Khamis, 23 Mei 2013

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

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

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News


Time and place decides what’s fair

Posted: 22 May 2013 08:30 PM PDT

For all intents and purposes, this article is a purely academic exercise to discuss the issue of fair or fairness. I have attached the issue of election boundaries (in the addendum below) merely as the emphasis in discussing this issue. The point I wish to make, however, is that if you subscribe to the doctrine of relativity (a state of dependence in which the existence or significance of one entity is solely dependent on that of another), then everything is open to interpretation and subject to time and place plus dependent on whom you are.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Before I start let me warn you that this is going to be a cheong hei article so if you are one of those who are incapable of reading more than one page I would suggest you just skip this article and read something else.

First of all, before any of you jump up and down and scream that I am anti-reform, let me caution you that I am one of the early birds who was clamouring not only for electoral reforms but for political reforms as well -- under which would include electoral reforms.

And I have already openly declared that I joined the Liberal Democrat party because of this desire to see not just electoral reforms but political reforms here in the UK as well, a country that is now my home and where I will eventually be buried when I die in a few years time (hopefully more than 10 years more).

For all intents and purposes, this article is a purely academic exercise to discuss the issue of fair or fairness. I have attached the issue of election boundaries (in the addendum below) merely as the emphasis in discussing this issue. The point I wish to make, however, is that if you subscribe to the doctrine of relativity (a state of dependence in which the existence or significance of one entity is solely dependent on that of another), then everything is open to interpretation and subject to time and place plus dependent on whom you are.

When we look at something we always use the yardstick of where we stand and when that time may be to measure that thing we are looking at. What may be fair at one time and in another place may no longer be fair today in the place where we live. Hence nothing is constant and the only constant thing is change -- an oxymoron of sorts. (If it changes then it is not constant, is it not?)

Let us take voting as one example. In some countries in the past, only the landowners and the elite were allowed to vote (the serfs and landless could not vote). That meant roughly only 20% of the population could vote. In some countries only the whites and/or only the males could vote. 'Blacks' and women were not allowed to vote.

By today's standards that would be most unfair. In those days, though, and in those countries concerned, there was nothing unfair about that. That was the law and the law must be obeyed. Whether this is 'rule of law' or 'rule by law' is another matter for another discussion (just like Malaysia's Sedition Act issue).

Okay, that was in the past. Let us talk about today and let us talk about Malaysia.

In the UK, anyone who resides in the country can vote (as long as you have a UK address). Since you reside in the country, whatever happens in the UK affects you -- so you can vote. Hence even Malaysian students who hold Malaysian passports and are Malaysian citizens can vote in the British elections -- as long as you are old enough.

Malaysia, however, does not allow this. And if you are not a Malaysian citizen and you vote then you would be regarded as a 'phantom voter'. Is this fair (to regard non-citizens as phantom voters)? In the UK it is not fair. But in Malaysia this is fair.

Now, if British citizens can go to Malaysia and are allowed entry into the country without the need of a visa then, to reciprocate, Malaysian citizens can also enter the UK without the need of a visa. However, while Malaysian citizens can vote in the UK, British citizens cannot vote in Malaysia. Is this reciprocating and hence is this fair?

Let's, say, a British citizen votes in Malaysia. What will happen to him or her? Absolutely nothing -- other than getting beaten up by the Pakatan Rakyat supporters, of course. But what will happen if a Malaysian citizen votes in the UK? Well, he or she can lose his/her Malaysian citizenship. Is this fair? It is fair in Malaysia but not in the UK.

In 1969, the voting age in the UK was reduced from 21 to 18. And that is why foreign students can vote since most are above 18 anyway. In Malaysia, the voting age is still 21. But you can drive a car at 18 plus you can also get married at that age. So, we trust 18-year-olds to drive a car and get married but we do not trust them to vote? Is this fair?

Up to 1969 it was fair in the UK. Today, however, it is no longer fair. In Malaysia, though, it is still fair. Hence the interpretation of 'fair' changes over time and over place. In 1969, I was only 18 and could not vote in the 10th May 1969 'historic' general election in Malaysia. But I would have been able to vote in the UK had I gone there to study instead of choosing the life of a hippie in Malaysia. 

So, in reviewing our electoral system, we need to redefine what is fair and hence we need to consider a total overhaul of the system to keep up with the changes in the world. Children of 13 were still considered children back in the time of Merdeka. Children of 13, today, are more exposed to the world and have become more mature partly due to cable TV and the Internet. Children of 13, say, 500 years ago, already went to war and got married and by 30 were considered too old (not many lived beyond 50 anyway in those days).

Hence, the issue of the age of maturity plus the voting age itself needs to be reconsidered and probably changed to keep up with 'world norms'. Even how we look at 16-year-olds changed from 1813 to 1913 to 2013.

Are 18-year-olds old enough and mature enough to be entrusted with the ballot paper? If they are old enough to be sent to jail or to be sent to the gallows then they should be old enough to be allowed to vote.

But what will happen if 18-year old Malaysians are allowed to vote? Well, that would mean Barisan Nasional is finished because then most likely the opposition would garner 60% of the popular vote and if this happens then no amount of fraud or gerrymandering can make any difference. You can only cheat up to a certain extent, mainly in borderline cases. If the swing is too massive, to the level of a Tsunami, then even cheating cannot help any longer.

So the government has to very carefully look into all these issues in the expected re-delineation exercise, which may be conducted soon. However, what is the priority of the Election Commission (SPR)? Malaysia practices the first-past-the-post system. How do we incorporate the one-man-one-vote system into that system? That is the billion-dollar question. And, again, the issue of 'fair' needs to be carefully considered.

But then I have just explained that fair or fairness is relative. It all depends on who you are and what era you live in and in which region you are living. The interpretation of fair changes from time-to-time and from place-to-place and from person-to-person as well. So how do we establish 'fair'? And who will be the one establishing what is fair?

Okay, you may argue that the ones establishing this yardstick of 'fair' must be the majority. But what if what the majority wants is not fair to the minority? Do we then ignore the rights of the minority because we must comply to majority-rule? What if in that particular society the majority happens to be Shia Muslims and the minority are Sunni Muslims? Can the majority Shias pass a law that persecutes the minority Sunnis? Do the minority Sunnis not also have rights?

