Klik GAMBAR Dibawah Untuk Lebih Info

Sumber Asal Berita :-

Posted: 22 Nov 2011 04:01 PM PST

Thus, Parliament cannot suffocate the enjoyment of such liberties. Freedom of assembly is invariably exercised together with other fundamental liberties like personal liberty (Article 5 (1)); freedom of movement (Article 9(2)); freedom of expression (Article 10(1)(a); freedom of association (Article 10(1)(c); freedom of religion (Article 11) and so forth.

Tommy Thomas, The Malaysian Insider

Why is it always the case that the Malaysian government, in the guise of improving the freedoms of its citizen, enacts laws that actually erode liberties?

Since 1960 when the Emergency was revoked, only to be immediately replaced by the dreaded Internal Security Act, 1960 ("ISA"), successive governments have taken state action to the detriment of its people. The Peaceful Assembly Bill, 2011, which had its first reading in the Federal Parliament yesterday, is another example of such retrograde law making.

I cannot believe that after 54 years of Merdeka in the 11th year of the 21st century, the Executive has the audacity to present a Bill, which, in its own Explanatory Statement, describes it as "one of the efforts initiated by the government to undertake the transformation of the existing legal framework in relation to the constitutional rights of citizens to assemble".

Fundamental liberties are enshrined in Part II of the Federal Constitution, the supreme law of the land. Article 10(1)(b) of the Federal Constitution provides that "all citizens have the right to assemble peacefully and without arms".

Freedom to assemble is not absolute; thus, the Federal Parliament may enact laws that have the effect of restricting such freedom in the interest of "security" or "public order". Case law has established that such Parliamentary restriction must be "reasonable" by objective standards.

In perhaps the most important constitutional case in our history, a five-member Federal Court in 1992 in the Nordin Salleh case, held that any state action that would render illusory or meaningless the exercise of any fundamental liberty is unconstitutional. Hence, the Court looks at the effect or consequence of state action.

It is against this background of constitutionalism, that the Peaceful Assembly Bill, 2011 must be scrutinised.

My first reservation is philosophical. The Bill introduces the concept of "interests, rights and freedoms of other persons", with the police having to weigh such interests, rights and freedoms with that of the persons who wish to assemble.

Hence, the inherent clash between Executive and citizen which characterises the eternal struggle for civil liberty has been extended to include the rights of other people — a classic extension of one of the oldest doctrines in politics : divide and rule.

In my opinion, a law that is intended to promote the exercise by citizen A and his friends of their right to assemble should not in any way be dependent on the right of citizen X and his friends to object or veto the former's right to assemble.

The fundamental freedoms under Part II of our Constitution do not contemplate such clashes between different groups of citizens which would inevitable develop into a contest between majority and minority, with the minority always being the casualty.

Accordingly, all references to "the interests, rights and freedoms of other persons" in the Bill are, in my opinion, without any constitutional basis. The same point can be made about the use of new expressions like "counter assembly" and "simultaneous assemblies".

Hence, the Parliamentary draftsman is deliberately giving power to the police to impose stringent restrictions and conditions under Paragraph 15 of the Bill that would have the effect of completely nullifying any freedom to assemble.

The Bill introduces a new type of assembly that I believe is unprecedented under our law, viz "street protest", which is defined in Paragraph 3 to mean: "an open air assembly which begins with a meeting at a specified place and consists of walking in a mass march or rally for the purpose of objecting to or advancing a particular cause or causes".

Paragraph 4(1) of the Bill imposes an outright ban on street protests. The current position is that if the police issue a license under Section 27 (2) of the Police Act, 1967, a "street protest" is permitted. Hence, the new provision in this "reforming" Bill make it worse by totally banning such types of assemblies.

This would be unconstitutional. Does this mean that, under this Bill, only assemblies that are not "street protest" are permitted? Yes.

What then are the features of such a permitted or sanitised form of "assembly"?

READ MORE HERE

Vying for dubious achievements

Posted: 22 Nov 2011 03:18 PM PST

We are great at railing against idiotic politicians at mamak stalls and on social websites, but when it actually comes to doing something, we make excuses; and with that, we dis-empower ourselves.

Even some business people are saying that things must change or else there will be a global revolution, particularly against exploitative and uncaring corporations.

Marina Mahathir, The Star

IN 2000, Malcolm Gladwell wrote a book called The Tipping Point, defining it as "the moment of critical mass, the threshold, the boiling point".

It's that pivotal moment when people decide that enough is enough and actually do something to make a change.

In 2011, we've seen lots of tipping points.

It happened at the end of December in Tunisia when fruit seller Mohamad Bouazizi set himself on fire in protest against the confiscation of his stall.

That act of defiance against injustice became the tipping point for Tunisians fed up with the system and their rebellion led to the downfall of their president and set off a chain of events in neighbouring countries known as the Arab Spring.

Sooner or later, people reach a tipping point where they will no longer tolerate repression and corruption, pushing them to do something about it, even if it means that lives had to be sacrificed.

I really have to wonder when we Malaysians will reach our tipping point.

Every day, we read so much blatant nonsense from our leaders that the newspapers have truly stopped being readable.

News reports treat us all as people of low intelligence because only imbeciles would believe some of the outrageous claims made by our leaders.

When elections are in the offing, there is no doubt that our politicians immediately start jockeying for positions by trying to outdo one another.

It would be wonderful if they were racing to think up the best policies to manage the country, the economy, social issues, etc.

Instead, they are racing to find the silliest ways to strike fear into our souls and find more ways to oppress people.

I mean, solar-powered talking Bibles, really?

