Jumaat, 27 September 2013

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

0 ulasan
Klik GAMBAR Dibawah Untuk Lebih Info
Sumber Asal Berita :-

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News


Witness in Klias petition says he received envelope from PKR agent

Posted: 27 Sep 2013 12:53 AM PDT

(Bernama) - A voter in the Klias state constituency told the Election Court here today that he received an envelope, with his name written on it, from a Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR) agent.

Saliman Salamat, 28, said the envelope, containing RM50 and a coupon, was given to him by an agent known as Wong Kui En @ Norliah, who went to his house with two other women at about 5pm on May 4 this year.

He said the three women went to his house a day before polling day for the 13th general election.

"I was with a friend, Amai, and brother-in-law, Wincent, talking outside the house in  Kampung Selagon, Beaufort, when I saw  Kairinah @ Irine Juakim and her two sisters, Norliah and Ruby approaching.

"Norliah then called for me and handed me an envelope with my name written on it. Norliah said to me that the RM50 and coupon were Datuk Lajim Ukin.

"She said if Datuk Lajim wins, the coupon can be exchanged for cash," he added.

He was testifying before Judge Datuk Yew Jen Kee on the second day of hearing of the petition filed by Barisan Nasional (BN) candidate Isnin Aliasnih to annul the 13the general election result for the Klias state seat.

Saliman said he opened the envelope in front of the three women.

"I know that many people had received the money and coupon distributed by the PKR people, not from the three women, because they have no permanent job," he added.

Saliman, a self-employed, said Norliah and her sisters stayed in the same village as him and that the three women were PKR supporters.

In the petition, Isnin named Lajim, the State PKR chairman who won the Klias seat, as the first respondent, while returning officer for the Klias state seat Jupari @ Jupty Etok and the Election Commission (EC) as the second and third respondent, respectively.

However, on August 5, Yew ordered the EC and the returning officer for the Klias state seat to be removed as respondents on grounds that the petitioner had failed to comply with provisions under the Election offences Act.

Isnin filed the petition, claiming that there were alleged corruption and irregularities during the election campaign.

Isnin was represented by lawyers Jaapar Esteban, Rizuan M Borhan, Saiful Azian Mokhtar and Muamar Julkarnain, while Lajim was represented by lawyers Datuk Chau Chin Tang and Datuk Lawrence Thien.

In the May 5 general election, Lajim won the seat with a majority of 179 votes. 

 

Marriage between Muslim and non-Muslim illegal, says Jakim

Posted: 27 Sep 2013 12:37 AM PDT

(Bernama) - Any marriage between a Muslim and a non-Muslim is disallowed and is not recognised in this country and action can be taken by the state Islamic religious authorities, said Malaysian Islamic Development Department (Jakim) director-general Datuk Othman Mustapha.

He said Islamic family laws state no Muslim man can marry a non-Muslim woman and no Muslim woman can marry a non-Muslim man.

"A marriage between spouses of different religions is completed prohibited and against the principle of beliefs of the Shafie sect (Ahli Sunnah Wal Jamaah) in Malaysia," he said in a statement here today.

He was commenting on a Universiti Malaya study on the issue of liberalism in Muslim marriages with non-Muslim spouses not having to convert from their religions. 

Two days ago, Universiti Malaya Academy of Islamic Studies, Department of Akidah and Islamic Thought Associate Prof Dr Khadijah Hambali told religious authorities in the country to carry out specific measures to curb the phenomenon.  

 

In the Chinese Press: Some members try to reduce my vote tally, says Guan Eng

Posted: 26 Sep 2013 06:55 PM PDT

by Chan Wei See, fz.com

The upcoming DAP re-election is heating up. DAP secretary-general Lim Guan Eng revealed that some people were going behind his back, attempting to bring down his vote tally and lobbying the delegates to not attend the congress scheduled Sept 29.

In an exclusive interview with Sin Chew Daily today, he conceded that some DAP members have a feeling of discontent against him as they themselves, or their preferred leaders, were either not being fielded as candidates in the 13th general election (GE13) or not being appointed as government officials after the GE.
 
To his surprise, those who went behind his back were those he never expected, while those he supposed would made some noise, were just keeping quiet.
 
The Penang chief minister was responding to claims that there is a strong undercurrent beneath the surface of the re-election in which delegates from a couple of states were attempting to topple him secretly.
 
He said, in the interview highlighted on the daily's front page, "I can't predict whether the result of the re-election will be far different from the previous result but I opine that those who work in the dark are just minority, while most members and delegates are still deeply in love with the party."
 
While admitting that what was previously reported did take place, he believed those who vent their anger on him still love the party, hence he hoped these delegates will still attend the congress to show solidarity.
 
It was reported in the Chinese papers that ripples of dissent against Lim had been getting stronger in Johor, seemingly a backlash against DAP Central's decision to field "parachute candidates" in the GE instead of those favoured by the grassroot members.
 
The resentment is particularly strong in Kulai and Muar in which their delegates were said to be planning to cast "emotional votes" to reduce Lim's vote.
 
DAP Kulai division liaison committee chairman Ng Pack Seong and former Senai assemblyman Ong Kow Meng had openly told Oriental Daily News that they will abstain from voting.
 
Chin Woo dismisses public basketball court suggestion
 
The board of directors of SJK (C) Chin Woo has objected to Culture and Tourism Minister Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz's suggestion to rebuild the school's basketball court as a "public basketball court", China Press reported today.
 
A delegation comprising representatives of the board, The United Chinese Schools Teachers' Association (Dong Zong) and other Chinese groups had a meeting with Chief Secretary to the Government Tan Sri Dr. Ali Hamsa yesterday.
 
They expressed their stance in defending the "completeness" of the school land.
 
Responding to reporters' question, the school director Oo Tin Fuan said Nazri's proposal to rebuild the basketball court for public use is unacceptable to the board.
 
Dong Zong chairman Yap Sin Tian said he strongly opposed the proposal, unless the government transfers the ownership of the land to Chin Woo.
 
He said if the rebuilt basketball is open to public, it will cause inconvenience to the school as it will have to make an appointment with the management whenever it wishes to use it.
 
However, in an immediate response, Nazri stressed that the land belongs to the government, thus the board has no say over its usage.
 
On Wednesday, Nazri has suggested that the government rebuilds the school's basketball court and open it for public, as a win-win solution to the stalemate.

Court rules no jurisdiction over party matters, DAP re-election on

Posted: 26 Sep 2013 06:37 PM PDT

(The Star) - The High Court has struck off a lawsuit by Ladang Paroi DAP vice-chairman A. David Das, paving the way for the party to hold its special congress on Sunday to re-elect central executive committee (CEC) members.

The court has ordered David to pay RM5,000 in costs.

Justice Rosnaini Saub held that the court has no jurisdiction to interfere in the decision of a political party on any matter relating to its affairs.

The judge said that the Parliament in its wisdom has enacted Section 18 (c) of the Societies Act 1966 in such very clear words that the decision of a political party to be final and conclusive.

"The decision of the political party in interpretation of the party's Constitution cannot be challenged by the court," she told the packed courtroom which caused cheers and claps from DAP supporters.

Justice Rosnaini said that it was obvious that DAP had chosen to interpret the party's Constitution Standing Order upon getting the directive from the Registrar of Societies to re-elect CEC members.

Justice Rosnaini said the claim by David that DAP may be deregistered if it hold a special congress to re-elect CEC members was not something for the court to speculate on.

"It is for the ROS to decide. It is not for the court to speculate for what will the ROS decision to be," she said.

The judge also held that David's application for an injunction to stop the CEC polls for allegedly breaching the party's constitution was without foundation.

In his lawsuit filed on Sept 10, David has named DAP secretary-general Lim Guan Eng and the party, which was registered as a political party on March 18, 1966 as defendants.

Speaking to reporters here, Lim said that he was happy with the court ruling as it has upheld the law as stipulated in their party's Constitution.

In his suit, David among others wanted an order demanding DAP give a 10-week notice before holding the national congress.

He also requested that a declaration that the party's special congress notice dated Sept 4 which was issued by Lim for the appointment of CEC members be struck out.

 

Malaysia one of the most corrupt nations, survey shows

Posted: 26 Sep 2013 12:41 PM PDT

http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Money-Malaysia-Flag-300x202.jpg 

(TMI) - Malaysia has been ranked as one of the most corrupt nations and listed as a country which is most likely to take shortcuts to meet targets when economic times are tough, according to a recent survey by Ernst & Young, signalling that the government's Performance Management and Delivery Unit (Pemandu) has failed in its role to transform the economy.

Malaysia, along with China, has the highest levels of bribery and corruption anywhere in the world, according to the latest report, Asia-Pacific Fraud Survey Report Series 2013.

This year's survey polled 681 executives in China, Singapore, Australia, New Zealand, Indonesia, Vietnam, Malaysia and South Korea.

About half of the 681 executives polled on their perception of fraud felt that China, Indonesia, Malaysia and Vietnam were the worst in bribery and corruption.

Those polled were employed at corporations with a turnover in excess of US$500m, ranging from the industrial sector to financial services, retail and natural resources.

