Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News
Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News |
- The next level
- Our way of saying ‘thank you’
- Unregistered moderated comments
- Rhetoric versus substance
- I will not respond
- Can we look at this instead, a Bill of Rights?
- The cloak hides the man
- Am I missing something?
- Najib's special message: 7 people follow from all over the world
- Joceline Tan, 'The Mechanic'
| Posted: 20 Sep 2011 06:34 PM PDT
If Najib is sincere and honest about reforms, then he should invite the opposition (or at least those from the civil society movements) to sit down with the government to discuss the new laws. And if the opposition too is sincere and honest about reforms, it should stop screaming about who should take the credit for the repeal of the ISA and try to approach the government to ask to be part of the team that is going to formulate the new laws to replace the ISA. NO HOLDS BARRED Raja Petra Kamarudin For decades we have been fighting for the repeal of the Internal Security Act (ISA) -- at least I have, for about 35 years since the 1970s (that was about the time the government detained Anwar Ibrahim, Dr Syed Husin Ali, and others who opposed the government). By then, the ISA - a weapon used to combat terrorism and the Communist Terrorists (CTs), had been around for about 14 years. No one had any objections to the ISA before that. But once it was no longer used to combat terrorism or the CTs, but instead was used against student leaders, university lecturers, activists, and those viewed as dissidents or anti-establishment, then the ISA began to attract attraction. Finally, after half a century, the government is considering repealing the ISA -- although it was indicated that a new law would be introduced to replace the ISA (and we do not know yet how this law is going to look like and whether it will be better or worse than the ISA). But what are we doing? What is the opposition doing? Everyone is arguing about whether the repeal of the ISA is proof that Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak is walking the talk and is serious about his reform agenda or whether this is proof that the government has admitted defeat and is repealing the ISA because of the pressure from the opposition. The government is taking credit for the repeal of the ISA. The opposition is also taking credit for the repeal of the ISA. It's all about who should be credited for the ISA finally being abolished. Is anyone sitting down to sort out what the new law is going to look like? Yes, the ISA is going to be repealed. But there is going to be a new law to replace it. Should we not be more concerned about this instead of whether Najib or the opposition should take the credit for the ISA being repealed? I have said this before and I am going to say it again. Both the government and the opposition must become more matured and open. Yes, BOTH the government and the opposition. If Najib is sincere and honest about reforms, then he should invite the opposition (or at least those from the civil society movements) to sit down with the government to discuss the new laws. And if the opposition too is sincere and honest about reforms, it should stop screaming about who should take the credit for the repeal of the ISA and try to approach the government to ask to be part of the team that is going to formulate the new laws to replace the ISA. On another issue, I have received 'hate-mail' from people who allege that Malaysia Today has been 'compromised'. Umno has bought off Malaysia Today, they say. These people argue that in the past Malaysia Today focused on revealing corruption and the wrongdoings of those who walk in the corridors of power. Now we no longer do that (actually we still do). I suppose these types of people just love to read about scandals. And that is all they are concerned about -- to be entertained with stories of scandals. But Malaysia Today is not in the entertainment business. We are not here to entertain you. We are in the business of seeing change in Malaysia. Honestly, if Malaysia Today publishes more stories about corruption and scandals, is that going to make you any more a hard-core opposition supporter than you already are? Those who come to Malaysia Today are already BN-haters. You can see this from the comments. The BN-lovers do not come to Malaysia Today. So whom would I be trying to convert? The BN-haters? The BN-haters would still hate BN never mind whatever I say. No amount of reports about corruption and scandals would make the BN-haters any more haters of BN than they already are. We need to reach those who DO NOT come to Malaysia Today. And since they already DO NOT come to Malaysia Today, then we have to find a way to go to them instead. The mountain must go to Muhammad, as the saying goes. And we are doing just that, trust me. But we are not doing that through Malaysia Today because they DO NOT read Malaysia Today. We are currently talking to some people to come out with a Bahasa Malaysia version of Malaysia Today. Everything will be in Bahasa Malaysia and it will be a totally different site. There are many Malay-educated readers, even those from towns in the Malay heartland, who read Blogs. But they do not come to 'English' Blogs like Malaysia Today. They only read 'Malay' Blogs. So we need to create a 'Malay' version of Malaysia Today. And this is in the cards. Then there are many Malay-educated Malaysians in the rural areas who do not access the Internet at all. They do not