Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News
Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News |
- ‘Clones’ likely ruined Malaysia’s Twitter record bid, says research house
- Batang Kali - Britain must take moral responsibility for massacre
- Education Review Blueprint: Panacea or Placebo?
- The type of letters I like to receive from our leaders
- Till death do us part
- When all else fails, use Sedition Act
- Constitutional posers for GE13
- Freedom to be loyal
- Hudud not for a secular country, says Karpal
- Political politeness
- Sodomy II appeal: Case management fixed for Nov 23
- Ministry to summon German Ambassador over Suaram funding
- ‘Anwar not ready to commit in Sabah’
- Swiss govt ready to freeze Musa’s accounts
- ‘Anwar, rakyat Sabah tidak menyokong kamu’
- STAR first political party to sign TI pledge
- Judiciary has failed the rakyat
- Malaysia's UMNO goes after a critic
| ‘Clones’ likely ruined Malaysia’s Twitter record bid, says research house Posted: 07 Sep 2012 10:34 AM PDT  A screen capture from the Politweet Facebook page showed a series of identical entries on Twitter that were registered during the National Day record attempt. Politweet.org pointed out in its report yesterday on the #Merdeka55 hashtag movement that despite Putrajaya's claim that Malaysians had breached the 3.6 million tweet mark in just one hour on August 31, no other third-party authority has since verified this declaration as true. "So assuming the figure is true, it is possible that the 3.6 million tweets are a world record," the research house wrote in its report. "However to date, Twitter has made no announcement on their blog about #Merdeka55. There is also no mention of the #Merdeka55 record online by other tracking websites," it pointed out. "Without a third party to verify the data, the 3.6 million tweets figure is doubtful," Politweet said.  A screen capture shows a Twitter post made during the record attempt. But Rais' record-beating claim was immediately met with disbelief by Malaysian Twitter users, many of whom have accused the organisers of rigging the contest by using "bots" to generate false publicity. "Bots doing retweeting 4 thousand times, then u proud of hvg mils of tweets?" Twitter user @Amir_Shari had written earlier this week, referring to computer programs designed to send out automated responses on the service. Another user, Cyril Dason, tweeted on his account @cyrildason that "#merdeka55 stats online: 1,500 tweets generated 493,610 impressions, reaching an audience of 185,482 followers within the past 24 hours", in an apparent rebuttal of the federal government's record-setting claim. Fuelling these users' claims in its report yesterday, Politweet said it had begun tracking mentions of #Merdeka55 on Twitter from August 28, the moment Rais had announced Putrajaya's aim to hit a one million-tweet mark for tweets sent within an hour from 8.15pm to 9.15pm on August 31. But during the targeted hour, Politweet said it had observed an "odd pattern" during the live stream — "large blocks of identical tweets were being sent at the same time". "Further investigation revealed that a small group of users were responsible for a large volume of tweets. "These users had similar characteristics, e.g. account creation date, profile photos, location and follower/following relationships. All of their duplicate tweets were sent using Tweetdeck," Politweet wrote, calling these duplicate tweets as "clones". Read more at: http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/malaysia/article/clones-likely-ruined-malaysias-twitter-record-bid-says-research-house/ |
| Batang Kali - Britain must take moral responsibility for massacre Posted: 07 Sep 2012 10:28 AM PDT
The smokescreen of 'defeating communism' was used to justify atrocities such as Batang Kali 1948. Notice that the Malaysian government has kept a guilty silence over this case despite hounding Mat Sabu over Bukit Kepong. Dr Kua Kia Soong, SUARAM Adviser On 4 September 2012, the London High Court of Justice handed down a judgement that there was no legal duty for Her majesty's Government to hold an inquiry over the killing of 24 civilians by HMG's Scots Guards at Batang Kali on 11/12 December 1948 and that the claimants had no grounds to challenge the decisions of the Secretaries of State not to hold an inquiry. The conclusion of the court was that the decisions of the Secretaries of State "were not unreasonable…" They had maintained that the facts of the case remained in dispute; the veracity of the accounts was in doubt as most of the witnesses had died, and the evidence would be unreliable since it happened more than sixty years ago. Regarding the claim that the Secretaries of State had an obligation to conduct an inquiry under Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the court cited the House of Lords decision [Re McKerr and McCaughey UKHL 12, 1 WLR 807] that "there was no duty to investigate a death before the coming into force of the Human Rights Act on 2 October 2000." (para 93) Although this may seem like a setback for the claimants and all who demand justice for the 24 victims, there are certain positive dimensions in this judgement and hope in comparable cases elsewhere. 1. The court established that the 24 victims were civilians and not combatants (para 1): On 13 December 1948, the British High Commissioner had reported the deaths to the Colonial Office as "the shooting and killing of 26 bandits..." This was standard propaganda during the Emergency by the British colonial government and their local custodians. It has taken all these 64 years for this fact to be established by a British court! 2. The British Government had command and control over the Scots Guards The Secretaries of State had argued in the court that the British Government had no legal responsibility for the actions of the Scots Guards who did the killing at Batang Kali, so they were under no duty to hold an inquiry to pin the responsibility. They had argued, very much like our learned professors in the Mat Sabu/ Mat Indera case, that the Scots Guards were merely assisting the Federation or the Selangor Sultan or both, in maintaining order. In any case, they further argued that any responsibility would have lapsed to the Federation of Malaya upon independence in 1957 via Article 167 of the Constitution. Nevertheless, the court decided that: "It is clear, in our view, that the British Government had command and control over the Scots Guards. First, the Scots Guards were part of the British Army in contradistinction to the Malay Regiment and other local forces. Second, it is evident from the minute of the British Cabinet…that the reason for the decision to send the brigade of the British Army was to defend British interests against the advance of communism on what was in reality territory the British Government controlled, to prevent the deaths of British citizens and to protect its economic interests. Third, control over the deployment of the army in Malaya was vested in British Defence Co-ordination Committee Far East…Fourth, the Scots Guards were paid for by the British Government…" (para 112) Thus, this judgement has wide applications in the Mat Sabu/Mat Indera case although I suspect many of our local professors need not just legal exposure but rather, political awareness of our colonial history.
Batang Kali is Britain's Rawagedeh Another source of hope for the claimants of Batang Kali is the recent apology by the Dutch government for a massacre of 150 people at Rawagede committed by its soldiers in Indonesia in 1947, as the country fought for independence. Earlier in 2011, a court in the Netherlands ordered the government to pay compensation over the killings. The case was brought by relatives of those who were killed. Reports said the Netherlands would pay 20,000 euros to the relatives, but the exact figure was still being negotiated.
