleigh might have become Malaysia's prime minister. Likewise, the arrest of Anwar Ibrahim in 1998 altered the history of UMNO and assured Dr Mahathir's hold on power into the 21st century. Yes, like any democrat I have a healthy disrespect for authority in an oppressive regime and I would have imagined an artist with ideals and integrity would share such aspirations for truth, justice, freedom, democracy and human rights. Were the Communists Responsible for May 13? I really doubt the capacity of Ms Shuhaimi to "look at all angles" if after looking at the records produced in my book she still insists that the communists were responsible for May 13. In my book I have shown that in the Tunku's broadcast at 2230 on 17 May 1969, he had qualified his earlier assertion that the disturbances were caused by communists, putting the blame instead on assorted "bad elements". Is this Ms Shuhaimi's own prejudices or does she have stronger evidence to show that the communists were indeed responsible for May 13? The regime used the communist bogey at the time because it was necessary for it to justify imposing a state of emergency and to carry out the agenda of the new Umnoputras. To conclude, I fervently hope that Ms Shuhaimi will seriously study my views like any honest artist and ponder the deconstruction of prejudice. Perhaps, this is an opportunity for Ms Shuhaimi as an artist to be more circumspect – be more of a calligrapher with a deft brush rather than follow the mindless mob that tars and feathers any detractors… |
| What’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, Tun Posted: 08 Sep 2012 04:00 PM PDT 
Isn't Mahathir, in his desperation to ensure the BN remains in power forever, indulging in undemocratic actions to deny the opposition the space and opportunity to form an alternative government that would guarantee the demise of the BN, wonders P Ramakrishnan. Tun Dr Mahathir's warning that the country may never see a Barisan Nasional (BN) government again if Pakatan Rakyat (PR) is voted into Putrajaya, would provoke the response, "Good riddance to bad rubbish!" from many Malaysians who are totally fed up with BN rule. After 55 years of BN rule, it is time to say, "Enough is enough! It's time to go!!" Mahathir should stop whining that the federal opposition would do "everything possible" to stay in power forever if they were to form the next government. What's wrong with that, Tun? Didn't you do that, Tun, to stay in power forever? Why is it when you did "everything possible" to cling on to power, it was the proper thing to do but it is utterly wrong now for others to aspire to, as you did. Didn't you refuse our beloved Tunku, the honest Hussein Onn, the fearless Tengku Razaleigh and others admission into Umno Baru so that you could remain in power forever without any opposition from within the party? Didn't you introduce the system of 10 bonus votes for every nomination you received from Umno divisions to ensure that you would continue to be the President of Umno without any threat of a challenge? Didn't you fix a minimum number of nominations from Umno divisions to be eligible to contest the president's post? And didn't this effectively prevent Tengku Razaleigh from challenging for the president's post? Didn't the BN amend the federal constitution to disqualify those who resigned and thereby forced a by-election so that you could not be put to the test again? The amendment came soon after Shahrir Samad resigned as a BN parliamentarian in 1988, forcing a by-election in Johor Bharu, which he won convincingly as an independent, thus embarrassing you in the process. Didn't you have absolute control of the party and government so that your position would remain unassailable as long as you chose to stick around? Wasn't the BN guilty of gerrymandering to ensure that the BN had the best advantage to win the elections so that you and the BN could lord over the nation forever? Didn't you destroy the judiciary in 1988 when you played a role in the sacking of the then Lord President, Tun Salleh Abas? Wasn't it to preserve and perpetuate your position? Didn't you shackle the powers of the royalty by holding semarak gatherings throughout the country to run down the royalty and by amending the constitution so that you and the BN could remain in power forever without any obstacles or obstruction? Didn't the BN deny allocations for all elected MPs and State Assembly members – unfairly and unjustly – so that the BN could continue to rule forever by pulling the purse strings? Didn't the BN engineer the overthrow of the legitimately elected Pakatan government in Perak ignoring the choice of the voters so that the BN could forever continue to be in power by whatever means? Isn't the BN hounding Anwar through trumped up charges and all other foul means to prevent his political ascendancy, which threatens the BN's greed to remain in power forever? Isn't it because the BN wants to be in power forever – and by any means – that it is going after the brave Bersih leaders who had inspired Malaysians to march in their thousands demanding free and fair elections? Aren't you in your desperation to ensure the BN remains in power forever indulging in undemocratic actions to deny the opposition the space and opportunity to form an alternative government that would guarantee the demise of the BN? Why is it, dear Tun, that only you and the BN can have the licence to do everything possible to remain in power forever? Why are you denying the loyal opposition the same opportunity to protect and preserve their position? Haven't you heard of the saying, "What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander"? Your hypocrisy is really nauseating, Tun! P Ramakrishnan, the immediate past president of Aliran, now serves on the Aliran executive committee. |
| Up to police to investigate gun incident, says Anwar Posted: 08 Sep 2012 03:31 PM PDT 
Lisa J. Ariffin, The Malaysian Insider Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim will leave it to the authorities to investigate claims that his bodyguard drew a firearm and pointed it at Barisan Nasional (BN) supporters in Kampung Baru Rim, Malacca yesterday. The opposition leader said today he will leave it to police to "establish whether the security behaved in self-defence and according to SOP (standard operating procedures)". "Whether he did it in self-defence or followed SOP that is for the police to investigate. They (the bodyguards) all have permits anyway," he told reporters today during Lembah Pantai MP Nurul Izzah Anwar's Hari Raya open house here. Anwar had claimed that the bus, in which he was travelling for PKR's Jelajah Merdeka Rakyat programme, was attacked by a group he believed to be Umno Youth members. Plainclothes policemen detained the 37-year-old bodyguard at the scene when the incident took place at 3.15pm. Police and Special Branch officers were there to observe the event. Local media reports said the bus in which Anwar was travelling was stopped by some youth who wanted to prevent them from entering the venue for the programme. The bodyguard alighted from a car near the bus and pointed the firearm at the youth. Anwar said it was deplorable that none of the youth who attacked his bus were arrested. "The fact that none of the Umno fellas were arrested is shocking," he said. "This shows how incompetent and how irresponsible Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak and the Home Minister (Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Hussein) are," he said. "These hooligans are supported by Najib and (Hishammuddin)," he claimed. Anwar then said he had video and photographic evidence of the group attacking his entourage. At least four police reports were lodged by members of Jasin Umno Youth and the Belia 4B movement over the incident. State police chief Datuk Chuah Ghee Lye said the bodyguard has been detained for questioning. "Let us investigate the matter first as it is still premature to determine if the man had actually pointed the weapon at the public, or he was just brandishing it as an act of protecting someone. He could have taken out the gun and accidentally showed it to the people gathered there," he was quoted as saying by the New Sunday Times. |
| Why Tun M is terrified of the opposition! Posted: 08 Sep 2012 03:17 PM PDT 
Daniel John Jambun If we look at how Tun Dr. Mahathir has been making political comments during the last few months we would have noticed very clearly that he is actually very worried, yes, utterly terrified, about of the possibility of the opposition taking over the government. The basis of this fear is real. Mahathir is not merely having a nightmare for nothing. And he has a lot of good reasons to see it all coming. Firstly, the great tsunami of 2008 changed the way the BN looks at itself. It made BN realize how fragile the national coalition is. In fact 2008 was such a close call that had it been without Sabah and Sarawak, the powerful BN leaders would no longer be sitting in Putrajaya right now. And he knows things had gone further downhill for the BN since then. In spite of all the dirty tactics, all the scandals against opposition leaders, all the manufacturing of endless good news about the economy, the Santa Claus programs, the people had continued to lose confidence in the BN. Now wonder Mahathir had gone into the bad habit of saying a lot nonsensical and downright stupid things! In desperation he said it's better to have a devil that you know that a devil you don't know. It was admittance that the BN is a devil. He had justified the huge influx of illegal immigrants into Sabah and made the totally ludicrous proposal that as long as they can speak Malay, they qualify to become citizens of Malaysia. This statement set off a barrage of firings from both the opposition and the BN leaders. It made us wonder what kind of mind was ruling us for 27 years. Now he had gone into fear mongering by saying again and again that if the opposition takes over the country, it would lead to total chaos, which goes in line with PM Datuk Seri Najib's idea that the opposition is not qualified to take over the government. Well tell that to Lim Guan Eng and Datuk Khalid Ibrahim. But to top it all, Mahathir's most interesting remark was his idea that if the PR takes over the government, it will rule Malaysia forever. The funny thing about this childish remark is that it is actually a compliment to PR! Mahathir said if the PR takes over, it will do things to make sure the BN can never come back to rule again, saying he "knows a few things." What he said here is very telling about what kind of government the BN has been running for 27 years under Mahathir. He doesn't know a few things; he actually know A LOT of things, meaning underhanded tactics and dirty tricks to ensure the opposition can never take over the government. Well, if he knows all these tricks and he had used them over the years, how come the BN is in real danger of toppling over now? Maybe Abraham Lincoln was right when he said, "You can fool some of the people some of the time, but not all of the people all of the time" or as the Malay proverbs says, "Sepandai-pandai tupai melompat akhirnya jatuh ke tanah juga." Or maybe Mahathir's many tricks – increasing the population of Sabah with immigrants by four folds, gerrymandering, threatening and penalizing the opposition leaders and dissenters with draconian laws, manipulating the economy to keep Sabah and Sarawak poor so they continue to be beggars and dependants in Malaysia, suffocating the press, promoting social polarization through manipulation of race and religion, etc. etc. – had failed to put Malaysians under anymore control because they have had enough of it and realized it is time to change the government. He thought he could continue to put on a benign face and manipulate the people forever. But guess what, you can't fool the people forever. It is interesting that he believes that a new Malaysian government will become more corrupt than his government. Only a dictator who controlled a regime which put on a benign face for so long can think like this. He is actually telling the world, that by knowing "a few things" he was really corrupt and evil as a Prime Minister. By saying all these things he is actually admitting that he is a Machiavellian politician who would stop at nothing to get what he wants. And now, frustrated that he no longer calls the shots, he thinks he is helping Najib's government by going into fear mongering. And poor Najib can't say or do anything because Mahathir has a lot of clout, being able to play the role of a puppet player behind the scene. Najib has to keep quiet, or else. And when we fully realize the reality of this situation, in which our Prime Minster is at the mercy of his predecessor, we will have reasons to have even less confidence in the present BN government! So Mahathir is not doing Najib any favour by talking endlessly like a drunken and frightened monkey. Despite his praises for Najib, he only causes the people to see out PM as a weak puppet. It will be very interesting to observe what Mahathir will say on the next few days. You can bet he won't be able to keep quite more than a few days. He is too paranoid to keep quiet more than a few days. But what he needs to understand is that his ideas are getting more and more ridiculous and only to serve to convince us even more that our former PM is losing his marbles and showing clear signs of senility. But what is the real reasons Mahathir is so frightened of the prospect of the BN falling? Believe me Mahathir's reasons are less patriotic than what he tries to show to the public. The real reasons are personal. If BN falls, protective walls around him will crumble and he stands to face the music for a lot of misdeeds during his heydays. Why else is he so paranoid about the RCI and so eager to defend the illegals? Because of the reality of the Projek IC Mahathir. And this is not the only can of worms that are waiting to be exposed. There will be so many that the whole world will have to reel back in shock and disgust. But what can he do now, that the dark clouds are descending on his head and his family? The days of reckoning are here and nobody, even Mahathir with all his clout and money, can stop it. |
| Bas PKR diserang lagi, AMK lapor polis Posted: 08 Sep 2012 03:09 PM PDT 
(Harakah) - JASIN: Angkatan Muda Keadilan (AMK) akan membuat satu laporan polis pada hari ini berikutan insiden simbahan cat merah pada bas Jelajah Merdeka Rakyat di Jasin semalam. Laporan polis itu akan dibuat ketuanya, Shamsul Iskandar Mohd Akin Ibu Pejabat Polis Daerah Jasin, Melaka jam 3 petang ini.
 Dalam insiden kira-kira 3.30 petang semalam, bas yang digunakan pemimpin PKR untuk siri kedua Jelajah Merdeka Rakyat disimbah cat merah di Kampung Kelubi di sini.
Kejadian didakwa dilakukan kira-kira 30 samseng yang turut menghalang laluan bas, selain menayangkan kain rentang yang penuh dengan kata-kata penghinaan kepada pemimpin PKR.
Memetik laporan Malaysiakini, Shamsul berkata, beliau tidak menolak kemungkinan serangan tersebut didalangi Pemuda Umno.
"Kami tahu kerana ada salah seorang ahli jawatankuasa Umno Jasin berada bersama mereka," katanya.
Ianya adalah kejadian kedua selepas bas sama diserang sekumpulan samseng ketika berada di Kelantan minggu lalu.