There is a foreign magazine that gives out Dubious Achievements Awards every year.

These are a bit like the Ig Noble awards, the opposite of the Nobel prizes, where people are cited for doing the silliest things.

Malaysia, especially our politicians, seems to be in the running for a lot of dubious achievements this year.

Maybe we should just accept that those are the only achievements we will ever have.

Meanwhile, we the people have to live with these shenanigans.

We find out every year from the Auditor-General's Report that millions have been wasted on ridiculous items which any fool would know should not cost that much.

The report highlights a "mess" in a government-related company and an unexplained stupendously expensive apartment purchase.

There are also ministers who claim that none of it has anything to do with the Government.

Gee, the Auditor-General must have so little to do that he needs to audit private companies as well.

And wow, they must really think we are dumb.

And while the world is facing an economic recession that will be more severe than anything ever seen, fodder for revolutions everywhere, what do our politicians care about?

Whether people of different sexual orientation should be allowed any space at all to talk about their problems?

Like natural disasters, the last thing economic catastrophes care about is whom you're attracted to.

And given that most people are heterosexual, the chances are that the people who will be most affected by a recession are the heterosexual and poor.

Shouldn't politicians vying for votes be concentrating on them?

Perhaps our politicians, unlike voters, don't read.

They seem not to have noticed that there are protests going all round the world against inequality, especially the ever-increasing gap between the rich and the poor.

Even some business people are saying that things must change or else there will be a global revolution, particularly against exploitative and uncaring corporations.

But as always, our politicians are one step behind the rest of the world.

They're still dreaming of joining the fat cat 1% and forgetting that the 99% have a lot more votes.

Why do we put up with all this?

Are our tolerance levels for stupidity that high?

Is it because we don't know any better?

Or are we just lazy and complacent?

We are great about railing against idiotic politicians at mamak stalls and on social websites, but when it actually comes to doing something, we make excuses.

We shrug our shoulders and say we can't make a difference, only some people can.

And with that, we dis-empower ourselves, much to the delight of our leaders.

But every now and then, we do rise to the occasion.

I think last July we reached a tipping point of sorts, where lots of ordinary people simply got fed up and decided to make it known, albeit peacefully.

But have our leaders learned anything from it?

Not much, going by the constant demonising ever since.

So how long will we put up with imbeciles leading us?

How long will we tolerate unbridled greed and hate?

Is it just the economy, stupid?

Posted: 22 Nov 2011 07:32 AM PST

Yes, I'm talking about civil liberties stuff. You know, free speech, human rights, separation of powers and all that good stuff that civil society cares about. In the past, this was fringe stuff, especially when compared to the economy. But as society progresses and matures, this is exactly the kind of stuff that matters. The so-called "rice bowl" is not the be all and end all any more.

Oon Yeoh, The Sun Daily

THERE are so many factors that will determine which coalition – Barisan Nasional (BN) or Pakatan Rakyat (PR) – will win the next general election.

I think everyone, including opposition supporters, agree that it will be tough going for PR to win because of the East Malaysia factor. It's not for nothing that Sabah and Sarawak have been called BN's "fixed deposit".

Barring a miracle, it's highly unlikely that we will see any significant East Malaysian swing to PR in the general election. However, if PR manages to win enough seats in Peninsular Malaysia to win a simple majority (or close to it), we are likely to see East Malaysia parties switching sides. This is not to say East Malaysian politicians sway easily, but rather that they are extremely pragmatic.

So, if BN were to lose the peninsula in a big way, it could very well find its fixed deposit slipping away after the polls. I'm sure BN's political analysts and strategists recognise this, which is why the fight for votes in the peninsula is so important.

The economy is a big factor. That's the case everywhere you go, not just in Malaysia. Remember US President Bill Clinton's famous phrase, "It's the economy, stupid!"? But there's also another factor that's increasingly important, especially amongst the urban folk and most notably amongst the young. And it's the kind of stuff that BN traditionally doesn't score very well in.

The exposure the internet affords today's youth plays a big role here. Where in the past, the main sources of information were TV, radio and newspapers, these days people just go online for alternate viewpoints.

Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak recently said winnable candidates are those who are accepted by the new generation. He went as far as to say that this would be the decisive factor in the next general election.

For its part, Umno Youth unveiled a new slogan: "BN pilihan orang muda (BN, the choice of the young)." "All our efforts will be focused on that slogan. We want to show young Malaysian voters that the choice is in their hands, and what BN has to offer," its chief Khairy Jamaluddin said.

If it is really true that the election will be decided by the so-called "new generation", the prime minister would do well to consider whether the various issues that this segment of society cares about are best championed by BN or PR.

When Najib first became prime minister, he made all the right moves. He took walkabouts and mingled with the public. His 1Malaysia slogan told people he wanted a united country, and his remark that the days of "government knows best" are over gave people hope that his administration would be less paternalistic.

If I were Najib's political adviser, I would tell him not to rely only on the warm and fuzzy feedback he gets from the people he meets on his walkabouts or at tea parties for his Twitter followers and Facebook fans. Well-wishers in such situations are not going to give brutally honest feedback.

Rather, I would commission a public opinion survey and ask folks whether they think racial polarisation is still a problem or whether they feel people are more united than ever before. It's also worth asking if people feel the government is adequately catering to their idealistic aspirations for a more civil society.

It might be the economy, stupid, but like it or not, these are the kinds of things that the new generation cares about. And they're the kind of things that help win elections in this day and age, the economy notwithstanding.

Oon Yeoh is a new media consultant.

Kredit: www.malaysia-today.net

Rabu, 23 November 2011

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

0 ulasan:

Catat Ulasan