Say, the majority Shias decide that Sunni Islam is not Islam and Sunnis are heretics who should be put to death. The Sunni Books of Hadith are banned and anyone found in possession of the Sunni Books of Hadith will be arrested and sent to jail.

But Sunni Islam is far larger than Shia Islam. There are an estimated 80-90% Sunnis compared to only 10-20% Shias in the world. In Malaysia, Malaysians who follow Shia Islam are arrested and jailed (unless you are a foreigner). So is it fair that the 'majority' Shias who are actually the minority worldwide pass such laws even though in that particular country they may be the majority?

So, can you see that the issue of majority-rule itself can be disputed because, yet again, it is subject to who you are and where you happen to live at that time and what era you happen to be living in?

Okay, back to Malaysia's election system, what would Barisan Nasional consider fair? Fair to Barisan Nasional is whatever it is that can keep them in power. What about Pakatan Rakyat? To Pakatan Rakyat, fair is whatever it is that can kick out Barisan Nasional.

Hence, to start off, both Barisan Nasional and Pakatan Rakyat have different interpretations of fair. So how do we come to a consensus on what is fair? If we go by the majority in Parliament then Barisan Nasional has 133 votes compared to Pakatan Rakyat's 89. So, if majority rules, then Barisan Nasional wins.

You may argue that Barisan Nasional may have 133 seats in Parliament but then they won these 133 seats with less than 50% of the votes. Okay, but is Malaysia's election based on votes or based on seats? Undoubtedly it is based on seats and not votes. And if on seats then Barisan Nasional will win the shouting match.

The bottom line is: both Barisan Nasional and Pakatan Rakyat have two different interpretations of fair and have different priorities in the re-delineation exercise. So there is no way they can meet in the middle. One has to lose while the other will win. The question is: which one will lose and which one will win?

In the meantime, be prepared for a long-drawn shouting match and probably even more street demonstrations before this issue is going to be resolved. And at the end of it all, one party is going to benefit and another is going to be frustrated. And the whole reason for this is because the present system is not perfect. Any system that can be manipulated and exploited cannot be perfect.

Is the solution, therefore, to look for another system?

Yes, something to mull over and sleep on, don't you think so?

Nevertheless, treat this piece of mine as merely an academic exercise to discuss the issue of what is fair. 

*************************************

PSC recommended fairer election system, DAP rep reminds BN, EC

Clara Chooi, The Malaysian Insider

Barisan Nasional (BN) was reminded today of recommendations approved last year by Parliament to improve the country's current electoral system and for the coming redrawing of boundaries to ensure fair weightage is given to every vote. 

DAP election strategist Dr Ong Kian Ming mocked BN leaders Datuk Seri Ahmad Zahid Hamidi and Datuk Seri Noh Omar for criticising those who dared to challenge the alleged unfairness of the current system, pointing out that their own colleagues had made the recommendations as members of the Parliamentary Select Committee for electoral reform.

The recommendations, tabled in the Lower House on April 2 last year, included a call on the Election Commission (EC) to use a "fair and equitable" formula when determining the number of voters in one constituency, after taking note of the proposal to follow the "one-man, one-vote, one-value" principle.

The bipartisan PSC also took note of the proposal to improve the country's current use of the simple majority or first-past-the-post system by considering a more proportionate system of representation for elections.

Ong (picture), the newly-elected MP for Serdang, told both Ahmad Zahid and Noh to take a week-long study leave abroad to better understand how other countries practising the same simple majority "first-past-the-post" system adhere to the "one-man, one-vote, one-value" principle in the drawing of their electoral boundaries.

"If the home minister (Ahmad Zahid) and the MP for Tanjong Karang (Noh) are too busy... I would be more than happy to sit down with them for a one-hour briefing to show them how other democratic countries using the first-past-the-post system redraw their boundary lines in order to reduce the disparity in the number of voters per seat," Ong said.

He explained that if constituencies are fairly delineated, any party or coalition that wins the vote majority in any first-past-the-post system should win the majority of seats contested.

But in the just-concluded Election 2013, the ruling BN government emerged victors again by snapping up 133 seats or 60 per cent of the 222 federal seats to Pakatan Rakyat's (PR) 89 seats, despite losing the popular vote when it garnered only 48 per cent of votes cast to PR's 51 per cent.

The outcome triggered the string of "Black 505" protests nationwide as indignant opposition leaders and voters rallied against BN's return to power despite failing to win the majority number of votes cast.

Responding to the protests, Ahmad Zahid sparked an uproar when he wrote in Umno-owned daily Utusan Malaysia that Malaysians should accept PR's failure to win federal power in Malaysia's first-past-the-post system, saying those unwilling to accept the system could live elsewhere.

In a separate remark, Noh had said that those who do not like Malaysia's electoral system to go "live in the jungle".

Ong accused the home minister of failing to remember that prior to Malaysia's independence, the maximum rural weightage given to votes had been two to one which, he said, effectively means that the largest constituency can only have twice as many voters as the smallest constituency.

"Instead, what we have now in Malaysia is a 'bastardized' form of the first-past-the-post electoral system where the largest constituency — P109 Kapar (144,369 voters in GE13) — has nine times the number of voters of the smallest constituency — P126 Putrajaya (15,798 voters in GE13)," he said.

"Indeed, if the home minister had done his research, he would have realised that the United Kingdom passed a Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act in 2011 which specified that the maximum deviation in the number of voters per constituency can only be 5 per cent," he added.

In Australia, which uses the Alternative Vote (AV) in Single Member Constituencies, Ong said the maximum deviation in the number of voters per constituency is 10 per cent.

"However, there is an additional, stricter rule which requires the Australian Election Commission to project the number of voters per constituency 3½ years after a re-delineation exercise.

"This rule allows for a maximum of a 3.5 per cent deviation. The strict rules observed in Australia results in the one-man-one-vote principle being observed," he said.

For example, Ong said the largest constituency in Australia in terms of geographical area is Durack in Western Australia with 88,177 voters when the last redelineation exercise was conducted in 2008.