A Crime against Humanity The Rawagedeh claimants had argued that what took place in Rawagedeh on December 9, 1947 was a crime against humanity. Like any other colonial power, the Dutch had used the euphemistic term 'excesses' to describe the tragedy. Like the British in Malaya, the Dutch state defined it as an internal problem. On December 9, 1947 Dutch forces raided the West Javanese village to look for weapons and the Indonesian freedom fighter Lukas Kustario. Unable to find him, the Dutch military lined up the men and killed almost all of the male population. The widows of Rawagedeh and their children sued the Dutch state not only for the execution of their husbands and fathers, but also for failing to investigate the massacre. They wanted the Netherlands to acknowledge the unlawfulness of its actions, and sought financial compensation for their loss. Like the British state, the Dutch had also argued that the statute of limitations had expired. But according to the Convention on the Non-Applicability of Statutory Limitations to War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity there is no statute of limitations on war crimes, or crimes against humanity. The Netherlands, however, like many other Western countries, is one of the states that did not ratify the convention. But the Netherlands did ratify the Rome statute of the International Criminal Court – after all, the court is at The Hague. However, according to the Rome statute of the International Criminal Court the court can only prosecute war crimes, crimes against humanity committed on or after July 1, 2002 – the day it came into being. This is not dissimilar to the House of Lords judgement cited in the Batang Kali judgement of 4 Sept 2012.
Gracious and Glorious if Kate & Will Apologised for British State It will therefore only be a matter of time before the British state will be forced to face up to its moral responsibility to the Commonwealth and follow the example of the Dutch government. In this the Queen's diamond jubilee year celebrations, would it not be a gracious and glorious gesture for Kate and Will to openly apologise to the families of the victims of the Batang Kali massacre during their Kuala Lumpur visit in a few months' time? Britain has always tried to project a self-image that is civilized, dignified and humanistic. Apologists for the British Empire have painted a romantic picture of colonialists setting their colonies "on the road to modernity…" The ideology of colonialism, which rationalized and justified oppression and exploitation, has distorted Malayan history and this history has been passed intact to their local custodians (foreign lackeys?). The smokescreen of 'defeating communism' was used to justify atrocities such as Batang Kali 1948. Notice that the Malaysian government has kept a guilty silence over this case despite hounding Mat Sabu over Bukit Kepong. Without accounting for past transgressions, the British state will remain for ever trapped in history and the families of the 24 men massacred at Batang Kali will keep reminding the British state that they have a moral responsibility to apologise for the tragedy and to compensate the families for the senseless loss of their loved ones. The claimants have already notified their lawyers to appeal to the higher courts forthwith… |
| Education Review Blueprint: Panacea or Placebo? Posted: 07 Sep 2012 10:23 AM PDT
A plan is only as good as its implementation, and judging by the Ministry of Education's (MoE) track record, execution has never been its strong point. Sandra Rajoo
People seem to be all excited recently over the education review blueprint which is due to be made public on Sept 11. Some even hailed it as the best thing since sliced bread, and this is before they even know the actual content. Let us hold the applause until after we read the whole document and see where it is taking us. The proof of the pudding is in the eating, so to speak. Will this 'mother-of-all-solutions' blueprint stand up to scrutiny? Is it going to be a solid, excellent-for-education master plan or will it be a glitzy, complex and tricky-to-implement blueprint? A plan is only as good as its implementation, and judging by the Ministry of Education's (MoE) track record, execution has never been its strong point. This effort at revamping the education system, which is long overdue, has to be commended though. Nevertheless I am not holding my breath. Decades of failed endeavours by the MoE tend to make people cynical, and I am wary of those who throw out feel-good statements to pacify a sceptical public. Clearly, there is an inability to look at education holistically and plan accordingly. Piecemeal and ad hoc initiatives which have been the norm will not bring desired results. Recall the time the ministry tried to design a curriculum aimed at producing creative and critical thinking (CCT) learners. Learning was going to be fun and enjoyable apparently. Unfortunately, it didn't look very good on paper, and fared even worse in the classroom. Obviously, the desired outcomes did not materialise. Many teachers had no idea what CCT entailed, and were not too eager to encourage it, lest students start asking questions and forming opinions. So that became a failed venture. What became evident and has remained entrenched were the obsession with grades, dropping of literacy levels, robotic methods of learning, emphasis on rote-learning, 'invisible' teachers, lack of concern for students' welfare, demotivated students and indifferent education officials. The teaching and learning of Maths and Science in English (PPSMI) is another issue that makes our hackles rise. From its inception about 10 years ago until today it has been fraught with difficulty and mired in controversy. The education ministry appears helpless and at a loss, what with the flip-flopping and the inability to train competent teachers. The vagueness of the 'soft-landing' which promises the continuation of PPSMI for certain groups of students and the current situation where many teachers have reverted to teaching in BM reflect poorly on the ministry. There has so far been no effort made at monitoring the situation on the ground. Is it any wonder that many parents are moving their children to private or international schools, or resorting to home schooling? Another point of contention was when the Prime Minister announced that Literature in English will be incorporated into the curriculum. This was picked up by the media and was heralded as the panacea for our English language woes. But Literature has been in the curriculum for a decade or so already. The subject is not something new. It is amazing that the people pertinent in education circles are unaware of this fact. English woes aside, we need to also ensure that our children receive proper instruction in Bahasa Malaysia. The disorganised way in which BM is being taught in schools does not augur well for the present and coming generations. When English was the medium of instruction, it created many proficient and competent users of the language which cut across all ethnic groups. The same cannot be said about BM. How many are really competent in the language? This problem has been neglected for too long. Let's see what the new education blueprint has in store for us. Going by the 153 proposals adopted by the Review Panel, our education system does appear to be in a bit of a shambles, doesn't it? Concerned groups have been voicing their views and giving suggestions over the years, but were largely ignored. Was the ministry waiting all this while for a 'saviour' to come save the day? Is this blueprint going to be the saviour? The implementation of the blueprint will stretch over 13 years which is a long time. Is the ministry committed to carry the momentum over this long period? The revealing of the blueprint is expected to generate debate amongst stakeholders. We hope any critique given by the public is looked upon as feedback to how things can be improved. Any comment deemed unfavourable to the ministry should not be frowned upon and disregarded. All the same, I believe that responsible and dedicated educators will have their own personal education blueprint which they use to plan, guide, execute and monitor their performance. If people involved in education, from the director-general to the school principal to the classroom teacher, have been doing this all along, the nationwide review exercise would not have been necessary. Good teachers don't wait for directives from the top before giving their best to students. Ultimately it is not the blueprint per se that can save our education system, it is whether officials and educators can save it through a good understanding of their roles and a commitment to the responsibilities they hold. We want to reach a stage in our education where we can say with pride that our children are bright and capable because of the education system, not despite it. |