Dalam serangan itu, bas tersebut yang diletakkan di Pasar Khadijah juga disimbah cat merah dan cermin hadapannya retak dibaling batu. |
| Khalid nudges his way in Posted: 08 Sep 2012 03:01 PM PDT 
Is Tan Sri Khalid Ibrahim trying to secure his own political future by positioning his party boss Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim at the forefront of Selangor politics? Joceline Tan, The Star THE body language between Mentri Besar Tan Sri Khalid Ibrahim and his party boss Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim has grown warmer of late. The two men have not been the best of friends over the last few years but those who attended the Mentri Besar's Hari Raya open house last month noticed that Khalid was particularly attentive and deferential towards Anwar. Quite a number of people were surprised to see Anwar and PKR president Datuk Seri Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail at the receiving line, playing host alongside Khalid. This was essentially Khalid's do but the Mentri Besar was sharing the limelight with Anwar. This has not always been the case because Khalid has had no qualms about showing people that he is in charge in Selangor or that he is more adept at economic matters than Anwar who is the Selangor economic advisor.  Celebrity look: Khalid and Anwar (second and third from left) sporting snazzy sunglasses as they welcome guests at the Mentri Besar's recent Hari Raya open house at the state government complex together with Dr Xavier (left), Dr Wan Azizah and assemblywoman Elizabeth Wong. They even sported identical-looking sunglasses as they stood in the bright sunshine in the compound of the state government complex. The dark glasses were quite ironic because both politicians apparently had lasik treatment so that they could improve eye contact with people. Generally, dark glasses are a big no-no for politicians because it makes them look aloof and removed from ordinary folk, but it did give the pair a certain celebrity look. It is evident that Khalid has been trying to get on the good side of Anwar to the extent of inviting him as the VIP guest and to address the crowd at the Selangor Merdeka eve parade on Aug 30. With the general election widely expected in November, Pakatan also wanted to elevate Anwar's profile to remind voters that he is their candidate for prime minister. But it has since become a political issue and opinion out there has been deeply polarised over whether the state should have given the Penang-born Anwar such a prominent role. The state government scrambled to do damage control after the outcry over why Anwar, who is not Selangor-born nor a wakil Rakyat in the state, should have been up there addressing the gathering. The fact that the Selangor palace saw fit to comment only made it more awkward for the state government. Merdeka Day has never been this political or contentious. Some attributed it to the fact that this year's celebration coincided with a blue moon, a phenomenon where there is a second full moon in a month. Strange things do happen on a full moon, what more a blue moon. Pakatan leaders had accused the Barisan Nasional of playing politics over the Merdeka Day theme of Janji Ditepati. But they have been no less political: at the Selangor affair, Anwar had begun his speech by urging for fair and clean elections before proceeding to talk about national unity.  Mohd Zin: Concerned about the signal being sent out about the role of the palace. Patriotic events are always about loyalty to king and country. Hence, they are rarely complete without a sovereign figure up there. The Sultan not being there is one thing but to have Anwar there alongside the Mentri Besar did not go down well with many people. "I suppose they put him there to show that they rejected the federal government's national day celebration. They wanted to show their power in Selangor and allow people a peek at the future if Pakatan wins Putrajaya. It was their way of saying that politicians will play a bigger role than at present. But they shot themselves in the foot. Why give the Barisan a chance to attack and why antagonise the palace?" publisher Datuk A. Kadir Jasin pointed out. Or as state Barisan coordinator Datuk Seri Mohd Zin Mohamed put it: "What kind of signal are they sending out about the role of the palace?"  Nik Aziz: Wondered if trouble-makers at demonstration were possessed by evil spirits. On top of that, the police and military excused themselves from the parade pleading logistics issues. But for days after the event, rumours were rife that the two bodies withdrew because they did not want to have to salute Anwar. PKR assemblyman and state exco member Dr Xavier Jayakumar called a press conference a few days later to defend the State's action. He said Pakatan Rakyat was democratically elected and could invite anyone to speak at the Merdeka event. Datuk Seri Hadi Awang of PAS and DAP's Lim Kit Siang were also invited but could not attend. Dr Xavier is perfectly right to say that the ruling coalition can invite whomever it wants but given the fallout, inviting Anwar may not have been the wisest thing to do.  Khusrin: Fingers pointed at him when things went wrong over the Merdeka parade. "This is a very formal and official occasion but I suspect that some of them think it is like another ceramah," said restaurateur Juhaidi Yean Abdullah. Some have suggested that it was mooted largely by Khalid who looked like he was having a great time that night, especially when he called out "Merdeka!" at the stroke of midnight. It was Anwar who seemed a little unsure of himself, as though he felt out of place in the Selangor setting. Campaign bus Khalid definitely eclipsed his rival and Selangor PKR chief Azmin Ali that evening. The MB calls the shots on such occasions and Azmin looked like a bit player in the Merdeka tableau. There has been endless talk that Khalid is on the way out but it looks like the man is fighting to stay on by currying favour with Anwar who will have the biggest and last say on candidates and seats. Last month, PKR launched a campaign bus, a refurbished double-decker that is said to have cost RM500,000. Khalid paid for it out of his own pocket and it is for Anwar to use in his country-wide campaign. Both sides of the bus are screen-painted with big portraits of a smiling and handsome Anwar. It was a big gesture on the part of Khalid who is a multi-millionaire but is famous for being tight-fisted with money. The bus can seat 19 people, has a conference area, Wi-Fi, top quality public address system and a stage that folds out from the baggage compartment. But the best part about this bus has got to be the two high-end massage chairs for tired bodies. All that must have catapulted Khalid into the good books of Anwar. Khalid is evidently not as naive as he has been made out to be. For instance, he knows that the Sultan does not look kindly on street protests. Just recently, the Tuanku advised Selangoreans going on the Haj or umrah not to tarnish the country's image by holding demonstrations in the Holy Land. It was a hint of the royal figure's opinion of street protests. It is no coincidence that all those Bersih protests have not been allowed in his state. But Pakatan is in danger of making protests the centrepiece of their governing tactic. When they won in five states, there was not a word about dirty elections but now that they are not sure of holding on to those five states, they are accusing their opponents of rigging the elections. After more than four years in power, Pakatan is in danger of being associated with street politics rather than the new politics they had promised. The last two big street protests have damaged rather than won them fans among the Malaysian middle ground. The recent Merdeka eve march organised by the Bersih group of people was largely peaceful but the string of unfortunate incidents – people waving an "alternative flag", the stomping and mooning of pictures of the Prime Minister – has again hurt Pakatan. It was not a very Malaysian thing to do, and because it happened at what was basically an anti-Barisan demonstration, the incidents, rightly or wrongly, became associated with Pakatan. Utusan Malaysia frontpaged the photographs of every single culprit from the group, from the duo happily waving the "alternative flag" to the boy with the now most famous butt in the country. Pakatan politicians were quick to point the finger at Barisan saboteurs but the political alignments all seem to point to Pakatan parties. The person behind the "alternative flag" turned out to be none other than Najwan Halimi, the deputy information chief of PKR's Youth wing. Najwan, 26, works as an aide to Anwar and was a defence witness in Anwar's sodomy trial. He admitted to having designed the flag in 2007. The female stomper, a glamorous model, turned up at the police station in Johor Baru accompanied by DAP MP for Bakri Er Teck Hwa. Pakatan leaders have since distanced themselves from the acts but only Datuk Nik Abdul Aziz Nik Mat came down hard on the culprits, saying that Malays and Muslim should not do such shameful acts. "Maybe those involved were possessed by evil spirits. Why should we change the flag, it has been accepted by the world. I really regret that this happened," said the Kelantan Mentri Besar. The incidents had eclipsed the larger purpose of the demonstration. It was similar to what happened at the Republican convention in the United States – there were many interesting speeches but at the end of it, the most talked about part was the rambling and incoherent debut by Hollywood actor Clint Eastwood. Some Malay nationalists have wondered why Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak does not react to such provocation. There is a very simple answer to that. Najib knows that he has secured the Malay ground and that the traditional supporters have returned to Barisan. His focus is now on the middle ground, a group of people who are not aligned to either side and who will vote according to issues, candidates and situations. Incidents like these will impact this group most of all. Najib is adopting a very shrewd approach to win the middle ground. Khalid has been anxious to sort out the fiasco over his state's Merdeka do. Fingers had been pointed at state secretary Datuk Mohd Khusrin Munawi when things went wrong but Khalid has cleared the top civil servant's name. He also claimed that Anwar attended the event not as the "guest of honour" but as a "guest speaker". Some thought it rather unbecoming to downsize a VIP guest in this manner and that Khalid should have stood his ground. Khalid has secured his place in his party's list of election candidates. But his coalition is still struggling to secure its hold over Selangor and his jazzed-up campaign bus may find that the GPS may not have the roadmap to Putrajaya. |
| Pengawal Anwar acu pistol di khalayak orang ramai, ditahan polis Posted: 08 Sep 2012 02:46 PM PDT 
Nowy Nozwir, The Malaysian Insider Pengawal peribadi Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim ditahan atas dakwaan mengacu pistol di khalayak orang ramai dalam Jelajah Merdeka Rakyat berada di Jasin, Melaka, petang semalam. Pengawal peribadi yang berusia 37 tahun itu, dikenali sebagai Dino, dipercayai mengacu pistol selepas sekumpulan lelaki cuba menghalang jelajah ketua pembangkang itu ke sebuah majlis anjuran PKR di Kampung Baru Rim. Orang ramai yang marah dalam kejadian itu, kemudian menyerbunya dan keadaan menjadi kecoh. Beberapa anggota polis yang berkawal di tempat kejadian pantas menyuraikan kekecohan sebelum menahan dan membawa lelaki itu ibu pejabat polis daerah (IPD). Laporan polis kemudiannya dibuat oleh Pemuda Umno dan Belia 4B Jasin jam 6.30 petang di IPD berkenaan. Hadir sama, Ketua Pemuda Umno Jasin Zaidi Attan dan timbalan pengerusi Gerakan Belia 4B Jasin Zulkifli Kalil. Ketua Polis Melaka Datuk Chuah Ghee Lye, ketika dihubungi, mengesahkan menahan seorang pengawal sebuah syarikat keselamatan yang ditugaskan untuk mengawal Anwar. "Siasatan mendapati senjata api itu milik syarikat keselamatan dan pengawal terbabit dibenarkan membawanya ketika bertugas. "Kita menahan pengawal itu dan turut merampas senjata apinya untuk siasatan. "Kita menyiasat dari pelbagai aspek sama ada dia mengacukan pistol ke arah orang ramai atau hanya mengeluarkan senjata dan memegangnya di celah baju," katanya dipetik dari laporan Sinar Harian. Chuah berkata, pihaknya menerima empat laporan berhubung kejadian itu sehingga petang semalam. Seorang pemimpin belia 4B Jasin berkata, beliau terkejut dengan tindakan lelaki terbabit kerana beliau bersama beberapa rakan tidak melakukan sebarang tindakan berunsur provokasi. "Saya hanya berdiri di tepi jalan untuk memberi laluan kepada rombongan Anwar ke tapak ceramah. "Namun, secara tiba-tiba, pengawal peribadi itu meluru keluar dari keretanya lalu mengacukan pistol ke arah saya sambil berkata 'masuk' (dalam keadaan mencabar orang ramai dengan pistolnya). "Saya dan beberapa rakan terkejut dengan tindakannya dan hanya berdiam diri sebelum lelaki itu masuk semula ke dalam kereta dan beredar," katanya lagi. |
| UN Rapporteur: Is Malaysia a civilized nation? Posted: 08 Sep 2012 02:36 PM PDT REST STOP THOUGHTS
What are the characteristics of a civilized nation? Is Malaysia a civilized nation? These 2 questions remain with me well after I left a 2 hour public forum at the Bar Council yesterday at which I heard Maina Kiai, the United Nations Rapporteur for the Rights to Freedom of Peaceful Assembly and of Association, and several others speak about freedom of association and assembly. Maina, a Kenyan with degrees from Nairobi and Harvard, used the words "civilized" and "civilization" often during his 30 minute address. He applauded the economic progress of Malaysia, emphasizing his sense of awe after a visit to the Petronas Twin Towers. If the measure of progress in civilization is the magnificence of our finest building, then we are doing very well. But is that an adequate measure of civilization? Characteristics of a civilized nation Maina spoke passionately about human rights and democracy. He spoke for the United Nations, as one familiar with international law. I walked away with 7 key thoughts. 1. Presumption of right to association, not restrictions upon association. Maina says the measure of a civilization is not it's ability to tolerate democracy, but it's ability to thrive upon democracy, to cherish and to protect democracy. For Maina, a nation can claim to be civilized only if it's rulers, it's citizens and it's laws presume ("automatically grant") the right to association, not restrictions upon association. 2. Freedom of association is a benefit, not a threat. Maina says a civilized society doesn't view freedom of association as a threat; rather it views freedom of association as a benefit and works hard to to facilitate association and assembly. Maina defines "assembly" as "an intentional and temporary gathering," including the right to march. 3. The state is responsible for dealing with commotion-creators. An unavoidable feature of life in society is the presence and emergence of persons who will create commotions or disruptions: the state must restrain them through effective policing. Maina says a civilized government considers itself duty-bound to deal with persons who create commotions during protests. Allowing people to vent safely helps insure security and helps discourage them from seeking uncivilized forms of dialogue. 4. The state facilitates expressions of conflicting rights. Maina takes seriously the rights of everyone, e.g. shopkeepers and drivers. He says a shopkeeper's right to commerce is just as much a right as his customer's right to vent; good rulers will strive to keep a balance between the rights of those with different interests: by facilitating conflicting rights, not by curbing or stifling those who support contrary views. 5. Accepting the inevitability of counter-demonstrations. Maina says it is the duty of rulers and the police to recognize that counter-demonstrations are likely, and that it is the duty of the state to define and enforce measures to avoid confrontation – which they can do by keeping potential trouble makers away: allowing them another time or space to vent, thereby minimizing violations of law and order. 6. Limiting the responsibility of organizers. Maina shares a belief which is deeply held amongst those who believe government's listen best when people protest visibly – just as our forefathers did in the 40's and 50's to evict the British. Maina says making the organizers of assemblies and marches responsible for the actions of individuals "is wrong and uncivilized," since policing is the state's responsibility. He holds up South Africa as a country which does this very well. 7. Foreign funding is a non-issue. On the subject of funding by foreigners, Maina asks: if a government can obtain foreign funds to develop the country, if private corporations can obtain foreign funds to invest in Malaysia, why should anyone who obtains foreign funds to exercise democratic rights be viewed unfavourably? The erudite Maina left us with an implied question: if we review our government's approach to freedom of association and assembly, will we conclude we are civilized? Datuk Baljit Singh Sidhu: moronic, flawed law Maina was followed by Datuk Baljit Singh Sidhu who reviewed key aspects of the act which I have previously called ROFA (Restrictions on Freedom of Assembly). Baljit, a senior Malaysian lawyer, compares the need for freedom of association and assembly with the relief valve on a pressure cooker. He says assembly is like the relief valve – it allows a controlled release of pressure, thus reducing internal tension, while at the same time revealing the nature and extent of the tension. It was evident that the meeting was a relief valve for Baljit to display and release his internal tensions over the law. For Baljit, the only label that fits the law is "moronic." Baljit's key points are that the law proves those who rule us think "human rights" means "problem," and that those who made the law fail to understand that Human Rights is a journey, not a destination. He pointed out several flaws in ROFA, including:
READ MORE HERE |
| PAS Syura Council not likely to fire Nasha Posted: 08 Sep 2012 02:29 PM PDT 
(The Star) - Certain groups in PAS who are eager to see Bachok MP Nasharudin Mat Isa sacked are likely to be disappointed today. Chances of Nasharudin being sacked are slim as even the party's central committee would not put any pressure on the Syura Council to act against the PAS former deputy president. There have been calls within PAS for Nasharuddin to be sacked after suggesting that PAS should review its position in Pakatan Rakyat in view of an impasse over hudud. PAS secretary-general Datuk Mustafa Ali confirmed yesterday that the central committee would not discuss the matter during its meeting this morning. "We will not discuss the matter at all. We will leave it entirely to the Syura Council as Nasharudin is a member of the council," said Mustafa, adding that the Syura Council meeting was scheduled to be held tonight. Mustafa said this when asked to comment on talks that the central committee would put pressure on the Syura Council to take stern action against Nasharudin for airing views against the interest of Pakatan Rakyat. Syura Council deputy chief Datuk Dr Harun Din also affirmed that there were no special agenda to discuss the issue. "However, we do not know what will transpire at the meeting," he said. The 15-member Syura Council headed by PAS spiritual leader Datuk Nik Aziz Nik Mat is the highest body in the organisation that deliberates on policy matters. Ulama chief Datuk Harun Taib, who is also a Syura Council member, said the party needed intellectuals like Nasharudin. |
| A blatant show of disrespect Posted: 08 Sep 2012 02:25 PM PDT 
The Selangor state government's failure to invite the Sultan to the state-level Merdeka eve celebration goes against protocol and reflects political foolishness. Wong Chun Wai, The Star SOMETHING has gone terribly wrong if the leadership in the Selangor state government believes that if the Sultan of Selangor wishes to attend the state-level Merdeka eve celebration, he should himself ask to be invited. Astonishing as it may sound, that was precisely what Faekah Husin, the political secretary to the Mentri Besar, reportedly suggested. But that was not all. In a bid to wriggle itself out of the fiasco, the state government then claimed it was just a Merdeka countdown, not a formal Merdeka celebration or an official state function. That's semantic gymnastics for you. Never mind the fact that the event included a march past by 56 contingents from various state agencies. The police and the military were also asked to attend. But on learning at around 5pm that Sultan Sharafuddin Idris Shah was not invited, the police and army made the right decision to pull out from the event. The VVIP for that night was none other than Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim. He may be the Opposition Leader but the point is he has no business being there. He is not a Member of Parliament from Selangor, nor is he a state assemblyman. The only claim he has to the state is that he is an economic adviser. Surely, the police and army cannot be expected to salute Anwar at the march past. He may want to be the prime minister but he has to exercise some patience. Win the elections first. The entire protocol was wrong. In fact, it is not wrong to believe that the state government had no intention of informing the Sultan. An invitation, even in verbal form, did not come from the Mentri Besar or his office. There was no such courtesy extended and this was further compounded by a subsequent suggestion that the Sultan is good enough to be invited only for religious functions. Can anyone be blamed for thinking that the state leaders wanted to turn the Merdeka eve bash into a political event? Or, to put it bluntly, a big political ceramah? When the palace expressed its displeasure, the state claimed that Anwar was merely a guest speaker and not the guest of honour. But the bottom line is the state leadership has shown utter disrespect and contempt towards the Sultan. Instead of blaming others for purportedly attempting to exploit the incident, the state leadership must deal with it in a more honest manner. The impression that this writer gets is that the state leadership feels it has done no wrong and there is no need to apologise nor explain to the Sultan. Then, in an apparent move to disentangle itself from the fiasco, the state leadership tried to get the state secretary Datuk Mohd Khusrin Munawi to carry out damage control. And this is the man the state government tried to block from holding the post! The state had created a fuss when his name cropped up for the job, claiming that the appointment violated the State Constitution because the Mentri Besar was not consulted, even though the Sultan had already approved the appointment. In Selangor, the Sultan lays down strict procedures when it comes to state-level functions. For example, the mosques cannot be used for politics and the directive applies to both sides of the divide. No elected representative from outside Selangor will be awarded the state's Datukship. And the state's MPs and assemblymen must serve a second term before they can be nominated for such a title. The number of Datukships awarded should be less than 40 each year, and the Tuanku has kept it to less than the number stipulated. The Tuanku is known to be against any wastage for state functions and state agencies have been reprimanded for blowing their budget. The palace is clear and precise on such protocol. But it would seem that many in the state leadership are still blur or simply refuse to adhere to the rules and practices. Such political foolishness would not help to strengthen ties between the state government and the palace. For a start, the Mentri Besar should keep his speech at the Istana during the Tuanku's birthday short and precise. Stick to the achievements of the state, and even blow your own trumpet, by all means. But please spare us the ceramah part. |
| DAP worried of BN rage if defeated at polls Posted: 08 Sep 2012 02:17 PM PDT 
If the voters choose Pakatan in the 13th GE, will BN make a public statement that it will respect the decision with peace and harmony through democracy, asks Lim Kit Siang. Azman Habu, FMT TAWAU: A general sense of unease is rising in the Pakatan Rakyat camp that the Umno-led Barisan Nasional coalition government will not easily vacate Putrajaya if Malaysians vote to change the government in the coming elections. Currently riding high on a wave of dissatisfaction over the performance of the national coalition government due to a series of scandals over the last 50 years of its rule, Pakatan believes this is no guarantee that the transition will be smooth. Pakatan leaders see the long drawn out indecision by Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak's government to set a date for general election that must be called by the first quarter of next year as indications of trepidation within the BN about going to the polls. DAP advisor Lim Kit Siang voiced the worry during the party's statewide public hearing on 'Janji Ditepati' (promises fulfilled) theme that the BN opted for as its Merdeka Day celebration mantra in a bid to stem criticism of wastefulness and inefficiency in its unbroken half century in power. The veteran opposition leader wants a guarantee from Najib and former prime minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad, who still wields immense influence in the government, that there will be no disturbances if the opposition wins the 13th general election. Political pundits see the former prime minister to be steering his son Mukhriz towards the prime minister's job and in the process ensure his legacy remains untouched. BN government stalwarts have taken to deriding and intimidating the opposition and its supporters by using the legal system to carry out a campaign to smear and silence detractors. Generous budget handouts, the repeal of widely condemned laws limiting freedom of assembly and the press have been replaced by equally severe laws. 