even own a computer. So we need to reach them through other means. And that plan has already been launched. I will not tell you what it is just yet in case the government shoots us down before we can take off. But rest assured that hundreds of thousands of ringgit is being poured into this new project to reach the rural, non-internet savvy population. We are trying to raise the money for this project even as you read this. Now, back to Malaysia Today. Malaysia Today is now seven years old. We started life on 13th August 2004 soon after the March 2004 election 'disaster'. The first few years were spent in exposing the wrongdoings of the government and in trying to convince you that we need change. Those who come to Malaysia Today are already convinced we need change. I cannot convince you any more than you are already convinced. Exposing the wrongdoings of the government is not going to convince you any further. We need to now take this to 'the next level'. What we are now attempting to do is NOT to convince you that we need change or ABU (Anything But Umno/Asal Bukan Umno). That you already know. We want to talk to you about what type of change we should be looking at. It is not enough we scream and shout that we need change. We must also be clear in our minds about what type of change we should be seeking. And my piece on the Bill of Rights is one of many examples of how we are trying to do this. We must not be naïve and think that as long as we kick our Barisan Nasional then all our problems will be over. They thought that as well when they kicked out Charles I of England, King Louis XVI of France, President Batista of Cuba, Tsar Nicholas II of Russia, Shah Rezā Pahlavi of Iran, etc. What they got in the end was an exchange of one tyrant for another. No, I am not saying that Pakatan Rakyat will be a tyrant or that it will prove worse than Barisan Nasional. I am saying that Barisan Nasional will never be kicked out and Pakatan Rakyat will never take over unless we, the people, do that. So let's be clear about one thing. Pakatan Rakyat will never be able to kick out Barisan Nasional. It will be we, the people, who can do that. So we, the people, have a say in what type of government we want as a replacement to the current government that we have. This is what I mean by 'the next level'. The next level is to teach you what you should be looking at. The next level is to teach you what you should expect. The next level is to teach you what you should demand. Enough with all this 'Barisan Nasional is corrupt and should be ousted' talk. We all know that. We do not need further convincing. What we should focus on now is to make sure that what we get in exchange is really something better and not just the same old wine in a new bottle. And let's start with the new law that is going to replace the ISA. Why have we not heard anything from the opposition other than arguments about whether Najib or the opposition should take the credit for the repeal of this draconian law? Who cares who should take the credit? We want to know what it is going to be replaced with. That is 'the next level'. |
| Posted: 19 Sep 2011 11:55 PM PDT
To coincide with our latest move to liberalise the policy on comments and allow unregistered readers to comment, I thought I would share with you some of our statistics (and hope that this will frighten Umno a bit). Maybe you can look at the following Google Analytical statistics on our Unique Visitors. Unique Visitors means one-time visitors and not total visits, which most certainly would be much higher since many readers come into Malaysia Today many times a day. NO HOLDS BARRED Raja Petra Kamarudin
This was the total number of Unique Visitors for the half-year period of 1st January to 30th June 2008. The 12th General Election was held in March of that same year. This is the figure for that same period this year – 1st January to 30th June 2011. You can see that the number of Unique Visitors has remained the same. This was the figure for that same period last year -- 1st January to 30th June 2010. Again, there was not that much change. For the period of 1st January this year till yesterday (19th September 2011), this is the total number of Unique Visitors. And this was the total number of Unique Visitors for that same period last year – 1st January 2010 till 19th September 2010. We have not suffered any drop in readership in spite of tightening the control on comments (as what we promised the MCMC when they agreed to unblock or unban Malaysia Today in September 2008). The readers stayed loyal to Malaysia Today even though they could only read without commenting. Maybe it is time we repaid this loyalty by loosening control on comments. I just hope you will not abuse this privilege (yes, privilege, not right) by posting comments that may get Malaysia Today blocked or banned again. Anyway, it is your call. |
| Unregistered moderated comments Posted: 19 Sep 2011 09:15 PM PDT
In my negotiations with the MCMC, it was pointed out that the comments rather than my articles were the main problem. If I could assure the authorities that I will control or moderate the comments then they will consider unbanning Malaysia Today. I gave them my assurance that from that day on all comments would be 'controlled'. NO HOLDS BARRED Raja Petra Kamarudin Some of you may remember that at 6.00pm on 26th August 2008, Malaysia Today was blocked and for about two weeks no one in Malaysia could access the site. Those outside Malaysia could still read Malaysia Today though.