| The type of letters I like to receive from our leaders Posted: 06 Sep 2012 11:48 PM PDT
Dear Petra, As you may have seen on the news, I've announced an ambitious package to get growth and housing building going. This is not only to make sure we're building the homes people so desperately need but it will also help boost the economy by kick-starting one of our most important sectors, the construction industry. When Jo Swinson asked for input from you on growth, house building was one of the top responses. Today's announcement shows the kind of impact Liberal Democrats are having in the Coalition Government, thanks to our members, on this key issue. At the heart of yesterday's announcement was a massive new £10bn guarantee from the Government to house builders which will see tens of thousands of new and affordable homes built. This money is first and foremost targeted at Registered Social Landlords, who have a proven track record in delivering social and affordable homes, and I'm really pleased that organisations including the National Housing Federation and the British Property Federation have welcomed the announcement. In order to kick-start stalled developments where at the moment nothing is being built and no one is being employed, we're accelerating the point at which councils and house builders start discussing planning requirements. And to ensure that this leads to more homes being built rather than fewer, I am also ensuring that an additional £300 million is spent on building 15,000 new affordable homes and bringing 5,000 empty homes back into use. To help first-time buyers buy these, we're underwriting another £280m to help 16,500 people access the FirstBuy scheme. And last but not least, to support small, local builders, we're making it easier temporarily for homeowners to put in a new conservatory, loft extension or garage conversion and for businesses to expand their premises without getting mired in red tape. The precise details will be consulted on, but I hope that people will go ahead and get the local builder in. This is a big package of measures that I hope will get people building, create more jobs and help those people who are desperately trying to find homes to live in. You can read more at the Lib Dems' website. Best wishes,  Nick Clegg Leader of the Liberal Democrats and Deputy Prime Minister
|
| Posted: 06 Sep 2012 06:57 PM PDT I have to admit that I have changed my position on the issue of Islamic State a number of times. In the beginning, in my disco days, I was opposed to an Islamic State. Later in life (during my mosque days) I was excited about it. I even joined the Iranians in Mekah to demonstrate against the Saudi Arabian government. And I had a poster of Imam Khomeini on my wall as well. Later, I again changed my position. Today, I no longer feel that an Islamic State would work. And I have written about this many times giving my reasons why I think this. NO HOLDS BARRED Raja Petra Kamarudin "Till death do us part," goes the marriage vows. But in many cases that never happens. In the US, about 40% of marriages end in divorce whereas in the UK it is slightly lower. Whatever it may be, an average of more than one-third of marriages in the US and UK does not end with the death of one of the partners. It ends earlier than that and the divorce rate for second and thirds marriages is even higher, according to the statistics. I suppose people change. Interests change. Priorities change. Age sometimes also plays a part. As we get older we change our mind or our value system. Sometimes familiarity breeds contempt. There could be many reasons or a combination of reasons as to why some couples are just not able to keep their marriage vows. Or it could be because you got tired of eating curry every day and now you want to change your diet and taste some tom yam. Some people tell me that when you eat curry at home every day you sometimes want to go out for some tom yam. The only thing is, don't get caught lest your wife does a 'Bobbit' on you. Change is the only thing that is constant, if you know what I mean. In my younger days, I used to love going to discos (what kids nowadays call clubbing). By the time I was 27, I preferred to spend my time at the mosque listening to the ustaz preach religion. Another 27 years later -- by the time I was 54 (that was eight years ago) -- I got bored with the same old sermons. We appeared to be going nowhere with all this talk regarding rukun and hukum. I wanted to know more, not just about batal wuduk, batal puasa, batal sembahyang, hukum nikah, hukum cerai, and whatnot. So I stopped going to the mosque to listen to sermons that I had been hearing for more than half my life and which I already knew by heart and could utter in my sleep. I suppose this is what the journey of life is all about. As you travel farther down the road you begin to see things differently and this changes you and the way you look at things. And when you reach the forks or junctions in your life you may decide to take the left lane rather than the right lane, as you have been doing so many times before. I mean, when you keep taking the same right lane every time and you find that the scenery does not change you might, out of curiosity, decide this time to try the left lane to see what happens. Then you discover that the left lane actually offers the answers to the questions you have been asking for decades but never found the answers to. It is no different in politics. Anwar Ibrahim, in his secondary school days, was fiercely anti-British. Considering that Malaya (not even 'Malaysia' yet at that time) had just gained independence barely three years before that, this is not surprising. The Merdeka spirit still burned very strongly in many people in 1960, Anwar included. But as we got farther and farther away from 1957, Merdeka got reduced to something that we read in the history books. Why did Anwar need to continue screaming about Merdeka when we were already Merdeka? Anwar then began to talk about Malay nationalism. And with that he talked about the Malay language and why Malay should replace English, even for the street names. Anwar's nationalist fight from 1968 to 1971 was through the Persatuan Kebangsaan Pelajar Islam Malaysia (PKPIM) and the Persatuan Bahasa Melayu Universiti Malaya (PBMUM). Thereafter, Mountbatten Road got changed to Jalan Mountbatten and eventually to Jalan Tun Perak. Birch Road (named after the eighth Resident of Perak, Sir Ernest Woodford Birch) was renamed Jalan Birch and again to Jalan Maharajalela -- named after the man who killed James Wheeler Woodford Birch (the first Resident of Perak) -- and many more all over the country. In 1974, Anwar was detained under the Internal Security Act. Not long after that, Anwar became an Islamist and started to fight for more Islamisation through the Angkatan Belia Islam Malaysia (ABIM), which was formed in 1972. In those days, Anwar worked very closely with the Islamic