Klik GAMBAR Dibawah Untuk Lebih Info

Sumber Asal Berita :-

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

Who is the boss anyway?
The persecution of Malaysian Christians
The Judiciary: Justice in Jeopardy
The right to vote
Mahathir The Uniting Factor

Posted: 13 Nov 2011 05:51 PM PST

There is also a peppering of nonsensical statements such as the rights of the majority outweighing those of the minority. Aren't rights supposed to apply to all? Does the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) only apply to selected races or religions? Of course not, it is U-N-I-V-E-R-S-A-L. It applies to everyone human being on the planet.

Datuk Jema Khan, The Malaysian Insider

In Malaysia we seem to be often caught up in a contest of dominance. The question of which race rules or which religion is paramount is the lifeblood of our political debate. This is further spiced up with issues of loyalty to the royals and nation as well as other more mundane family matters such as how many wives we should have and how they should be treated.

For those in politics who wish to dominate and thus rule, they should look at what is happening to the descendants of the great conquerors of the world, Alexander the Great and Julius Caesar. The Greek and Roman empires were around more than 2,000 years ago and predate Christ and Muhammad (SAW). They were the cradle of Western civilisation and dominated much of the known world at the time. If we were to look at "ketuanan Melayu" or Malay dominance within this historical context, our philosophy would be nothing short of laughable.

In any event, let us look at what has happened to the descendants of the great conquerors of the past in what is today, Greece and Italy. The Greek Prime Minister George Papandreou was forced out of office just a few days ago because of Greece's debt problems. Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi has also just resigned as a result of Italy's own debt problems.

These were two national leaders who won their positions democratically but had to resign to make way for technocrats to take over. The supranational European Union (EU) has exerted its muscle to deny the Greeks and Italians their right to be ruled by a democratically-elected government of their choice. How far the mighty have fallen!

The flip side of the argument is that the Greeks and the Italians today have only themselves to blame since they were the one who elected governments which landed them in their current predicament anyway. They should not have voted for all those debt building, populist policies of the past. I really hope that I don't have to say the same of Malaysia and its voters in the next five to 10 years.

The fall of the Greek and Italian economies will undoubtedly generate a few books. If the same thing happens to Malaysia in the future, at least we Malays don't have far to fall.

If we are lucky, we might not even make a footnote in history. If things go wrong we may well blame some politicians or political parties but it is unlikely we will blame ourselves. We will say we didn't have the power to do anything at the time.

Well, my fellow Malaysians and especially my fellow Malays: that is not true today. We have a chance to make things better. The time is now.

READ MORE HERE

The persecution of Malaysian Christians

Posted: 13 Nov 2011 04:00 PM PST

Another prominent ustaz, who happens to be a lecturer in a local university, is also fond of taking potshots at Christians in the country with unsubstantiated allegations. Despite his repeated misdemeanour, the authorities chose not to chare him for his seditious comments.

David Martin, The Malaysian Insider

I was moved to share the trials and tribulations as a Malaysian Catholic having read an article in a local daily today over how Middle East Christians are driven out of their countries due to discrimination.

A little background. Both my paternal and maternal grandparents were Catholic converts. As such, I was baptised as an infant by Fr James Meehan, a Mill Hill missionary in Kuching, Sarawak.

I was enrolled in St Joseph's primary school where Cathecism classes are a part of the curriculum for Catholic students. That said, the rights of others were not impinged upon as Muslims were sent to Agama Islam classes while the rest had Moral Education.

Spending 11 years at St Joseph's, I could recall the numerous crucifixes as well as holy pictures all over the school. Even the classes which hosted Agama Islam lessons had them. No one accused the school of covert attempts to convert any impressionable young Muslims then.

In secondary school, we'd head down to St Joseph's Cathedral across the road for services on church feast days such as All Saints and Ascension Day. Nary a complain was received from parents of non-Catholic students whose classes are disrupted by the absence of some students and even teachers who attended Mass.