Lim sees these government tactics as signs that a BN defeat at the polls will be met with resistance. READ MORE HERE |
| Tanah Melayu: Yours or mine? Posted: 08 Sep 2012 02:13 PM PDT 
Umno's political survival depends greatly and gravely on Tanah Melayu 'belonging' to the Malays and not the other way round. CT Ali, FMT As a Malay I am trying to understand where I am now politically. You cannot simply ask me to detach myself from Umno – the only political party I have known from the time that iconic word "Tanah Melayu" came into my consciousness. Not Malaya (as we know it then) but "Tanah Melayu." I remember it being spoken of reverently by my uncles and the older Malays as I sat and listened to them speak not of politics but of what the future will hold for them and the many other races that was already calling Malaya their home even then. Tanah Melayu was our land, our country, ours to call our own – we belonged here, it was our home. But in reality Tanah Melayu was not ours to call our own. Let me explain. Today Malaya is called Malaysia. Somehow along the way from then to now, things have changed. "Tanah Melayu" to quote the words of Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad "belongs to the Malay race. Peninsular Malaysia was known as Tanah Melayu but this cannot be said because it will be considered racist. We must be sincere and accept that the country is Tanah Melayu." Mahathir said the Malay community may risk losing the country if the communities continue to identify themselves according to the country of origin … as it is an admission that they are immigrants in the country. But how can the Malays lose Malaysia when it never belonged to them in the first place! We Malays belong to this land called Malaysia – not the other way around. 'There is no risk'
That being the case, no other community, no other people, no other race can take away Malaysia from the Malays – not when these non-Malays have pledged themselves to belong to the same Tanah Melayu. 
So Umno really has nothing to do if it says that its work is to save Tanah Melayu for the Malays. The Malays have never risked losing the country – it is the country that risks losing the Malays, the Chinese, the Indians, its Orang Asli, the Dayaks, Ibans, Kadazans…and all those who have called Malaysia their home. And even as I write this, you and I know that this Tanah Melayu is losing its people as they leave this Tanah Melayu to make their home elsewhere. So why is Umno still trying to save this Tanah Melayu for the Malays when what needs to be done is for Umno to ensure that this Tanah Melayu will not lose the people that it already has? The very people that helped build Tanah Melayu into what it is today – a multi-cultural, multi-ethnic, multi-religious community comfortable in its own identity and trying to move forward as one people in the global community that we are all part of. But Umno will not have any part in this. Their political survival is dependent on this Tanah Melayu belonging to the Malays and not the Malays belonging to Tanah Melayu. READ MORE HERE |
| RM400, 000 for a dinner that was attended by Anwar Ibrahim and rich tycoons Posted: 08 Sep 2012 05:54 AM PDT 
(Kuala Lumpur Post) - A whopping RM400,000 for a fund-raising gala dinner? According to blogger Yuseri Yusoff, that was the amount spent on Malam Gala Keadilan 2012, a PKR fund-raising dinner which was held in May. The blogger has also attached a formal letter sent by PKR's president Datuk Sri Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail to the event organising chairman Datuk Dr Tan Tee Kwong, seeking clarification and financial details. "RM400, 000 for a dinner that was attended by PKR top leadership and rich tycoons, is that not a big waste? "Its an irony as they (PKR) have always been accusing Barisan Nasional (BN) for being lavish and for wasting people's money, but now they are the ones doing it. Where did the money come from…from Anwar (PKR de facto leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim)'s salary of RM1 per month as Selangor's economic advisor? the blogger questioned. Meanwhile, Anwar, as reported in a pro-opposition blog Merah Tinta MSO, had praised the organisers for the event. The blogger said that Anwar, in his fiery opening speech, had slammed the BN-led federal government and federal institutions. He had also singled out the Royal Malaysian Police force for allegedly not handling the Bersih rallies accordingly. Another blog, Gelagat Anwar, pointed out that the fund-raising dinner was meant to raise sympathy from the people and also to boost up Anwar's declining popularity. PKR vice-president Tian Chua, when contacted, claimed that the fund raising dinner was successfull due to the high turn-out. Asked about the details of the expenditure, Tian Chua kept it short: "All the fund raised were from private firms and individuals. The difference nowadays is that many big corporate players are willing to support us". Other top PKR leaders refused to comment on the matter. |
| DAP: Punishing teens will torch BN’s non-Malay support Posted: 08 Sep 2012 05:50 AM PDT 
Teenager Ong Sing Yee reacts after offering her apology for stepping on the pictures, during a press conference in Kuala Lumpur September 6, 2012.—Picture by Saw Siow Feng Clara Chooi, The Malaysian Insider Lim Guan Eng today suggested that Barisan Nasional's (BN) harsh treatment of those responsible for last week's Merdeka Day misadventures despite a failure to address similar transgressions by hardliners in Umno and Perkasa will alienate its non-Malay support. The DAP secretary-general said the action will also serve to highlight the government's apparent bias after having ignored unruly behaviour displayed previously by to Malay right wingers. Lim pointed out that unlike the political leaders, the youths who mooned over or trampled on photographs of the country's leaders and raised a pre-independence flag during last week's Merdeka Day celebrations had not committed the acts with malicious intent. "But this Perkasa... they are extremists. These youths, they just want to have fun, they do not know what they are doing. "But others, they have done this three, four times. Not only stepping and burning photographs but even performing Hindu funeral rites for me. This is not just an insult to the Hindus but also to the Muslims," he said in a press conference in Penang earlier today. The Bagan MP pointed out that unlike the young mischief makers, several of whom have apologised for their actions over the week, those from Perkasa and other pro-Umno supporters have yet to come forward to do the same. Despite this, Lim said the authorities appeared overly determined to throw the book at the youths, even opening a probe against them under the Sedition Act, a law that the government has promised it will repeal soon. He urged the government to have a "big heart" and accept the apologies offered by the two teenagers over the picture-stomping incident, saying it was punishment enough their actions were heavily publicised. In a separate statement here, DAP advisor Lim Kit Siang suggested the same, and urged a Cheras-based private college to reverse its decision to expel one of the teenagers, the 19-year old boy from Batu Pahat. "This incident just shows that Perkasa is Umno and Umno is Perkasa. Clearly, they do not need the non-Malay votes," Guan Eng said. "The way they behave... BN does not need the non-Malay votes, they do not want the non-Malay votes and I think this message has been passed throughout Malaysia." Other opposition politicians have railed against the authorities for the speed with which they have reprimanded the youths for the incident, noting a failure to do the same against pro-Umno, pro-BN and Perkasa activists who previously committed the comparable offences. Malay right wing group Perkasa had in May this year organised a mock funeral for Lim. The group's leaders, as well as other pro-Umno activists have also held numerous protests where the photographs of prominent Pakatan Rakyat (PR) leaders and civil society activists like Datuk Ambiga Sreenevasan were trampled on or even torched. Shortly after the April 28 Bersih rally in the city, a group of army veterans had also performed butt exercises outside Ambiga's home. |
| UN rep: OK for NGOs to get foreign funding Posted: 07 Sep 2012 06:37 PM PDT 
Even the Malaysia government received foreign funding but nobody has accused it of being a 'foreign agent', argues United Nations Special Rapporteur, Maina Kiai. Teoh El Sen, FMT There is nothing wrong for non-governmental organisations (NGOs) to receive foreign funding, United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Rights to Freedom of Peaceful Assembly and of Association, Maina Kiai, said today. The prominent human rights activist and lawyer from Kenya said that if governments and businesses can receive foreign funding, the same standards should also be applied to NGOs or associations. "If the work of an association demands funding, there should no restriction about funding, whether domestic or international," he said at a forum here about international standards and practices in exercising freedom of assembly and association. "Just the same way government receive funding… I know Malaysia received a lot of foreign funding in its early days, it should now be a provider of funding. Nobody accused the government of being a
foreign agent," he said. "The same standards that apply to the state, must also be extended to NGOs or businesses. I can bet you that more than half of these companies access foreign funding, that's the way the world works, that's what globalisation is about…" he said. Kiai said that people would not be able to exercise their fundamental right to freedom of associations without any funding. However, he also reminded that there was also the duty for civil society to be accountable. But, he added that such accountability must be independently done, and not forced upon in a manner that restricts or controls the society. "The demands to be accountable must be made by citizens, that's what the international law says," he said. The UN expert's views come in the wake of recent public scrutiny over the funding and organisational structure of a popular human rights body, Suaram, since July. Suaram's "independence" was questioned after some quarters revealed that it was consistently a recipient of annual allocations from the US-based National Endowment for Democracy (NED) organisation since 2006. Foreign powers Pro-establishment Malay rights groups demanded to know why Suaram was registered as a company, Suara Inisiatif Sdn Bhd, with a paid-up capital of RM2. Jaringan Melayu Malaysia (JMM) and Perkasa have accused the NGO of being funded by foreign powers to "destabilise the peace of the country". READ MORE HERE |
| Suaram firm to face 5 CCM charges, says minister Posted: 07 Sep 2012 06:35 PM PDT 
(Bernama) - Domestic Trade, Co-operatives and Consumerism Minister Datuk Seri Ismail Sabri Yaakob said the Companies Commission of Malaysia (CCM) had identified five charges under the Companies Act 1965 to be made against Suara Inisiatif Sdn Bhd (Suara Inisiatif). The first charge would be made in court in about a week or two, he told reporters after opening the Pekan Umno Youth, Wanita and Puteri delegates meeting here today. He said the action taken against Suara Inisiatif was not politically motivated, but because of the offence it allegedly committed. Prior to this, the CCM was criticised by several quarters for failing to act against Suara Rakyat Malaysia (Suaram), which confessed to receiving funds from foreign countries and individuals. This followed a report that claimed that Suaram was not a non-governmental organisation, but a company registered with the CCM. |
| 1 Malaysia, 2 Laws Posted: 07 Sep 2012 06:11 PM PDT 
Anwar Ibrahim has raised a very valid point. Malaysia is one country with two sets of laws. Hence '1 Malaysia, 2 undang-undang' is very apt to describe Malaysia. And these are the kind of things I wish to hear from the opposition and the Opposition Leader in Parliament. THE CORRIDORS OF POWER Raja Petra Kamarudin 1 Malaysia 2 undang-undang Orang kecil dan miskin namanya 'corruption'. Orang besar curi namanya 'komisyen'. Komisyen halal. 'Corruption' haram, kata Anwar Ibrahim. (Free Malaysia Today) - Ketua Pembangkang Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim menyifatkan negara mengamalkan dua undang-undang yang berbeza ketika mengulas tindakan pantas pihak berkuasa ke atas individu-individu yang memijak gambar Perdana Menteri Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak. "Malaysia mengamalkan konsep '1 Malaysia 2 undang-undang'," katanya pada majlis ceramah 'Jelajah Merdeka Rakyat' di Rantau dekat sini malam tadi. Tegas beliau, "saya tidak setuju tindakan anak muda yang memijak gambar Najib. Tapi kalau orang lain kencing gambar Menteri Besar Kelantan, Tuan Guru Dato' Nik Abdul Aziz Nik Mat, tak apa? Tunjuk punggung kepada Pengerusi Bersih, Dato' S Ambiga tak apa?" "Baling batu di ceramah saya dan Nurul Izzah (Ahli Parlimen Lembah Pantai) di Lembah Pantai. Pecah cermin kereta saya….pasal apa? Apa jenis manusia macam ini? Kamu ingat kamu orang besar hukum lain?" soal Ketua Umum PKR itu. "Hukum ini tidak kenal pangkat. Ini 1 Malaysia! 1 Malaysia apa? Satu undang-undang untuk orang kaya, satu undang-undang untuk orang miskin." "Satu undang-undang untuk menteri Umno, rasuah pun tidak apa, tutup semua. Satu undang-undang untuk orang dibawah. Polis ambil 100 ringgit, 'charge',' katanya. Anwar yang juga Ahli Parlimen Permatang Pauh berkata sepatutnya undang-undang ini tidak kenal keturunan dan pangkat. "Seperti saya kata rasuah 200 ringgit polis, tangkap! Rasuah setengah bilion ringgit kapal selam, lepas!" "Orang kecil dan miskin namanya 'corruption' (rasuah). Orang besar curi namanya 'komisyen'. Komisyen halal. 'Corruption' haram." "Pemimpin yang tidak sanggup laksanakan ilmu 'rule of law' tetapi ikut 'law of the jungle' mesti diturunkan ke bawah dan ditumbangkan", kata Anwar. Anwar juga berkata perangai pemimpin Umno ibarat 'baling batu sembunyi tangan' dan seterusnya rakaman video perbahasan di parlimen ditayangkan kepada orang ramai. Beliau menegaskan, "mereka menfitnah saya memiliki RM3 bilion, ketika saya berbahas di parlimen ada di antara mereka menjerit tiga bilion!" READ MORE HERE: http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/nation/2012/09/08/1-malaysia-2-undang-undang/ ********************************************* Anwar Ibrahim has raised a very valid point. Malaysia is one country with two sets of laws. Hence '1 Malaysia, 2 undang-undang' is very apt to describe Malaysia. And these are the kind of things I wish to hear from the opposition and the Opposition Leader in Parliament. Malaysia practices selective prosecution, or more aptly, persecution. Friends are spared and enemies are crucified. And this is not a new phenomenon. This has been going on for quite some time, 30 years to be exact. In the beginning, for the first 25 years or so, it was not too bad. And that was because we had noble men and gentlemen (and women) to lead the nation -- not only as Prime Minister, but in the Cabinet, civil service, police force, military, etc., as well. In those days, you were put in charge based on meritocracy. Today, it is based on your political affiliation. And don't just look at Barisan Nasional when I say this. This is the current Malaysian culture. So it means the opposition practices this as well. And that was one of my grouses with Pakatan Rakyat when I revealed that lawyers aligned to Pakatan Rakyat or leaders of Pakatan Rakyat were getting the legal work from the Pakatan Rakyat-led state governments. Even the DAP leaders have come out to reveal this. Some may argue that when Barisan Nasional was running those states the Barisan Nasional lawyers were getting this legal work. So what is wrong if Pakatan Rakyat lawyers get the legal work now that Pakatan Rakyat is in charge? If I really need to reply to that question then Malaysia is in far greater trouble than I originally thought. It is like trying to reply to a question from an Atheist asking me whether I can prove that God exists. The fact that that question has even been raised means that person is already convinced that God does not exist. Hence would it not be futile to even attempt to reply? This is not just about corruption and abuse of power. This extends farther than that. It is about what you perceive as moral and what you perceive as immoral. And if I need to give you a lesson in morality then I am doomed from the start. To a prostitute, offering sex for money has nothing to do with morality but is all about earning a living. And are they not called 'sex workers' instead of 'prostitutes' in some countries? Hence they are workers just like you and me who work in an office or do a blue-collar job. It is about cari makan (look for food) and is therefore not in the least immoral. After all, everyone has a mouth or mouths to feed. So is not spreading one's leg better than robbing a bank or selling drugs to children? As Anwar said, Malaysia has 2 legal systems -- that's for sure. And Anwar has offered some examples to support this point. I would like to highlight some others, which Anwar has missed. If you are a non-Muslim who is caught having illicit sex with a Muslim only the Muslim goes to jail. If you are non-Muslims drinking beer or having lunch with Muslims during the fasting month of Ramadhan only the Muslims get arrested. If you are a non-Muslim owner of a hotel, restaurant, bar, pub, disco, etc., that sells liquor and you employ Muslim staff they would be arrested. But if you are a Muslim owner, your Muslim staff would not be arrested. If you are of Chinese or Indian descent whose forefathers came to Malaya 500 years ago you will not be a Bumiputera or son/daughter of the soil. If you were born in Indonesia or the Philippines and are of Muslim persuasion and you migrated to Malaysia yesterday you will be given citizenship with a Bumiputera status thrown in. Yes, I can go on and on and bore you to death. Suffice to say that Malaysia may be 1 Malaysia but it has two sets of undang-undang. Hence Anwar is right. But Anwar needs to educate Malaysians on how far this sickness extends. Anwar needs to also explain that Muslims can preach Islam to Christians but Christians cannot preach Christianity to Muslims. Qur'ans can be printed in English but Bibles cannot be printed in Malay. Christians can convert to Islam but Muslims cannot convert to Christianity. And the list goes on, examples of 1 Malaysia but 2 undang-undang. I am beginning to like what Anwar says. So I might yet support him in his bid to become Malaysia's next Prime Minister. We only need Anwar to take that one more step in calling a spade a spade and tell us in detail why Malaysia might be 1 Malaysia but has 2 undang-undang. And when that happens you will then see me appealing to Malaysians to support Anwar as the next Prime Minister of Malaysia. But I first need to see Anwar take that one extra step so that Malaysians can get a better grasp of what he means when he says '1 Malaysia 2 undang-undang'. |