party, PAS, and was a strong supporter of the Iranian Islamic Revolution of 1979, as was I. In 1982, Anwar did a U-turn and, again, became a Malay nationalist when he joined Umno. I must admit that in the early 1960s I disagreed with Anwar's anti-British and pro-Malay language stand. But after he got released from ISA and became an active Islamist around 1976-1977 (by then I was already an Islamist myself, as I explained above), I did a U-turn and supported him. I would attend most of the rallies that PAS organised in the East Coast where Anwar was a speaker. But when Anwar joined Umno in 1982, I washed my hands off him. There was one occasion when he flew to Kuala Terengganu with his Umno Youth entourage and I completely ignored him although I was seated right behind him in the plane. By the way, he also ignored me, so it was mutual. Then, of course, that brings us to 1998, but I have already told that story so many times before so maybe it is not necessary that I talk about it again. Suffice to say, in 1998, I forgave Anwar for his betrayal and rallied behind him in support of Reformasi. But that only lasted six years. In 2004, I again 'divorced' Anwar and chose to fight my own battle through Malaysia Today, although I still aligned myself to the opposition, in particular DAP, who I campaigned for in 2008. Sometimes marriages last. Sometimes they do not. In the US and the UK more than one-third of marriages do not. But it happens and even the 'till death do us part' vow uttered in church do get broken. Nevertheless, when the relationship no longer works you need to just move on and look for a new relationship. Even then there is no guarantee that the next one will work. Will, under such a situation, an anti-hopping law work? Is it even democratic in the first place? What about freedom of association, as enshrined in the Constitution? Do we remove that Article that guarantees all Malaysians freedom of association? Basically, that is what it would tantamount to. Say, you are a member of DAP. And, say, DAP agrees to hold a referendum on whether Malaysia should be turned into an Islamic State with the Islamic law of Hudud as the law of the land. And, also say, DAP agrees that if 51% of Malaysians vote in favour of turning Malaysia into an Islamic State then DAP will not oppose it. Would you agree to that? Would you be of the opinion that the voting will be clean and honest and that there will be no rigging? Would you accept whatever the outcome of the referendum because it is your party's decision and you will not oppose your party's decision although you are opposed to an Islamic State? Or would you want the freedom of resigning from DAP because you are of the opinion that an Islamic State will not work for Malaysia? I have to admit that I have changed my position on the issue of Islamic State a number of times. In the beginning, in my disco days, I was opposed to an Islamic State. Later in life (during my mosque days) I was excited about it. I even joined the Iranians in Mekah to demonstrate against the Saudi Arabian government. And I had a poster of Imam Khomeini on my wall as well. Later, I again changed my position. Today, I no longer feel that an Islamic State would work. And I have written about this many times giving my reasons why I think this. Yes, changing your position does happen. And you may have reasons for that although others may not share these reasons. But this is what democracy is all about -- the right to change your mind and your position. Hence, if this right is taken away from you, then democracy itself has been removed. Anwar has changed his position a few times, as have I. But to condemn Anwar for his ever-changing position when he has every democratic right to change his views (as he gets older) is a violation of these rights. We all change, as we get older. My friend from DAP, YB Ronnie Liu, used to be a Communist in his younger days. But weren't many of us Communists when we were younger, me included? In fact, I still buy and wear Che Guevara T-shirts even until today. However, as we mature and as we lose some at that idealism, we begin to change. Today, Ronnie is as Communist as Madonna is a virgin. In short, till death do us part is a fallacy. And even the Catholic Church has had to reluctantly accept this reality. But would a Catholic cease to be a Catholic just because he or she broke her marriage vow of 'till death do us part'? |
| When all else fails, use Sedition Act Posted: 06 Sep 2012 04:26 PM PDT The act of arresting, handcuffing and detaining 19-year-old Ong Sing Yee will start a backlash against the authorities. Mariam Mokhtar, FMT In the past, Malaysia's Sedition Act 1948 was used to silence the political adversaries of the ruling administration. Today, Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak's government has deemed it necessary to curb individuals, NGOs and even teenagers. This government refuses to understand that it needs to summon the courage to tackle the necessary and urgent reforms demanded by the electorate. It should not take the easier option of hounding teenagers and people who dare criticise. The act of arresting, handcuffing and detaining 19-year-old Ong Sing Yee for 15 hours and then interrogating her without the presence of her lawyer, will start a backlash against the authorities. Ong's crime? She had been charged with sedition for stepping on posters of Najib and his wife, the self-styled First Lady Rosmah Mansor, during the Janji Demokrasi march on the eve of Merdeka Day at Dataran Merdeka. If Najib and the police would really like to make an impact, they should raid people's homes and arrest, handcuff and detain all those people, including and especially Malays, who use newspapers with Najib's photographs to line their cat litter trays. Some do this with relish, because they claim, this is their own form of silent protest. Photos of Najib seem to attract all sorts of contempt. Not so long ago. It is alleged he had to arrest boys for throwing bricks at his pictures on KTM trains. MP for Puchong, Gobind Singh Deo, had already said that stepping on photographs of the prime minister and his wife is not sedition. Najib and his wife are not rulers, nor are they the government. Najib is merely a government servant. In May, NGO and social activist Irene Fernandez was charged with sedition. A Jakarta daily reported that she had claimed Malaysia was unsafe for migrant workers. Curbing free speech In June, the Sedition Act was used by the Johor police to investigate the former Perak mentri besar, Nizar Jamaluddin for his comments on the Sultan of Johore's purchase of the car registration number plate, WWW1. The number plate had cost the Sultan RM500,000 and Nizar opined that the money could be put to a better use, such as helping the poor. Kosmo, an Utusan publication which printed two cartoons on the controversy, escaped censure. "Why the double standard in only charging me whereas no action has been taken against Kosmo for the same offence? Is it because Kosmo is an Umno paper whereas I am a Pakatan leader?" asked Nizar. At the time, Azmi Sharom, a law lecturer at the Universiti Malaya (UM) also criticised the use of the Sedition Act 1948, to prosecute individuals. "The underlying theme is the government is using all these powers to curb dissent against the government, to curb criticism of the government. "What they are doing to Nizar is very clearly to suppress his right to free speech, his opinion. This is obviously a bad law… It is bad faith on their part. If they think something is bad, then don't use it. Get it fixed first," said Azmi. Signs of desperation Najib and his administration lack original ideas to push through reforms. They have failed to act on their promises. What happened to the National Harmony Act which Najib promised last June, to replace the Sedition Act? Malaysia now has an opposition which is strongest and the most credible party to take on the BN government.