|
| Posted: 18 Sep 2011 08:04 PM PDT
So what's with all these comments below? We are all fighting the same battle. We are all screaming for change. But while you scream for change, I am telling you what changes we should be pressing for. And we press both the current government plus those who want to offer themselves as the alternative to the current government. NO HOLDS BARRED Raja Petra Kamarudin
We say ABU (anything but Umno or asal bukan Umno). We say we want change. We say we need reforms. We say: just repealing the ISA is not good enough -- we want to see more. We say: kick out Barisan Nasional and replace it with a new government. We say this, and we say that, and we say the other. But what are we really saying? The devil is in the details. So where are the details? That, we do not say! We know what we currently have is not good enough. We want something new. We want something different. We want something better. But what is that we currently have which is not good or not good enough? What is it that we are looking for? What new things do we want? What do we want discarded and replaced? And what do we want to replace it with? That, we do not say! So I say it. I say what is wrong with what we currently have. I say what should be discarded and replaced. I say what it should be replaced with. And I said it my article called 'Can we look at this instead, a Bill of Rights?' and my earlier article called 'The cloak hides the man'. Below are just some of the comments to my article 'Can we look at this instead, a Bill of Rights?'. And the comments are still rhetoric without substance or details. We went through the same thing here in the UK recently. We said that more than a decade of Labour is enough. We no longer trust Labour and its policies, which are bankrupting the nation. Let us go for change. Let us vote in a new government. So we voted out Labour. Then we got a new government: a coalition between the Conservatives and Lib Dem. But we did not get the change we desired. They never delivered what they promised. In some instances, things actually got worse rather than better. Now we are talking about voting Labour back in come the next election. And in the few by-elections since, like in my hometown Manchester recently, we actually voted for the Labour candidate. That is because we just wanted ABL (anything but Labour or asal bukan Labour). But we did not talk about what is wrong with Labour, only that we don't want Labour anymore because they were bankrupting the nation. Now we find that the new government cannot do any better than Labour could. And that is what we will experience in Malaysia if we are not careful. Anything but Umno. Asal bukan Umno. As long as not Umno, never mind whether we actually do see change with the new government. No, this is not just about kicking out the current government and replacing it with a new government. This is about ensuring that we see change. And we need to know what changes we are talking about. And whoever wants to form the government, post-13th GE, will need to know what we have in mind. And that is why I proposed the Bill of Rights. So, some of what we propose may need an amendment to the Constitution. So, some of what we propose may need the introduction of new laws -- which the Constitution may actually provide for without any amendments required. So, some of what we propose may need the abolishing of existing laws. So what? So be it! Whatever it may be, FFF. No, I am not swearing. FFF means Form Follows Function. We shape the Constitution and our laws according to the function we wish for it to perform. And what we want it to perform is to satisfy our Bill of Rights. So what's with all these comments below? We are all fighting the same battle. We are all screaming for change. But while you scream for change, I am telling you what changes we should be pressing for. And we press both the current government plus those who want to offer themselves as the alternative to the current government. We do not want, like in the UK, to kick out Labour and get a new government that can't seem to do better than Labour, and now talk about voting Labour back in come the next election. (By the way, I am a Lib Dem member, the party that is now the government).
*************************** RPK, don't get so touchy lah. I don't speak for the others but the reason why I say it can't be done is because a Bill of Rights will contravene what the Malaysian Constitution dictates. To introduce such a Bill into law, we must first look at amending the Malaysian Constitution and that will be extremely difficult, not impossible but improbable at this juncture of time. Why not take it one step at a time and start to push for an amendment of the Constitution first? -- Hakim Joe **************************** Dear Pete, don't have the heart to burst your balloon of hope but I think if we adopt your enthusiasm we will be very disappointed. Let me out it like this: B4 the baby can walk you are teaching him how to run. Of course we must encourage the baby when he trying to walk. Problem is it may not be a baby but a snake in baby clothes and how to teach a snake to walk? A snake just crawl and slither, but just can't walk. Or how to teach a crab to walk straight? Sorry I am too pessimistic because we have been short-changed for far too long and I think you are jumping the gun, though it is definitely a good suggestion and good ideals to strive for. (Or maybe you live so long overseas you are breathing in more democratic and unpolluted air that helps your optimism.) I will just do my best and vote for change which will hopefully come with the above package. -- Always Fair ***************************** Come on RPK, please read through my comments here: What makes u think I don't agree with the Bill of Rights? Yes, I agree with it wholeheartedly and believe it to be great!! Yes, please tell us how it's going to be implemented!! -- educationist ****************************** There is no bill of rights under Ameno administration! Only one that i knew from hey days is I do as i like and please! Ameno's