Durack's land size, he said, is 1,587,758 square kilometres, which is almost five times the size of Malaysia.

The smallest constituency, he said, is the constituency of Wentworth in New South Wales, Sydney, with 98,979 in 2009 when the last redelineation exercise was conducted.

Wentworth covers approximately 30 square kilometres which is about the size of Ipoh Barat, Ong added.

"The rural-urban weightage in Australia is 1.12. In other words, the number of voters in the smallest urban constituency is only 112 per cent the number of voters in the largest rural constituency.

"If Australia, given its large geographic area, can follow the one-man-one-vote principle, there is no reason why Malaysia cannot follow suit," he said.

The EC is expected to kick off the re-delineation exercise at the end of this year, shortly after all election petitions for the May 5 polls are heard.

 

The Sedition Act (1948)

Posted: 22 May 2013 04:46 PM PDT

The Sedition Act started life as the 1351 English Statute of Treasons. Hence sedition is closely associated with treason. In the 1500s, King Henry VIII broke away from Rome and established the Church of England with him and not the Pope in Rome as the head of the church and God's representative on earth. This was, of course, heavily opposed and criticised by the Catholics and this was when the sedition law was heavily used. Those found guilty of sedition were put to death or at the very least imprisoned with their ears cut off.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

As I write this, thus far student activist Adam Adli has been arrested (and charged plus is now out on bail) for sedition and, today, Haris Ibrahim, Tian Chua and Tamrin Tun Ghafar (ex-Umno MP and ex-MARA Chairman) have also been picked up. I expect Hishamuddin Rais (who spent 20 years in political exile in Manchester) and Cikgu Bard (Badrul Hisham Shahrin) to be added to that list very soon plus probably a few more, Anwar Ibrahim included.

Maybe we shall be seeing a repeat of the 'Reformasi 10' roundup that we saw in April 2001. In April 2001 the arrests were under the detention without trial Internal Security Act. This time it is under the Sedition Act, which means they will be given a trial.

But why the Sedition Act and what is so 'special' about this law? 

The Sedition Act started life as the 1351 English Statute of Treasons. Hence sedition is closely associated with treason. In the 1500s, King Henry VIII broke away from Rome and established the Church of England with him and not the Pope in Rome as the head of the church and God's representative on earth. This was, of course, heavily opposed and criticised by the Catholics and this was when the sedition law was heavily used. Those found guilty of sedition were put to death or at the very least imprisoned with their ears cut off.

When Queen Mary I took over in July 1553, she restored Roman Catholicism and had over 300 Protestant religious dissenters burned at the stake over five years in the Marian persecutions. In November 1558, Mary's younger sister, Elizabeth took over as Queen Elizabeth I and she restored Protestantism and did to the Catholics what Mary did to the Protestants.

Then England saw its first Civil War in 1640, a power struggle between King Charles I and Parliament. There were many reasons for this conflict but amongst the key factors was religion. Charles was viewed as 'Catholic-friendly' (his wife and mother were both Catholics) while the majority of the Parliamentarians were Puritans who viewed Catholics as heretics and deviants.

Charles I was toppled and executed in 1649 and for 11 years England was ruled as a Republic until Charles II, his son, took the throne in 1660. And that's when the sedition law was formalised as the Sedition Act (1661) -- to put down any further ideas of turning England into a Republic or of restoring Roman Catholicism. In fact, 100 years earlier, Elizabeth I had already got Parliament to pass a law that forbids a Catholic from sitting on the throne of England. Hence to even talk about it is a crime and punishable by death.

And then the British came to the Malay states. In 1824, the British and Dutch exchanged Bencoolen in Sumatra with Melaka. Earlier, in 1786, the British took Penang and then Singapore in 1819. In 1941, the British lost Malaya to the Japanese, and when the Japanese surrendered at the end of World War II, the British returned to Malaya and created the Malayan Union, which was opposed by the Malays and triggered the formation of Umno. Due to this strong opposition, in 1948, the British abandoned the Malayan Union and created the Federation of Malaya or Persekutuan Tanah Melayu.

Nevertheless, while the nationalist Malays (in particular those in Umno) accepted this, the more radical Malays plus the Socialists and Communists opposed it. To stifle this dissent, the British introduced the Sedition Act (1948) and those opposed to the British and to the formation of the Federation of Malaya took to the jungles to continue their opposition as an armed struggle.

And that is the history of the Sedition Act. It started life as a weapon to clamp down on and punish those aligned to Rome and those who criticised the English Monarch. It was then 'exported' to Malaya as a weapon to clamp down on and punish those who opposed the British and the Federation of Malaya.

Now it is a weapon used to stifle dissent or act against those who 'violently' oppose the results of the general election or, like in my case, those who criticise and 'bring hatred' to the wife of the Deputy Prime Minister of Malaysia (now wife of the Prime Minister, of course).

**************************************************

The Sedition Act (1661)

The Sedition Act 1661 was an Act of the Parliament of England, although it was extended to Scotland only in 1708. Passed shortly after the Restoration of Charles II to the throne of England (after 11 years as a Republic), it is no longer in force (abolished on 1st January 2010), but some of its provisions continue to survive today in the Treason Act 1695 and the Treason Felony Act 1848. One clause which was included in the Treason Act 1695 was later adapted for the United States Constitution (US Sedition Act 1798 and repealed in 1920).

**************************************************

The Sedition Act (1948)

In 1948, the British colonial government of Malaya enacted the Sedition Act to combat the Communist insurgency. Amendments were made through an Emergency Ordinance 1971, not long after the May 13 riots of 1969, to criminalise any questioning on Part III (on citizenship), Article 152 (on national language), Article 153 (on the special positions of the Malays and the rights of other races) and Article 181 (the Rulers' sovereignty) of the Federal Constitution.

The Act has a very wide definition of 'sedition' and places many limitations on freedom of expression, particularly regarding supposedly sensitive political issues -- and this legal uncertainty very much favours the prosecutor. It also means that what is seditious is not just a legal but also a political issue.