| Time to re-define development Posted: 07 Sep 2012 05:08 PM PDT 
Development is reaching saturation level in many parts of the country, says PKR MP Yusmadi Yusoff. Hawkeye, FMT There is a need to re-define what development means to the average Malaysians given the rapid pace of modernisation, a PKR parliamentarian said. Balik Pulau MP Yusmadi Yusoff said development has reached saturation level in many parts of the country and hence, there is a need to re-define development. He said this is necessary in view of the rapid growth of infrastructure, industries, roadworks, housing and social amenities over the last 50 years. Citing Penang, Yusmadi said there is now a widespread sense of unhappiness over the level of development taking place here. Penang is said to be over-devloped to the extent that even hillslopes are not spared in the hectic race to modernisation. This has caused some adverse effects: environmental degradation, traffic congestion and the emergence of slums in midst of luxurious condominiums and landed bungalows. Pockets of squatters are also facing eviction as developers scurry around to ensure their projects get underway before the effects of global recession set in. Yusmadi said the country can no longer deal with development through half-baked solutions and an unholistic approach. The time has come to re-visit development in the proper context. Don't give in to greed "What does development mean to Malaysians? Is more wealth generated from it? Have we progressed in our own age of industralisation, or are we slowly but surely becoming the urban poor?" Yusmadi asked. "Do Malaysians want to see their green lungs disappear or do they want to salvage them?" He said he would raise this matter in Parlaiment when it convenes this month. READ MORE HERE |
| Soliciting money: ‘Wipe out this scam’ Posted: 07 Sep 2012 05:03 PM PDT 
Senior lawyer Karpal Singh wants the Attorney-General's Chambers to investigate a scam where lawyers allegedly solicit big bucks to secure release of criminal detainees. Athi Shankar, FMT The Attorney-General's Chambers must investigate an alleged scam where lawyers allegedly solicit big bucks to secure release of criminal detainees via the back door, senior lawyer and veteran MP Karpal Singh said today. Under the scam, lawyers signed agreement with those charged with criminal offences, especially major crimes, or their representatives promising to "somehow secure the accused release" with a big cash payout to the main players in the case. Karpal, whose client was directly affected by it, wants the AG's Chambers to get to bottom of this scam and wipe it out once and for all. He criticised lawyers who enter into such agreements, saying they are being unprofessional and unethical, and bringing the legal system into disrepute. "It gives the impression that prosecutors and witnesses can be bought over. Such agreements are shocking, which the AG must probe immediately. "With so many capital cases in the country, if it [this practice] is not stopped, we are heading for a lot of trouble," said Karpal. He claimed that his client, an Iraqi businessman Sayed Omeid facing extradition to Australia, was a victim of this scam. Omeid lodged a report at Dangi Wangi police station last Thursday accusing two lawyers of fleecing his family of US$50,000 by falsely promising to secure his release through their contacts in the Home Ministry. Omeid's family agreed to pay the lawyers US$100,000, with 27% to be paid upon signing the agreement and 23% within eight days of the first payment. The balance of 50% was to be kept in a joint account until Omeid was freed. READ MORE HERE |
| When nothing works, do nothing Posted: 07 Sep 2012 04:37 PM PDT
But Dr Mahathir is old and senile. Nik Aziz is a country bumpkin. Saudi Arabia is crazy. It is our civil right to watch porn. No one should stop us from watching porn. So we have children also watching porn. But that is the price of freedom of information. There should be no censorship. NO HOLDS BARRED Raja Petra Kamarudin More than 11 years ago, back in early 2001, Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad explained why Malaysia needs a detention without trial law. The Internal Security Act (ISA) is a preventive law, explained Dr Mahathir. It is a law that makes it possible to detain people before they commit a crime. If they have already committed a crime then they can be arrested and charged in court. But it is better to detain these people before they commit a crime, Dr Mathathir said. Once they have already committed the crime they would probably be far away from the scene of the crime and would have escaped by the time the police arrive. Even if they are arrested and charged they may get off. Maybe there is not enough evidence to get a conviction or a smart lawyer would get them acquitted. Hence, even if they are arrested, there is no guarantee they would be punished. This makes the ISA necessary, said Dr Mahathir. People can be detained even before they commit a crime. Even while they are still thinking of committing a crime they can already be detained. Once they have committed a crime the damage would have already be done. Better we prevent the damage before it happens. Then 911 happened. And this allowed Dr Mahathir to gloat and tell us 'I told you so'. Our Twin Towers is still standing because Malaysia has a detention without trial law, said Dr Mahathir. The US does not have such a law so their Twin Towers is gone. That shows how useful the ISA is to preserve peace, order and stability. The US too needs a preventive detention law like Malaysia, Dr Mahathir counselled that great power. Then the US 'followed' Malaysia's 'advice' by introducing their version of a detention without trial law. And the western countries too started embarking on preventive detention. They detained suspected terrorists who had yet to commit any crime but were suspected of planning or thinking of committing a crime. So the world proved Dr Mahathir right in the end. And now we find that adults who have sex with children escape punishment. Then we say that Malaysia's legal system stinks. People who should be punished are not punished and people who should not be punished are punished. It is the world upside down. And, of course, we are not happy about this. So what do we do? Do we detain without trial people who are suspected of planning to commit a crime or do we wait until they do commit the crime and then arrest and charge them and see them get acquitted and escape punishment? Then we have people like Tok Guru Nik Aziz Nik Mat who says that boys and girls (or men and women) should not be allowed to mix freely. In fact, countries like Saudi Arabia do not allow girls or women to leave the house unless escorted or chaperoned by male members of their family. This is to prevent girls or women from being raped or duped into having sex with horny male predators. But we call Nik Aziz an idiot and Saudi Arabia a backward country. We do not want segregation of the sexes or separate swimming pools and checkout counters for males and females. We want males and females the freedom to mix and not having to endure forced segregation by the state. Yes, we want this and we want that. We want everything. We also want race-free political parties that will uphold the interest of our race. Hmm…that sounds like we want virgin prostitutes. Then we have a 14-year old girl who has sex with a 13-year old boy. Do we now charge the girl for sex with a minor since she is one-year older than the boy? Or will this apply only if an 18-year old girl has sex with a 17-year old boy and then the 18-year old girl gets sent to jail in the interest of the 17-year old boy? But it was the boy who seduced the girl. So how can the girl be punished? Yes, but it is the age that counts. And since the girl is older than the boy then she and not the boy has to be punished. But why, in the first place, do children of 12 or 13 have sex? Well, this could be because children of nine or ten have access to the Internet and they get to see porn on the Internet. So they want to try out all those exciting things they see every day on the Internet. So it is the Internet then that has to be blamed? Or is it because boys and girls or men and women are allowed to mix freely? Would barring girls from leaving the house without a chaperone or having separate swimming pools and checkout counters for males and females help? Or do we just arrest more people and charge them in court and see them get acquitted and go unpunished? Phew…what a dilemma we are facing. Then Dr Mahathir comes out and makes a statement that the Internet needs to be regulated. Then we whack Dr Mahathir and call him all sorts of names. But there is just too much porn on the Internet, argues Dr Mahathir. We are allowing children to see things they should not be allowed to see. And if we allow children free access to porn sites then they might want to try what they see on the Internet. And then we will have children indulging in sex. But Dr Mahathir is old and senile. Nik Aziz is a country bumpkin. Saudi Arabia is crazy. It is our civil right to watch porn. No one should stop us from watching porn. So we have children also watching porn. But that is the price of freedom of information. There should be no censorship. Okay, the downside is children who watch porn indulge in sex. But we do not agree to chaperoning girls or women. We also do not agree to segregation of the sexes. We want more policemen on the streets arresting adults who have sex with children and strict judges who are prepared to send these people to jail. And if a 19-year old girl has sex with a 17-year old boy then the girl must be locked up even if it was the boy who seduced the girl. And since Barisan Nasional cannot do this then we must kick out Barisan Nasional and replace the government with Pakatan Rakyat. And how will Pakatan Rakyat solve this problem that Barisan Nasional cannot? That is not important. What is important is we gave Barisan Nasional 55 years and they could not solve the problem. No doubt Pakatan Rakyat has not told us yet how they are going to solve the problem that Barisan Nasional could not solve. But we will talk about that later. Let's vote them into office first and then we will discuss how Pakatan Rakyat is going to solve the problem that Barisan Nasional cannot solve. Maybe we will do what Dr Mahathir suggests. Maybe we will listen to Nik Aziz. Maybe we will follow what Saudi Arabia does. Maybe we can show children various verses of the Qur'an and Bible that say sex outside marriage is forbidden and that they will go to hell if they violate God's command. Maybe we can detain without trial suspected sex offenders before they commit a crime. Or maybe we will do nothing and the problem will just continue. But let's vote first and find out later. |
| Kalau Dr M sokong Najib… Posted: 07 Sep 2012 02:55 PM PDT 
Kalau kita ikut kehendak Dr Mahathir untuk menyokong Najib, ia bermakna kita menyokong calon yang salah seperti yang terbukti dengan pewaris-pewaris kepimpinan Dr M yang lalu. Ini merupakan satu kebenaran dan Dr Mahathir sendiri mengakuinya semalam. Aspan Alias, The Malaysian Insider Cebisan fakta yang saya tulis tentang Umno sejak dua hari yang lepas, susah untuk Umno memahaminya. Dalam Umno hanya seorang sahaja ahli yang bekerja keras, iaitu Najib, Presidennya sekarang. Penjelajahan Najib keseluruh negara telah membelanjakan wang rakyat ratusan juta ringgit. Di sini Umno juga terlupa yang rakyat sedang memerhatikan tindakan pimpinan Umno dalam usaha mendapatkan mandat dalam PRU kali ini. Akhir-akhir ini Dr Mahthir sahaja yang keluar untuk menyokong Najib habis-habisan seorang sahabat saya berseloroh, "sokongan Mahathir itu ada makna tu!" Dalam dua posting saya yang terdahulu, saya telah melepaskan apa yang ada tersimpan di dalam jiwa saya dan orang-orang yang sama pemikiran seperti saya memahaminya. Seperti biasa orang-orang Umno tidak akan faham sampai bila-bila. Dalam keadaan yang tidak menentu Umno sendiri tidak dapat meyakinkan partinya sendiri yang mereka akan berjaya mengekalkan kuasa di Putrajaya. Dr Mahathir kali ini bekerja keras untuk mempertahankan Umno, parti yang beliau tubuhkan dan juga parti yang beliau sendiri mengakui sebagai sebuah pertubuhan yang telah busuk sampai ke ususnya. Hasil dari warisan pimpinan Umno yang begitu lemah oleh Dr Mahathir, rakyat tidak lagi memberikan penghormatan yang tinggi kepada parti itu lagi. Di sinilah kegagalan Dr Mahathir kerana semasa beliau berkuasa beliau tidak pernah memikirkan nasib masa depan Umno itu sendiri. Beliau terlalu tertumpu untuk menguatkan kekuatan peribadi beliau dan mengorbankan masa depan partinya. Beliau sendiri tidak dapat menerima kenyataan yang pimpinan negara mesti dibentuk dan dibina. Justeru apabila beliau meletakkan jawatan maka yang ada di keliling beliau hanyalah kumpulan pemimpin yang tidak sepatutnya menjadi pemimpin. Terlalu "engrossed" untuk memperkuatkan kekuatan peribadi beliau maka partinya secara tidak di sedari telah menghadapi "vacuum" kepimpinan yang serius. Maka Pak Lah lah yang beliau lantik untuk menggantikan beliau berdasarkan kepada kenyataan yang Pak Lah merupakan Naib Presiden yang tertinggi semasa itu. Semalam Dr Mahathir mengaku kesilapan kerana memilih Pak Lah sebagai pengganti beliau. Kalau kita hendak tuai apa yang terbit, kata-kata Dr Mahathir kebenaran. Pak Lah kepada beliau merupakan pilihan yang salah. Dr Mahathir sedang mengalih dan menganjakkan semua kesalahan beliau kepada Pak Lah. Mentang-mentanglah Pak Lah tidak menjawab kerana beliau tidak mahu lagi menyibuk setelah beliau bersara. Kalau Dr Mahathir tidak melantik Pak Lah semasa beliau bersara siapa pula yang sepatutnya mengambilalih beliau? Kalaulah beliau memilih Najib semasa itu, ramai merasakan yang keadaan sekarang akan lebih teruk dari sekarang. Jadi kenyataan Dr Mahathir yang beliau melakukan kesalahan kerana memilih Pak Lah untuk menggantikan beliau itu amat "personal" dan nampak sangat dendam kesumat beliau terhadap penggantinya itu. Dr Mahathir tidak menyedari selembut-lembut Pak Lah, beliau adalah seorang yang degil dan sangkaan Dr Mahathir yang Pak Lah akan membenarkan beliau (Dr Mahathir) masuk campur dalam pentadbirannya adalah salah. Dr Mahathir tidak mengenali Pak Lah dengan sebenarnya. Walaupun Pak Lah itu seorang yang lembut, tetapi lembut beliau bukan untuk di sudu. Kalau Pak Lah itu keras orangnya, keras beliau itu bukan untuk di takek. Oleh kerana Pak Lah tidak membenarkan Dr Mahathir untuk menyudu atau menakek beliau (Pak Lah), maka Dr Mahathir kecewa dan mula membidas Pak Lah "without mercy". Kalaulah Pak Lah membenarkan Dr Mahathir masuk campur seperti Najib sekarang ini Dr Mahathir tidak akan mengkritik Pak Lah sedemikian rupa. Menyalahkan Pak Lah seratus peratus adalah tidak rasional untuk Dr Mahathir melakukannya. Kecelaruan negara kita bukan di mulakan oleh Pak Lah. Ia bermula dari Dr Mahathir lagi. Pengakuan Dr Mahathir yang beliau selalu salah memilih penggantinya itu adalah benar. Musa adalah lantikan beliau, Ghafar Baba pun lantikan beliau. Selepas Ghafar, Anwar Ibrahim pula dan selepas Anwar, Pak Lah. Semua lantikan beliau akhirnya tidak bersesuaian dengan beliau (Dr Mahathir). Kalau beliau tidak suai dengan semua pihak, maka Dr Mahathir mesti melakukan introspeksi dirinya sendiri. Sesungguhnya yang membuatkan beliau tidak bersesuaian dengan semua timbalan atau pengganti beliau itu sudah cukup membuktikan Dr Mahathir memang tidak boleh bersesuaian dengan semua orang terutamanya mereka yang mempunyai pengaruh yang Dr Mahathir takuti. Itu sahaja yang boleh membuktikan kenyataan ini. READ MORE HERE |
| Dr Asri jelaskan pendirian ‘double standard’ dalam artikel ‘Politik Carca Merba’ Posted: 07 Sep 2012 02:50 PM PDT 