|
| Constitutional posers for GE13 Posted: 06 Sep 2012 04:03 PM PDT
Once Parliament is dissolved, a general election need not be held immediately. The Constitution permits a delay of 60 days from the date of dissolution. Dr Shad Saleem Faruqi, The Star A GENERAL election may be around the corner. So we need to brush up on our knowledge of the constitutional principles relating to elections. No fixed term: Under Article 55(3) of our Constitution, the life of Parliament is stated to be five years from the date of its first meeting. As that date was April 28, 2008, the existing Parliament will automatically dissolve when the sun rises on April 28, 2013. However, it is constitutionally permissible for the Prime Minister to advise the Yang di-Pertuan Agong to dissolve Parliament before the expiry of its term and thereby to give himself the advantage of choosing the most favourable time for the electoral contest. This is in contrast with many Commonwealth countries including Britain which have enacted laws to have fixed term legislatures. Malaysia may wish to emulate this wholesome practice. Early dissolution: Though the King is a constitutional monarch required to act on advice, in the matter of early dissolution, he has been explicitly vested by Article 40(2)(b) with a discretion to accept or reject his PM's counsel. Conventionally, however, he always obliges though in exceptional circumstances he may not do so. Elections: Once Parliament is dissolved, a general election need not be held immediately. Article 55(4) of the Constitution permits a delay of 60 days from the date of dissolution. This means that contrary to popular expectations of early polls, the next election can be held as late as the last part of June 2013! One must note, however, that the timing is not for the PM to determine. The nomination date, the date of polling and the campaign period are in the hands of the Election Commission, which must act with independence and impartiality. The present law permits a campaign period of no less than seven days though news has it that for the next election, the EC will permit 10 days. Interim period: Between the dissolution of one Parliament and the convening of the next, who steers the ship of state? The Constitution is gloriously silent on this important issue. For this reason, the British constitutional convention is adopted that the incumbent PM who called the election continues to remain in office in a caretaker capacity. Powers of the caretaker PM: Leadership during interim periods poses problems of democratic legitimacy for the caretaker government. This is due to the fact that once Parliament is dissolved, the PM ceases to satisfy the twin requirements of Article 43(2). These requirements are that the PM must belong to the House of Representatives and he must in the judgment of the King command the confidence of the majority of the members of the House. As the House ceases to exist, the legitimacy rug is pulled from under the PM's feet. For this reason there is worldwide debate about the need to impose clear curbs on the powers of interim governments. In Australia, a Caretaker Convention has been drafted to outline that the proper role of such a government is to be a night watchman, to hold the fort, not to initiate radical policies, not to dismiss or appoint new judges or undertake significant economic initiatives. In India, the President has on several occasions vetoed caretaker governments' measures because exercise of such powers may embarrass the government to be formed. In the Malaysian case of PP v Mohd Amin Mohd Razali (2002) the court held that Article 40(1), which requires the monarch to act on advice, is not applicable if the advice is rendered by a caretaker government during the dissolution of Parliament. Hung Parliament: If no single party or coalition emerges with an absolute (50% + 1) parliamentary majority, the new legislature will be referred to as a hung Parliament. Such parliaments exist and function throughout the world but have never made an appearance in Malaysia at the federal level. Commentators are deeply divided about their demerits or merits. Appointment of PM: Whatever one's views on hung parliaments may be, it has to be conceded that they create massive problems for the Head of State on a number of issues, among them the critical one of who is to be trusted with the mantle of leadership. Several competing considerations are available. First is the incumbency rule. If no one secures an absolute majority, the caretaker PM must be given the first chance to form the government. Second, in Nepal there is a constitutional rule that in a hung Parliament, the first bite of the cherry must be offered to the leader of the largest party. Third, if a viable coalition or a unity government can be hammered out, it should get the chance to lead the nation. Fourth, if no coalition can be cobbled together, the Head of State should appoint a "minority government" that is capable of obtaining ad hoc support to pass the budget and other critical measures. If the defeated PM asks the King for an immediate "double dissolution", should His Majesty consent? It is submitted that Article 55(4) requires that after one dissolution the new parliament must be convened within 120 days. The proper course of action would be for Parliament to meet, a vote of no-confidence to be taken and then only the House dissolved for a new election unless an alternative government can be put in place. Caretaker's tenure: If the ruling party fails at the general election, must the caretaker PM who took the country to the poll resign immediately? In England Gordon Brown refused to step down till he had (unsuccessfully) exhausted efforts to form the government. If the caretaker PM refuses to step down, can the King dismiss him? If the formation of a unity or coalition government takes a long time, must the defeated Prime Minster re-main in office till a new PM is appointed? Most amazingly, Belgium went 535 days with a caretaker government because the new government took time to be pieced together. The permutations of politics are many and more than any other aspect of a nation's political life, general elections throw up issues that test our wisdom to the fullest. > Dr Shad Saleem Faruqi is Emeritus Professor of Law at UiTM
|
| Posted: 06 Sep 2012 03:59 PM PDT
An anti-hopping law would give party leaders even more power over MPs, who already cannot muster the courage to disobey the party whip if they believe that a Bill is not in the interests of their constituents. Tunku 'Abidin Muhriz, The Star MANY commentators with whom I generally agree on measures to improve our country seem to have been hoodwinked into supporting a popular anti-democratic move, namely the banning of party hopping by members of parliament and state legislators. I opposed this in a political philosophy essay I wrote at university in 2002, I opposed it in my column in 2008 and I oppose it now. The whole campaign is based on two flawed assumptions. The first is that Malaysians vote for political parties, not for individuals. This is legally untrue (our Federal Constitution refers to "individuals" elected to the Dewan Rakyat and the "individual" to be appointed Prime Minister, but never to "political parties"), but even those who understand this important distinction claim that "Malaysians vote for parties by default", which has not been scientifically verified (I suspect most Malaysians give consideration to both the party's manifesto and the candidate's background and record). If it turns out that Malaysians do in fact vote for the party rather than the candidate, they should campaign for a law to be passed to make this a legal reality, but until then, it is dangerous to fix a perceived problem based on unverified claims. The second assumption is that whenever an instance of party hopping occurs, it is the candidate who is at fault, rather than the party. Well, let us imagine that I vote for Puan Thavamani of the Feline Front because she campaigns (in accordance with the party manifesto) to ban dogs from public roads. She wins the election, but months later there is an internal party struggle. The leader is replaced, and he reverses the party policy: dogs will now be allowed to roam free everywhere. I am furious, because I supported the candidate based on this manifesto pledge. If YB Thavamani now supports canine freedom on public roads, she would be violating the trust I placed in her. At the very least, I would expect her to defy her party whip in relevant parliamentary votes. But let us imagine that party policy changes in other areas too, and it is clear that the manifesto is being disregarded to the extent that a different political party, the Cats Pact, better reflects the manifesto I supported. I would most definitely support YB Thavamani hopping from Feline Front to Cats Pact better fight for the causes that I supported. Clearly, if a