"Fraudulent practices are on the rise, and there is a disconnect between the policies that are in place and how they are applied in practice," said Chris Fordham, EY Fraud Investigation & Dispute Services Managing Partner of Asia-Pacific, in the report.

About 39% of respondents said that bribery or corrupt practices happened widely in Malaysia, a figure which is nearly double the Asia-Pacific average of 21%.

Read more at: http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/malaysia/article/malaysia-one-of-the-most-corrupt-nations-survey-shows 

Bumi, not booming

Posted: 26 Sep 2013 12:20 PM PDT

http://cdn.static-economist.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/full-width/images/print-edition/20130928_ASP001_0.jpg 

(The Economist) - The ruling party returns to its old habits of race-based handouts

The lesson that UMNO has now drawn is that the more inclusive and liberal style of politics promoted by Mr Najib does not work. So the party has reverted to the bad old ways of race-based politics to shore up the Malay base, at the expense of those who were ungrateful enough to vote for the opposition.  

THE United Malays National Organisation (UMNO) is the dominant party in the coalition that has ruled Malaysia since independence in 1957. Only now, however, is it parading its democratic credentials, so far as its internal appointments go. Nominations have just closed for elections to a broad range of party posts, to be decided in the middle of October by 146,000-odd party delegates at local level. Previously, a mere 2,600 members, those who attended the party's convention, had a say. UMNO's boosters claim that these new elections will restore vim to an ageing organisation. They say it will make it the most genuinely democratic party in the country. Not bad for an outfit with a past reputation as a ruthless political machine.

Yet what might be therapeutic for UMNO could prove the reverse for Malaysia. For what has emerged during the electoral process is that the so-called "warlords" who run the party are determined to shift the country in a conservative, indeed reactionary, direction. They want to reassert the supremacy of ethnic Malays. UMNO was formed to represent these and other "indigenous" groups who make up a majority in this multiracial country. They were favoured over other ethnic groups, principally the Chinese, who account for about 25% of the population and run much of Malaysia's business, and Indians, with 7% of the population and a disproportionate presence in the professions. A return to race-tinged policies represents a repudiation of much of what the head of UMNO and prime minister, Najib Razak (pictured above), claimed to stand for during a general election in May. 

How distant that poll now seems. Indeed, UMNO's regression is a direct response to the election's outcome. Though the UMNO-led ruling coalition, Barisan Nasional (BN), won the election, its performance was its worst ever. The BN's share of the popular vote fell to just 47%. UMNO blamed what it saw as a near calamity on the defection of a large share of the Chinese vote to the opposition, led by Anwar Ibrahim, a political veteran—despite Mr Najib's concerted efforts to woo Chinese and Indian voters. The lesson that UMNO has now drawn is that the more inclusive and liberal style of politics promoted by Mr Najib does not work. So the party has reverted to the bad old ways of race-based politics to shore up the Malay base, at the expense of those who were ungrateful enough to vote for the opposition. 

Read more at: http://www.economist.com/news/asia/21586864-ruling-party-returns-its-old-habits-race-based-handouts-bumi-not-booming 

Is Najib the self-styled reformer falling to the right?

Posted: 26 Sep 2013 11:45 AM PDT

Eileen Ng and Elizabeth Zachariah, TMI

It is election season in Umno and president Datuk Seri Najib Razak, it seems, has to pander to the right-wing elements within his Malay party.

The clearest sign that the hardliners have a firm grip on Najib, who was returned unopposed for a second term last Sunday, was in the contentious amendments to the Prevention of Crime Act (PCA) which, if passed, critics said would make the PCA mirror the draconian Internal Security Act (ISA).

The ISA and a raft of preventive laws were repealed by Putrajaya in the past two years in line with Najib's self-styled image as a moderate and a reformer.

He had said previously that he would not succumb to pressure to reinstate powers to detain individuals without trial.

"We are doing our best to find a good balance to ensure that human rights are not affected but to defend public interests as well. This is what is needed for a more matured society," he was quoted as saying.

Conservative forces within Umno, especially those linked to influential former president Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad, have resisted change and pushed for a more Malay-centric platform. And on Wednesday, it looked as though Najib had given in to their demands.

"Najib is succumbing to right-wing pressure within his party because it is crucial for him in the coming polls to get his people in and maintain his strength.

"The focus is not on Malaysians, but on the Umno polls," said PKR vice-president N. Surendran, who is a critic of the proposed changes to the PCA.

Describing the amendments as the "biggest democracy drawback" in the last 10 years, DAP strategist Liew Chin Tong said Najib seemed to be running around blindly.

"He has no idea which way to go. I think the police dictated the terms and he is just responding to them and to the right-wing elements within his party. There does not seem to be much thought put into this," said Liew.

READ MORE HERE

 

MCA division chiefs watch on ‘RM107m gain’

Posted: 26 Sep 2013 11:43 AM PDT

http://www.themalaymailonline.com/uploads/articlesyew_2709_600_420_100.jpg 

(MMO) - Twenty-three MCA division chiefs will keep a close watch on the RM107 million gain by the party as claimed by president Datuk Seri Dr Chua Soi Lek and if it is legitimate in the first place.

They also want all party assets to be accounted for and will monitor every movement to ensure transparency, fairness and accountability as the current central committee was given very little information.

"Does the RM107 million include dividends paid? On behalf of our division members, we are gravely concerned with the way our party assets are being managed under Dr Chua's leadership," said Wangsa Maju MCA division chief  Datuk Yew Teong Look.

Yew will chair the newly-established Assets Action Committee which will also see the participation of lawyers, accountants and corporate professionals. 

Yew said the central committee was responsible for national issues and should not be burdened with keeping track of party assets.

"I sympathise with the central committee members as they would have to be accountable."

Using the example of Matang Holdings Bhd, Yew said MCA members opposed the deal as it  was not being sold at the right price.

"Why did we decide to sell our stake? How is it more beneficial for the party and the independent shareholders?"

He also questioned the transfer of the RM1.28 billion Star Publications Berhad shares from MCA-owned property manager Huaran Trustees to MCA for the purpose of legitimate tax evasion and changes in management of dividends from Wisma MCA.

"Why was this arrangement to safeguard good governance discontinued?" Yew asked.

He also pledged to hold frequent press conferences in the future and jokingly referred  himself as MCA's version of PKR's Rafizi Ramli.

An MCA branch chairman said the committee would not have to rely on Dr Chua's cooperation to continue moving forward as they had their own sources for information and documentation.

He also voiced his suspicions that Dr Chua was rushing to sell off MCA assets as the president may lose power in the coming party election. 

Council slammed over move to remove 'sexy posters'

Posted: 26 Sep 2013 11:42 AM PDT

http://www.thestar.com.my/~/media/Images/TSOL/Photos-Gallery/Nation/2013/09/27/mainzt270913P1B.ashx?w=620&h=413&crop=1& 

(The Star) - PAS Supporters Congress chairman Hu Pang Chaw has criticised the Kota Baru Municipal Council for telling hair salon operators to remove so-called "sexy posters" from their shops.

"As far as I am concerned, a by-law was passed 13 years ago requiring all Malay models to wear headscarves in advertisements. So, it does not apply to non-Muslims," he said.

"I know about this because I was one of those involved in formulating such by-laws when I served one term as a municipal councillor," he said.

Hu said he could not understand why the council officers would act on such matters when there were more pressing issues such as ensuring the cleanliness of the town or collecting RM19mil in quit rent arrears.

Enforcement officers from the council's Licensing Department have gone on the rounds to advise salon operators to take down such posters from their premises.

Hu said such a move could cause uncertainty within the business community.

MCA Youth chief Datuk Dr Wee Ka Siong said the incident had once again showed PAS' true colours.

"I want to ask DAP – is this a role model shown by the Pakatan Rakyat-led government?

"I believe they will say that there was a miscommunication or misunderstanding," he said.

"I believed PAS had not done so prior to the general election as it wanted to woo the Chinese voters then. Since the general election is over, they are showing their true colours," he said.

Kelantan MCA secretary Tan Ken Ten said the municipal council should not impose the practice on non-Muslims, describing it as "too extreme".

"Why is the council making it difficult for the salon operators to carry out their business?" he asked.

Tan, who is Kota Baru MCA chairman, said the party would provide the necessary assistance to the operators. 

Umno not becoming stupid, say party leaders

Posted: 26 Sep 2013 11:40 AM PDT

Yiswaree Palansamy, FMT

Umno lawmakers do not accept former premier and ex-Umno president Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad's rebuke that Umno leaders who remain too long in their positions will leave behind members who are more stupid than them.

The party's Youth wing deputy chief Datuk Razali Ibrahim said while anyone is free to air their views, it was not right to call long-serving Umno leaders stupid.

".... but don't say Umno members are stupid. Umno members are smart and can work," he told The Malaysian Insider today when asked if Dr Mahathir's sting will be taken as a cue to improve the party.

Razali likened Dr Mahathir's remarks to a "mother-in-law and daughter-in-law snub" (sindir anak menantu), which means remarks made among relations are not something to take offence over.

"This is just the art of politics and we should take it at face value... this is the flavour of the month since Umno is going to have its party polls," he added.

Deputy Foreign Minister Datuk Hamzah Zainuddin questioned the definition of the term "long-serving" used by Dr Mahathir.