Md Izwan, The Malaysian Insider Mengulas laporan dalam The Malaysian Insider semalam yang bertajuk, "Asri selar ulama Umno membisu dalam isu melibatkan parti tersebut" bekas mufti Perlis Dr Mohd Asri Zainul Abidin menjelaskan tentang pendirian 'double standard' oleh sesetengah ulama muda dalam isu menyuarakan pandangan agama. Dr Asri juga berpendapat susulan laporan tesebut, ramai tersalah tafsir akan penulisannya dalam laman web rasmi www.drmaza.com dan menegaskan kenyataannya dalam artikel "Politik Caca Merba" tidak menujukan kepada mana-mana pihak sebaliknya lebih mengkhususkan kepada umum. "Saya jelaskan disini pandangan saya tidak terarah kepada mana pihak tetapi ia ditujukan secara umum amnya. "Perkara yg saya bangkitkan adalah mengenai pendirian double standard oleh segelintir pihak dalam menyuarakan pandangan agama," kata Dr Asri (gambar) ketika dihubungi oleh The Malaysian Insider pagi tadi. Dalam laporan semalam yang bertajuk, "Asri selar ulama Umno membisu dalam isu melibatkan parti tersebut" Dr Asri dikatakan menyelar ulama muda dalam Umno yang mengambil sikap membisu terhadap budaya politik samseng yang semakin menjadi-jadi kebelakangan ini. "Perbezaan politik bukan lagi membawa pertarungan minda dan tawaran khidmat pengurusan yang lebih baik, tetapi sebaliknya yang berlaku," kata Asri di laman rasminya. Dr Asri juga berkata budaya politik samseng seperti serangan ke atas bas, menunjukkan punggung pada gambar pemimpin, membaling kasut dalam masjid, tarian punggung dan lain-lain adalah bukti masyarakat kini semakin kehilangan adab sopan dan berakhlak buruk. "Dalil-dalil agama dan nama 'salafussoleh' dikhianati atas kedangkalan pengetahuan, ataupun kepentingan politik 'orang muda agama'. "Maka tidak pelik jika Allah menyifatkan golongan ulama yang menjual agamanya seperti anjing," tulisnya lagi. |
| Double standard, one-sided, 7.25% Posted: 07 Sep 2012 02:40 PM PDT 
The double-standard practice and one-sided action seen during the current tenure of the incumbent government should be put to a stop. Selena Tay, FMT It cannot be denied that the political temperature has gone up a notch after the recent Merdeka Day celebrations. In taking a swipe at Pakatan Rakyat, Defence Minister Ahmad Zahid Hamidi recently mentioned that Barisan Nasional has fulfilled more than 87% of its promises since the first parliamentary election in 1959 when it was known as the Alliance. From the first parliamentary election till now, it has been 12 terms that BN has been in power. "Take 87% divide 12 terms and you get 7.25%. This means that for each term BN only managed to fulfil 7.25% of its promises," said Mahfuz Omar, PAS MP for Pokok Sena in Kedah. Zahid had also mentioned that Pakatan has fulfilled less than 15% of its promises. Countered Mahfuz: "We still win hands down. Fulfilling 14% of our promises per one parliamentary term is still more than BN's 7.25% per term. That is if Zahid still wants to play with figures." This is a clear indication that BN leaders are poor in maths. This is evident when Umno leaders also like to tell their Malay constituents that DAP wants to control the nation after the coming 13th general election. How can DAP control the nation when it is contesting only 50 parliamentary seats? There are a total of 222 parliamentary seats and even if DAP were to win all its 50 seats, it is not even one-third of the total. Does this not show the mathematical skills of BN leaders? To-date, BN has continued to harp on its "Janji Ditepati" (Promises Fulfilled) theme. This theme sounds foolish when there is still a lack of basic amenities, for instance, a regular supply of clean tap water in the interior areas of Sabah and Sarawak. This problem also exists in Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak's home state of Pahang, especially in the Jengka areas as reported by a local Malay daily. Sabah and Sarawak are also lacking in good roads, especially in the rural and interior areas. Another example is good bus transport; for instance, in the 1990s there was regular bus service for the Taman Bukit Maluri, Kepong-KL route. Now there is no bus service for this route. Promises by the government to improve the bus service are nothing to shout about. What about the oil royalty payments to the Kelantan government? Till today, there is absolute silence about making the payments except the setting up of an Oil Royalty Payments Committee. "Is the committee nothing but an eyewash to dupe the Kelantan voters in view of the coming general election?" asked Dzulkefly Ahmad, the PAS Kuala Selangor MP. Selective prosecution On the promise of transparency in open tenders, this promise has not been kept. The National Feedlot Corporation contract is one such example. "The mainstream media has blanked out the government's misdeeds, mistakes and failures in keeping promises. Therefore, the majority of the people especially those in the rural areas are kept in the dark. This is done with the intention of keeping them ignorant so that they will continue to vote for the incumbent government," said Dzulkefly. One-sided media coverage during BN's tenure is one thing. Another thing is the misdeed of the current government in using its lackeys to bully opposition leaders. These lackeys delivered "shit-cakes" to Penang Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng as well as holding a mock funeral rite for him and stepping on his posters, yet these are not highlighted by the mainstream media. In a recent incident earlier this month, another group of lackeys threw a shoe into a mosque in Kedah when Opposition Leader Anwar Ibrahim was giving a religious talk. Besides, the lights and loudspeaker were repeatedly switched off and when Anwar started to speak using a loudhailer, the mosque's siren was suddenly activated. These lackeys seem to be above the law. Are they entitled to ride roughshod over the rakyat? "No action is taken on these goons as they are the devil's own. Selective prosecution seems to be the order of the day but if the opposition makes a mistake, the government-controlled media will go to town over it," said Dzulkefly. Finally, there is also the broken promise regarding the cleaning of the voter rolls. This issue needs no further elaboration. READ MORE HERE |
| ‘Clones’ likely ruined Malaysia’s Twitter record bid, says research house Posted: 07 Sep 2012 10:34 AM PDT  A screen capture from the Politweet Facebook page showed a series of identical entries on Twitter that were registered during the National Day record attempt. — Malaysia could have made Twitter history for the number of National Day messages sent on the microblogging site last week if "clones" had not been used to pollute the actual number of tweets sent, an independent social media research house has concluded. Politweet.org pointed out in its report yesterday on the #Merdeka55 hashtag movement that despite Putrajaya's claim that Malaysians had breached the 3.6 million tweet mark in just one hour on August 31, no other third-party authority has since verified this declaration as true. "So assuming the figure is true, it is possible that the 3.6 million tweets are a world record," the research house wrote in its report. "However to date, Twitter has made no announcement on their blog about #Merdeka55. There is also no mention of the #Merdeka55 record online by other tracking websites," it pointed out. "Without a third party to verify the data, the 3.6 million tweets figure is doubtful," Politweet said.  A screen capture shows a Twitter post made during the record attempt. Information, Communication and Culture Minister Datuk Seri Dr Rais Yatim had declared on August 31, Malaysia's 55th National Day last week, that some 3,611,323 tweets were recorded between 8.15pm and 9.15pm nationwide to Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak's account, @NajibRazak, containing various independence-themed messages, during the "Janji Ditepati (Promises Fulfilled)" gathering at Stadium Bukit Jalil. But Rais' record-beating claim was immediately met with disbelief by Malaysian Twitter users, many of whom have accused the organisers of rigging the contest by using "bots" to generate false publicity. "Bots doing retweeting 4 thousand times, then u proud of hvg mils of tweets?" Twitter user @Amir_Shari had written earlier this week, referring to computer programs designed to send out automated responses on the service. Another user, Cyril Dason, tweeted on his account @cyrildason that "#merdeka55 stats online: 1,500 tweets generated 493,610 impressions, reaching an audience of 185,482 followers within the past 24 hours", in an apparent rebuttal of the federal government's record-setting claim. Fuelling these users' claims in its report yesterday, Politweet said it had begun tracking mentions of #Merdeka55 on Twitter from August 28, the moment Rais had announced Putrajaya's aim to hit a one million-tweet mark for tweets sent within an hour from 8.15pm to 9.15pm on August 31. But during the targeted hour, Politweet said it had observed an "odd pattern" during the live stream — "large blocks of identical tweets were being sent at the same time". "Further investigation revealed that a small group of users were responsible for a large volume of tweets. "These users had similar characteristics, e.g. account creation date, profile photos, location and follower/following relationships. All of their duplicate tweets were sent using Tweetdeck," Politweet wrote, calling these duplicate tweets as "clones". Read more at: http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/malaysia/article/clones-likely-ruined-malaysias-twitter-record-bid-says-research-house/ |
| Batang Kali - Britain must take moral responsibility for massacre Posted: 07 Sep 2012 10:28 AM PDT 
The smokescreen of 'defeating communism' was used to justify atrocities such as Batang Kali 1948. Notice that the Malaysian government has kept a guilty silence over this case despite hounding Mat Sabu over Bukit Kepong. Dr Kua Kia Soong, SUARAM Adviser On 4 September 2012, the London High Court of Justice handed down a judgement that there was no legal duty for Her majesty's Government to hold an inquiry over the killing of 24 civilians by HMG's Scots Guards at Batang Kali on 11/12 December 1948 and that the claimants had no grounds to challenge the decisions of the Secretaries of State not to hold an inquiry. The conclusion of the court was that the decisions of the Secretaries of State "were not unreasonable…" They had maintained that the facts of the case remained in dispute; the veracity of the accounts was in doubt as most of the witnesses had died, and the evidence would be unreliable since it happened more than sixty years ago. Regarding the claim that the Secretaries of State had an obligation to conduct an inquiry under Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the court cited the House of Lords decision [Re McKerr and McCaughey UKHL 12, 1 WLR 807] that "there was no duty to investigate a death before the coming into force of the Human Rights Act on 2 October 2000." (para 93) Although this may seem like a setback for the claimants and all who demand justice for the 24 victims, there are certain positive dimensions in this judgement and hope in comparable cases elsewhere. 1. The court established that the 24 victims were civilians and not combatants (para 1): On 13 December 1948, the British High Commissioner had reported the deaths to the Colonial Office as "the shooting and killing of 26 bandits..." This was standard propaganda during the Emergency by the British colonial government and their local custodians. It has taken all these 64 years for this fact to be established by a British court! 2. The British Government had command and control over the Scots Guards The Secretaries of State had argued in the court that the British Government had no legal responsibility for the actions of the Scots Guards who did the killing at Batang Kali, so they were under no duty to hold an inquiry to pin the responsibility. They had argued, very much like our learned professors in the Mat Sabu/ Mat Indera case, that the Scots Guards were merely assisting the Federation or the Selangor Sultan or both, in maintaining order. In any case, they further argued that any responsibility would have lapsed to the Federation of Malaya upon independence in 1957 via Article 167 of the Constitution. Nevertheless, the court decided that: "It is clear, in our view, that the British Government had command and control over the Scots Guards. First, the Scots Guards were part of the British Army in contradistinction to the Malay Regiment and other local forces. Second, it is evident from the minute of the British Cabinet…that the reason for the decision to send the brigade of the British Army was to defend British interests against the advance of communism on what was in reality territory the British Government controlled, to prevent the deaths of British citizens and to protect its economic interests. Third, control over the deployment of the army in Malaya was vested in British Defence Co-ordination Committee Far East…Fourth, the Scots Guards were paid for by the British Government…" (para 112) Thus, this judgement has wide applications in the Mat Sabu/Mat Indera case although I suspect many of our local professors need not just legal exposure but rather, political awareness of our colonial history. Batang Kali is Britain's Rawagedeh Another source of hope for the claimants of Batang Kali is the recent apology by the Dutch government for a massacre of 150 people at Rawagede committed by its soldiers in Indonesia in 1947, as the country fought for independence. Earlier in 2011, a court in the Netherlands ordered the government to pay compensation over the killings. The case was brought by relatives of those who were killed. Reports said the Netherlands would pay 20,000 euros to the relatives, but the exact figure was still being negotiated. A Crime against Humanity The Rawagedeh claimants had argued that what took place in Rawagedeh on December 9, 1947 was a crime against humanity. Like any other colonial power, the Dutch had used the euphemistic term 'excesses' to describe the tragedy. Like the British in Malaya, the Dutch state defined it as an internal problem. On December 9, 1947 Dutch forces raided the West Javanese village to look for weapons and the Indonesian freedom fighter Lukas Kustario. Unable to find him, the Dutch military lined up the men and killed almost all of the male population. The widows of Rawagedeh and their children sued the Dutch state not only for the execution of their husbands and fathers, but also for failing to investigate the massacre. They wanted the Netherlands to acknowledge the unlawfulness of its actions, and sought financial compensation for their loss. Like the British state, the Dutch had also argued that the statute of limitations had expired. But according to the Convention on the Non-Applicability of Statutory Limitations to War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity there is no statute of limitations on war crimes, or crimes against humanity. The Netherlands, however, like many other Western countries, is one of the states that did not ratify the convention. But the Netherlands did ratify the Rome statute of the International Criminal Court – after all, the court is at The Hague. However, according to the Rome statute of the International Criminal Court the court can only prosecute war crimes, crimes against humanity committed on or after July 1, 2002 – the day it came into being. This is not dissimilar to the House of Lords judgement cited in the Batang Kali judgement of 4 Sept 2012. Gracious and Glorious if Kate & Will Apologised for British State It will therefore only be a matter of time before the British state will be forced to face up to its moral responsibility to the Commonwealth and follow the example of the Dutch government. In this the Queen's diamond jubilee year celebrations, would it not be a gracious and glorious gesture for Kate and Will to openly apologise to the families of the victims of the Batang Kali massacre during their Kuala Lumpur visit in a few months' time? Britain has always tried to project a self-image that is civilized, dignified and humanistic. Apologists for the British Empire have painted a romantic picture of colonialists setting their colonies "on the road to modernity…" The ideology of colonialism, which rationalized and justified oppression and exploitation, has distorted Malayan history and this history has been passed intact to their local custodians (foreign lackeys?). The smokescreen of 'defeating communism' was used to justify atrocities such as Batang Kali 1948. Notice that the Malaysian government has kept a guilty silence over this case despite hounding Mat Sabu over Bukit Kepong. Without accounting for past transgressions, the British state will remain for ever trapped in history and the families of the 24 men massacred at Batang Kali will keep reminding the British state that they have a moral responsibility to apologise for the tragedy and to compensate the families for the senseless loss of their loved ones. The claimants have already notified their lawyers to appeal to the higher courts forthwith… |
| Education Review Blueprint: Panacea or Placebo? Posted: 07 Sep 2012 10:23 AM PDT 