no party-hopping law was in force, she could not do that. More flexible commentators agree that she should be able to hop, but must resign and re-contest. However, apart from the costs involved, this would also be a breach of my trust – I voted expecting her to serve for a full term. Furthermore, it is possible that the new result could be less democratically legitimate if the by-election has a lower turnout than at the general election (perhaps my critics will then support the undemocratic idea of compulsory voting). My detractors will say that my analogy does not apply in Malaysia, where the reality is that inducements are made to successful candidates to switch loyalties for pure political power play rather than ideological differences. Even then, there is a better way to deal with unprincipled party hopping than to attempt to ban it: namely, to democratise the political parties. At the moment, it is easy for Party Leader A to buy a candidate's support from Party Leader B because in both parties it is the party leader who decides who gets to be a candidate and where: the loyalty goes upwards. But if Party B were to instead have candidates elected by local party grassroots or even all voters in a constituency (like in US primaries), it would be much more difficult for Party Leader A to buy any support: the candidate would feel loyalty downwards, to a much larger base of people. Naturally, none of our party leaders from both sides of the divide are supporting such a scheme because they all want to hold on to the enormous powers of patronage they currently enjoy. Indeed, an anti-hopping law would give party leaders even more power over MPs, who already cannot muster the courage to disobey the party whip if they believe that a Bill is not in the interests of their constituents! So, while I certainly sympathise with those who are disgusted by unprincipled politicians, I believe that banning party hopping will not deal with the root causes. Rather, we should seek more democracy within political parties, more transparency on political party funding and more media freedom. These will help ensure that in future, any candidate who wishes to switch allegiance will better have a damn good reason to do so. > Tunku 'Abidin Muhriz is president of IDEAS
|
| Hudud not for a secular country, says Karpal Posted: 06 Sep 2012 03:45 PM PDT
(NST) - DAP chairman Karpal Singh has dismissed the suggestion by DAP Socialist Youth chief Anthony Loke that non-Muslims should not fear the hudud law. "As far as DAP is concerned, our stand against hudud has been absolute. "You can't have two legal systems in criminal law. If you bring in Islamic law, we will have complications," he said, when asked to comment on Loke's statement on the matter, which was reported yesterday. Loke was quoted as saying that if one was not involved in crime, then they do not have to worry about the implementation of hudud. Karpal said it was not a question of worrying over the implementation of hudud with regard to non-Muslims, but the fact it is inconsistent with the Constitution. "We have to go by the set up of the country as reflected in the Federal Constitution. You can't have hudud law in a secular state," he said, adding that hudud could only be applied in a country that was truly Islamic, such as Saudi Arabia. Meanwhile, MCA leaders strongly objected to Loke's statement that MCA had cast Islam and hudud in a negative light. MCA Publicity Bureau deputy chairman Loh Seng Kok said for Loke to issue such a statement showed that DAP was actually hiding the fact that they were "idolising Pas leaders", especially those who had been steadfast in their stand on hudud. He added that the opposition's common stand on Islamic law should instead be highlighted in their Buku Jingga and should not remain in a "grey area". "For MCA members, we are against hudud because we cannot allow the country to have two sets of laws. "It's our duty to highlight to the community that if we have one set of laws for Muslims and another for non-Muslims, it will surely create havoc later on," he said. Loh said imposing different punishments for the same crime may result in grievances. MCA Youth vice-chairman Yit Lee Kok said MCA's stand was not to discourage others from Islam, but to advise the public that non-Muslims would be affected should the Islamic law be implemented. Loke was quoted yesterday as saying that MCA had portrayed an extremist image of Islam by its stand on hudud. |
| Posted: 06 Sep 2012 03:31 PM PDT
Culture and courtesy are under attack by youthful ignorance IGNORANCE is far too often the cause of much unnecessary grief among young people and their hapless parents. The barely adult, rebels without causes and spoiling for one in a peaceful and prosperous country like Malaysia, are easy targets for less-than-responsible politicians. That some supporters of the so-called "Janji Demokrasi" gathering on the eve of Merdeka Day were reported to the police for public displays of offensive behaviour that could lead to a public disturbance suggests that many have no real sense of the importance of constructs intended as embodiments of national sovereignty and identity -- an insult to which is punishable by law. National emblems fall within this category, and all nations go to great lengths to cherish and protect them.The National Emblems (Control of Display) Act 1949 defines a national emblem as "any flag, banner or other emblem... of any state... or any likeness or resemblance however reproduced of any national leader or former national leader of any state or the leader or former leader of... political organisation(s)". What the act does is to regulate and safeguard the public use of these emblems. Though the punishment of offenders is not severe, its writ is large and includes the power of arrest without warrant. A reasonable cause to believe that an offence under the act is being committed can be considered evidence enough. Unfortunately, how many of our compatriots know this? To many, a flag is more decoration than symbol of national dignity. This is borne out by the many faded and tattered Jalur Gemilang left to litter public spaces. But this casualness is different from the dishonour of replacing or equating the national pennant with something else. The insult alleged to have happened at the same gathering to pictures of the prime minister and his wife is also demonstrative of the infantile nature of political discourse in the country. After all, we do not wish any of us to be so profaned, so why would we wish it on our leaders? Since the 2008 general election, Malaysians have been treated to astonishing spectacles of incivility. Politicians have been happily photographed stepping on the posters of their foes. Such immaturity cannot be a good thing given that politics consists of the serious business of deciding what is best for the greater good. Every voter must participate and party manifestos, speeches and door-to-door campaigning are the given methods of persuasion. Why then this recent rush to offensive and sometimes violent expressions of protest? Why this sudden descent to barbarism? This is not how Malaysians should conduct their politics and exercise their democratic rights. |
| Sodomy II appeal: Case management fixed for Nov 23 Posted: 06 Sep 2012 02:30 PM PDT
(Bernama) - The prosecution's appeal against Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim's acquittal on a charge of sodomising his former aide Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan is fixed for further case management on November 23. Court of Appeal deputy registrar N. Kanageswari fixed the date after the case came up for case management before her today. She fixed another date for case management as the notes of evidence were incomplete and thus the records of appeal were also not complete. Anwar's counsel Ram Karpal Singh said both the prosecution and defence required time to go through a CD of the recordings of the trial proceedings before the hearing date is fixed. On January 9 this year, the Kuala Lumpur High Court acquitted Anwar of sodomising Mohd Saiful, 26, at a Desa Damansara condominium unit in Bukit Damansara here between 3.10pm and 4.30pm on June 26, 2008. Anwar, 65, was charged under section 377B of the Penal Code, which carries a jail sentence of up to 20 years and whipping, upon conviction. On January 20, the prosecution subsequently filed a notice of appeal against the opposition leader's acquittal. On July 9, the prosecution filed its petition of appeal which contained nine grounds. The 80-page written judgment by High Court judge Datuk Mohamad Zabidin Mohd Diah reveals there was penile penetration but it was uncorroborated by other evidence. He said the court could not be 100 per cent certain on the integrity of samples taken for DNA testing from Mohd Saiful as the samples could have been compromised before they reached the chemistry department for analysis.