"When you say too long there must be a period. What is the period? He was the prime minister for more than 20 years, is that too long? Or is over 30 years considered long?" he asked when met at the Parliament.

Hamzah said the question should be put to Dr Mahathir as he was the one who used the term "too long".

"The most important thing is, when someone is capable of leading, they should be given a chance.

"The period of time does not matter, it's the credibility of the leader that is important," he added.

Hamzah said he was not running for a Supreme Council seat as he felt it necessary to focus on his ministry, instead.

"But others will feel that the party needs them more than anything."

READ MORE HERE

 

No more concurrent sentences for convicts

Posted: 26 Sep 2013 11:36 AM PDT

http://archives.thestar.com.my/archives/2007/9/30/focus/n_33vohrah.jpghttp://archives.thestar.com.my/archives/2007/3/3/nation/n_p6shaik.jpg 

(The Star) - Anyone found guilty of multiple offences will now have to serve time for each crime consecutively, with concurrent sentences disallowed under amendments to the Criminal Procedure Code.

For example, a person convicted of housebreaking and theft will have to serve out the sentence for each offence one after another.

And since housebreaking and theft carry a maximum of two years and seven years jail respectively, the person could end up behind bars for nine years.

The new paragraph (e) of Section 282 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Amendment) Bill 2013 states: "When a person is convicted at one trial of any two or more offences, the court shall not order the sentences to run concurrently."

The Bill was tabled for first reading in the Dewan Rakyat on Wednesday.

Another proposed amendment in the Bill takes away from judges the discretion to apply Section 294, which deals with youthful first offenders.

With the amendment, a judge will no longer have the discretion to release such offenders on probation of good conduct if there is a minimum penalty provided for the offence.

This amendment came about after public outcry over what people perceived to be lenient sentences involving the rape of minors, although there is a mandatory five years minimum jail term.

Retired Court of Appeal judge Datuk K.C. Vohrah said the discretion on whether to impose a concurrent or consecutive sentence usually fell to magistrates and Sessions Court judges because the cases were mainly before them.

"They would impose a concurrent sentence if several offences of the same nature were committed at the same time or two or three offences were disclosed in one transaction.

"The accused would be sentenced for each offence but currently the court can order the sentences to run together, that is, the offender serves the longest sentence."

He added that the High Court normally tried capital offences but occasionally the Public Prosecutor might "apply for a case to be tried by a High Court judge although it was triable in the lower court".

Datuk Shaik Daud Ismail, another retired Court of Appeal judge, said judges could impose concurrent sentences after taking into account the facts of the case and mitigating circumstances.

He was against doing away with concurrent sentences. "It's not right to restrict a judge's discretion," he said.

The two old friends disagreed on removing judicial discretion where a minimum penalty was stated.

While Vohrah is comfortable with this proposed amendment, Shaik Daud said: "A judge should be able to take into account whether the offender is a first timer in sentencing regardless of the penalty."

"I'm aware that the public was upset when some judges meted out relatively lenient sentences in serious cases but taking away their discretion for all cases is not the way to do it." 

Election Commission adamant it wants nothing to do with Bersih People’s Tribunal

Posted: 26 Sep 2013 10:38 AM PDT

V Anbalagan, TMI

There will be no input from the Election Commission (EC) when a report on complaints of election irregularities heard last week is submitted to the Bersih People's Tribunal's five-man panel tomorrow.

This despite the offer made by the tribunal's legal head, Professor Gurdial Singh Nijar, to the commission to do so – after the EC said that although it did not officially attend the five-day tribunal, it had taken note of each and every complaint made.

EC deputy chairman Datuk Wan Ahmad Wan Omar (pic) told The Malaysian Insider that the commission will ignore Gurdial's request to submit a written report to the panel as the "Bersih People's Tribunal is not recognised under the law".

Wan Ahmad also questioned the composition of the five-man panel, two of whom are foreigners.

"They cannot pass judgment although they may be experts in election law in their respective countries," he said.

He said Bersih could send its report to the EC once the tribunal had made public its findings and recommendations.

To Wan Ahmad, the tribunal was set up only as a political forum to pass judgment on the government.

"As such, we will not give any legitimacy to the tribunal," he said, adding that the EC was guided by the advice of its experienced legal advisers.

Wan Ahmad was responding to a statement by Gurdial, who said he still hoped to see a written submission by the EC.

A total of 47 people testified and 70 statutory declarations were presented to the panel during the proceedings at a hotel in Subang Jaya last week.

Gurdial, who worked with a team of about 30 lawyers, had submitted two documents on irregularities in the conduct of polls by the EC, expert reports and surveys from political parties and non-governmental organisations.

Also tendered were three studies by experts to determine whether the media played its democratic role in providing balanced information to voters.

The legal team also gave the panel copies of almost all the election petitions filed in court by Barisan Nasional and Pakatan Rakyat.

READ MORE HERE

 

Why jailed human rights leader has no way to appeal – he has to wait for a judge

Posted: 26 Sep 2013 10:32 AM PDT

V Anbalagan, TMI

Human rights leader P. Uthayakumar (pic), who was jailed four months ago for sedition, has become a victim of justice delayed.

He is unable to appeal against his conviction and sentence because the trial judge has yet to write the grounds of judgment.

His lawyer, M. Manoharan, said Uthayakumar's appeal in the High Court will not be heard unless sessions judge Ahmad Zamzani Mohd Zain provides the written grounds.

"A trial judge is supposed to prepare the grounds of judgment within eight weeks once a notice of appeal is filed," he said.

Uthayakumar filed his notice of appeal on June 6, a day after the 30-month jail sentence was meted out to him.

Manoharan said he had written on three occasions to the judge's secretary, urging that the written judgment be expedited but never received a reply.

"My client is languishing in jail, and he is not well. The sessions judge must provide the written judgment as soon as possible," he told The Malaysian Insider.

Uthayakumar was found guilty on June 5 of publishing seditious remarks on the Police Watch website over a letter to former British prime minister Gordon Brown in 2007.

The former Internal Security Act (ISA) detainee was sentenced just hours after younger brother and activist P.  Waythamoorthy was appointed senator and deputy minister in Datuk Seri Najib Razak's administration following the May 5 general election.

Uthayakumar had refused to put up a defence or mitigate before the sessions judge, claiming that it was in protest of how Indians in Malaysia were treated.

He also did not seek bail pending his appeal.

READ MORE HERE

 

Kredit: www.malaysia-today.net

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

0 ulasan
Klik GAMBAR Dibawah Untuk Lebih Info
Sumber Asal Berita :-

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News


Chin Peng and the Dignity of Man

Posted: 27 Sep 2013 01:32 AM PDT

http://www.malaysiandigest.com/images/images/Kee_Thuan_Chye.jpg

The Sulu terrorists who were shot dead by our security forces when they made the incursion into Lahad Datu earlier this year were also buried on Malaysian soil. Did they deserve that? Did they deserve it more than Chin Peng, who fought for our country's independence, whereas they came to seize our land?
 

Kee Thuan Chye

 
The dignity of man. That was what Chin Peng bargained for at the Baling Talks held in 1955 with Tunku Abdul Rahman, David Marshall and a few others in a bid to negotiate peace. And because they would not grant him and his comrades of the Communist Party of Malaya (CPM) that, because they would not accord them dignity but instead insist that they surrender and subject themselves to detention, the talks failed.
 
I have read the transcript of the Baling Talks several times, and can vouch that Chin Peng was serious about peace and about coming out of the jungle to participate in the ensuing legitimate democratic process. He also appeared genuine in his intent and dignified in his approach to the negotiations. If you don't believe what I say, do read the transcript. It will open your eyes.
 
You will see that Chin Peng and his comrades were willing to lay down their arms and take their places in society. He asked for the CPM to be allowed to take part in democratic elections, but although the Tunku admitted that the CPM's manifesto was "quite good", it could not do so. It had to be disbanded.
 
Chin Peng agreed to compromise. But when he asked how he and his comrades would be treated when they came out of the jungle, the Tunku told him they would be detained "for a certain period" and investigated.
 
Asked how long the detention would be, the Tunku did not give a specific answer. "The length of detention will only be for as long as is necessary to carry out the investigation" was all he would say.
 
To Chin Peng, however, "this question of restriction of freedom … is a question of principle". And he, therefore, could not accept it.
 
He added: "For the dignity of man, if this principle is insisted upon, then we can only carry on with the struggle."
 
Marshall then asked him: "… but what are you struggling for?"
 
"It is very simple," Chin Peng reiterated, "just for the dignity of man."
 
Marshall failed to understand what Chin Peng meant by "the dignity of man". Chin Peng clarified it for him: "While we are in the jungle, we are free. Why should we come out to be detained?"
 
But more than that, I think "the dignity of man" also included social justice, which was one of the ideals upheld by the CPM. Furthermore, Chin Peng was not willing to submit himself and his men to what was still not a liberated Malayan government. Let's not forget, it was 1955 – internal security and national defence were still under the British, which meant that the CPM, on surrendering, would be detained under their control. He probably didn't trust the British to accord the CPM due respect.
 