The school's first non-ordained religious principal, Gerald Stephen Lee, pioneered a Day of Prayer in the '90s. This was a day where activities were planned for the believers of different faiths in the school. Atheists were given the freedom to join in with their friends or to spend their time in the library.

By being brought up in an environment where respect and acceptance of our diverse faith was propogated by educators, harmony was aplenty. I'll stick out my neck by saying that mission schools in Malaysia are the breeding grounds for a society that accepts, nay embraces its differences and revels in them even.

Alas, having left the safe coccoon of Kuching, I've since had my idealistic views on religious freedom in Malaysia smashed to smithereens.

Coming to the big city, I've had to adapt to a society that frowns upon those who do not profess the religion of the Federation.

For many generations, Christians in Malaysia dating as far back as before the country even existed would worship in their mother tongue. For some, it would be Malay where the Almighty is referred to as Allah.

Of course, the fact that the term had been used for aeons meant nothing to certain quarters in the country. Their sense of outrage was only given an awakening when a former home minister decided to apply the law restricting the usage of the word somewhat belatedly.

It saw a rise in sentiments where Christians were considered to have challenge the sanctity of Islam. That could not be further from the truth. Threats were issued thus, subjecting Christians to duress and fear.

We all knew what happened after Justice Lau Bee Lan ruled that Christians were free to use the word Allah. Churches and anything remotely connected to Christians were targeted in a series of arson attack.

Outraged Malaysians voiced their displeasure over these attacks. I'd like to think that there are more fair-minded Malaysians than senseless bigots. It was thus disappointing when a prominent member of the ruling coalition questioned the PM's action in giving aid to a church whose premises were destroyed.

Almost two years on, the case remains unresolved as it sits gathering dust in our much vaunted Palace of Justice. I suppose that our purveyors of justice may have a case of amnesia over the oft-repeated adage "Justice delayed is justice denied."

What about the copies of the Alkitab that were seized previously by the authorities? Left to literally rot in the hot and humid atmosphere in a warehouse, the Holy Scriptures were then defiled by being stamped with a serial number purportedly to monitor its distribution.

Of course, anyone with reasonable intelligence will tell you that the pitiful excuses given by the authorities to justify their blatant disrespect for Christians as mind bogglingly stupid.

Now if you're outraged with the discrimination I've highlighted so far, your top is about to be blown. The April 2009 issue of Al Islam magazine featured a piece on how two undercover journalist infiltrated St Anthony's Church in Pudu, Kuala Lumpur to investigate claims of conversion.

Not only were the allegations proven untrue, the journalists concerned desecrated the Holy Communion and had the temerity to mock our beliefs in their article.

Despite the uproar, the journalists got away scot free as the Attorney-General decided against charging them for any offence. To rub salt to the wound, an apology was grudgingly made only when demanded upon by the Catholic Archbishop of KL. So much for insincere apologies.

Let's move on. Earlier this year a renowned ustazah equated Valentine's Day with a day which encourages "free sex". Of course, those two magic words are currently in vogue judging by how liberally they are used to describe even awareness programmes on discrimination faced by the LGBTs in our society.

READ MORE HERE

The Judiciary: Justice in Jeopardy

Posted: 13 Nov 2011 03:58 PM PST

Chapter 10: Freedom, Justice, and the Law

The Judiciary: Justice in Jeopardy

Not only must there be respect for the rule of law, but the laws themselves must be just. Those administering the law too must be just and be seen to be just.

By M Bakri Musa

The Malaysian judiciary began on a very high note with judges held in the highest esteem. Tun Suffian set the tone not only with his exemplary personal example but also the depth of his legal judgment and scholarly analysis. The low point of the Malaysian judiciary occurred when the King, acting on the advice of the prime minister, suspended the chief justice and a few of his associates. Sadly from there the judiciary seemed to breach new lows every so often. A retiring senior appellate judge recently publicly confessed his shame for having been a member of that august body. He bluntly blurted about Malaysian litigants being confident of winning even "hopeless cases" as long as they were filed in "certain courts." A more damaging indictment would be hard to find

This sorry state of affairs received widespread international attention with the released of a scathing report jointly issued by, among others, the International Bar Association and the International Commission of Jurists. Justice in Jeopardy: Malaysia 2000, asserts, "…well-founded grounds for concern as to the proper administration of justice…in cases which are of particular interest, for whatever reason, to the government."