favourite law all time being used whenever they like and please! So no point of talking of bills of rights under ameno rule! -- Pegasus ******************************* As I see it, you can have all the best legislation in the world with noble intentions but as long as there is complacency, corruption and abuse of power among politician there will not be change. To change the attitude of politicians the people must be prepared to vote out corrupt and abusive elected officials. So, to bring about speedy change, people must vote out the BN government. Please do not get carried away by BN's promises of legislative reform. Reform will only come when voters reform themselves. -- Raja Chulan ******************************* I am 100% sure Najib will not accede to RPK's proposals. To do so he has to dismantle the institutionalised ethnic discriminating policies (NEP) so that all rakyats have equal rights. Islam also forbids muslims from renouncing their faith in favour of other religious beliefs. So where's the freedom of religion, belief and opinion? I think RPK is asking or expecting too much of Najib. -- Hanuman |
| Posted: 18 Sep 2011 06:37 PM PDT
It has always been the 'benchmark' that a leader who does not respond to an allegation is an indication of guilt. This is most unfortunate because a person must be assumed innocent unless and until proven guilty. But in politics, and in the court of public opinion, a person is assumed guilty unless proven innocent. This is the same argument I have used many times against Najib with regards to the allegation of his involvement in the Altantuya case. NO HOLDS BARRED Raja Petra Kamarudin
Sex in the oval office: Clinton will not respond I am President of the United States, and there is no writ that runs against me other than a summons by Bill of Impeachment from the House. I will not respond to the Paula Jones suit until I have left office; if that results in a default judgment against me, so be it. I will not respond to a summons from a Grand Jury. I will not respond to a summons from a Special Prosecutor. Mr. Starr may question my staff, who are after all officers of the United States; but I am the Chief Executive and head of the Executive Branch, and thus equal to the Judiciary and the Congress. The Constitution provides a mechanism for calling to account a duly elected President. It is call impeachment. If that is the will of the House, so be it. Until then, direct your inquiries elsewhere since I will not respond. ************************************ Photo with Altantuya: Najib will not respond (Malaysiakini) - Deputy Premier Najib Abdul Razak would not be responding to alleged claims that he was pictured seating on the same table as murdered Mongolian woman Altantuya Shariibuu. His press secretary Tengku Sarifuddin Tengku Ahmad said Najib would not issue any new statement on the claims by Burmaa Oyunchimeg, 26, during the ongoing murder trial of her counsin Altantuya. "I wish to make it clear that the deputy prime minister had on several occasions when interviewed by the media previously and during the Ijok by-election had said that he had never met and known Altantuya and was not involved in the case." "As such, the issue over the picture does not arise," Tengku Sarifuddin told Bernama today. The picture in question was raised by Burmaa, who claimed that Altantuya had once shown her a photograph of the deceased together with Abdul Razak Baginda, one of the accused in the trial, along with one government official known only as "Najib Razak". ************************************** New video with Eskay: Anwar will not respond (Malaysiakini) - Opposition Leader Anwar Ibrahim has refused to comment on allegations by an Umno-friendly blogger that he has further video evidence to implicate the PKR supremo in a sex scandal. Anwar, who looked calm when answering journalists, said he would not entertain such questions. "Any issues regarding morality, alcohol, gambling, vice, cruelty, slander or saying (about) a bad character of a person I will not entertain, and refuse to answer," he said. Later Anwar clarified to Malaysiakini that it is not that issues of morality are not important. "Is it proper for those involved in corruption, murder, or consume alcohol to make such accusations and talk about morality?" he asked. At his side was his wife and PKR president, Dr Wan Azizah Wan Ismail. |
| Can we look at this instead, a Bill of Rights? Posted: 17 Sep 2011 09:26 PM PDT
The current debate raging throughout Malaysia is on the reforms that Najib Tun Razak is introducing and the repeal of the ISA. I wrote about this matter in an earlier article two days ago (READ HERE). Maybe it is time we discussed some of those details which we should be looking at as part of this reform agenda. Of course, this is not complete but can be the beginning of the foundation of Malaysia's new Bill of Rights. I hope Najib will sincerely consider these proposals, which have been given in good faith. NO HOLDS BARRED Raja Petra Kamarudin
I. Equality 1. Everyone is equal before the law and has the right to equal protection and benefit of the law. 2. Equality includes the full and equal enjoyment of all rights and freedoms. To promote the achievement of equality, legislative and other measures designed to protect or advance persons, or categories of persons, disadvantaged by unfair discrimination may be taken. 3. The state may not unfairly discriminate directly or indirectly against anyone on one or more grounds, including race, gender, sex, pregnancy, marital status, ethnic or social origin, colour, sexual orientation, age, disability, religion, conscience, belief, culture, language and birth.
II. Freedom and security of the person Everyone has the right to freedom and security of the person, which includes the right: i. not to be deprived of freedom arbitrarily or without just cause; ii. not to be detained without trial; iii. to be free from all forms of violence from either public or private sources; iv. not to be tortured in any way; v. not to be treated or punished in a cruel, inhuman or degrading way.