A 'seditious tendency' is defined in section 3 as follows:

1. To bring into hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection against any Ruler or government.

2. To seek alteration other than by lawful means of any matter by law established.

3. To bring hatred or contempt to the administration of justice in the country.

4. To raise discontent or disaffection amongst the subjects.

5. To promote ill will and hostility between races or classes.

6. To question the provisions of the Constitution dealing with language, citizenship, the special privileges of the Malays and of the natives of Sabah and Sarawak and the sovereignty of the Rulers.

http://cijmalaysia.org/miniportal/2010/09/the-sedition-act-1948/

**************************************************

Sedition Act (1948) cannot be challenged

(NST, 25 June 2012) - The Sedition Act 1948 is constitutional and its validity cannot be challenged.

The Federal Court today ruled that the act is a good Act in dismissing an appeal by lawyer P. Uthayakumar (HINDRAF) against the decision of the Court of Appeal on Feb this year, which had rejected Uthayakumar's application to declare the Sedition Act unconstitutional.

Uthayakumar, 49, a former Internal Security Act detainee, was charged in the Kuala Lumpur Sessions Court on Dec 11, 2007, with publishing a seditious letter on the "Police Watch Malaysia" website, dated Nov 15, 2007, addressed to then prime minister of Britain Gordon Brown.

He made the declaratory application (to declare the Sedition Act unconstitutional), in a bid to have the charge against him under the act to be revoked.

 

Kredit: www.malaysia-today.net

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News

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

Malaysia Today - Your Source of Independent News


At Pakatan thanksgiving rally, leaders give hope for change

Posted: 23 May 2013 12:41 PM PDT

Meena Lakshana, fz.com

Amidst a crackdown on political dissent, Pakatan Rakyat leaders implored about 4,000 people gathered at the field opposite Amcorp Mall to keep their hopes for a better Malaysia alive.

In a passionate speech last night, PKR vice-president and Lembah Pantai MP Nurul Izzah Anwar said Malaysians should not fear the crackdown on political dissent and keep fighting for change.
 
"If they (Barisan Nasional) think they can kill our dreams, hope and aspirations, they better think again," she said at the Pakatan Rakyat appreciation dinner for the people of Selangor.
 
"We will show what good governance and moral principle is all about. We shall prevail and overcome this. We will conquer a racist and corrupt government.
 
"Do not lose hope. Do not be afraid, because the real people who should be afraid are the cowards in Putrajaya," she added.
 
Sedition Act
 
She was referring to the arrest of Anything But Umno (ABU) chief Haris Ibrahim, PKR vice-president Tian Chua and PAS' Datuk Tamrin Ghafar Baba.
 
All three individuals will be detained at the Jinjang police station overnight for investigation under Section 4(1)(c) of the Sedition Act and Section 124 of the Penal Code.
 
They are believed to be held for remarks made at the May 13 forum, the same event which also featured student activist Adam Adli Abdul Halim.
 
Adam Adli was charged with sedition in the Duta High Court yesterday.
 
Tamrin was scheduled to open the thanksgiving rally with his speech but instead, a video of Tamrin speaking at a ceramah in Taman Nusantara, Johor, on April 29, during the 13th general election campaign trail was shown to attendees.
 
"Tunku Abdul Rahman had written in his column in The Star two years before he died that the May 13 1969 crisis was a mini-coup staged by several Umno leaders," Tamrin said in the video.
 
More arrest warrants
 
Nurul Izzah said she had received news that 27 more arrest warrants will be issued for opposition leaders in the near future.
 
She said Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Abdul Razak had reneged his promise to repeal the Sedition Act 1948, which he had announced in July last year.
 
Najib had said the government would table a National Harmony Act in place of the Sedition Act.
 
Earlier, DAP adviser Lim Kit Siang said he was rejuvenated by the young generation of Malaysians who are so eager to see a change in the government of the day during the 13th general election.
 
"This is about the politics of the future against the politics of the past – a 56-year past defined by racism, corruption and cronyism," he said, adding he will be launching a Malaysian Dream Movement campaign soon.
 
Lim said the authorities are seeking to question him over a prediction about BN's performance in the 13th general election.
 
However, he also hit out at the police for practising double standards in apprehending individuals who had made contentious statements.
 
"I understand BN is looking for me because I said BN will lose in the 13th general election," he said.
 
"But I was merely quoting reports conducted by the (Malaysian government intelligence agency) Special Branch that Pakatan will win 148 seats but I also said I do not think it is true.
 
"When former (Appeals Court) judge Mohd Noor Abdullah had said those very racial statements, which was so irresponsible, incendiary and fiery, did the police question him?" he added.
 
Lim also said Malaysians have the right to be unhappy with the country's electoral system and criticised Home Minister Datuk Seri Ahmad Zahid Hamidi for saying Malaysians who are unhappy with the country's political system should emigrate to other republic countries.
 
"If Zahid Hamidi is not happy with the people's view, then he should emigrate," said Lim to uproarious claps.
 
Redelineation exercise
 
DAP publicity chief and Petaling Jaya Utara MP Tony Pua, who received a standing ovation for his speech, called on Najib to set up a Parliamentary Select Committee to ensure a fair redelineation exercise is conducted by the Election Commission (EC) in the upcoming Parliament sitting on June 24.
 
"The committee must have an equal number of Pakatan and BN leaders to determine the boundaries of the constituencies," he said.
 
"We will fight tooth and nail to make sure the redelineation exercise is fair," he added.
 
The opposition and civil society have criticised gerrymandering, the manipulation of boundaries of constituencies, as the main weakness of the electoral system.
 
Pua said the unfair delineation of constituencies was a great disadvantage to the opposition, which failed to take over Putrajaya despite securing 52% of the popular vote.
 
"Our constituencies are delineated in a way that we (Pakatan) won't win Putrajaya even if we get 55% of the popular vote," he said.
 
"A study conducted revealed Pakatan can only take over Putrajaya if we win 58% of the popular vote," he added.
 
He also criticised the Najib and Umno organ Utusan Malaysia for fanning racial sentiments by attributing BN's poor performance in the May 5 polls on a "Chinese tsunami".
 