|
| Ministry to summon German Ambassador over Suaram funding Posted: 06 Sep 2012 02:17 PM PDT
(The Star) - The Foreign Ministry will summon the German Ambassador to Malaysia for clarification on the involvement of the German Embassy in Kuala Lumpur in providing funds to Suaram. Foreign Minister Datuk Seri Anifah Aman said in a statement that the embassy's action could be viewed as interference in the domestic affairs of a sovereign state. "Malaysia takes exception to the embassy in funding an NGO that is known to have a certain political agenda. "Foreign embassies have to be mindful of the sensitivities of the host country in general and the way good relations are conducted and maintained," he said in a statement. The embassy had two days ago admitted to funding a Suaram project, and maintained that it supported Suaram as a human rights organisation "without any political background". Suaram faced allegations of misused funds and questions over its NGO status after initial findings by the Companies Commission of Malaysia had revealed "highly suspicious" transactions between trading company Suara Inisiatif Sdn Bhd and Suaram.
|
| ‘Anwar not ready to commit in Sabah’ Posted: 06 Sep 2012 01:56 PM PDT A forum aimed at getting key opposition leaders to publicly commit to a one-to-one fight with Barisan Nasional in Sabah has been cancelled. Queville To, FMT KOTA KINABALU: Demokrasi Sabah's (Desah) bid to get all four main political party leaders in the opposition to publicly commit to a "one-to-one" fight in the coming parliamentary election came to nought after Pakatan Rakyat leader Anwar Ibrahim failed to respond to their invitation. Desah, a Sabah-based political pressure group, was forced to cancel a public forum scheduled for today because of Anwar. Desah deputy chairman Ronnie Klassen said DAP national adviser Lim Kit Siang had informed them he was unable to join them due to a prior commitments but Anwar had not bothered to respond to their invitation. He said an official invitation was extended to Lim through DAP Seputeh MP Teresa Kok, during her visit here last month. A similar invitation was also extended to Anwar during his recent visit to Kota Marudu to talk at the forum. "We assume he [Anwar] has his reasons; nonetheless, we have not received any confirmation or news from him," he told reporters here. Both Lim and Anwar were set to be "key speakers" at the forum aimed chiefly at getting the four key opposition leaders – Anwar, Lim, Sabah Progressive Party (SAPP) leader Yong Teck Lee and Jeffrey Kitingan, the chairman of Sabah STAR – to publicly commit to the people's wish of seeing straight fights with Barisan Nasional in the coming general election. "It is extremely regretful that Desah has to call off the forum due to circumstances beyond our control. "But we will continue to play this facilitator role to ensure a one-to-one contest between the opposition and the BN in this coming general election. "Our role is to ensure that history does not repeat itself like what happened in the last general election when Pakatan went against each other, and benefited BN in the end," Klassen said. 'Leaders not ready to commit' Meanwhile, Desah chairman Simon Sipaun, who was also present at the press conference, said the absence of the two Pakatan leaders had made the forum redundant. "We want to see, if possible, DAP and SAPP come to an understanding not to fight against one another for their own interest.
|
| Swiss govt ready to freeze Musa’s accounts Posted: 06 Sep 2012 01:53 PM PDT However, this could only happen if Malaysia were to submit legal-assistance requests to Switzerland. (FMT) - The Swiss government has indicated its "readiness" to freeze the "illicit assets" of politically exposed Malaysian leaders if Malaysia submits legal asistance requests to its government. According to Switzerland, the nation's federal constitution empowers the Swiss government (known as the Federal Council) to freeze assets of politically exposed persons in Switzerland. "Such a freeze usually happens with a view to entering into legal-assistance relations with the countries of origin," it said in an official statement which was released by a Swiss-based NGO Bruno Manser Fund (BMF) today. The statement came days after the announcement by Switzerland's Attorney-General that it had opened a criminal case against Swiss bank UBS on grounds of the bank's suspected laundering of US$90 million on behalf of Sabah Chief Minister Musa Aman. The statement was a written response to questions submitted last May by Swiss social democrat MP, Carlo Sommaruga. In the official reply, the Swiss Federal Council declared its readiness to freeze illicit assets of politically exposed persons from Malaysia, namely Musa and Sarawak Chief Minister Taib Mahmud. Both Musa and Taib have been accused of amassing unexplainable amount of wealth while helming their respective states. Of the two, Taib allegedly has a worse track record which BMF and online investigative portal Sarawak Report have actively exposed. But in declaring its willingness to act, the Swiss government noted that this could only happen if Malaysia were to submit legal-assistance requests to Switzerland. "Switzerland has hitherto not been requested by Malaysia to provide legal assistance. "Should such a request come from Malaysia, then Switzerland would provide the legal assistance if the legal prerequisites are met and if there are no grounds for exclusion. The request would have to be first examined by the Federal Office of Justice. "At the moment, such a situation does not exist in the case of Malaysia," the official statement said. Swiss-aided HK probe Musa and his UBS accounts have been the focus of parallel investigations in Singapore, Malaysia, Hong Kong and Switzerland for alleged money laundering running into hundreds of millions dollars. The investigations have taken its toll on UBS's other alliances.