III. Privacy Everyone has the right to privacy, which includes the right not to have: i. their person or home searched; ii. their property searched; iii. their possessions seized; iv. the privacy of their communications infringed.
IV. Freedom of religion, belief and opinion 1. Everyone has the right to freedom of conscience, religion, thought, belief and opinion. 2. Religious observances may be conducted at state or state-aided institutions, provided that: i. those observances follow rules made by the appropriate public authorities; ii. they are conducted on an equitable basis; iii. attendance at them is free and voluntary and without compulsion or force.
V. Freedom of expression 1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression, which includes: i. freedom of the press and other media; ii. freedom to receive or impart information or ideas; iii. freedom of artistic creativity; iv. academic freedom and freedom of scientific research. 2. The right in subsection (1) above does not extend to: i. propaganda for war; ii. incitement of imminent violence; iii. advocacy of hatred that is based on race, ethnicity, gender or religion, and that constitutes incitement to cause harm.
VI. Freedom of assembly, demonstration, picket and petition Everyone has the right, peacefully and unarmed, to assemble, to demonstrate, to picket and to present petitions.
VII. Freedom of association Everyone has the right to freedom of association.
VIII. Political rights 1. Every citizen is free to make political choices, which includes the right: i. to form a political party; ii. to participate in the activities of, or recruit members for, a political party; iii. to campaign for a political party or cause. 2. Every citizen has the right to free, fair and regular elections for any legislative body established in terms of the Constitution. 3. Every adult citizen has the right: i. to vote in elections for any legislative body established in terms of the Constitution, and to do so in secret; ii. to stand for public office and, if elected, to hold office.
IX. Citizenship No citizen may be deprived of citizenship.
X. Freedom of movement and residence 1. Everyone has the right to freedom of movement. 2. Everyone has the right to leave the country. 3. Every citizen has the right to enter, to remain in and to reside anywhere in, the country. 4. Every citizen has the right to a passport.
XI. Labour relations 1. Everyone has the right to fair labour practices. 2. Every worker has the right: i. to form and join a trade union; ii. to participate in the activities and programmes of a trade union; iii. to strike. 3. Every employer has the right: i. to form and join an employers' organisation; ii. to participate in the activities and programmes of an employers' organisation. 4. Every trade union and every employers' organisation has the right: i. to determine its own administration, programmes and activities; ii. to organise; iii. to form and join a federation. 5. Every trade union, employers' organisation and employer has the right to engage in collective bargaining.
XII. Arrested, detained and accused persons 1. Everyone who is arrested for allegedly committing an offence has the right: i. to remain silent; ii. to be informed promptly: a. of the right to remain silent; and b. of the consequences of not remaining silent; iii. not to be compelled to make any confession or admission that could be used in evidence against that person; iv. to be brought before a court as soon as reasonably possible, but not later than: a. 24 hours after the arrest; or b. the end of the first court day after the expiry of the 24 hours, if the 24 hours expire outside ordinary court hours or on a day which is not an ordinary court day; v. at the first court appearance after being arrested, to be charged or to be informed of the reason for the detention to continue, or to be released. 2. Everyone who is detained, including every sentenced prisoner, has the right: i. to be informed promptly of the reason for being detained; ii. to choose, and to consult with, a legal practitioner, and to be informed of this right promptly; iii. to have a legal practitioner assigned to the detained person by the state and at state expense, if substantial injustice would otherwise result, and to be informed of this right promptly; iv. to challenge the lawfulness of the detention in person before a court and, if the detention is unlawful, to be released; v. to conditions of detention that are consistent with human dignity, including at least exercise and the provision, at state expense, of adequate accommodation, nutrition, reading material and medical treatment; vi. to communicate with, and be visited by, that person's a. spouse or partner; b. next of kin; c. chosen religious counsellor; and d. chosen medical practitioner. 3. Every accused person has a right to a fair trial, which includes the right: i. to be informed of the charge with sufficient detail to answer it; ii. to have adequate time and facilities to prepare a defence; iii. to a public trial before an ordinary court; iv. to have their trial begin and conclude without unreasonable delay; v. to be present when being tried; vi. to choose, and be represented by, a legal practitioner, and to be informed of this right promptly; vii. to have a legal practitioner assigned to the accused person by the state and at state expense, if substantial injustice would otherwise result, and to be informed of this right promptly; viii. to be presumed innocent, to remain silent, and not to testify during the proceedings; ix. to adduce and challenge evidence; x. not to be compelled to give self-incriminating evidence; xi. to be tried in a language that the accused person understands or, if that is not practicable, to have the proceedings interpreted in that language; xii. not to be convicted for an act or omission that was not an offence under either national or international law at the time it was committed or omitted; xiii. not to be tried for an offence in respect of an act or omission for which that person has previously been either acquitted or convicted; xiv. to the benefit of the least severe of the prescribed punishments if the prescribed punishment for the offence has been changed between the time that the offence was committed and the time of sentencing; xv. of appeal to, or review by, a higher court. 4. Whenever this section requires information to be given to a person, that information must be given in a language that the person understands. 5. Evidence obtained in a manner that violates any right in the Bill of Rights must be excluded if the admission of that evidence would render the trial unfair or otherwise be detrimental to the administration of justice.