He said Pakatan's strong mandate in Selangor was contributed by people of all races, as mirrored by DAP's win in Sungai Pelek and Kuala Kubu Baru, both of which have only about 30% Chinese voters, respectively.
 
"I want to tell Utusan Melayu, the Chinese don't want anything. The Chinese only want a free and fair election. The Chinese only want all races to be treated equally," he said.
 
"The Chinese do not hate the Malays, they only want aid to be given to the poor and not BN cronies," he added.
 
He also rapped Minister in the Prime Minister's Department Paul Low for his statements regarding tackling corruption in the government, saying so far the minister had failed to safeguard the people's hope in him to implement concrete solutions towards stemming graft.
 
Other leaders who spoke at the gathering include Parti Kesejahteraan Insan Tanah Air (Kita) founder Datuk Zaid Ibrahim, Sungai Pinang DAP assembly member Datuk Teng Chang Khim, Selangor DAP chief Teresa Kok, and PAS Selangor deputy commissioner III (and Shah Alam MP) Khalid Samad.

 

Pope to 'intolerant' Catholics: Good atheists exist

Posted: 23 May 2013 11:33 AM PDT

http://static.rappler.com/images/pope-washing-feet-20130329-4.jpg

(Rappler) - 'OPEN' CHURCH. Pope Francis kisses the feet of prisoners, including a Muslim, in this year's Holy Thursday service. 

Having blasted a self-centered Catholic Church, Pope Francis on Wednesday, May 22, criticized "intolerant" believers who think, "If he is not one of us, he cannot do good."

The Pope said all human beings, whom God created, "have this commandment at heart: do good and do not do evil." He stressed this applies to "all of us."

"'But Father, this is not Catholic! He cannot do good.' Yes, he can. He must. Not can: must! Because he has this commandment within him," Francis said in Wednesday's homily at the Domus Santae Martae, his modest papal residence.

The Pope, who has consistently urged the Church to "come out of herself," said intolerance will do the Church no good.

"Instead, this 'closing off' that imagines that those outside, everyone, cannot do good is a wall that leads to war and also to what some people throughout history have conceived of: killing in the name of God. And that, simply, is blasphemy. To say that you can kill in the name of God is blasphemy."

'Let's meet'

Despite differences between believers and non-believers, he said their common denominator is doing good. He said the commandment to uphold goodness is a "beautiful path towards peace."

"If we, each doing our own part, if we do good to others, if we meet there, doing good, and we go slowly, gently, little by little, we will make that culture of encounter: we need that so much. We must meet one another doing good," Francis said.

He continued, with an atheist's possible response in mind: "'But I don't believe, Father, I am an atheist!' But do good: we will meet one another there."

Read more at: http://www.rappler.com/world/29788-pope-atheists-good 

Protestors Make Their Voice Heard At Hydro-Power Conference

Posted: 23 May 2013 11:30 AM PDT

http://www.sarawakreport.org/site/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/saveriversIHAprotest12-650x365.jpg 

The US$1,700 entrance fee to Taib's showcase dam building conference, which opened at the Borneo Convention Centre today, is well beyond the means of all the poor folk who stand to be affected by his catastrophic plans to swamp Sarawak.

Sarawak Report 

However, they gathered in protest outside and made their voices heard and their presence felt anyway.

Taib had made provision for a group of selected stooges from Murum and elsewhere to be allowed inside the conference to give an impression of native support.

However, at least 300 demonstrators had made their way to Kuching to protest outside and they claim that it is they who represent the majority of their people and they demanded to know why they too have not been allowed representatives to attend the International Hydropower Conference?

 

Baram's contested seat

Thanks to today's protest International delegates from the dam building industry can no longer be in any doubt that if they get involved in SCORE they are betraying the 'Sustainability Protocol' they claim to uphold.

This Protocol requires proper information for and consent from native communities affected by dams; proper environmental assessments and an overall consensus that there is no sensible alternative to a dam being built.

None of this has been achieved with any of Sarawak's dams so far, including the Murum Dam now completing construction.

To the contrary, Taib's extraordinary SCORE programme is being pushed through against massive native opposition and with no justification other than that the Chief Minister reckons it is a pretty fine way to get even richer than he already is.

http://www.sarawakreport.org/site/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/saveriversIHAprotest09-650x365.jpg 

Richard Taylor, the Executive Director of the International Hydropower Association comes out to say he is 'listening' 

The dispute over the results in the Baram seat at the recent election is also a heightened embarrassment.

Taib will want to tell delegates that he won this seat and that this shows the popularity of his projects.  However, everyone in Malaysia knows Baram is the most disputed of the marginal seats that are now coming under scrutiny for blatant rigging earlier this month.

Usual intimidation by riot police, but the occasion passed off peacefully

This rigging concern comes on top of the existing gerrymandering and the refusal to enfranchise well over half the population in key areas and also after the outrageous bribery of impoverished voters.

Despite such disadvantages and the iron control of the media and all government employees by BN, the Baram count was first won by the opposition candidate Roland Engan.

Engan had fought his anti-dam focused campaign against the huge power and wealth of BN in this enormous seat, where government types travel by helicopter while the rest struggle about in longboats or on useless state roads.

But after the initial declaration in favour of Engan, the far too familiar scenario of lights going out in counting centres and disputed counts set in.  Eventually, lo and behold, when the lights came on and the 'confusion' cleared, Engan was judged by BN's tame Election Commission to have lost Baram after all, by Malaysia's slenderest majority of 198 votes!

Baram is one of the key seats that is due to be contested by PR in court and the full details of this particular scandal and of Taib's overall handling of elections in his rural seats will come under scrutiny then.

Read more at: http://www.sarawakreport.org/2013/05/protestors-make-their-voice-heard-at-hydro-power-conference/ 

Malaysian Man Accused Of Rape Marries 13-Year-Old Victim; Attorney General Vows To Pursue Charges

Posted: 23 May 2013 11:13 AM PDT

Dz-RnaDRPo0 

(Huffington Post) - This man has given a platform for other men to act (rape) and then get away with it (marry the victim). 

Or watch at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dz-RnaDRPo0 

In an unfortunate turn of events in a Malaysian rape case, a 40-year-old man accused of rape has married the teenage victim.