The commission in particular was concerned of the manner judges were selected for high profile cases, especially those with political undertones.

Many of the issues raised by those distinguished jurists are familiar not only to lawyers but also ordinary citizens. For example, the commission is critical of the merging of the legal and judicial services that resulted in the rotating door policy between judges and prosecutors. As these officers are answerable to the same superior, it does not encourage the development of distinct and independent services.

The commission resurrects many of the same issues I raised in my earlier book, among them, the insularity and limited experience of Malaysian jurists. As the commission also noted, nearly three quarters of them are promoted from within; there is little or no infusion of fresh talent from the outside. Few of the judges have experience outside of government. Part of the reason is that the pay is not competitive to attract talented private practitioners. Further, new recruits of esteemed lawyers are treated as if they are junior appointees. They are placed on probation for a year or two, and often start as lowly magistrates. That is certainly no way to attract legal luminaries from the outside. In contrast, American judges count among their peer brilliant legal scholars, successful private practitioners, and accomplished statesmen. Malaysia should do likewise and have an infusion of top talent directly into the upper levels of the judiciary.

The way Malaysia selects its senior judges stands in stark contrast with that of Singapore. As related in his memoir, when Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew was looking for his new chief justice, he instituted a thorough and exhausting winnowing process. He polled successful private practitioners, respected academics, and senior judges for their recommendations. After short-listing the candidates he interviewed each one of them. It is no surprise then that Singapore's present Chief Justice, Yong Pung How, commands such great respect not only at home but also abroad. No lawyer would dare make flippant or flamboyant remarks about his performance or person. His resume is formidable: the product of the world's best law schools (Cambridge and Harvard), extensive business experience (chief executive of a major bank), and successful private practice.

No Malaysian judge comes even close to this man in terms of the breadth of experience or sterling academic qualifications. Malaysia does not lack for talent, but the system does not allow them to emerge. Malaysian leaders do not consider senior judicial or other public appointments merit such careful scrutiny.

A telling indicator of the caliber of Malaysia's top public officials is demonstrated by the silly squabble between Law Minister Rais Yatim and the then Chief Justice Eusoff Chin that took part in mid 2000.

The controversy erupted over the judge's choice of an overseas holiday companion, a certain lawyer who had appeared before him on a high profile case. When the news first broke out, the judge vehemently denied any impropriety, claiming that he had merely "accidentally" bumped into the lawyer on his trip. But when investigative reporting by Malaysiakini revealed that they had shared the same flight and were together for an extended period during their vacation, the minister felt compelled to publicly chastise the judge.

That a junior minister (and a rookie one at that) could openly humiliate the Chief Justice (a man considerably higher in the government scheme of things) leads me to a disturbing thought: Would a more powerful minister hesitate in letting a less senior judge know of his (minister's) displeasure?

Rais Yatim, in his previous incarnation as deputy leader of the opposition Semangat Party (it later merged into UMNO, which was how he ended up in the cabinet) was highly critical of the unchecked powers of the executive. Such overzealous dominance, he noted in his doctoral dissertation, threatens the independence and integrity of the judiciary. Wise observation! Alas, that was then. Once in the cabinet he sings a decidedly different tune, one more pleasing to his master's ears. I would have more respect for Rais had he, before accepting his cabinet position, tried to convince Mahathir of his views. A belief so readily discarded is no conviction at all.

While these pathetic senior public figures spat in public, the more damning criticism leveled in Justice in Jeopardy was conveniently ignored. Indeed both the law minister and chief justice confessed in not having read it as they had not as yet received an official copy, even though the entire document was readily available on the Web. I publicly suggested that the minister should pay attention to the report instead of the judge's poor choice of holiday companion. That would not have generated as much publicity for Rais, but it would do him and the nation immense good.