He promised the Tunku that when the latter's Malayan government were given charge of internal security and national defence, the CPM would no longer call itself "National Liberation Army". The CPM's fight was "for the independence of Malaya", he said, so once the Malayan government was independent, the CPM would no longer fight against it.
 
That being so, Chin Peng again made a case for no detention, no restriction of movement. He asked that he and his comrades be allowed to go home. If this was granted, it would be acceptable for the Government to investigate them. "But if we were to be enclosed in one place and investigations are carried out, that amounts to surrender," he said.
 
Again, he showed he was willing to compromise. But as it turned out, the Tunku was not. He insisted that "as far as restriction of movement is concerned, we must have it". He also repeated at the end of the talks the sentiment he had expressed at its beginning: "Unfortunately, although you do not like the word 'surrender', I have got to be frank with you and say that you have got to surrender."
 
This left Chin Peng with no choice. He had already stated: "If you demand our surrender, we would prefer to fight to the last man." So he left the talks a disappointed man.
 
But what about the Tunku? Was he disappointed?
 
According to journalist Said Zahari, who was covering the talks for Utusan Melayu, he managed to ask the Tunku that question after the proceedings had ended. Only he and Umno man Syed Jaafar Albar were present when the Tunku replied, "No, no, not at all. I never wanted it to be a success."
 
Only recently – a few years ago – Said came out to reveal this. He did not include what the Tunku said when he wrote his report in 1955, because Syed Albar advised him against making it public. So we never got to know the Tunku's real intent.
 
In hindsight, however, we can now infer that the British were dead against recognising the CPM and allowing it to be part of the Malayan political landscape because that might have jeopardised their economic interests, and the Tunku was using the talks to prove to the British that he could be uncompromising with the CPM as this would favour him in his negotiations for independence, which he flew to London for right after Baling.
 
Whetever it was, Chin Peng got played out.
 
And although he was to be played out again a few times afterwards, for example, when he made numerous unsuccessful attempts to settle in Malaysia after the Government had signed a peace agreement with the CPM in 1989, it seems he never compromised his dignity.
 
Even now, after his death on September 16, the dignity appears intact. In his farewell letter to his comrades and compatriots published by Malaysiakini, he wrote: "… I wish to be remembered simply as a good man who could tell the world that he had dared to spend his entire life in pursuit of his own ideals to create a better world for his people. It is irrelevant whether I succeeded or failed, at least I did what I did."
 
This is the kind of dignity that the Malaysian Government cannot profess to have. It dishonoured the terms of the 1989 peace agreement by, first, not allowing Chin Peng to come home the numerous times he applied to do so, and now it shows lack of dignity for not even allowing his ashes to be brought back.
 
For this deplorable display, it has rightly earned the criticism of former Inspector-General of Police Rahim Noor, who headed the Malaysian team that negotiated the peace agreement. In barring Chin Peng's ashes from being brought back, he said, "we are making Malaysia a laughing stock to the whole world".
 
To make matters worse, the ruling party propaganda rag Utusan Malaysia came out last weekend with a story speculating that Chin Peng didn't die on September 16. Based on the say-so of an anonymous source, it said he had actually died the day before and "certain parties" had manipulated it such that his death would be commemorated with the birth of Malaysia! The report is unsubstantiated, and the anonymous source could be anyone just saying it.
 
To spin it further, Utusan quotes the source as saying that Chin Peng's farewell letter is dangerous because its call to youths to "struggle for idealism" may bring "more (security) threats to the country, especially among the youths". That's a laugh. Why doesn't the source interpret Chin Peng's call as a positive one instead, seeing idealism as something young people should always strive for? When has idealism become a negative and dangerous value?
 
This is the sort of sentiment that informs the stand of the Government in not allowing Chin Peng's ashes to be brought into the country, as expressed last week by Home Minister Ahmad Zahid Hamidi and his deputy, Wan Junaidi Tuanku Jaafar. They are afraid that supporters will build a shrine where the ashes are buried and it will spark a revival of communism in Malaysia.
 
This is not only almost as ridiculous as the claim made by the Utusan's so-called source; it also shows what an insecure government we have.
 
Noordin Top was a Jemaah Islamiah terrorist who masterminded the bombings that led to the deaths of innocents in Jakarta and Bali, but his remains were allowed to be brought home in 2009 to be buried in Pontian. Was the Government not afraid that his burial ground would become a shrine to Muslim extremism?
 
The Sulu terrorists who were shot dead by our security forces when they made the incursion into Lahad Datu earlier this year were also buried on Malaysian soil. Did they deserve that? Did they deserve it more than Chin Peng, who fought for our country's independence, whereas they came to seize our land?
 
Is it not enough that our government lacks dignity? Must it also lack logic? Where is its sense of social justice, its kinship with the dignity of man?
 
 
* Kee Thuan Chye is the author of the new book The Elections Bullshit, now available in bookstores.

The three stars: Chin Peng, Najib and Dr M

Posted: 26 Sep 2013 03:17 PM PDT

http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/mahathir-chin-peng-najib.jpg

If communism is so bad, why does the Malaysian government entertain China, whilst demonising the CPM and mistreating Malaysians of Chinese origin?

Malaysian schoolchildren are not taught that British forces funded, trained and supplied arms to Chin Peng during World War Two. The combined effort was to liberate the country from the Japanese aggressors. A few years after WWII, the communists waged war on the British because the CPM wanted to free Malaysia from British colonial rule.

Mariam Mokhtar, FMT

It is communism which bonds the late secretary-general of the Communist Party of Malaya (CPM) Chin Peng, former prime minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad and Umno Baru president, Najib Tun Razak.

Members of CPM cadres wear a jungle green uniform complete with a cap sporting a badge of three red stars. These three stars signify the three main races in Malaysia – Chinese, Indian and Malay, much like Najib's '1Malaysia'.

Chin Peng preached communist ideology, but the Malaya he envisioned was a country where the races were equal, unlike the Ketuanan Melayu concept of the Umno Baru elite, where Malays reign supreme.

Over the last few days, Malaysians have found a reason to rejoice. Former prime minister, Mahathir has recovered from a bout of amnesia, which marred his performance at the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Project IC, in Kota Kinabalu.

Last week, during a press conference, at the International Youth Centre in Cheras, Mahathir reminded Malaysians that Chin Peng wanted to make Malaysia a communist state.

Amazingly, Mahathir remembered Chin Peng, but it is hardly surprising that he was critical of the communist leader. He is keen to deflect criticism as a prime minister who does not honour agreements.

Both Mahathir and Najib are conscious of their public image. Neither men like being known as untrustworthy. The timing is critical as Mahathir has an election to manage, in which he will back his favourite contender; his son, Mukhriz.

Mahathir tried to project the image of a government that was magnanimous and would help rehabilitate former communist guerrillas. When the 1989 Hadyai treaty was signed, guerrillas voluntarily surrendered and their arms and stockpiles of weapons were destroyed.

However, Chin Peng was barred from entering Malaysia and when he died, his ashes are also prevented from being interred at his family grave near Lumut, for fear that a memorial to honour Sitiawan's former son would be built.

Mahathir had no intention of honouring the peace treaty. His word is as good as Najib's "Janji di tepati".

Mahathir criticised Chin Peng for his communist ideology, but failed to note that Malaysia has become a closet dictatorship, in which the sons of past prime ministers, are groomed, in exactly the same manner as the North Korean communist dynasty.

At least, in a communist state, the financial and social status of peasants is elevated to that of the middle classes, and the upper classes are brought down to the financial and social status of the middle classes.

Everyone is made (almost) equal. In communism, production is controlled by the state and the state owns everything.

In Malaysia's dictatorship, most of the wealth is in the hands of Umno Baru politicians, their cronies and the government controlled GLCs. In Sabah and Sarawak, the wealth from these oil and timber rich states is inaccessible to the ordinary folk.

The communist threat

Chin Peng may have wanted a communist state but in 2001, it was Mahathir who declared Malaysia an Islamic state. He tried to convince Malays that the Islam preached by Umno Baru was more acceptable than PAS's brand of conservative Islam. He erased Tunku Abdul Rahman's secular vision of Malaysia.

If Malaysia was democratic, as Mahathir claims, the rakyat would have been able to throw off the yoke of oppression in GE13, when 51% of the electorate, voted for the Opposition. Yet, the nation is still saddled with the oppressive regime of Umno Baru.

After World War II, countries were rebuilding and Malaya's riches from rubber and tin, were needed to fund the reconstruction of Britain. In war-scarred Malaya, factories were rebuilt, estates started producing and mines resumed operations. The output was twice what it had been before the war but workers wages were still depressed.

Food was in short supply and the suffering of the people was compounded by the discovery that Japanese war-currency was useless. Malayans were destitute.

Chin Peng's efforts to obtain better conditions and wages for the workers were futile. He encouraged strikes which turned nasty. His excuse was that he was fighting for the people. At least, he did not commit treason by giving ICs and citizenship to illegal foreigners.

Some people might wonder what Malaysia would be like as a communist state, and make comparisons with the People's Republic of China's (PRC).

The economic output of the PRC helps keep the economies of many countries alive. PRC nationals form the highest numbers of tourists to many destinations around the world. Singapore is attracting PRC nationals to work and live on the island, to the detriment of its own citizens. The rate of millionaires and billionaires being formed in PRC is high.