|
| ‘Anwar, rakyat Sabah tidak menyokong kamu’ Posted: 06 Sep 2012 01:50 PM PDT Timbalan Ketua Umno Semporna, Datuk Nasir Sakaran berkata, majoriti rakyat Sabah menyokong Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak. Muda Mohd. Noor, FMT Seorang pemimpin BN Sabah mengingatkan Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim dan Pakatan Rakyat supaya menjauhkan dari negeri itu kerana rakyat negeri di bawah bayu menolak mereka. Timbalan Ketua Umno Semporna, Datuk Nasir Sakaran berkata, maJoriti rakyat Sabah menyokong Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak. Katanya, tindakan lompat parti Datuk Seri Lajim Ukin dan Datuk Wilfred Bumburing tidak memberi sebarang kesan kepada BN. "Mereka berdua sudah biasa lompat parti jadi rakyat Sabah kini sedang menilai. "Rakyat tertanya-tanya adakah pemimpin seperti yang mereka mahu," katanya ketika diminta mengulas perkembangan politik terbaru di negeri itu. Sabah kini menjadi simpanan tetap BN sejak Umno melebarkan sayap di negeri itu pada tahun 2004. Anwar dan pemimpin pembangkang lain berulang kali mengatakan penguasaan BN akan berakhir dalam PRU ke 13. Nasir berkata, usaha pihak tertentu menghidupkan semula bagi merancakkan lagi politik Sabah menjelang pilihan raya umum tidak akan berjaya. 'Ungkit kisah lama' Nasir berkata, sebahagian besar pemimpin dan ahli Usno telah menyertai Umno.
|
| STAR first political party to sign TI pledge Posted: 06 Sep 2012 01:46 PM PDT Twenty-five potential Sabah STAR election candidates have signed an integrity pledge by Transparency International. Luke Rintod, FMT KOTA KINABALU: Transparency International (TI) has praised the State Reform Party (STAR) for being the first political party in Malaysia to sign an "integrity pledge" to be honourable and incorruptible at the coming general election. TI-Malaysia president, Paul Low Seng Kuan, said he was happy that STAR has come forward as a group and signed the pledge at its first convention here today, ahead of a crucial general election, due by April next year. "It is an important step taken to strengthen societal trust in our politicians and our democracy and governance. We must fight corruption as corruption has failed nations," he said. STAR led by its founder, Patau Rubis, president Dripin Sakoi and Sabah chairman Jeffrey Kitingan jointly led a group of 25 Sabah STAR leaders in the pledge at the end of the one-day convention at Star City convention hall here. Then the group led by Jeffrey read aloud their pledge in Malay before Low and the more than 2,000 delegates including scores from Sarawak, especially from Lawas, Mambong and Mas Gading areas. By doing so, Sabah STAR also revealed its likely candidates in at least 25 parliamentary and state constituencies, as those who were selected to sign the integrity oath are front-running candidates. Some of them recently resigned from their jobs including a few teachers. Among the 25 identified were STAR Sabah deputies, Awang Ahmad Sah Awang Sahari, Daniel John Jambun, and Dr Nicholas James Guntobon as well as senior members Baharudin Nayan, Edward Linggu, Rubin Guribah, Maklin Masiau, Dr Felix Chong, Phillip Among, Hasmin Azroy Abdullah, Melanie Annol, Marunsai Dawai, Suwah Bulleh, Fedrin Tuliang, James Ait, Edward Podok and Alex Sintin. But Sabah STAR secretary, Guandee Kohoi, when contacted, clarified that those who were selected to sign the TI integrity pledge today were not automatically candidates.
|
| Judiciary has failed the rakyat Posted: 06 Sep 2012 01:42 PM PDT Will the judiciary take all the blame if both Nor Afizal and Chuah were to commit more rapes? Jeswan Kaur, FMT It's confirmed that the two judicial experts who found statutory rape of two minors a non-issue need help in understanding what rape is – or else they will go on delivering reproachful judgments in favour of rapists. On Aug 28, Sessions Court judge Nisa Abdul Aziz released a 22-year-old electrician Chuah Guan Jiu on "good behaviour" after he was convicted of raping his then 12-year-old girlfriend twice last year. Chuah was instead bound over for three years on a RM25,000 good behaviour bond. He had committed the crime at his flat in Jalan Ru 1, Air Itam on July 18 and 19. The offence under Section 376(1) of the Penal Code carries a jail sentence of up to 20 years' jail and whipping. But Nisa decided that since the sexual act was consensual between Chuah and the victim and that he had not tricked her into the act, no "rape" had taken place. Nisa made the perpetrator's future her priority, not the fact that he had tricked his minor partner into having sex with him; the facts of the case stated that Chuah had persuaded the victim to skip school and follow him to his home, which then led to the offence being committed. So the judge thought best that Chuah be bound over for three years on a RM25,000 good behaviour bond. A shame that the judge failed to understand the psyche of a rapist who not once but twice raped his schoolgoing girlfriend. Worse still, Nisa made the probation report her "bible" in stating that Chuah did not have a prior criminal record and was a Form Two school drop-out. What is even more shocking is that Nisa, like her predecessor, Court of Appeal president Raus Shariff, displayed her ignorance on what constitutes statutory rape and that Malaysia is a signatory to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) 2009. According to the Committee on the Rights of the Child – Implementation Handbook for the CRC, a girl under the age of 18 is a minor and is not in a position to give informed consent. The second-highest ranking judge in the country, Raus had opted to show concern for perpetrator Noor Afizal Azizan's "bright future" in setting aside the five-year jail term imposed on the national bowler by the Malacca High Court, and instead binding him over for good behaviour. Nor Afizal, then 19, was charged with raping his 13-year-old girlfriend at a hotel in 2010. A tragedy that Nisa and Raus have not only failed to uphold justice but they have also downplayed the crime of statutory rape, claiming, on the contrary, that consensual sex between a minor and an adult is "permissible" under the law. Nightmare for the parents By siding with the rapists, both Nisa and Raus have decided that the welfare of the rape survivors is none of their business and that irrespective of their ages, rape survivors are "party" to rape. When Raus's judgment created a public uproar, all he did in trying to clarify his decision was to say that despite being let off on a personal bond of RM25,000 for good behaviour, public interest had been served as Nor Afizal had been convicted and the offence recorded. Raus' clarification comes as a nightmare to the parents of the young girls. What do we make of such senarios – a rapist is allowed to roam about freely simply because the judge was impressed with his "credentials" or because the rapist is too young to do jail time? Are Raus and Nisa willing to take all the blame if both Nor Afizal and Chuah were to commit more rapes?
|
| Malaysia's UMNO goes after a critic Posted: 06 Sep 2012 09:55 AM PDT
(Asia Sentinel) - Never mind 150 million euros in bribes, a dead woman and a global scandal, go for the whistle-blower's throat In November of 2009, Suaram, the Kuala Lumpur-based human rights NGO, asked a French investigative law firm to look into what appeared to be huge bribes and kickbacks paid to Malaysian politicians by the French state-owned defense company DCN and its subsidiaries for the 2002 purchase of two submarines and the lease of a third. Read more at: http://www.asiasentinel.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=4800&Itemid=178
|
| 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