Riduan Masmud was charged with raping a 13-year-old girl last February. On Monday, his counsel Loretto Padua revealed to the court that Masmud is now married to the young girl he was accused of assaulting. As The Daily Express notes, Padua had previously told the court that Masmud was in the process of seeking a lawful marriage to the teen in Syariah Court -- a separate court system that has jurisdiction over matters pertaining to Islamic law.

While the prosecution must make a decision by June 6 on whether to pursue the statutory rape charge in light of the news, on Wednesday, Malaysian Attorney General Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail vowed to press on in the case, Ntv7 News reports.

Malaysia's Ministry of Women, Family and Community Development is also advocating that Masmud be prosecuted. Minister Datuk Rohani Abdul Karim told Bernama, Malaysia's national news agency, the ministry is concerned that Masmud's action may set an example by providing an escape route in cases of statutory rape.

"In order to protect public interest and prevent such incidents, the Ministry urges that the man be charged under Section 376 of the Penal Code in the Sessions Court or Section 80 of the Sabah Syariah Offences Enactment 1995 in the Syariah Court for having sex outside of marriage," she told the news agency.

The rape, which allegedly took place in a parked car in Sabah around 10 a.m. on Feb. 18, was not brought to light until the 13-year-old's aunt filed a police report. Masmud, who has four children with his first wife, was charged with the crime 10 days later; however the teen later withdrew her report of rape on April 18, The Star reports.

Masmud, for his part, is defending the marriage. Outside the courtroom Monday, he explained to reporters that the marriage was consensual.

"There are many cases of men marrying underage girls. I do not see why my case should be any different," the man said, according to The Star.

Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/22/malaysian-man-rape-marries-victim_n_3321086.html?ncid=edlinkusaolp00000003 

Unsung Heroes of GE13

Posted: 23 May 2013 11:02 AM PDT

http://img542.imageshack.us/img542/8308/67177891.jpg 

There is no doubt in my mind that with the highly questionable way Barisan Nasional has won this election and subsequent divisive statements by Najib, his ministers, and UMNO loyalists, and the unjust crackdowns on Adam Adli, Haris Ibrahim, Tian Chua and Tamrin Ghafar, we can expect to see even more citizens rising up to play a direct and active role in the political process of this country. 

Thomas Fann 

The 13th General Election is over and the result showed that majority of Malaysians wanted to "Ubah", that is, to see change. Many who have worked hard for it are disappointed with the outcome but we realise that we must move on and prepare ourselves for GE14.

We salute the tireless efforts of politicians and civil society leaders at the forefront of this push for change. Many of them travelled the length and breadth of this country, keeping an insane schedule for the past few months just to make themselves heard at the hundreds of ceramahs or rallies across this nation. It was almost a superhuman effort. Though they have lost the battle to take Putrajaya this time, they are still heroes of this struggle for a better Malaysia.

But this struggle is not theirs alone. Throughout these last few years and especially in the last few months in the run-up to the 5th of May, it has been my absolute privilege to have served together and to have known ordinary Malaysians from all walks of life who shares a common passion for this country. To me they are no less heroic in their efforts and their sacrifices are no less significant. I want to sing the praises of some of these unsung heroes of GE13.

  • Felicia is a Malaysian who has lived in Singapore for many years, never registered and never voted before. Just after Parliament was dissolved and election called, she checked her voting status at the SPR's website and found herself registered not only as a voter but as an advance voter in Putrajaya. Not wanting anyone to cast her vote on her behalf, on 28th April, the day advance voters were supposed to vote, she got into her car very early in the morning and drove the 340km from Singapore to Putrajaya to cast her vote by 9am and then turned around and head back to Singapore.

  • I met Boon at the campaign office of a candidate. He has volunteered himself to help out with some of the administrative stuff there and we got talking. I found out that Boon and his family have been living in the UK for many years but have keenly followed the political developments of Malaysia and decided to fly home with his wife to cast their votes, for the very first time.

There were probably thousands of folks just like Felicia and Boon, Malaysians who live and work overseas who came back to vote. Some thoughtless individuals might have considered these overseas Malaysians unpatriotic but I challenge them to find me more committed people than these, who came home at great personal expense to cast their one vote. For them it was more than a vote but a stake in the future of this country, a country they love.

  • When the call went out for volunteers to serve as polling and counting agents, literally tens of thousands of Malaysians came forward to be trained and deployed on Polling Day to do their part for a clean and fair election. Many came out with no expectation of payment and if they received any allowances for their services, they donated back these allowances. Money cannot buy such people and they can't be bought, they are priceless.

  • Thanks to the news of foreigners being flown in to vote in our election, thousands of citizens came forward to volunteer as election observers or as "ghostbusters", standing guard under hot sun or rain outside polling stations. At several of the polling stations I visited that day, I saw between 30-50 residents standing outside their own polling stations until polling ended and for some, they followed the ballot boxes all the way to the main counting centres. All this they did on their own accord without anyone telling them what to do.

  • Ariff and his friends were one of those who stood guard outside a main counting centre. At around 10.30pm they saw a taxi bringing in additional ballot carriers with a uniformed but unnumbered policeman in it. They stopped the taxi and challenged the legality of such last minute additional ballots. The taxi turned around and sped off with them in pursuit by foot.

  • In the early hours of May the 5th, a factory manager in Johor found out from his HR manager that 100 of his foreign workers were not turning up to work. They told the HR manager that their agent was coming to fetch them to collect ICs so that they could vote. The factory manager rushed to the police station to make a report and with the report he managed to stop the workers from voting. But he didn't stop there. He made copies of the police report and pass it to as many election observers as he could find so that they would be on the lookout for foreign voters. A true patriot!

  • Ben and his wife went to cast their votes early and decided to stay back to help those who were queuing up to check their salurans (channels) number. They told those who already knew their numbers to go straight to join the queue at the saluran so as to save some time. But their efforts to help were not appreciated by the SPR officer-in-charge who insisted that all must check for their salurans before queuing again to vote. They were ordered to leave but they remained outside the school gate to continue assisting those coming to vote till the end of polling at 5pm.