A plan is only as good as its implementation, and judging by the Ministry of Education's (MoE) track record, execution has never been its strong point. Sandra Rajoo People seem to be all excited recently over the education review blueprint which is due to be made public on Sept 11. Some even hailed it as the best thing since sliced bread, and this is before they even know the actual content. Let us hold the applause until after we read the whole document and see where it is taking us. The proof of the pudding is in the eating, so to speak. Will this 'mother-of-all-solutions' blueprint stand up to scrutiny? Is it going to be a solid, excellent-for-education master plan or will it be a glitzy, complex and tricky-to-implement blueprint? A plan is only as good as its implementation, and judging by the Ministry of Education's (MoE) track record, execution has never been its strong point. This effort at revamping the education system, which is long overdue, has to be commended though. Nevertheless I am not holding my breath. Decades of failed endeavours by the MoE tend to make people cynical, and I am wary of those who throw out feel-good statements to pacify a sceptical public. Clearly, there is an inability to look at education holistically and plan accordingly. Piecemeal and ad hoc initiatives which have been the norm will not bring desired results. Recall the time the ministry tried to design a curriculum aimed at producing creative and critical thinking (CCT) learners. Learning was going to be fun and enjoyable apparently. Unfortunately, it didn't look very good on paper, and fared even worse in the classroom. Obviously, the desired outcomes did not materialise. Many teachers had no idea what CCT entailed, and were not too eager to encourage it, lest students start asking questions and forming opinions. So that became a failed venture. What became evident and has remained entrenched were the obsession with grades, dropping of literacy levels, robotic methods of learning, emphasis on rote-learning, 'invisible' teachers, lack of concern for students' welfare, demotivated students and indifferent education officials. The teaching and learning of Maths and Science in English (PPSMI) is another issue that makes our hackles rise. From its inception about 10 years ago until today it has been fraught with difficulty and mired in controversy. The education ministry appears helpless and at a loss, what with the flip-flopping and the inability to train competent teachers. The vagueness of the 'soft-landing' which promises the continuation of PPSMI for certain groups of students and the current situation where many teachers have reverted to teaching in BM reflect poorly on the ministry. There has so far been no effort made at monitoring the situation on the ground. Is it any wonder that many parents are moving their children to private or international schools, or resorting to home schooling? Another point of contention was when the Prime Minister announced that Literature in English will be incorporated into the curriculum. This was picked up by the media and was heralded as the panacea for our English language woes. But Literature has been in the curriculum for a decade or so already. The subject is not something new. It is amazing that the people pertinent in education circles are unaware of this fact. English woes aside, we need to also ensure that our children receive proper instruction in Bahasa Malaysia. The disorganised way in which BM is being taught in schools does not augur well for the present and coming generations. When English was the medium of instruction, it created many proficient and competent users of the language which cut across all ethnic groups. The same cannot be said about BM. How many are really competent in the language? This problem has been neglected for too long. Let's see what the new education blueprint has in store for us. Going by the 153 proposals adopted by the Review Panel, our education system does appear to be in a bit of a shambles, doesn't it? Concerned groups have been voicing their views and giving suggestions over the years, but were largely ignored. Was the ministry waiting all this while for a 'saviour' to come save the day? Is this blueprint going to be the saviour? The implementation of the blueprint will stretch over 13 years which is a long time. Is the ministry committed to carry the momentum over this long period? The revealing of the blueprint is expected to generate debate amongst stakeholders. We hope any critique given by the public is looked upon as feedback to how things can be improved. Any comment deemed unfavourable to the ministry should not be frowned upon and disregarded. All the same, I believe that responsible and dedicated educators will have their own personal education blueprint which they use to plan, guide, execute and monitor their performance. If people involved in education, from the director-general to the school principal to the classroom teacher, have been doing this all along, the nationwide review exercise would not have been necessary. Good teachers don't wait for directives from the top before giving their best to students. Ultimately it is not the blueprint per se that can save our education system, it is whether officials and educators can save it through a good understanding of their roles and a commitment to the responsibilities they hold. We want to reach a stage in our education where we can say with pride that our children are bright and capable because of the education system, not despite it. |
| The type of letters I like to receive from our leaders Posted: 06 Sep 2012 11:48 PM PDT 
Dear Petra, As you may have seen on the news, I've announced an ambitious package to get growth and housing building going. This is not only to make sure we're building the homes people so desperately need but it will also help boost the economy by kick-starting one of our most important sectors, the construction industry. When Jo Swinson asked for input from you on growth, house building was one of the top responses. Today's announcement shows the kind of impact Liberal Democrats are having in the Coalition Government, thanks to our members, on this key issue. At the heart of yesterday's announcement was a massive new £10bn guarantee from the Government to house builders which will see tens of thousands of new and affordable homes built. This money is first and foremost targeted at Registered Social Landlords, who have a proven track record in delivering social and affordable homes, and I'm really pleased that organisations including the National Housing Federation and the British Property Federation have welcomed the announcement. In order to kick-start stalled developments where at the moment nothing is being built and no one is being employed, we're accelerating the point at which councils and house builders start discussing planning requirements. And to ensure that this leads to more homes being built rather than fewer, I am also ensuring that an additional £300 million is spent on building 15,000 new affordable homes and bringing 5,000 empty homes back into use. To help first-time buyers buy these, we're underwriting another £280m to help 16,500 people access the FirstBuy scheme. And last but not least, to support small, local builders, we're making it easier temporarily for homeowners to put in a new conservatory, loft extension or garage conversion and for businesses to expand their premises without getting mired in red tape. The precise details will be consulted on, but I hope that people will go ahead and get the local builder in. This is a big package of measures that I hope will get people building, create more jobs and help those people who are desperately trying to find homes to live in. You can read more at the Lib Dems' website. Best wishes,  Nick Clegg
Leader of the Liberal Democrats and Deputy Prime Minister |
| Till death do us part Posted: 06 Sep 2012 06:57 PM PDT
I have to admit that I have changed my position on the issue of Islamic State a number of times. In the beginning, in my disco days, I was opposed to an Islamic State. Later in life (during my mosque days) I was excited about it. I even joined the Iranians in Mekah to demonstrate against the Saudi Arabian government. And I had a poster of Imam Khomeini on my wall as well. Later, I again changed my position. Today, I no longer feel that an Islamic State would work. And I have written about this many times giving my reasons why I think this. NO HOLDS BARRED Raja Petra Kamarudin "Till death do us part," goes the marriage vows. But in many cases that never happens. In the US, about 40% of marriages end in divorce whereas in the UK it is slightly lower. Whatever it may be, an average of more than one-third of marriages in the US and UK does not end with the death of one of the partners. It ends earlier than that and the divorce rate for second and thirds marriages is even higher, according to the statistics. I suppose people change. Interests change. Priorities change. Age sometimes also plays a part. As we get older we change our mind or our value system. Sometimes familiarity breeds contempt. There could be many reasons or a combination of reasons as to why some couples are just not able to keep their marriage vows. Or it could be because you got tired of eating curry every day and now you want to change your diet and taste some tom yam. Some people tell me that when you eat curry at home every day you sometimes want to go out for some tom yam. The only thing is, don't get caught lest your wife does a 'Bobbit' on you. Change is the only thing that is constant, if you know what I mean. In my younger days, I used to love going to discos (what kids nowadays call clubbing). By the time I was 27, I preferred to spend my time at the mosque listening to the ustaz preach religion. Another 27 years later -- by the time I was 54 (that was eight years ago) -- I got bored with the same old sermons. We appeared to be going nowhere with all this talk regarding rukun and hukum. I wanted to know more, not just about batal wuduk, batal puasa, batal sembahyang, hukum nikah, hukum cerai, and whatnot. So I stopped going to the mosque to listen to sermons that I had been hearing for more than half my life and which I already knew by heart and could utter in my sleep. I suppose this is what the journey of life is all about. As you travel farther down the road you begin to see things differently and this changes you and the way you look at things. And when you reach the forks or junctions in your life you may decide to take the left lane rather than the right lane, as you have been doing so many times before. I mean, when you keep taking the same right lane every time and you find that the scenery does not change you might, out of curiosity, decide this time to try the left lane to see what happens. Then you discover that the left lane actually offers the answers to the questions you have been asking for decades but never found the answers to. It is no different in politics. Anwar Ibrahim, in his secondary school days, was fiercely anti-British. Considering that Malaya (not even 'Malaysia' yet at that time) had just gained independence barely three years before that, this is not surprising. The Merdeka spirit still burned very strongly in many people in 1960, Anwar included. But as we got farther and farther away from 1957, Merdeka got reduced to something that we read in the history books. Why did Anwar need to continue screaming about Merdeka when we were already Merdeka? Anwar then began to talk about Malay nationalism. And with that he talked about the Malay language and why Malay should replace English, even for the street names. Anwar's nationalist fight from 1968 to 1971 was through the Persatuan Kebangsaan Pelajar Islam Malaysia (PKPIM) and the Persatuan Bahasa Melayu Universiti Malaya (PBMUM). Thereafter, Mountbatten Road got changed to Jalan Mountbatten and eventually to Jalan Tun Perak. Birch Road (named after the eighth Resident of Perak, Sir Ernest Woodford Birch) was renamed Jalan Birch and again to Jalan Maharajalela -- named after the man who killed James Wheeler Woodford Birch (the first Resident of Perak) -- and many more all over the country. In 1974, Anwar was detained under the Internal Security Act. Not long after that, Anwar became an Islamist and started to fight for more Islamisation through the Angkatan Belia Islam Malaysia (ABIM), which was formed in 1972. In those days, Anwar worked very closely with the Islamic party, PAS, and was a strong supporter of the Iranian Islamic Revolution of 1979, as was I. In 1982, Anwar did a U-turn and, again, became a Malay nationalist when he joined Umno. I must admit that in the early 1960s I disagreed with Anwar's anti-British and pro-Malay language stand. But after he got released from ISA and became an active Islamist around 1976-1977 (by then I was already an Islamist myself, as I explained above), I did a U-turn and supported him. I would attend most of the rallies that PAS organised in the East Coast where Anwar was a speaker. But when Anwar joined Umno in 1982, I washed my hands off him. There was one occasion when he flew to Kuala Terengganu with his Umno Youth entourage and I completely ignored him although I was seated right behind him in the plane. By the way, he also ignored me, so it was mutual. Then, of course, that brings us to 1998, but I have already told that story so many times before so maybe it is not necessary that I talk about it again. Suffice to say, in 1998, I forgave Anwar for his betrayal and rallied behind him in support of Reformasi. But that only lasted six years. In 2004, I again 'divorced' Anwar and chose to fight my own battle through Malaysia Today, although I still aligned myself to the opposition, in particular DAP, who I campaigned for in 2008. Sometimes marriages last. Sometimes they do not. In the US and the UK more than one-third of marriages do not. But it happens and even the 'till death do us part' vow uttered in church do get broken. Nevertheless, when the relationship no longer works you need to just move on and look for a new relationship. Even then there is no guarantee that the next one will work. Will, under such a situation, an anti-hopping law work? Is it even democratic in the first place? What about freedom of association, as enshrined in the Constitution? Do we remove that Article that guarantees all Malaysians freedom of association? Basically, that is what it would tantamount to. Say, you are a member of DAP. And, say, DAP agrees to hold a referendum on whether Malaysia should be turned into an Islamic State with the Islamic law of Hudud as the law of the land. And, also say, DAP agrees that if 51% of Malaysians vote in favour of turning Malaysia into an Islamic State then DAP will not oppose it. Would you agree to that? Would you be of the opinion that the voting will be clean and honest and that there will be no rigging? Would you accept whatever the outcome of the referendum because it is your party's decision and you will not oppose your party's decision although you are opposed to an Islamic State? Or would you want the freedom of resigning from DAP because you are of the opinion that an Islamic State will not work for Malaysia? I have to admit that I have changed my position on the issue of Islamic State a number of times. In the beginning, in my disco days, I was opposed to an Islamic State. Later in life (during my mosque days) I was excited about it. I even joined the Iranians in Mekah to demonstrate against the Saudi Arabian government. And I had a poster of Imam Khomeini on my wall as well. Later, I again changed my position. Today, I no longer feel that an Islamic State would work. And I have written about this many times giving my reasons why I think this. Yes, changing your position does happen. And you may have reasons for that although others may not share these reasons. But this is what democracy is all about -- the right to change your mind and your position. Hence, if this right is taken away from you, then democracy itself has been removed. Anwar has changed his position a few times, as have I. But to condemn Anwar for his ever-changing position when he has every democratic right to change his views (as he gets older) is a violation of these rights. We all change, as we get older. My friend from DAP, YB Ronnie Liu, used to be a Communist in his younger days. But weren't many of us Communists when we were younger, me included? In fact, I still buy and wear Che Guevara T-shirts even until today. However, as we mature and as we lose some at that idealism, we begin to change. Today, Ronnie is as Communist as Madonna is a virgin. In short, till death do us part is a fallacy. And even the Catholic Church has had to reluctantly accept this reality. But would a Catholic cease to be a Catholic just because he or she broke her marriage vow of 'till death do us part'? |
| When all else fails, use Sedition Act Posted: 06 Sep 2012 04:26 PM PDT 
The act of arresting, handcuffing and detaining 19-year-old Ong Sing Yee will start a backlash against the authorities. Mariam Mokhtar, FMT In the past, Malaysia's Sedition Act 1948 was used to silence the political adversaries of the ruling administration. Today, Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak's government has deemed it necessary to curb individuals, NGOs and even teenagers. This government refuses to understand that it needs to summon the courage to tackle the necessary and urgent reforms demanded by the electorate. It should not take the easier option of hounding teenagers and people who dare criticise. The act of arresting, handcuffing and detaining 19-year-old Ong Sing Yee for 15 hours and then interrogating her without the presence of her lawyer, will start a backlash against the authorities. Ong's crime? She had been charged with sedition for stepping on posters of Najib and his wife, the self-styled First Lady Rosmah Mansor, during the Janji Demokrasi march on the eve of Merdeka Day at Dataran Merdeka. If Najib and the police would really like to make an impact, they should raid people's homes and arrest, handcuff and detain all those people, including and especially Malays, who use newspapers with Najib's photographs to line their cat litter trays. Some do this with relish, because they claim, this is their own form of silent protest. Photos of Najib seem to attract all sorts of contempt. Not so long ago. It is alleged he had to arrest boys for throwing bricks at his pictures on KTM trains. MP for Puchong, Gobind Singh Deo, had already said that stepping on photographs of the prime minister and his wife is not sedition. Najib and his wife are not rulers, nor are they the government. Najib is merely a government servant. In May, NGO and social activist Irene Fernandez was charged with sedition. A Jakarta daily reported that she had claimed Malaysia was unsafe for migrant workers. Curbing free speech