XIII. State of emergency A state of emergency may be declared only in terms of an Act of Parliament, and only when: 1. the nation is threatened by war, invasion, general insurrection, disorder, natural disaster or other public emergency; and 2. the declaration is necessary to restore peace and order.
|
| Posted: 15 Sep 2011 09:01 PM PDT
NO HOLDS BARRED Raja Petra Kamarudin
The clothes maketh the man. The cloak can also hideth the man. And this is what we may be seeing in Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak's announcement of the repeal of the Internal Security Act (ISA) and the other 'emergency' laws -- a mere cloak of reforms. Of course, I welcome this first step, however small that step may be. It's a good start. But that is all it is -- a small first step and merely a start, not yet the end. If you can remember, I once wrote that I had no problems with the ISA per se, just as I do not have any problems with the New Economic Policy (NEP) in the spirit it was introduced. Just to digress a bit, I also wrote that I was once a central committee member of the Malay Chamber of Commerce and Industry. And I never opposed the NEP. In fact, I supported it. What I opposed was the abuse of the NEP. I lamented on the implementation, or rather the poor implementation. I argued that we need some form of policy to address the imbalance between the various races and the widening gap between the haves and haves-not. The NEP, in the spirit it was introduced, was good. But then it was hijacked and later abused and used as an excuse to perpetuate corruption. They did things that went against set procedures and that by-passed the checks and balances. Those-in-power argued that they were just implementing the aspirations of the NEP. In other words, what happened was, the NEP was the cloak used to cover corrupt practices. Criminal acts became legal if done in the name of the NEP. And the same goes with the ISA. It is the abuse of the law and the fact that it was being used to detain those who oppose the government that is the issue rather than the law itself. The ISA was a cloak to stifle dissent and opposition. I know some will argue that if a law can be abused then it can't be a good law and therefore must be repealed. But that is just it. All laws have a potential to be bad if abused. Even Shariah laws, which are supposed to be God's laws, will be bad when abused. Take the case of the many abandoned wives who can't receive justice in the Shariah courts. The husband just walks away, leaving the unemployed wife to care for all the children. And when these women go to the Shariah court to seek justice, all they get is 'advice' from the court that it is the wife's duty to try and reconcile with her husband. The wife is denied justice and over the next few years she has to suffer while the husband marries a new wife and disowns his old family. Is this God's law? Is God to be blamed or the people who hide behind the cloak of God to deny women justice? King Henry VIII once reformed England as well, just like what Najib appears to now be doing in Malaysia. But King Henry's reforms merely transferred the abuse of power from the hands of the church to the hands of the Monarch. The church no longer had the power to decide whether you had committed heresy or were a deviant or whatever. Henry decided that and the punishment for these perceived 'crimes' were no different from before the so-called 'reforms'. In fact, the church itself suffered punishment. Those who still insisted on holding onto the 'old religion' and who refused to comply with the 'new religion' were persecuted. So, the old laws were removed and replaced with new laws. But the new laws were just as draconian as the old laws. Things did not really change much. It was the same old system camouflaged under a new cloak. Are we seeing just that -- a new cloak being thrown over the same old thing just to give the impression of reforms? That is yet to be seen. So I am not celebrating just yet. Laws are one thing. Implementation of these laws is another. And new laws to replace old laws do not maketh a reform, as King Henry VIII has shown us. While we remove old laws and replace them with new laws, are we also removing the vast and unbridled powers of the AG? The police can say you have committed a crime. But if the AG refuses to prosecute you because you are his buddy or the buddy of the Prime Minister, then nothing happens. And if the police have no evidence that you have committed a crime, but if the AG or those in power want to get you, they can still charge you and put you on trial (and order the judge to find you guilty). What good are laws then, whether good or bad laws, if one corrupted man can decide whether to spare you or to send you to jail? While we remove old laws and replace them with new laws, are we also making sure that the judiciary is independent and above political manipulation? The courts' hands are tied in many instances. Like in the case of the ISA, for example. The court has no power to review your detention other than dabble on technicalities. The court should have the power to review laws and rule that laws that violate the Constitution or that violate your fundamental rights need to be repealed. Currently, the courts have no power to rule on what Parliament has decided. And Parliament decides what is good for the ruling party. That means the court merely upholds the interest of the ruling party. So, reforms