If communism is so bad, why does the Malaysian government entertain the PRC, whilst demonising the CPM and mistreating Malaysians of Chinese origin?

Malaysian schoolchildren are not taught that British forces funded, trained and supplied arms to Chin Peng during World War Two. The combined effort was to liberate the country from the Japanese aggressors. A few years after WWII, the communists waged war on the British because the CPM wanted to free Malaysia from British colonial rule.

READ MORE HERE

 

An analysis of arrogance

Posted: 26 Sep 2013 11:57 AM PDT

One of them is the deputy high priest of Malay rights, Zulkifli Noordin, who was 101 per cent confident of securing the Parliamentary seat for Shah Alam. In a pre-election interview, he adamantly boasted to a reporter that he will absolutely win the elections. No hypothetical situations were allowed to be imagined. He was arrogant even before the elections.

Aerie Rahman, MM

Malaysian politicians are unique beings. It is difficult to find this breed in other democracies. The public statements made are remarkable, not for its wit but for its reeking arrogance. In most democracies, it is a norm for public figures to conceal their arrogance under a facade of conviviality. But in Malaysia, the arrogance of our politicians is ostensible.

Take for example what Nazri Aziz said when questioned about his son's position at his Ministry. Along with saying that his son wasn't under the government's payroll, his riposte was that his critics were stupid. This is no different from Zahid Hamidi who suggested that Malaysians who are disillusioned with the political system should leave the country.

Moral superiority is displayed by these ministers who belittle their critics.

We're also familiar with those in power who summarily dismisses the reasonable complains of the public by giving us ridiculous advice. Let's not forget the people who said "If the price of ______ (fill in the blanks with chicken, property, vegetables etc) is too expensive, don't buy it".

These statements smack of arrogance as it shows that those in power do not intend to delve into the problems of average people like you and me. Dismissing them is a lot easier than trying to justify and address the problems. It gives them a bit of spotlight as well.

An arrogant attitude is unbecoming of members of a civilian government.

But why are they arrogant?

Narcissism

Arrogance has many permutations and nuances. These forms of arrogance are a lived reality – affecting our everyday lives.

In the Romantic philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau's polemical The Social Contract, he wrote that the people of England are only free during election time. When MPs are elected, slavery overtakes society.

What he meant was that politicians would be servile only during election time, promising the moon and stars to garner votes. But as soon as their position is secured, they won't give a damn about us common folk.

While this may be true with most politicians in Malaysia, there are some who deem themselves as masters even before winning the elections.

One of them is the deputy high priest of Malay rights, Zulkifli Noordin, who was 101 per cent confident of securing the Parliamentary seat for Shah Alam. In a pre-election interview, he adamantly boasted to a reporter that he will absolutely win the elections. No hypothetical situations were allowed to be imagined. He was arrogant even before the elections.

He lost the elections, yet gained a whopping 38,000 votes.

Zul Noordin's  vanity is a form of arrogance which is due to him constructing and construing himself as an object of desire. For some reason, he zealously believed that he was wanted by others and as such, had the capacity to be arrogant.  He is deluded about his self-worth and projected his sphere of influence far beyond reality.

This form of arrogance is common among the bourgeoisie as well. Just look at high flying financiers and footballers who ask for high wages and respect, believing that they are in high demand.

Concealing shame

Shame is a concept that is common among the bourgeoisie where in their worldview, status and position in society is essential. For those who are in abject poverty, shame is present, but is not as accentuated as how it is among the bourgeoisie.

Shame is an inescapable torment for the bourgeoisie whenever they commit some transgression – this is especially true for our politicians who live under the scrutiny of the court of public opinion. They can't get rid of it; it hangs above them like the sword of Damocles.

Even in feudal societies, shame is an integral element within the aristocracy. The nobility is expected to be chivalrous and honourable. In medieval Japan, the Samurai, a class above traders and farmers would commit seppuku if they committed a dishonourable act.

Such is the power of shame.

But in Malaysia, when blamed for incompetency, politicians disguise their feelings of shame by lashing out at others or try to appeal to some crass nationalism. They impose their authority by using their repository of power and influence. This ends up with a projection of arrogance. Arrogance is used to divert the shame that burns a gaping hole in their pride.

Instead of shame having power over the politician, the politician uses his power to control shame.

Another example would be those in the financial sector. During the 2008 financial meltdown, large banks in the States needed to be bailed out. The CEOs of big banks were blamed for the failures of the banks. Nevertheless, without any sense of honour, they demanded huge sums as golden parachutes for their services. They did so because they had power.

No contrition was expressed. Without a doubt these bankers must have felt ashamed of themselves. Yet, securing an opulent future was more important.

The omniscient government

In Malaysia, the mindset that the government knows best is still prevalent despite Najib Razak's claims. This arrogant attitude has more to do with institutions than individuals – a sort of governmentality if you will. It stems from intellectual superiority, where the institution believes that it has the ability and technique to organise the masses, without needing to consult them.

The worst form of arrogance manifested itself with AUKU, where the government believed it was superior to students and entitled to impinge on student freedoms – by painting students as volatile and impressionable. Thankfully, that vile law has been scrapped.

However, the status quo of the government knowing best is still present. Take a look at the TPPA and the secrecy surrounding it. So many details are hidden from us and we are kept in the dark.

The lack of transparency and accountability only serves to confirm the enduring era of arrogant governance.

Zero tolerance on arrogance

Having explored the various types of arrogance that is pervasive in Malaysian society, the best course of action is to reprimand our leaders whenever arrogance rears its ugly head. Show your disapproval. Petition them. Respond. Resist the arrogance.

Never forget that they once and will always think that they are better than you – when in fact they are only just skilful in political manoeuvring.

We need to have a zero tolerance attitude towards arrogance. We are the masters of our country, and our politicians are our servants.

Put them in their rightful place.

 

Kredit: www.malaysia-today.net

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

0 ulasan
Klik GAMBAR Dibawah Untuk Lebih Info
Sumber Asal Berita :-

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News


PCA: Sympton of a failed state

Posted: 26 Sep 2013 06:22 PM PDT

By Dr Kua Kia Soong, SUARAM Adviser

The amendments to the Prevention of Crime Act (PCA) which allows detention without trial is symptomatic of a failed transformation programme by the Najib government to bring the country into the league of nations that follow the rule of law. No other country that espouses adherence to democracy and human rights uses detention without trial laws to tackle crime.

The reasons why this situation has come about and why the government has been helpless in implementing the Independent Police Complaints & Misconduct Commission (IPCMC) perhaps point to more sinister factors involving skeletons in government leaders' cupboards. And the reason why organised crime has become so intractable in recent years points to rotten apples in the police barrel.

We have had some hints of that recently. You will remember that after he retired, the former Inspector General of Police Musa Hassan had revealed political influences on the police force to release certain individuals. This IGP's former aide de camp, Noor Azizul Rahim in turn retaliated by accusing Musa of wrongdoings and silencing critics.

I can't think of any other reasons for the impunity enjoyed by the police despite the annual human rights violations relating to detentions without trial, deaths in police custody and deaths through police shootings. After all, the IPCMC was one of the recommendations by the Royal Commission on the Police in 2005.

SUARAM's Human Rights Report 2012 show that deaths in police custody and deaths through police shootings continue unabated: Deaths in police custody cases show 7 in 2010, 25 in 2011 and 9 in 2012; deaths through police shooting cases show 18 in 2010, 25 in 2011 and 37 in 2012. Between 2000 and 2012, there were in total 209 deaths in police custody cases; between 2007 and 2012, there were 298 deaths through police shootings.

Tackling the problem of crime & gangs

The government and the police with the assistance of the mainstream media have recently made a big play of the proliferation of gangs and gangsters inflicted crimes in the country, blaming it on the repeal of the Emergency Ordinance (EO) which was intended for emergency purposes to save the life of a nation. Unfortunately, the EO was a convenient way for the police to rope in anyone they didn't like. This included respected members of parliament like Dr Jeyakumar Devaraj, the MP for Sungai Siput, who was detained without trial with five other PSM leaders in 2011 as well as suspected thiefs and illegal lottery runners.

The government, police and the mainstream press have not asked the pertinent question: how did cities such as Hong Kong, Singapore and others tackle their triad problems without relying on detention without trial?

We have a Societies Act that is obsessed with cracking down on any organisation that is not pro-BN and that is why SUARAM chose to register under the Registrar of Companies. In places like Hong Kong, their Societies Ordinance and an Organized & Serious Crimes Ordinance have been specifically enacted to tackle the triad problem. The former outlaws triads in Hong Kong and imposes stiff prison terms and penalties for any person convicted of professing or claiming to be an office bearer or managing or assisting in the management of a triad.

Hong Kong also established an Independent Commission against Corruption in 1974. The agency targeted brazen corruption within police ranks linked with triads, provided heavier penalties for organized crime activities and authorized the courts to confiscate the proceeds of such crimes. Hong Kong, as a British Colony, had the reputation of being one of the most corrupt cities in the world with a cosy association between law enforcement agencies and organized crime syndicates. Nearly all types of organized crimes, vice, gambling and drugs, were protected. Within three years, they had smashed all corruption syndicates in the Government and prosecuted 247 government officers, including 143 police officers.