  • I know of a young man whose life was miraculously saved from the burning wreckage of his car seconds before it exploded on 8th April. He was hospitalised for more than 3 weeks and still suffered serious spinal injuries when polling day came. He insisted on casting his vote and was wheeled from the hospital to the polling station to cast his vote for change. A life spared, a vote counted.

Read more at: http://thomasfann.wordpress.com/2013/05/24/the-unsung-heroes-of-ge13/ 

 

Open Letter to those BN elected Members of Parliament with integrity and conscience

Posted: 23 May 2013 10:56 AM PDT

https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiIjqr_r706oxuuicI20C2oJaKoZDx_Y2Rob1fQA4rDrpimeheg9ChBYPcqhlFvI2NDVlIt-hoxrWKkXMgSHLDbLdf4Ptlzk66kMZwR6u_r_VGPLyl7wcFHFlumReKaxB7oW3bVjJMssPpg/s400/images+(3).jpg 

Get your party to withdraw from BN coalition and stay independent if you are not comfortable to join Pakatan Rakyat. Or if withdrawing party is not possible, then go independent as an individual. 

Richard Loh 

Dear Yang Berhomat Ahli ahli Parliament Barisan National, 

It is with much regret to go against my principle to call for your reconsideration in remaining with your coalition party, Barisan National. 

There must be a very good reason, at times, to go against one's principle for the sake of the people and nation. 

Before going into the reasoning in suggesting that you reconsider your position to remain with Barisan National let me asked a few questions in reminding you what and who you are. 

1) What is your purpose to be an elected Member of Parliament? 

2) Is high position (being a minister) and power solely or one of your motive to be an elected Member of Parliament? 

3) Have the deterioration of racial harmony and religious intolerance caught your attention? 

4) What is your priority being an elected Member of Parliament, party first or people/nation first? 

5) Can you see what is happening right now with BN especially umno? 

By answering the above questions truthfully you will know what position you are in right now. 

You can see clearly the different rhetoric perpetuated pre 505 and post 505. Pre 505 rhetoric are favoring the rakyat with tonnes of money flowing freely and unrealistic promises to garner votes. Post 505 after failing to attract the voters to its side the tone set is completely the opposite using the race card to the tilt. 

Yes, BN won 133 seats to enable it to form the federal government and with Najib swearing in with haste as the Prime Minister. Pakatan Rakyat is challenging the result claiming that they are being cheated off the win. They have every right to do so with their evidences to prove it. If you are a Malaysian living long enough in this nation you will be able to conclude what will be the outcome, but, today we are not talking about Pakatan Rakyat. Let them do what is right according to the "law" hoping that judgement will be free, fair and conducted without fear or favor. 

The clarion call for GE 13 is to change the federal government to kick start a two party system that will enable any new federal government to rule together with the rakyat and not act arrogantly, corrupt and being racist. The popular vote has shown this is what the rakyat wanted but due to many obstacles being put in place in the election system the results gave the incumbent the 133 seats to stay in power. 

Pre 505, umno bn leaders including the caretaker PM, Najib, have claimed that voters need not have to change the federal government cause umno bn can change themselves if voted in. Many have seen through this lie and the popular votes proved it. Umno bn did win the GE 13 but what are we seeing now post GE 13? They have indeed changed, not for the better but even worst.

Read more at: http://ousel.blogspot.com/2013/05/open-letter-to-those-bn-elected-members.html 

KL police: We don't tolerate candlelight vigils

Posted: 23 May 2013 10:54 AM PDT

http://www.fz.com/sites/default/files/styles/1_landscape_slider_photo/public/adam-adli-vigil_1.jpg 

(fz.com) - KL police chief Mohmad Salleh warns that candlelight vigils - such as the one (pix) for student activist Adam Adli - will no longer be tolerated.

Kuala Lumpur police today warned that they will not hesitate to arrest those who take part in candlelight vigils for detainees. 

KL police chief Datuk Mohmad Salleh issued the warning when explaining the arrest of 18 people during a candlelight vigil for student activist Adam Adli outside the Jinjang police station last night.
 
He said the 18 were arrested because the event was "unlawful". 
 
"As police we cannot tolerate (the vigil), as it will only cause agitation among the public in the surrounding area," he told reporters at the KL police headquarters. 
 
Those detained would be brought to court, he said, adding that police will let the courts determine if they were guilty or not. 
 
"Taking to the streets is not the solution. Let the courts resolve it," said Mohamad. 
 
"We seek the public's cooperation. We are merely implementing laws which have been passed in parliament by lawmakers. It's simple," he added.
 
Claiming that the majority of Malaysians were against such gatherings, Mohamad said if there were more protest rallies, the police were prepared to face the situation. 

Read more at: http://www.fz.com/content/kl-police-we-dont-tolerate-candlelight-vigils#ixzz2UAfabM2e

 

Opposition Figures Are Detained in Malaysia

Posted: 23 May 2013 10:51 AM PDT

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BK8hjNhCQAAB-Zo.jpg:large 

(New York Times) - The Malaysian government began a crackdown on political opponents on Thursday, arresting three government critics, including a prominent member of Parliament, and charging a student activist with sedition.

The arrests come two and a half weeks after elections that showed the governing party, which has been in power since independence from Britain in 1957, losing support from broad portions of the electorate.

The crackdown may be an attempt to pre-empt a demonstration planned for Saturday to protest accusations of fraud in the election, analysts said.

The opposition, which is led by a former deputy prime minister, Anwar Ibrahim, won the popular vote in the May 5 election but failed to take control of Parliament because of a lopsided electoral system that gives a stronger voice to rural areas, where the governing party is strongest.

Mr. Anwar says the election victory was fraudulent and has been leading rallies across the country since the election results were announced; the demonstration on Saturday is being organized by a coalition of several dozen civic organizations.

The member of Parliament arrested on Thursday, Tian Chua, is Mr. Anwar's deputy in a multicultural party that is challenging the dominance of the single-race United Malays National Organization.

Mr. Chua, who won re-election to Parliament May 5, posted on Twitter as he was being arrested Thursday, "No dictators could ever repress the rise of people's power." He said a police officer told him that he was being charged with sedition.