 In June, the Sedition Act was used by the Johor police to investigate the former Perak mentri besar, Nizar Jamaluddin for his comments on the Sultan of Johore's purchase of the car registration number plate, WWW1. The number plate had cost the Sultan RM500,000 and Nizar opined that the money could be put to a better use, such as helping the poor. Kosmo, an Utusan publication which printed two cartoons on the controversy, escaped censure. "Why the double standard in only charging me whereas no action has been taken against Kosmo for the same offence? Is it because Kosmo is an Umno paper whereas I am a Pakatan leader?" asked Nizar. At the time, Azmi Sharom, a law lecturer at the Universiti Malaya (UM) also criticised the use of the Sedition Act 1948, to prosecute individuals. "The underlying theme is the government is using all these powers to curb dissent against the government, to curb criticism of the government. "What they are doing to Nizar is very clearly to suppress his right to free speech, his opinion. This is obviously a bad law… It is bad faith on their part. If they think something is bad, then don't use it. Get it fixed first," said Azmi. Signs of desperation
It is easy to see what is happening. Najib and members of his Cabinet are clearly showing signs of desperation and fear. Najib and his administration lack original ideas to push through reforms. They have failed to act on their promises. What happened to the National Harmony Act which Najib promised last June, to replace the Sedition Act? Malaysia now has an opposition which is strongest and the most credible party to take on the BN government. READ MORE HERE |
| Constitutional posers for GE13 Posted: 06 Sep 2012 04:03 PM PDT 
Once Parliament is dissolved, a general election need not be held immediately. The Constitution permits a delay of 60 days from the date of dissolution. Dr Shad Saleem Faruqi, The Star A GENERAL election may be around the corner. So we need to brush up on our knowledge of the constitutional principles relating to elections. No fixed term: Under Article 55(3) of our Constitution, the life of Parliament is stated to be five years from the date of its first meeting. As that date was April 28, 2008, the existing Parliament will automatically dissolve when the sun rises on April 28, 2013. However, it is constitutionally permissible for the Prime Minister to advise the Yang di-Pertuan Agong to dissolve Parliament before the expiry of its term and thereby to give himself the advantage of choosing the most favourable time for the electoral contest. This is in contrast with many Commonwealth countries including Britain which have enacted laws to have fixed term legislatures. Malaysia may wish to emulate this wholesome practice. Early dissolution: Though the King is a constitutional monarch required to act on advice, in the matter of early dissolution, he has been explicitly vested by Article 40(2)(b) with a discretion to accept or reject his PM's counsel. Conventionally, however, he always obliges though in exceptional circumstances he may not do so. Elections: Once Parliament is dissolved, a general election need not be held immediately. Article 55(4) of the Constitution permits a delay of 60 days from the date of dissolution. This means that contrary to popular expectations of early polls, the next election can be held as late as the last part of June 2013! One must note, however, that the timing is not for the PM to determine. The nomination date, the date of polling and the campaign period are in the hands of the Election Commission, which must act with independence and impartiality. The present law permits a campaign period of no less than seven days though news has it that for the next election, the EC will permit 10 days. Interim period: Between the dissolution of one Parliament and the convening of the next, who steers the ship of state? The Constitution is gloriously silent on this important issue. For this reason, the British constitutional convention is adopted that the incumbent PM who called the election continues to remain in office in a caretaker capacity. Powers of the caretaker PM: Leadership during interim periods poses problems of democratic legitimacy for the caretaker government. This is due to the fact that once Parliament is dissolved, the PM ceases to satisfy the twin requirements of Article 43(2). These requirements are that the PM must belong to the House of Representatives and he must in the judgment of the King command the confidence of the majority of the members of the House. As the House ceases to exist, the legitimacy rug is pulled from under the PM's feet. For this reason there is worldwide debate about the need to impose clear curbs on the powers of interim governments. In Australia, a Caretaker Convention has been drafted to outline that the proper role of such a government is to be a night watchman, to hold the fort, not to initiate radical policies, not to dismiss or appoint new judges or undertake significant economic initiatives. In India, the President has on several occasions vetoed caretaker governments' measures because exercise of such powers may embarrass the government to be formed. In the Malaysian case of PP v Mohd Amin Mohd Razali (2002) the court held that Article 40(1), which requires the monarch to act on advice, is not applicable if the advice is rendered by a caretaker government during the dissolution of Parliament. Hung Parliament: If no single party or coalition emerges with an absolute (50% + 1) parliamentary majority, the new legislature will be referred to as a hung Parliament. Such parliaments exist and function throughout the world but have never made an appearance in Malaysia at the federal level. Commentators are deeply divided about their demerits or merits. Appointment of PM: Whatever one's views on hung parliaments may be, it has to be conceded that they create massive problems for the Head of State on a number of issues, among them the critical one of who is to be trusted with the mantle of leadership. Several competing considerations are available. First is the incumbency rule. If no one secures an absolute majority, the caretaker PM must be given the first chance to form the government. Second, in Nepal there is a constitutional rule that in a hung Parliament, the first bite of the cherry must be offered to the leader of the largest party. Third, if a viable coalition or a unity government can be hammered out, it should get the chance to lead the nation. Fourth, if no coalition can be cobbled together, the Head of State should appoint a "minority government" that is capable of obtaining ad hoc support to pass the budget and other critical measures. If the defeated PM asks the King for an immediate "double dissolution", should His Majesty consent? It is submitted that Article 55(4) requires that after one dissolution the new parliament must be convened within 120 days. The proper course of action would be for Parliament to meet, a vote of no-confidence to be taken and then only the House dissolved for a new election unless an alternative government can be put in place. Caretaker's tenure: If the ruling party fails at the general election, must the caretaker PM who took the country to the poll resign immediately? In England Gordon Brown refused to step down till he had (unsuccessfully) exhausted efforts to form the government. If the caretaker PM refuses to step down, can the King dismiss him? If the formation of a unity or coalition government takes a long time, must the defeated Prime Minster re-main in office till a new PM is appointed? Most amazingly, Belgium went 535 days with a caretaker government because the new government took time to be pieced together. The permutations of politics are many and more than any other aspect of a nation's political life, general elections throw up issues that test our wisdom to the fullest. > Dr Shad Saleem Faruqi is Emeritus Professor of Law at UiTM |
| Freedom to be loyal Posted: 06 Sep 2012 03:59 PM PDT 
An anti-hopping law would give party leaders even more power over MPs, who already cannot muster the courage to disobey the party whip if they believe that a Bill is not in the interests of their constituents. Tunku 'Abidin Muhriz, The Star MANY commentators with whom I generally agree on measures to improve our country seem to have been hoodwinked into supporting a popular anti-democratic move, namely the banning of party hopping by members of parliament and state legislators. I opposed this in a political philosophy essay I wrote at university in 2002, I opposed it in my column in 2008 and I oppose it now. The whole campaign is based on two flawed assumptions. The first is that Malaysians vote for political parties, not for individuals. This is legally untrue (our Federal Constitution refers to "individuals" elected to the Dewan Rakyat and the "individual" to be appointed Prime Minister, but never to "political parties"), but even those who understand this important distinction claim that "Malaysians vote for parties by default", which has not been scientifically verified (I suspect most Malaysians give consideration to both the party's manifesto and the candidate's background and record). If it turns out that Malaysians do in fact vote for the party rather than the candidate, they should campaign for a law to be passed to make this a legal reality, but until then, it is dangerous to fix a perceived problem based on unverified claims. The second assumption is that whenever an instance of party hopping occurs, it is the candidate who is at fault, rather than the party. Well, let us imagine that I vote for Puan Thavamani of the Feline Front because she campaigns (in accordance with the party manifesto) to ban dogs from public roads. She wins the election, but months later there is an internal party struggle. The leader is replaced, and he reverses the party policy: dogs will now be allowed to roam free everywhere. I am furious, because I supported the candidate based on this manifesto pledge. If YB Thavamani now supports canine freedom on public roads, she would be violating the trust I placed in her. At the very least, I would expect her to defy her party whip in relevant parliamentary votes. But let us imagine that party policy changes in other areas too, and it is clear that the manifesto is being disregarded to the extent that a different political party, the Cats Pact, better reflects the manifesto I supported. I would most definitely support YB Thavamani hopping from Feline Front to Cats Pact better fight for the causes that I supported. Clearly, if a no party-hopping law was in force, she could not do that. More flexible commentators agree that she should be able to hop, but must resign and re-contest. However, apart from the costs involved, this would also be a breach of my trust – I voted expecting her to serve for a full term. Furthermore, it is possible that the new result could be less democratically legitimate if the by-election has a lower turnout than at the general election (perhaps my critics will then support the undemocratic idea of compulsory voting). My detractors will say that my analogy does not apply in Malaysia, where the reality is that inducements are made to successful candidates to switch loyalties for pure political power play rather than ideological differences. Even then, there is a better way to deal with unprincipled party hopping than to attempt to ban it: namely, to democratise the political parties. At the moment, it is easy for Party Leader A to buy a candidate's support from Party Leader B because in both parties it is the party leader who decides who gets to be a candidate and where: the loyalty goes upwards. But if Party B were to instead have candidates elected by local party grassroots or even all voters in a constituency (like in US primaries), it would be much more difficult for Party Leader A to buy any support: the candidate would feel loyalty downwards, to a much larger base of people. Naturally, none of our party leaders from both sides of the divide are supporting such a scheme because they all want to hold on to the enormous powers of patronage they currently enjoy. Indeed, an anti-hopping law would give party leaders even more power over MPs, who already cannot muster the courage to disobey the party whip if they believe that a Bill is not in the interests of their constituents! So, while I certainly sympathise with those who are disgusted by unprincipled politicians, I believe that banning party hopping will not deal with the root causes. Rather, we should seek more democracy within political parties, more transparency on political party funding and more media freedom. These will help ensure that in future, any candidate who wishes to switch allegiance will better have a damn good reason to do so. > Tunku 'Abidin Muhriz is president of IDEAS |
| Hudud not for a secular country, says Karpal Posted: 06 Sep 2012 03:45 PM PDT 
(NST) - DAP chairman Karpal Singh has dismissed the suggestion by DAP Socialist Youth chief Anthony Loke that non-Muslims should not fear the hudud law. "As far as DAP is concerned, our stand against hudud has been absolute. "You can't have two legal systems in criminal law. If you bring in Islamic law, we will have complications," he said, when asked to comment on Loke's statement on the matter, which was reported yesterday. Loke was quoted as saying that if one was not involved in crime, then they do not have to worry about the implementation of hudud. Karpal said it was not a question of worrying over the implementation of hudud with regard to non-Muslims, but the fact it is inconsistent with the Constitution. "We have to go by the set up of the country as reflected in the Federal Constitution. You can't have hudud law in a secular state," he said, adding that hudud could only be applied in a country that was truly Islamic, such as Saudi Arabia. Meanwhile, MCA leaders strongly objected to Loke's statement that MCA had cast Islam and hudud in a negative light. MCA Publicity Bureau deputy chairman Loh Seng Kok said for Loke to issue such a statement showed that DAP was actually hiding the fact that they were "idolising Pas leaders", especially those who had been steadfast in their stand on hudud. He added that the opposition's common stand on Islamic law should instead be highlighted in their Buku Jingga and should not remain in a "grey area". "For MCA members, we are against hudud because we cannot allow the country to have two sets of laws. "It's our duty to highlight to the community that if we have one set of laws for Muslims and another for non-Muslims, it will surely create havoc later on," he said. Loh said imposing different punishments for the same crime may result in grievances. MCA Youth vice-chairman Yit Lee Kok said MCA's stand was not to discourage others from Islam, but to advise the public that non-Muslims would be affected should the Islamic law be implemented. Loke was quoted yesterday as saying that MCA had portrayed an extremist image of Islam by its stand on hudud. |
| Political politeness Posted: 06 Sep 2012 03:31 PM PDT 
Culture and courtesy are under attack by youthful ignorance IGNORANCE is far too often the cause of much unnecessary grief among young people and their hapless parents. The barely adult, rebels without causes and spoiling for one in a peaceful and prosperous country like Malaysia, are easy targets for less-than-responsible politicians. That some supporters of the so-called "Janji Demokrasi" gathering on the eve of Merdeka Day were reported to the police for public displays of offensive behaviour that could lead to a public disturbance suggests that many have no real sense of the importance of constructs intended as embodiments of national sovereignty and identity -- an insult to which is punishable by law. National emblems fall within this category, and all nations go to great lengths to cherish and protect them.The National Emblems (Control of Display) Act 1949 defines a national emblem as "any flag, banner or other emblem... of any state... or any likeness or resemblance however reproduced of any national leader or former national leader of any state or the leader or former leader of... political organisation(s)". What the act does is to regulate and safeguard the public use of these emblems. Though the punishment of offenders is not severe, its writ is large and includes the power of arrest without warrant. A reasonable cause to believe that an offence under the act is being committed can be considered evidence enough. Unfortunately, how many of our compatriots know this? To many, a flag is more decoration than symbol of national dignity. This is borne out by the many faded and tattered Jalur Gemilang left to litter public spaces. But this casualness is different from the dishonour of replacing or equating the national pennant with something else. The insult alleged to have happened at the same gathering to pictures of the prime minister and his wife is also demonstrative of the infantile nature of political discourse in the country. After all, we do not wish any of us to be so profaned, so why would we wish it on our leaders? Since the 2008 general election, Malaysians have been treated to astonishing spectacles of incivility. Politicians have been happily photographed stepping on the posters of their foes. Such immaturity cannot be a good thing given that politics consists of the serious business of deciding what is best for the greater good. Every voter must participate and party manifestos, speeches and door-to-door campaigning are the given methods of persuasion. Why then this recent rush to offensive and sometimes violent expressions of protest? Why this sudden descent to barbarism? This is not how Malaysians should conduct their politics and exercise their democratic rights.