In the end what made the government act were the concerns of foreign investors. They were getting increasingly uneasy with the way justice was dispensed, especially in regards to "mega awards" and lawyers "shopping around" for sympathetic judges. Such practices clearly undermine the integrity of the entire system. The Political and Economic Risk Consultancy (PERC) ranked the Malaysian judiciary behind that of South Korea and the Philippines. Increasingly, investors (foreign and local) factor in their faith in the country's justice system as a major consideration in deciding where to invest their money.

In February 2002, the giant California Public Employees Retirement System (CalPERS) stunned many by declaring its withdrawal from many emerging markets including Malaysia. Although Malaysian officials tried to dismiss or minimize the significance of the decision, there was no question that it was a tremendous blow to Malaysia. CalPERS's had suffered tremendous loss in those markets. For the past five years, its average annual returns for Malaysia was a horrifying – 18.3 percent. CalPERS concluded that it is not enough to analyze the performances of companies and markets; it must also look at the supporting political and governmental structures. In essence, it concluded that you could not have a "good" company in a "bad" country. Malaysia scored poorly in such areas as political stability, financial transparency, free press, and most importantly in the context of the present discussion, an independent judiciary.

Apart from being the biggest fund manager, CalPERS is also widely regarded as a trendsetter. Malaysia ignores CalPERS observations at its own peril.

In response to Justice in Jeopardy, the government set up a Human Rights Commission (Suhakam), chaired by a former deputy prime minister, Musa Hitam. Thus far Suhakam has reviewed cases of alleged police brutality as well as actively championing citizens' rights. To me its pronouncements are bland and mild (for example, Malaysians have a right to peaceful assembly). Nonetheless it is a sad reflection of how low human rights and civil liberties have been degraded in Malaysia that such obvious statements were widely lauded and welcomed.

The year 2001 saw the appointment of a new chief justice, Dzaiddin Abdullah. His first order of business was to immediately admit the rotten state of the judiciary, a rare public admission by a senior official, and he then went about to clean up the mess. Thus far his moves have been widely applauded by both the public and members of the Bar. Even Rais Yatim saw fit to claim credit for the judge's appointment.

Dzainuddin's elevation was like a refreshing breeze that many would hope will remove the stench from the judiciary.

Through globalization, Malaysians are now very much aware of events occurring elsewhere. Just as Malaysians demand a world standard of education and medical care, so too they now want the same liberties enjoyed by other civilized citizens. Malaysians are not comforted by the fact that they have more freedom than the Indonesians or Iraqis.

Having seen the best they rightly demand the same. The Malaysian system of justice must therefore accept the prevailing international norms. There is no longer a "local" standard. Police brutality and other infringements on basic human liberties are as unacceptable in Malaysia as it is in America.

The negative consequences of the 9/11 tragedies are, among others, intrusive legislations introduced in America to meet this new national challenge. The Patriot Act of 2001 for example, provides for detention of non-citizens without trial. Such moves by the Americans emboldened Mahathir to wield the ISA and other restrictive laws even more brazenly, all the while smugly asserting that the Americans are finally wising up to Malaysian ways. Nothing could be further from the truth.

In their conceit Malaysian leaders are ignoring some essential differences. For one, the new restrictive law had a very rough grilling in Congress. It was also widely debated by the populace. Further, such rules apply only to non-citizens and have sunset provisions, meaning they will be intensively reviewed and will expire in three years unless specifically renewed. These are significant differences that Malaysian leaders do not apparently appreciate or choose to ignore.

If the system of justice in Malaysia were to meet the prevailing world's norms, it would surely earn the respect of the citizens and the international community. It would also be good for business. Surely that is a worthy goal.

Malaysia spares no effort in trying to attract foreign investors and businesses. Fixing the badly tarnished justice system would go along way to assure these foreigners. In the next chapter I will go into greater detail on how Malaysia could make herself more attractive to investors, local and foreign, by enthusiastically embracing free enterprise.