is not just about repealing old laws and replacing them with new laws equally draconian in nature. If that is all it takes, then Henry VIII reformed England although more people suffered under Henry's new laws than under the old church laws. Reforms must come in a complete package. Only then can we celebrate Najib's reforms. Can I declare that I am an Atheist and that religion is slavery of the mind, the worst kind of slavery? Can I declare that I am leaving Islam to become a Buddhist because I feel that Islam is a militant religion while Buddhism preaches peace? Can I declare that I am a Communist because I feel that Democracy is a form of economic slavery where the rich oppress the poor? Can I declare that I am gay or at least uphold the right of those who are gay? Can I enter into a gay marriage or at least uphold the right for gay marriages? Can I declare that I am anti-Monarchy and that I uphold the aspiration of a Republic of Malaysia because I feel that the Monarchy is a relic of the past just like Colonialism? If I can't do all that, then reforms are yet to come to Malaysia. And there are many more that needs to be done before we can declare we are seeing reforms. Will we be seeing equal representation in government where the disparity or variance between seats is within 15% plus-minus, and not like now where it is more than 95%? Will we be seeing at least 30% women candidates in the elections considering that women represent more than 50% of the voters? Will we be seeing all Malaysians born in Malaysia after Merdeka being called Malaysians and where there shall no longer be Bumiputeras, Chinese, Indians and lain-lain, and where your race and religion will no longer appear on your documents? Will there be new laws introduced such as the Bill of Rights where your fundamental rights are guaranteed, Anti-Discrimination Act where racists will be sent to jail, Freedom of Information Act to replace the Official Secrets Act, Freedom of Association Act to replace the UUCA that forbids students from being involved in politics, Freedom of Religion Act which prevents the government from interfering in your religious beliefs (or lack of it as the case may be), and so on and so forth? If someone prevents you from changing your religion, that person goes to jail. If someone prevents a student from campaigning for a political party, that person goes to jail. If someone prevents you from publishing documents involving corrupt ministers, that person goes to jail. If someone asks you to declare your race and religion or puts obstacles in your way because of your race and religion, that person goes to jail. And so on and so forth. My take is that many Malaysians are not yet ready for full liberties. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is what the Malaysian Civil Liberties Movement (MCLM) is all about. It is not about the elections. It is not about contesting the elections. It is not about identifying candidates to contest the elections. I am quite happy to have nothing to do with the elections if that is what most of the MCLM members want. Let us just leave it to the political parties to fight it out. And if Barisan Nasional wins, yet again, and this time with a two-thirds majority as well, so be it. We shall have to live with that. I am going to discuss with the MCLM committee that since Najib now appears to taking his first but small step to bring reforms to Malaysia, we focus on that and not dabble in the election process or even bother with talking about candidates. Chances are there is going to be chaos and three-corner fights come the next election. So be it. That is not our problem any more. That is the problem of the political parties. I would like to focus on seeing total reforms in Malaysia and not cosmetic change like now. |
| Posted: 15 Sep 2011 04:59 AM PDT
NO HOLDS BARRED Raja Petra Kamarudin Najib Razak's Moment ********************************** Hold on a minute! Am I missing something here? The above was what Rocky's Bru posted two hours ago. |
| Najib's special message: 7 people follow from all over the world Posted: 14 Sep 2011 10:15 PM PDT
NO HOLDS BARRED Raja Petra Kamarudin
|
| Posted: 14 Sep 2011 04:15 PM PDT
Mat Sabu is dangerous. The Chinese like him. DAP likes him. So, having him as the deputy president of PAS is not good for Barisan Nasional. It might make the Chinese more comfortable with PAS. That is why he needs to be brought down. And that is why they are going all out to get him on charges from being a communist to being a philanderer. And Joceline Tan is one of the many 'mechanics' being employed to assassinate Mat Sabu. NO HOLDS BARRED Raja Petra Kamarudin Old ghosts back to haunt Mat Sabu PAS deputy president Mohamad Sabu has been hit by an alleged sex video even as he is struggling with the firestorm over his remarks on the Bukit Kepong massacre. COMMENT By JOCELINE TAN, The Star THERE were many who thought this would be Mohamad Sabu's lucky year when he beat the odds to become PAS' new deputy president. But his luck seems to be running out. Mat Sabu, as he is better known, has been hit by another controversy even as a firestorm is still raging over his remarks that the communists were the real heroes of the Bukit Kepong massacre.  