|
| Sodomy II appeal: Case management fixed for Nov 23 Posted: 06 Sep 2012 02:30 PM PDT 
(Bernama) - The prosecution's appeal against Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim's acquittal on a charge of sodomising his former aide Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan is fixed for further case management on November 23. Court of Appeal deputy registrar N. Kanageswari fixed the date after the case came up for case management before her today. She fixed another date for case management as the notes of evidence were incomplete and thus the records of appeal were also not complete. Anwar's counsel Ram Karpal Singh said both the prosecution and defence required time to go through a CD of the recordings of the trial proceedings before the hearing date is fixed. On January 9 this year, the Kuala Lumpur High Court acquitted Anwar of sodomising Mohd Saiful, 26, at a Desa Damansara condominium unit in Bukit Damansara here between 3.10pm and 4.30pm on June 26, 2008. Anwar, 65, was charged under section 377B of the Penal Code, which carries a jail sentence of up to 20 years and whipping, upon conviction. On January 20, the prosecution subsequently filed a notice of appeal against the opposition leader's acquittal. On July 9, the prosecution filed its petition of appeal which contained nine grounds. The 80-page written judgment by High Court judge Datuk Mohamad Zabidin Mohd Diah reveals there was penile penetration but it was uncorroborated by other evidence. He said the court could not be 100 per cent certain on the integrity of samples taken for DNA testing from Mohd Saiful as the samples could have been compromised before they reached the chemistry department for analysis. |
| Ministry to summon German Ambassador over Suaram funding Posted: 06 Sep 2012 02:17 PM PDT 
(The Star) - The Foreign Ministry will summon the German Ambassador to Malaysia for clarification on the involvement of the German Embassy in Kuala Lumpur in providing funds to Suaram. Foreign Minister Datuk Seri Anifah Aman said in a statement that the embassy's action could be viewed as interference in the domestic affairs of a sovereign state. "Malaysia takes exception to the embassy in funding an NGO that is known to have a certain political agenda. "Foreign embassies have to be mindful of the sensitivities of the host country in general and the way good relations are conducted and maintained," he said in a statement. The embassy had two days ago admitted to funding a Suaram project, and maintained that it supported Suaram as a human rights organisation "without any political background". Suaram faced allegations of misused funds and questions over its NGO status after initial findings by the Companies Commission of Malaysia had revealed "highly suspicious" transactions between trading company Suara Inisiatif Sdn Bhd and Suaram. |
| ‘Anwar not ready to commit in Sabah’ Posted: 06 Sep 2012 01:56 PM PDT
A forum aimed at getting key opposition leaders to publicly commit to a one-to-one fight with Barisan Nasional in Sabah has been cancelled. Queville To, FMT KOTA KINABALU: Demokrasi Sabah's (Desah) bid to get all four main political party leaders in the opposition to publicly commit to a "one-to-one" fight in the coming parliamentary election came to nought after Pakatan Rakyat leader Anwar Ibrahim failed to respond to their invitation. Desah, a Sabah-based political pressure group, was forced to cancel a public forum scheduled for today because of Anwar. Desah deputy chairman Ronnie Klassen said DAP national adviser Lim Kit Siang had informed them he was unable to join them due to a prior commitments but Anwar had not bothered to respond to their invitation. He said an official invitation was extended to Lim through DAP Seputeh MP Teresa Kok, during her visit here last month. A similar invitation was also extended to Anwar during his recent visit to Kota Marudu to talk at the forum. "We assume he [Anwar] has his reasons; nonetheless, we have not received any confirmation or news from him," he told reporters here. Both Lim and Anwar were set to be "key speakers" at the forum aimed chiefly at getting the four key opposition leaders – Anwar, Lim, Sabah Progressive Party (SAPP) leader Yong Teck Lee and Jeffrey Kitingan, the chairman of Sabah STAR – to publicly commit to the people's wish of seeing straight fights with Barisan Nasional in the coming general election. "It is extremely regretful that Desah has to call off the forum due to circumstances beyond our control. "But we will continue to play this facilitator role to ensure a one-to-one contest between the opposition and the BN in this coming general election. "Our role is to ensure that history does not repeat itself like what happened in the last general election when Pakatan went against each other, and benefited BN in the end," Klassen said. 'Leaders not ready to commit' Meanwhile, Desah chairman Simon Sipaun, who was also present at the press conference, said the absence of the two Pakatan leaders had made the forum redundant. "We want to see, if possible, DAP and SAPP come to an understanding not to fight against one another for their own interest. READ MORE HERE |
| Swiss govt ready to freeze Musa’s accounts Posted: 06 Sep 2012 01:53 PM PDT 
However, this could only happen if Malaysia were to submit legal-assistance requests to Switzerland. (FMT) - The Swiss government has indicated its "readiness" to freeze the "illicit assets" of politically exposed Malaysian leaders if Malaysia submits legal asistance requests to its government. According to Switzerland, the nation's federal constitution empowers the Swiss government (known as the Federal Council) to freeze assets of politically exposed persons in Switzerland. "Such a freeze usually happens with a view to entering into legal-assistance relations with the countries of origin," it said in an official statement which was released by a Swiss-based NGO Bruno Manser Fund (BMF) today. The statement came days after the announcement by Switzerland's Attorney-General that it had opened a criminal case against Swiss bank UBS on grounds of the bank's suspected laundering of US$90 million on behalf of Sabah Chief Minister Musa Aman. The statement was a written response to questions submitted last May by Swiss social democrat MP, Carlo Sommaruga. In the official reply, the Swiss Federal Council declared its readiness to freeze illicit assets of politically exposed persons from Malaysia, namely Musa and Sarawak Chief Minister Taib Mahmud. Both Musa and Taib have been accused of amassing unexplainable amount of wealth while helming their respective states. Of the two, Taib allegedly has a worse track record which BMF and online investigative portal Sarawak Report have actively exposed. But in declaring its willingness to act, the Swiss government noted that this could only happen if Malaysia were to submit legal-assistance requests to Switzerland. "Switzerland has hitherto not been requested by Malaysia to provide legal assistance. "Should such a request come from Malaysia, then Switzerland would provide the legal assistance if the legal prerequisites are met and if there are no grounds for exclusion. The request would have to be first examined by the Federal Office of Justice. "At the moment, such a situation does not exist in the case of Malaysia," the official statement said. Swiss-aided HK probe Musa and his UBS accounts have been the focus of parallel investigations in Singapore, Malaysia, Hong Kong and Switzerland for alleged money laundering running into hundreds of millions dollars. The investigations have taken its toll on UBS's other alliances. READ MORE HERE |
| ‘Anwar, rakyat Sabah tidak menyokong kamu’ Posted: 06 Sep 2012 01:50 PM PDT 
Timbalan Ketua Umno Semporna, Datuk Nasir Sakaran berkata, majoriti rakyat Sabah menyokong Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak. Muda Mohd. Noor, FMT Seorang pemimpin BN Sabah mengingatkan Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim dan Pakatan Rakyat supaya menjauhkan dari negeri itu kerana rakyat negeri di bawah bayu menolak mereka. Timbalan Ketua Umno Semporna, Datuk Nasir Sakaran berkata, maJoriti rakyat Sabah menyokong Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak. Katanya, tindakan lompat parti Datuk Seri Lajim Ukin dan Datuk Wilfred Bumburing tidak memberi sebarang kesan kepada BN. "Mereka berdua sudah biasa lompat parti jadi rakyat Sabah kini sedang menilai. "Rakyat tertanya-tanya adakah pemimpin seperti yang mereka mahu," katanya ketika diminta mengulas perkembangan politik terbaru di negeri itu. Sabah kini menjadi simpanan tetap BN sejak Umno melebarkan sayap di negeri itu pada tahun 2004. Anwar dan pemimpin pembangkang lain berulang kali mengatakan penguasaan BN akan berakhir dalam PRU ke 13. Nasir berkata, usaha pihak tertentu menghidupkan semula bagi merancakkan lagi politik Sabah menjelang pilihan raya umum tidak akan berjaya. 'Ungkit kisah lama' Nasir berkata, sebahagian besar pemimpin dan ahli Usno telah menyertai Umno. READ MORE HERE |
| STAR first political party to sign TI pledge Posted: 06 Sep 2012 01:46 PM PDT 
Twenty-five potential Sabah STAR election candidates have signed an integrity pledge by Transparency International. Luke Rintod, FMT KOTA KINABALU: Transparency International (TI) has praised the State Reform Party (STAR) for being the first political party in Malaysia to sign an "integrity pledge" to be honourable and incorruptible at the coming general election. TI-Malaysia president, Paul Low Seng Kuan, said he was happy that STAR has come forward as a group and signed the pledge at its first convention here today, ahead of a crucial general election, due by April next year. "It is an important step taken to strengthen societal trust in our politicians and our democracy and governance. We must fight corruption as corruption has failed nations," he said. STAR led by its founder, Patau Rubis, president Dripin Sakoi and Sabah chairman Jeffrey Kitingan jointly led a group of 25 Sabah STAR leaders in the pledge at the end of the one-day convention at Star City convention hall here. Then the group led by Jeffrey read aloud their pledge in Malay before Low and the more than 2,000 delegates including scores from Sarawak, especially from Lawas, Mambong and Mas Gading areas. By doing so, Sabah STAR also revealed its likely candidates in at least 25 parliamentary and state constituencies, as those who were selected to sign the integrity oath are front-running candidates. Some of them recently resigned from their jobs including a few teachers. Among the 25 identified were STAR Sabah deputies, Awang Ahmad Sah Awang Sahari, Daniel John Jambun, and Dr Nicholas James Guntobon as well as senior members Baharudin Nayan, Edward Linggu, Rubin Guribah, Maklin Masiau, Dr Felix Chong, Phillip Among, Hasmin Azroy Abdullah, Melanie Annol, Marunsai Dawai, Suwah Bulleh, Fedrin Tuliang, James Ait, Edward Podok and Alex Sintin. But Sabah STAR secretary, Guandee Kohoi, when contacted, clarified that those who were selected to sign the TI integrity pledge today were not automatically candidates. READ MORE HERE |
| Judiciary has failed the rakyat Posted: 06 Sep 2012 01:42 PM PDT 
Will the judiciary take all the blame if both Nor Afizal and Chuah were to commit more rapes? Jeswan Kaur, FMT It's confirmed that the two judicial experts who found statutory rape of two minors a non-issue need help in understanding what rape is – or else they will go on delivering reproachful judgments in favour of rapists. On Aug 28, Sessions Court judge Nisa Abdul Aziz released a 22-year-old electrician Chuah Guan Jiu on "good behaviour" after he was convicted of raping his then 12-year-old girlfriend twice last year. Chuah was instead bound over for three years on a RM25,000 good behaviour bond. He had committed the crime at his flat in Jalan Ru 1, Air Itam on July 18 and 19. The offence under Section 376(1) of the Penal Code carries a jail sentence of up to 20 years' jail and whipping. But Nisa decided that since the sexual act was consensual between Chuah and the victim and that he had not tricked her into the act, no "rape" had taken place. Nisa made the perpetrator's future her priority, not the fact that he had tricked his minor partner into having sex with him; the facts of the case stated that Chuah had persuaded the victim to skip school and follow him to his home, which then led to the offence being committed. So the judge thought best that Chuah be bound over for three years on a RM25,000 good behaviour bond. A shame that the judge failed to understand the psyche of a rapist who not once but twice raped his schoolgoing girlfriend. Worse still, Nisa made the probation report her "bible" in stating that Chuah did not have a prior criminal record and was a Form Two school drop-out. What is even more shocking is that Nisa, like her predecessor, Court of Appeal president Raus Shariff, displayed her ignorance on what constitutes statutory rape and that Malaysia is a signatory to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) 2009. According to the Committee on the Rights of the Child – Implementation Handbook for the CRC, a girl under the age of 18 is a minor and is not in a position to give informed consent. The second-highest ranking judge in the country, Raus had opted to show concern for perpetrator Noor Afizal Azizan's "bright future" in setting aside the five-year jail term imposed on the national bowler by the Malacca High Court, and instead binding him over for good behaviour. Nor Afizal, then 19, was charged with raping his 13-year-old girlfriend at a hotel in 2010. A tragedy that Nisa and Raus have not only failed to uphold justice but they have also downplayed the crime of statutory rape, claiming, on the contrary, that consensual sex between a minor and an adult is "permissible" under the law. Nightmare for the parents By siding with the rapists, both Nisa and Raus have decided that the welfare of the rape survivors is none of their business and that irrespective of their ages, rape survivors are "party" to rape. When Raus's judgment created a public uproar, all he did in trying to clarify his decision was to say that despite being let off on a personal bond of RM25,000 for good behaviour, public interest had been served as Nor Afizal had been convicted and the offence recorded. Raus' clarification comes as a nightmare to the parents of the young girls. What do we make of such senarios – a rapist is allowed to roam about freely simply because the judge was impressed with his "credentials" or because the rapist is too young to do jail time? Are Raus and Nisa willing to take all the blame if both Nor Afizal and Chuah were to commit more rapes? READ MORE HERE |
| BN eyes polls in November, after Budget debate Posted: 06 Sep 2012 09:58 AM PDT 
Barisan Nasional (BN) is likely to call the general election at the end of November, a week after the last of the 28,000 Muslim pilgrims return from the Haj and the Budget 2013 is passed by the Dewan Rakyat, sources say. The Malaysian Insider understands that Education Ministry top officials have been asked this past week to check the availability of schools, mainly secondary schools, during that period when the Form Five and Six public examinations are usually held. "The government is looking at the end of November, just after the last flight bringing back the Haj pilgrims on November 19," a BN strategist told The Malaysian Insider. The next Parliament session starts September 24 and is scheduled to end on November 27, with the highlight being Budget 2013 to be tabled by Prime Minister and Finance Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak on September 28. BN's mandate expires next April 28, five years after Election 2008 where the ruling coalition under Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi suffered historic losses of its two-thirds parliamentary majority and four more states. Abdullah stepped down in favour of Najib in April 2009. This is Najib's first shot at getting his own mandate. The Malaysian Insider had earlier reported that plans to dissolve Parliament last month have been shelved after two Sabah lawmakers quit the coalition and expressed support for arch-rivals Pakatan Rakyat (PR). There have also been reports of elections to be called earlier and the middle of the year but none have panned out. Najib hinted last week that a general election is near while former Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad has openly said November would be a good month for elections. Both are also bullish about BN's prospects in the coming polls. Read more at: http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/malaysia/article/bn-eyes-polls-in-november-after-budget-debate/ |
| Malaysia's UMNO goes after a critic Posted: 06 Sep 2012 09:55 AM PDT 
(Asia Sentinel) - Never mind 150 million euros in bribes, a dead woman and a global scandal, go for the whistle-blower's throat In November of 2009, Suaram, the Kuala Lumpur-based human rights NGO, asked a French investigative law firm to look into what appeared to be huge bribes and kickbacks paid to Malaysian politicians by the French state-owned defense company DCN and its subsidiaries for the 2002 purchase of two submarines and the lease of a third.
The story was complicated by the sensational 2006 death of a Mongolian translator and party girl, Altantuya Shaariibuu, who was shot by two of then-Defense Minister Najib Tun Razak's bodyguards and her body was blown up with military explosives. While the bodyguards were convicted of her for-hire killing, the court appeared to have actively suppressed any mention of who allegedly paid the two to kill her, raising Suaram's concerns that there would be no justice delivered.
In the intervening three years, Suaram's request to the law firm, headed by the Paris-based William Bourdon, resulted in a probe that exposed nearly 150 million euros in questionable funds paid to a close friend of then-defense minister Najib Tun Razak, now Malaysia's prime minister.
Eventually, when a Paris-based investigating magistrate began to examine the evidence, the court turned up voluminous memos, emails and other documents from a raid on DCN's offices indicating that massive bribes had been paid with the full knowledge of Alain Juppe, the French foreign minister, Mahathir Mohamad, then the prime minister of Malaysia, and Najib, who had negotiated the purchase. The evidence detailed a host of other sleazy dealings.
Some 133 documents listing the alleged criminal dealings were obtained independently by Asia Sentinel and posted here on June 25 on the Internet. Although the documents are in French, those who do not speak the language can get them onto their computer screens and click on Google Translate. While the grammar is somewhat primitive, their meaning is very clear. Those who do not want to bother may read two stories that Asia Sentinel published on the subject on 25 June. They can be found here and here.
The publication of the documents kicked off a storm in France and Malaysia. But what the publication of the French documents or the investigation did not do was spur any probe of the purported criminal activities in Malaysia.
What it did do, however, was to precipitate an unprecedented attack by a wide range of pro-government bloggers, ruling coalition politicians and others on the reputation and integrity of Suaram, and by extension against Asia Sentinel for printing the documents. Read more at: http://www.asiasentinel.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=4800&Itemid=178 |
Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News