Their success has been attributed to: (i) having an independent anti-corruption agency, free from any interference in conducting their investigation; (ii) strong financial support; (iii) having wide investigative powers, empowered to investigate all crimes which are connected with corruption but with an elaborate check and balance system to prevent abuse of such wide power; (iv) being highly professional in  investigations, including video recording of all interviews of suspects; (v) a strategy that includes prevention and education.

Although Hong Kong is not totally free of violent crime, it is a comparatively safe place to live in. Comparable communities in developed Asia, like Japan, Korea and Singapore, also have markedly lower crime rates than most Western societies. (South China Morning Post, 22.2.2013)

Failure to solve poverty, social dislocation & inequality

Social dislocation, inequality and poverty are known factors in crime. The destruction of the rubber plantation communities, growing inequality and marginalisation through racial discrimination has driven many into crime. Poverty and crime are clearly feeding on each other, and the government has to make this a priority in its professed transformation plan.

They should not be indulging in their usual wasteful exploits of spying on dissidents, harassing NGOs, detaining dissidents without trial, breaking up peaceful assemblies and such distractions from the serious work of tackling organised crime.

This retrogressive PCA Bill has put us in the league of banana republics in which people run the risk of being detained without trial and where our society will never be at peace with itself…

 

New PCA bill violates civil liberties by presumption of guilt, disallowing legal redress and ...

Posted: 26 Sep 2013 11:26 AM PDT

http://www.humanrightspartymalaysia.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/isa18_thumb1.jpg

It is obvious that the proposed amendments to the PCA are a clear violation of civil liberties, and a return to a haunted past Malaysians believed to have been buried. 

Steven Sim Chee Keong, Ahli Parlimen Bukit Mertajam

Zairil Khir Johari, Ahli Parlimen Bukit Bendera 

The proposed amendments to the Prevention of Crime Act 1959 (PCA) have caused a public outcry, not least because it appears to be a way of reintroducing the controversial provisions of the draconian Internal Security Act (ISA) and Emergency Ordinance (EO), both of which were repealed by the very same administration. 

Many have pointed out the double standards of Prime Minister Dato' Sri Najib Razak, who began his term promising "transformation" and respect for human rights and civil liberties, but have now succumbed to business as usual by undoing his very own reforms, and his own credibility in the process. 

Further to that, the amendments to the PCA are problematic due to a few other reasons, as stated below.

 

No to preventive detention

Firstly, the reintroduction of preventive detention is completely unnecessary. This is especially so in light of the fact that the Government has already passed the Security Offences (Special Measures) Act 2012, which allows for preventive detention in cases of national security. Moreover, even without the amendments, the PCA already allows for remand of up to 28 days and then a further 28 days upon the approval of a magistrate.

Therefore, the PCA amendments can be seen as an attempt to broaden the ambit for detention without trial. Instead of taking the easy way out by using detention without trial, the police should focus on solving crime via the criminal justice system.

 

Overturning of the principle of justice

Secondly, there is a strong element of presumption of guilt in the proposed changes to the PCA. For example, section 7C(a)(i) states that a detention order can be issued on a person who has "committed two or more serious offences, whether or not he is convicted thereof, if the inquiry report finds sufficient evidence to support such finding." In other words, a person who has been accused of an offence can be detained without having been proven to have committed it. Does this not contradict the basis of criminal justice, whereby a person is innocent until proven guilty?

 

Arbitrary power of the Prevention of Crime Board

Thirdly, it would appear that the arbitrary powers of the Home Minister that existed in the ISA has now been replaced with the arbitrary powers of a "Prevention of Crime Board." This Board will comprise three members, with a chairman who "shall be or have been, or be qualified to be, a judge of the Federal Court, the Court of Appeal or a High Court." In addition to the chairman, there will be two other members. However, the bill provides no specification of any criteria whatsoever for the appointment of these two other members. This raises many questions – who will recommend them and on what basis would they be recommended?

 

Lack of independence and check and balance in decision-making

Finally, the proposed law also prohibits legal redress by not allowing judicial review of the Board's decisions. This is stated by Section 15A(1): "There shall be no judicial review in any court of, and no court shall have or exercise any jurisdiction in respect of, any act done or finding or decision made by the Board in the exercise of its discretionary power…." A judicial review is only possible on matters concerning the Board's compliance with procedural requirements.

Oddly, however, Section 19A(2) appears to contradict the earlier section by allowing a review of "the direction of the Board... by the High Court". As such, it is at best a contradicting law and at worst, one that ignores the fundamental principles of justice.

 

Conclusion

Thus, it is obvious that the proposed amendments to the PCA are a clear violation of civil liberties, and a return to a haunted past Malaysians believed to have been buried. While we do not object to the strengthening of existing criminal laws to tackle escalating crime, the current amendments are akin to the government reviving the oppressive EO and ISA through the backdoor via the PCA.

 

Steven Sim Chee Keong, Ahli Parlimen Bukit Mertajam

Zairil Khir Johari, Ahli Parlimen Bukit Bendera

- 

 

Rang Undang-Undang PCA melanggar kebebasan sivil dengan tahanan tanpa bicara, halangan hak membela diri dan kuasa arbitari  'Lembaga Pencegahan Jenayah'

Cadangan pindaan Akta Pencegahan Jenayah 1959 (PCA) telah menyebabkan bantahan awam kerana dilihat sebagai usaha untuk memperkenalkan semula peruntukan kontroversi Akta Keselamatan Dalam Negeri zalim (ISA) dan Ordinan Darurat (EO), yang kedua-duanya telah dimansuhkan oleh pentadbiran yang sama.

Sekali lagi rakyat dijamu dengan tindakan cakap tidak serupa bikin oleh Perdana Menteri Dato' Sri Najib Razak, yang pada awal penggalnya menjanjikan "transformasi" dan penghormatan kepada hak asasi manusia dan kebebasan sivil, tetapi kini telah mengabaikan janji transformasinya, dan mencalarkan kredibiliti beliau melalui tindakan ini.

Lebih penting lagi, pindaan PCA ini sangat bermasalah atas beberapa alasan berikut:

 

Tidak kepada tahanan tanpa bicara

Pertama, pengenalan semula tahanan pencegahan adalah benar-benar tidak perlu. Apatah lagi apabila Kerajaan sendiri telah meluluskan Akta Kesalahan Keselamatan (Langkah-Langkah Khas) 2012, yang membenarkan tahanan pencegahan dalam kes-kes keselamatan negara. Selain itu, walaupun tanpa pindaan, PCA membenarkan reman sehingga 28 hari dan tambahan lagi 28 hari dengan kelulusan majistret.

Oleh itu, pindaan PCA boleh dilihat sebagai usaha untuk memperluaskan cakupan kuasa penahanan tanpa bicara. Daripada mengambil jalan mudah dengan menggunakan pendekatan tahanan tanpa bicara, pihak polis perlu memberi fokus kepada menyelesaikan jenayah dalam kerangka sistem perundangan jenayah yang adil.

 

Memesongkan prinsip keadilan

Kedua, elemen anggapan kebersalahan ataupun "presumption of guilt" adalah sangat nyata dalam pindaan yang dicadangkan dalam PCA. Sebagai contoh, seksyen 7C(a)(i) menyatakan bahawa perintah tahanan boleh dikeluarkan kepada seseorang yang telah "melakukan dua atau lebih kesalahan yang serius, sama ada atau tidak disabitkan atas kesalahan itu, jika laporan siasatan itu mendapati keterangan yang mencukupi untuk menyokong dakwaan." Dalam erti kata lain, seseorang yang telah dituduh atas suatu kesalahan boleh ditahan tanpa perlu dibuktikan bersalah. Adakah ini tidak bercanggah dengan dasar keadilan perundangan, di mana seseorang itu tidak bersalah sehingga dibuktikan bersalah?

 

Kuasa arbitari Lembaga Pencegahan Jenayah

Ketiga, kelihatannya kuasa arbitari Menteri Dalam Negeri yang wujud dalam ISA telah dipindahkan kepada "Lembaga Pencegahan Jenayah." Lembaga yang dicadangkan ini akan terdiri daripada tiga orang ahli, dengan dipengerusikan oleh seseorang yang "hendaklah menjadi atau telah, atau layak menjadi, hakim Mahkamah Persekutuan, Mahkamah Rayuan atau Mahkamah Tinggi." Selain pengerusi, akan ada dua orang anggota lain lagi. Walau bagaimanapun, rang undang-undang ini tidak memberikan sebarang perincian kriteria bagi pelantikan kedua-dua ahli ini. Ini menimbulkan banyak persoalan – siapa yang akan mengesyorkan mereka dan atas dasar apa?

 

Kurangnya kebebasan dan semak dan imbang dalam proses membuat keputusan

Akhir sekali, rang undang-undang yang dicadangkan ini juga melanggar hak perundangan dengan tidak membenarkan semakan kehakiman ke atas keputusan Lembaga ini. Peruntukan ini dinyatakan dalam Seksyen 15A(1): "Tidak akan ada semakan kehakiman di mana-mana mahkamah, dan tiada mahkamah boleh mempunyai atau menjalankan apa-apa bidang kuasa berkenaan dengan, apa-apa perbuatan yang dilakukan atau dakwaan atau keputusan yang dibuat oleh Lembaga dalam menjalankan kuasa budi bicara itu ...." Semakan kehakiman hanya boleh dibuat pada perkara-perkara yang berkenaan dengan pematuhan prosedur sahaja.