Next: Chapter 11: Embracing Free Enterprise

The right to vote

Posted: 13 Nov 2011 03:02 PM PST

By Tay Tian Yan, MySinChew

It was interesting when a MCA central committee member told the parliamentary select committee on electoral reform that Malaysians living abroad are not qualified to vote as they are "out of touch" with the current state of affairs in the country.

He was then greatly criticised and even MCA President Datuk Seri Dr Chua Soi Lek said that he was not selected but volunteered to attend the first public hearing by the PSC on electoral reforms.

I have a little sympathy for him. There was nothing wrong to express his view but unfortunately, he lacked the understanding of democracy.

The principle of democracy is equal civil rights, meaning that everyone has the right to vote.

You can vote no matter whether you stay in Kuala Lumpur, London or the Seychelles, as long as there is a voting channel.

Regardless whether you drive a Mercedes or ride a bicycle, you have the right to vote.

Regardless whether your IQ is 180, 8 or 0, you have the right to vote.

Regardless whether you are a man, woman or an intersex person, you have the right to vote.

Regardless whether you want to make a "correct" or a "wrong" choice, you still have the right to vote.

No profound knowledge is involved here. It is just because you are a citizen, you enjoy the same right of other citizens.

However, it is not the first time people try to classify citizens and limit their suffrage.

A century ago, the United Kingdom did not allow women to vote, arguing that women did not understand politics and they would turn the parliament into a kitchen.

Similarly, 200 years ago, the Americans debated whether the Blacks should be allowed to vote. The Blacks were regarded as slaves at that time and how could they be allowed to vote?

Even earlier, the Greeks argued a thousand years ago that politics was not created for the fools. Therefore, uneducated people should be forbidden from participating in politics as it was only for wise men.

British women won the right to vote only after they had fought for half of a century. A woman named Emmeline Pankhurst founded the Women's Franchise League to fight for the women's suffrage. A a result, she was arrested almost every month.

Some women were allowed to vote after the World War I and women started to enjoy the same right to vote as men only in 1982.

African Americans started to enjoy the suffrage when Thomas Jefferson and John Adams ran for president and the US Congress relaxed the restrictions and allowed African Americans to vote.

However, every five African Americans were allowed to cast only three votes as the Congress believed that the Blacks' contributions and responsibilities to the country were less than the Whites and thus, they should not enjoy the same voting right as the Whites.

Even so, not many African Americans could truly enjoy the right since many states still set up a variety of thresholds and limitations.

The situation was improved only after the black slaves were liberalised by Abraham Lincoln.

As for the Greek plebiscite, only "freemen" with honourable social status, like the nobles and philosophers, could vote.

The universal suffrage and the concept of equal civil rights was widely implemented only in the 20th century.

The concept of one man, one vote is of course more equal and fair, but it is not perfect. For example, if there are 99 fools and only one wise man in a constituency, most probably the person elected would also be a fool.

This is also why many democratic countries in the world are at the same time, nations of fools.

Democracy can be wise only when the civil standard is on the track.

Mahathir The Uniting Factor

Posted: 13 Nov 2011 02:59 PM PST

Has Mahathir finally realised that his policies of preferential rewards for the Malays have made them more backward than ever? Did he suddenly realise that Malays are less motivated because they know the government will bail them out? And has he been notified that the treasury is not a bottomless pit and cannot keep handing out money, scholarships, tenders and civil service jobs to the Malays?

By Mariam Mokhtar via Malaysian Mirror

We have been mistaken into believing that former Prime minister Mahathir Mohamad exploited the politics of division, using race and religion, to divide and rule us.

On the contrary, every right minded, decent Malaysian who believes in the rule of law, of equality and justice, is united in their loathing of a man who despite being retired, appears to keep a tight grip on this government, from behind the scenes.

Throughout his 22-year rule, Mahathir sought to divide and conquer. Perhaps, now as he nears death, he is displaying pangs of guilt, because he realises that he accomplished very little and did not unite the country.

Last month, Mahathir told us that in the next 10 years, the Malays would lose their power in the country unless they became united now. He described the Malay community as being split into different factions thus making them lose their advantage as the majority group.