Unlucky: Mat Sabu's luck seems to be running out as he has been hit by another controversy. A video titled "Skandal Seks Mat Sabu" has made its way into the Internet and is set to shake the party. The video contains some very sexy conversation between a man and a woman, whom the commentator in the video claimed to be Mat Sabu and Normah Halim, the woman with whom he was caught for khalwat in 1994 in Kota Baru. That was a long time ago, but his past has returned to haunt him. At this point in time, it is hard to tell whether the sexy phone talk, which appeared to have been secretly taped, is genuine or staged. But Mat Sabu's dilemma is that this is one issue which he and his friends in PAS will find hard to address or defend because the khalwat incident involving him and Normah has never been denied although it was thrown out by the syariah court. Mat Sabu and Normah were caught in a hotel room but were acquitted because two of the witnesses gave conflicting accounts of the hotel room's number in which they were caught for khalwat. Mat Sabu was then a rising star. He was Nilam Puri MP and PAS deputy Youth chief. Normah was a local beauty who in her salad days was regarded as the belle of Melor, the area where she hails from. At the time of the incident, she was married to Bukhari Noor, a handsome and wealthy businessman, also from the area. The scandal rocked the party which had just come to power in Kelantan. A lawyer in the case remembered the packed courtroom and how one of the witnesses had even fainted during the proceedings. Mat Sabu had told a close associate then, "mampus aku kali ni" (I'm finished this time), but it was not to be. He scraped through and even survived the general election which was called shortly after. The khalwat incident is etched irrevocably in the memories of the adult generation who had followed the case. In fact, most Kelantanese with some interest in politics would have watched the uploaded video by now and formed their own conclusions. It was clearly put together by his enemies out there, with a running commentary in between segments of the conversation. However, the commentator was quite understated and had referred to the sexy exchange as "bermain cinta" or "flirting". It is not exactly phone sex, but it is what polite society would call "intimate talk" and in less polite society, "dirty talk". There are references to the sexual liaisons between the two speakers, all of which are conducted in the local patios and slang terms. Those who have heard Mat Sabu speak at political ceramah and are familiar with his voice think that it does sound like him. "The male voice sounds like that of Mat Sabu. I know Normah and her husband; they have come to my restaurant. "But the woman in the tape is speaking in a whispered tone throughout; quite hard to say if it is Normah. "I have heard her speaking, but not in a whisper," said restaurateur Juhaidi Yean Abdullah who is also from Melor. Mat Sabu may find himself quite alone in this issue. Not many of his associates from Kelantan will be able to defend him with an open heart. "I have heard about it (the video) but I have not listened to it, so I can't say if it is true or false. "It's so difficult to know what is true or untrue in politics because so many things are happening now that the general election is getting nearer but if this is done with bad intention, then it is not right," said Kelantan PAS deputy commissioner Datuk Nik Amar Nik Abdullah. Besides, he added, the khalwat case is no longer an issue in Kelantan. "Many people believed it was a plot by Umno even though they were found together in the room," Nik Amar said. Mat Sabu's friends in PAS are angry that these cerita lama or old stories are being dredged out to discredit him. They said if the phone conversations were authentic, then they would have been used against Mat Sabu at the height of the scandal. A lot of it has to do with the Internet and also the fact that Mat Sabu is a major star today. All eyes are on him and everything he says or does has become newsworthy. After all, if anything happens to Datuk Seri Hadi Awang, Mat Sabu will be the next PAS president. But at the time of the khalwat scandal, he was just on the way up. "He was then known as an ayam tambatan (a fighting cock) that PAS used to peck at the other side," said Juhaidi. "The ulama leadership in PAS was so sure that no one like him could ever go so high up. "He was then just an orator, not a threat to anyone inside or outside the party." The stakes, said blogger Syed Azidi Syed Aziz, were much higher now and both sides were using whatever they have against each other. Mat Sabu's response to the latest issue has been "no comment," which Syed Azidi, who used to work for a PAS politician in Kelantan, finds ironic. "It's really funny for someone who makes a living out of talking to have 'no comment'. "I'm not sure how people will take this, but it is certainly extra bullets for his enemies," said Syed Azidi. PAS members took a leap of faith when they elected Mat Sabu as their deputy president. They were aware of his personal baggage but they thought that unlike the ulama leaders, he would be able to take the party to another level. Instead, he has led the party from one controversy to another. And, as Juhaidi pointed out: "Instead of explaining the Negara Kebajikan (welfare state) concept PAS is promoting in place of the Islamic state, the party is spending time defending their deputy president."
|
| You are subscribed to email updates from Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
| Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610 | |
0 ulasan:
Catat Ulasan