Pun begitu, Seksyen 19A(2) nampaknya bercanggah dengan seksyen awal dengan membenarkan semakan kehakiman oleh Mahkamah Tinggi ke atas keputusan Lembaga. Oleh itu, undang-undang ini bukan sahaja bercanggah tetapi mengabaikan prinsip asas keadilan.

 

Kesimpulan

Oleh itu, adalah jelas bahawa cadangan pindaan PCA ini mencabuli kebebasan awam. Walaupun kami tidak membantah pengukuhan undang-undang jenayah yang sedia ada untuk menangani keadaan jenayah yang semakin meningkat, namun pindaan ini seolah-olah satu cubaan oleh Kerajaan untuk menghidupkan semula EO dan ISA melalui pintu belakang dengan menggunakan PCA.

 

Steven Sim Chee Keong, Ahli Parlimen Bukit Mertajam

Zairil Khir Johari, Ahli Parlimen Bukit Bendera

- 

 

新的罪案防范法案赋予罪案防范委员会可以在没有证据下剥夺公民自由,不允许申诉及拥有任意的权力。

修改1959年罪案防范法案建议引起舆论哗然,这是因为看起来要恢复被国阵政权废除的内安法令及紧急法令。

首相纳吉讲一套做却是另一套,上任时的纳吉承诺转型,尊重人权及公民自由,现在却违背本身制定的改革计划,影响自身的公信力。

更重要的,罪案防范法令基于以下的原因而非常不合理。

 

拒绝防范性扣留

第一,重新制定防范性扣留是没有必要的。政府在2012年已经通过国家安全罪行(特别措施)法允许政府可以基于国家安全的理由而实施防范性扣留。而且,即使不修改,罪案防范法可以允许扣留28天,然后得到推事庭的批准可以继续扣留28天。

因此,罪案防范法可以看成是政府尝试拓宽范围进行无审讯扣留。警察应该通过刑事司法系统来解决罪案,而不是通过无审讯扣留。

 

颠覆公正的原则

第二,罪案防范法修改建议中有一个"有罪推定"(presumption of guilt)的元素。举个例子,根据法令第7(a)(i)条文指出,只要一个人有犯过一个到两个严重的罪案,不论有没有证据证实一个人犯罪,只要调查报告说一个人犯罪,就可以发出扣留令。换句话说,一个曾经犯过案的人,即使没有证据也能被逮捕。这不是违反了基本的司法原则吗?只要还没有下判前,每个人都是无辜的。

 

罪案防范委员会拥有任意的权力

第三,内安法令赋予内政部任意的权力如今由罪案防范委员会取代。这个委员会由三个人组成,委员会主席必须是曾经,或者有资格成为高庭、上诉庭或联邦法院的法官担任。除了主席,将有另外两位委员。但是法令却没有注明这两位委员的条件。这两个委员在怎样的基础上被推荐出任?由谁推荐?

 

缺乏独立及制衡的决定权

最后,建议修改的法令以不允许司法审核来否决人民的申诉权。在第15A(1)条文下:"不得在任何法庭进行司法审核,及没有任何的法庭可以拥有或者行使任何司法权,任何由防犯罪案委员会所做的决定都是行使他们的权力。"只有符合程序的事项才能进行司法审核。

奇怪的是,第19A(2)的条文却跟之前的条文"允许由高庭审核委员会的方向"有冲突。这是根本就是一个违反司法原则及矛盾的法令。

 

结论

很明显,建议修改的罪案防范法令是为了借尸还魂来剥夺公民的自由。我们不反对加强现有的刑事的法律来解决不断发生的犯罪率,但是今天的建议修改罪案防范法令就好像是走后门来恢复紧急法令及内安法令这种恶法。

 

大山脚国会议员沈志强

升旗山国会议员再里尔佐哈里

Kredit: www.malaysia-today.net

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

0 ulasan
Klik GAMBAR Dibawah Untuk Lebih Info
Sumber Asal Berita :-

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News


How free are we to express ourselves under the Federal Constitution?

Posted: 26 Sep 2013 03:38 PM PDT

ALTHOUGH the right to freedom of speech is often expressed as a separate right, in truth it is part of the right to freedom of expression. On a personal level, this is your essential right to manifest yourself and your thoughts by words, dressing and actions.
 
For example, you can jog backwards through town while dressed in a cheap pirate costume while reciting erotic Latin poems. Though it is not encouraged because it is a silly thing to do (and it definitely won't help you in becoming a chick magnet), but hey, that's your constitutional right as enshrined in Article 10(1)(a) of the Federal Constitution. Nobody can prevent you from doing this, although your loved ones will try very hard to dissuade you (and you should listen to them).
 
On a social level, that freedom of expression is manifested in several ways.
 
The first is the ability to move about freely and unhindered, or to stay in any part of Malaysia. It is entirely understandable however if you choose not to stay in Kangar, Perlis. This right to freedom of movement is enshrined in Article 9(2) of the Federal Constitution.
 
The second is the right to "assemble peaceably and without arms" as provided in Article 10(1)(b) of the Federal Constitution. You may be relieved to know that cutting off your arms is not a precondition to a peaceful assembly. Your arms don't even need to be well toned. Hell, you don't even need them because "arms" here refers to weapons. Salt or mineral water bottles do not count.
 
The third is the right to engage with others no matter how undesirable they are to your family or friends and to form "associations" with them.
 
Associations here do not refer to your machas whom you hang out with at mamaks, no matter what your little group is. It is used in the broader sense to mean organisations such as societies; organisations and parties such as the Malaysian Nature Society,  National Human Rights Society and United Malays National Organisation. This is contained in Article 10(1)(c) of the Federal Constitution.
 
These rights are known as fundamental liberties because they are fundamental to every human being regardless of race, religion, class, wealth or political affiliation.
 
It is in the exercise of all these rights that we are able to fully manifest our humanity, and hopefully that would lead to contentment and productivity on a personal, societal, and national plane. They are also important to realising our humanity, to cultivating a democracy, and to keeping governments accountable. Or a whole lot of wicked fun. It's really up to us.
 
Having said that, these rights are not absolute. They are subject to the limitations that promote public order, public health, security, and responsibility to those rights.
 
Your right to freedom of speech and expression is restricted to the extent necessary to preserve national security, friendly relations with other countries, public order and public morality.
 
You also cannot simply say nasty untrue things about others, or persuade someone to commit an offence. For these same reasons you will, for example, not be allowed to dress in the tightest speedos and walk about town no matter how nonchalantly. You could be arrested on grounds of public morality, or public order, regardless of how buff you are.

READ MORE HERE

Malaysia’s Biggest Problem: Our Attitudes

Posted: 26 Sep 2013 11:56 AM PDT

Just last night, I attended a dinner and my table mostly consisted of those over 50 years of age. Like every typical dinner conversation, our conversation led to politics. My parents' friends started talking about how those in the rural areas determine the ruling government. In some way, that is true. If a single coalition were to win all the parliamentary seats in Sabah and Sarawak alone, 25% of the majority needed to form a government would already be fulfilled (57 parliamentary seats all together). I usually follow politics very closely, whether or not it is election season, but that night I chose to remain silent, partly because I had a lot on my mind. However, that didn't mean I wasn't listening.

1. We lack empathy

"Why should they have a say in who runs our country? They know the least," said somebody at the table.

Just like that, a thousand thoughts flooded my mind. Why? Well, perhaps because they are citizens. It is every citizen's right to elect the candidate of their choice, whether we like it or not.

They know the least? Of course they know the least! They don't have access to alternative news like Malaysiakini or The Malaysian Insider. You could say they have Radio Free Sarawak but here's the catch: Could they really be bothered about what Radio Free Sarawak reports?

Many of us — including myself — have never properly stopped to consider that question, proving that we lack empathy. Perhaps we have grown complacent. We have a proper house to live in; our education has secured our future; we have food to eat; the list goes on. What do these people have? Definitely not money. I remember a member of the Methodist Church council telling my college's Christian Fellowship that one of the biggest problems faced by Malaysian Christians in Sabah and Sarawak is the lack of money. Christian parents there discourage their children from attending youth service because they fear their children might become "too passionate" and end up becoming a pastor — an occupation that doesn't earn much.

Yes, that's how bad it is. Money is so scarce that following God's possible calling is something to be sacrificed. When one lacks cash, basic necessities become scarce — putting food on the table becomes a problem. This is precisely the concern of the majority of rural folk. Honestly, why should they be bothered about their land being taken away from them? They get paid (as little as it is) for it, don't they?

You might argue that it's the long-term that matters. The Opposition can help these people have a better, self-sustaining life through transparency and good governance. While I do personally believe that, if you were in their shoes, would you take the risk? To give up all the cash handouts that feed your family for promises that possibly might go unfulfilled? As urban dwellers, the majority of us don't know what it's like to go hungry, to worry whether or not money might come in tomorrow and because we don't know, we lack one of the essential things that enables us to relate with each other: empathy.