Then, using religion as the mainstay for his argument warned the Malays: "The minority cannot rule the country in a democratic framework, under which the majority rules".

Mahathir made the remarks at the launching of the Ummah Unity and Economy Seminar organised by the Malaysia Islamic Welfare Organisation (Perkim) and Malay Chamber of Commerce.

The former PM who is also the Perkim president, warned that Muslims in Malaysia had not been taught the importance of "uniting when they were young". He urged Malays to work hard and reap rewards instead of looking forward to receiving "free things". He explained that some of the poorest communities in the nation were made up of Muslims and he urged them to work hard to be financially stable.

When Mahathir said that the Malays would lose power, he was partly right.

But he left out one important detail. He omitted to say that it would be the Malays at the top of Umno who would lose power if Umno/BN were to lose GE-13.

Who would have the most to lose if BN were to be defeated in GE-13?

It would be Mahathir and all those whom he has groomed to do his bidding when he officially left office. It would also be his cronies who gobbled up the contracts and tenders for multi-billion ringgit business deals.

At the moment, all those who received his selective patronage are indebted to him and fear him because he could reveal sordid details about their illegal activities.

Hence, if the opposition were to gain control of Putrajaya, Mahathir and all his cronies would be investigated. Age is no barrier as ex-President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt found to his cost.

Money in exchange for freedom means nothing to the man in the street who has lived on very little or nothing. This is what Libya's Gaddafi discovered when he tried to trade his life for money.

If anyone doubts the fear and insecurity that the current BN regime has about losing GE-13, then they are blind or in denial.

Recent allegations of vote rigging, of tampering at the polls and of sneaking in millions of voters through the back-door are alarming enough.

Instead of resolving these issues, Umno/BN orchestrated a serious of time-wasting measures to distract the rakyat from the true extent of the cheating that it is prepared to undertake.

These involved prolonging the Sodomy II trial of the opposition leader, Anwar Ibrahim in a malicious effort to persuade the rakyat that the leader of the opposition is a tainted man.

More sex videos of Anwar have since appeared, and for a while, those who were plotting against Anwar could not decide to make him a homosexual or a serial philanderer. Now, it seems that some fresh charges have been trumped-up against Anwar.

Other distractions include the perfectly timed appearance of Ummi Hafilda and accusations that members of the opposition were communist sympathisers.

Under the guise of Islam as a uniting force, Mahathir thought nothing of using the religion to foment the Malay hatred of those who were non-Malay and non-Muslim. It was after all Mahathir who engineered the Sodomy I trial choosing the sodomy act, which he knew would make the rural Malays despise Anwar.

It was Mahathir who Islamicised the country when he felt that PAS was gaining more support than Umno.

And it was also Mahathir who curbed the powers of the sultans, the so-called defenders of the faith, in an effort to control them.

Mahathir has united us in more ways than one. Parents, who are demanding that their children be taught in English, will recall that Mahathir and his children were once a product of an education that had its roots steeped in English.

They denounce Mahathir for dismantling Malaysia's sound education because he wanted to cater only to Malay nationalism.

Now the hypocrite Mahathir seems to support those parents because the country is lagging behind the region and cannot achieve developed nation status by 2020.

Those who desire further evidence of being alienated need only ask the Sabahans what it feels like to be a minority in their own country.

The danger is that with Umno/BN intent on winning the polls by whatever means, more foreigners will be brought in.

So when Mahathir told the Malays that they would lose power in the next 10 years, was he warning us that certain components in BN were trading citizenships for votes from the migrant communities of Bangladesh, Myanmar, the Philippines and Indonesia?

Mahathir's analysis is correct. The Malays, who are currently perceived to be the majority race, will soon become a minority. But then he has only his party, Umno/BN to blame. At the rate we are going, we might be a province of Indonesia by 2020.

Mahathir's legacy is one of division, destruction and disappointment.

Kredit: www.malaysia-today.net

Isnin, 14 November 2011

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

0 ulasan:

Catat Ulasan