2. We are racists

We don't notice it but we are. When we think of racists, we think of Bible-burning bigots, we think of people who advocate the concept of Ketuanan Melayu. We don't think of ourselves. The ugly truth is, all of us practice racism. Something I continue to struggle with to this day is when I hear of Malay people gaining entry into public universities. Some time back, my Malay friend told me she got into a public university. She applied with an excellent A-Levels forecast of 1A* and 3As, and yet the first thing that came to my mind was; "You only got in because you're a Malay". For a split second, the bigot in me totally forgot how hardworking she is, how amazing her results were.

I once had a teacher who started deleting people off her Facebook friends list simply for the reason that they supported the Bersih 3.0 rally. When I told my parents that my teacher deleted me, their first reaction was to ask "Malay ah?" Just recently, a close friend of mine confided in me that when he was younger, whenever he refused to listen to his parents, they would threaten him by saying, "Later the Indian man come and get you."

Our little acts reflect the true prejudices of our heart. Apparently, all Malays have something against street rallies, conveniently forgetting the massive number of Malays at Bersih 3.0. Apparently, all Indians are monsters — we forget that everybody is capable of heinous things. Apparently, those who enter public universities are lazy, incapable Malays — forgetting that the poor, hardworking and capable students, regardless of race, have no choice but to go there.

Najib’s son Nazifuddin becomes substantial shareholder of ’1Malaysia Paint’ supplier SerSol

Posted: 26 Sep 2013 11:46 AM PDT

A filing in Bursa announced that Nazifuddin had emerged yesterday as a substantial shareholder with an indirect interest (via SerSol Holdings Sdn Bhd) of 40m shares or 21 per cent in the loss-making commercial paint maker SerSol.

On the same day, SerSol founder Tan Fie Ping and his brother Fie Jen ceased to be substantial shareholders of SerSol after they disposed of their indirect stake of 40m shares.

Earlier, on 23 July, Bursa Malaysia had queried SerSol about possible unusual stock market activity surrounding the sharp rise in the SerSol share price. SerSol responded that it was not aware of anything unusual.

On 2 September, SerSol Bhd appointed Khazanah exco chairman Nor Mohamed Yakcop's 32-year-old son Mohamed Ridzuan Nor Md as its managing director.

Two days later, on 4 September, the firm signed an MOU with the Malay Contractors Association(PKMM) to supply '1Malaysia Paint' (Cat1Malaysia) to be used by PKMM members – as SerSol's share price soared.

Under the MOU, PKMM agreed to "encourage" all its members to buy C1M from SerSol "to be used in all building and construction contracts secured or entered into by PKMM members with the government and private sectors for all the building and construction projects…"

Imagine how much SerSol stands to earn if '1Malaysia Paint' has to be used in RM100bn worth of government mega projects already announced.

Read more at: http://anilnetto.com/economy/malaysian-financebusiness/najibs-son-nazifuddin-acquires-stake-in-1malaysia-paint-supplier-sersol/ 

Kredit: www.malaysia-today.net

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

0 ulasan
Klik GAMBAR Dibawah Untuk Lebih Info
Sumber Asal Berita :-

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News


ADUN Luyang umum keluar DAP

Posted: 26 Sep 2013 06:49 PM PDT

Bekas Ahli Parlimen Kota Kinabalu dan bekas Penasihat DAP mengesahkan perkara itu di sini.
Dengan itu, King Cheu dipercayai ADUN pertama keluar parti dan menjadi wakil rakyat Bebas di negara ini selepas Pilihan Raya Umum ke-13 (PRU-13).

Beliau akan menghantar surat peletakkan jawatannya ke Ibu Pejabat DAP Pusat, hari ini.

King Cheu setakat ini bagaimanapun enggan memberikan sebab keluar DAP sebaliknya ketika dihubungi Berita Harian, beliau akan memberikan kenyataan pebuh berhubung perkara itu petang ini selepas menghantar notis kepada parti.

Pada 12 Ogos lalu, King Cheu meletak jawatan sebagai Penasihat DAP berikutan pertelingkahan antara wakil rakyat DAP berhubung isu pelantikan Ketua Pembangkang di Dewan Undangan Negeri (DUN) Sabah.

DAP Sabah mahukan ADUN Tamparuli, Datuk Wilfred Bumburing dilantik Ketua Pembangkang tetapi King Cheu mencadangkan semua 12 ADUN pembangkang mengangkat tangan bagi memilih Ketua Pembangkang. 

 

PAS sudah bersedia jumpa Umno

Posted: 26 Sep 2013 12:11 PM PDT

Selalunya PAS seperti kata al-Marhum Ustaz Fadzil Noor tak bulo' (bulur) untuk berurusan dengan Umno apabila anjuran Umno mencadangkan supaya kedua-dua parti politik orang Melayu bertemu atas apa-apa tujuan jua.

Dalam suasana demikian tidak putus-putus orang dari berbagai kedudukan bersuara marilah PAS bersama Umno.

Yang terakhir Timbalan Presiden Umno Tan Sri Muhyidin Yassin dengan serba galak mengajak lagi PAS supaya bersemuka atau duduk semeja dengan Umno tanpa mempedulikan semboyan kencang PAS belakang ini untuk PAS ganti  Umno.

PAS menjelajah seluruh ceruk rantau mengumandangkan PAS ganti Umno dalam masa beberapa tahun ini. Dan PAS tidak main-main. Habis peluh dan air liur dari badan berkempen bagi mencapai PAS ganti Umno.

Seminggu selepas Muhyiddin mempelawa lagi, Presiden PAS Tok guru Haji Abdul Hadi Awang menjawab, 'Ya PAS bersedia untuk bertemu Umno.

Jika ajak-ajak Muhyiddin itu tidak pernah ditakwil motif dan muslihatnya, maka jawapan Tok guru itu juga tidak perlu ditakwil niat dan politiknya.

Maka semuanya sekarang laksana bola berada di kaki Muhyidin. Tidak usah repot lagi. Mari berjumpa saja. Empat mata tak elok. Walaupun yang  ketiga selain mereka berdua adalah Allah, tetapi Islam mengajar supaya ada saksi. Tak usah ditanyalah mengapa Allah menghendaki ada saksi.

Maka sekarang boleh diadakan pertemuan enam mata atau lapan mata atau beberapa orang Umno bersama beberapa orang PAS.

Tak usah ditanya apakah PAS akan tinggalkan Pakatan atau Muhyiddin mahu menyambung semula misi Tun Razak mengadakan hubungan Perikatan-PAS dalam suasana baru BN-PAS demi tujuan politik yang lebih besar.

Tak usah difikirkan itu semua. Kegagalan Razak-Asri itu adalah sejarah pahit untuk semua yang payah difikirkan untuk diulangi.

Tak usahlah masing-masing untuk memikirkan yang besar-besar dan yang mngkin meletupkan sesuatu.

Jangan ingatkan PAS akan tinggalkan Pakatan dan tiada kemungkinan dalam waktu yang terdekat ini sebaik saja Ustaz Hadi bertemu Najib atau Muhyidin, PAS akan keroyok Kit Siang dan DAP. Hanya orang gila akan ingat dan mimpikan itu.

PRU 1974 di mana PAS dan Umno tidak bertembung sama sendiri tak akan berulang lagi kecualilah Umno sudah dipadamkan dari ROS.

Kalau semua itu tidak mungkin, maka buat apa sebok-sebok untuk bertemu? Tentu Muhyiddin lebih tahu dan tidak perlu diberitahu. Tahulah dia apa yang patut dibuat jika ajakannya itu bukan ajak-ajak ayam. Ajak-ajak Muhyidin janganlah sama dengan ajak-ajak ayam.

Mungkin mereka dapat selesaikan isu orang PAS tidak dibenarkan jadi jawatan kuasa masjid boleh diselesaikan. Untuk permulaan mungkin payah sikit membuka jawatankuasa masjid  dan surau kepada orng PAS, tetapi sekadar untuk menjadi tok siak tidak mengapa agaknya. Sekarang jadi tok siak pun tak boleh.

Mungkin orang PAS yang jadi guru tidak terhalang lagi untuk jadi guru kanan terutama ketika kementerian pelajaran mahukan guru-guru terbak. Bukan setiap yang jadi PAS akan jadi guru terbaik, tetapi ada antara ahli PAS itu guru yanag baik.

Maka tidaklah mereka akan disekat kenaikan pangkatnya.

Mahyuddin tentu tahu banyak yang perlu diharmonikan jika Umno tidak melihat PAS itu lebih teruk dar hantu  raya.

Banyak yang Umno boleh bincangkan dengan PAS. Tidaklah PAS keras kepala. Pernah Anwar Ibrahim semasa jadi TPM bahawa Haji Yusof Rawa, Ustaz Fadzil Noor dan Syed Ibrahim Abdul Rahman bertemu denan Dr Mahathir dan Anwar di kediaman Dr Mahathir.

Tak usah bincangkan apa yang dicapai, tetapi PAS telah sambut pelawaan itu.

 

Kredit: www.malaysia-today.net
 

Malaysia Today Online

Copyright 2010 All Rights Reserved