The two other people arrested are Haris Ibrahim, who leads an antigovernment group, and Tamrin Ghafar, the son of a former deputy prime minister who is a member of an Islamic party that is allied with Mr. Anwar. In addition, Adam Adli, the student activist, was charged with sedition on Thursday and released.

The Malaysian government, which has begun numerous crackdowns against dissidents during its decades in power, issued a statement late Thursday calling the arrests "a matter for the police."

"The detentions came after the police received numerous reports against the defendants by members of the public," the statement said. "In such circumstances the police are required to investigate and are following due and proper process."

Read more at: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/24/world/asia/malaysian-opposition-figures-are-detained.html?_r=3& 

 

Malaysian Opposition face full force of the Sedition Act

Posted: 23 May 2013 10:47 AM PDT

http://www.keadilandaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Fadiah.jpg

They have used this archaic and draconian Sedition Act, even though the Prime Minister, the government has said before that they would repeal this act, because it's no longer relevant in the modern setting, but unfortunately, it's not repealed and they continue to use this draconian act to stifle dissent.

Sen Lam interviews Fadiah Nadwa at Radio Australia 

Listen at: http://www.radioaustralia.net.au/international/radio/program/asia-pacific/malaysian-opposition-face-full-force-of-the-sedition-act/1135426 

Malaysian authorities have arrested a high-profile Opposition politician and three others under the country's controversial Sedition Act.

Malaysian prime minister Najib Razak pledged last year to strengthen civil liberties, including possibly repealing the Sedition Act.

The law has been described as oppressive by critics, who say it's been invoked often in the past to silence dissent.

Human rights lawyer Fadiah Nadwa is representing one of the four men detained. She spoke to me from Kuala Lumpur.

Presenter: Sen Lam

Speaker: Fadiah Nadwa, lawyer representing student activist Adam Adli, one of four Malaysians charged with sedition

FADIAH: The four people are Tian Chua, the vice president of (opposition) Parti Keadilan Rakyat. The second person is Thamrin Ghafar, he's a PAS member (Parti Islam SeMalaysia), the Islamic party, PAS, and the third person is Haris Ibrahim, he's the chief of this movement called 'Anything But UMNO'. And the fourth person is Adam Adli and Adam has been charged this morning, and he has been released on bail. These four people are now in the Jinjang remand centre.

LAM: You represent Adam Adli, who was detained five days ago, but he's out on bail, is that right?

FADIAH: Yes, correct. Basically, they're just punishing him for speaking his mind and they have used this archaic and draconian Sedition Act, even though the Prime Minister, the government has said before that they would repeal this act, because it's no longer relevant in the modern setting, but unfortunately, it's not repealed and they continue to use this draconian act to stifle dissent. So Adam Adli has been detained for five days, after being arrested last Saturday - they (police) applied for a remand order from the magistrate, and the magistrate granted five-day remand against Adam Adli, and he was subjected to continuous interrogation even though he kept telling the police that they could have just referred to the video that contains his speech. They (the police) are just trying to send a message to the Malaysian people, Do not say something that's not favourable to the government, or else you'll be arrested and detained under the Sedition Act.

LAM: And Fadiah, can you tell us what is it exactly that Adam Adli had allegedly said that was considered so seditious?

FADIAH: Adam Adli basically called for the Malaysian people to go to the streets to protest against the fraud committed during the (May 5th) elections.

LAM: Tian Chua is of course the high-profile spokesman and also VP of the opposition Parti Keadilan. The opposition of course has been holding meetings about alleged electoral fraud - do you think Tian Chua's arrest might fuel emotions that're already running in Opposition ranks?

FADIAH: Yes, I believe so, because I think right now, after the elections, the government is obviously very insecure with how the Malaysian public is reacting to the allegations of fraud in the elections and how the Malaysian people are assembling to protest against the recent arrest of Adam Adli. The government is using the power that they have to tell the Malaysian public that they will do anything they can to stop the Malaysian public from expressing themselves, from protesting, from participating in peaceful assemblies and so on.

LAM: Prime Minister Najib prior to this month's elections, had vowed to strengthen civil liberties, including the possibility of getting rid of the Sedition Act. Do you think he's having second thoughts now?

FADIAH: I believe so, I think for political survival, the government knows that by having this (Sedition) Act, they can try to instil fear, because it's been used for so long. The Sedition Act is the legacy of the British and it has been used to stifle dissent. It's very, very clear that people who get arrested under the Sedition Act are people who're very vocal and critical of the government. So, this is a very powerful tool that is being used by the government, to stifle dissent, because the Sedition Act is very broad and wide. It can cover everything, and that's why it's being abused by the government, to stop people from speaking out.

LAM: One of the reasons the government had given for the need for the Sedition Act, was that it was relevant to multi-racial Malaysia, and there is a great need to keep racial harmony. You don't think the Sedition Act has a role or a place in Malaysian society?

FADIAH: No, I don't think that the Sedition Act is relevant. We can clearly compare this to the seditious statements issued by some people who're calling for racial hatred, racial violence, for example, recently. But no one was subjected to this Act. But when it comes to the Opposition, when it comes to the activists, the authorities are very fast to take action under the Sedition Act. So you can selective prosecution, and also how the government is not really serious in trying to build harmony and trying to deter racial hatred and also racial violence. So if they're very, very serious, they should repeal this Act and they should come up with new legislation that can deal with hate speech, for example, that can deal with racial violence, racial discrimination, in line with the international standard, International Covenant on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, in order to ensure that everyone has the civil and political rights. 

Time and place decides what’s fair

Posted: 22 May 2013 08:30 PM PDT

For all intents and purposes, this article is a purely academic exercise to discuss the issue of fair or fairness. I have attached the issue of election boundaries (in the addendum below) merely as the emphasis in discussing this issue. The point I wish to make, however, is that if you subscribe to the doctrine of relativity (a state of dependence in which the existence or significance of one entity is solely dependent on that of another), then everything is open to interpretation and subject to time and place plus dependent on whom you are.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Before I start let me warn you that this is going to be a cheong hei article so if you are one of those who are incapable of reading more than one page I would suggest you just skip this article and read something else.

First of all, before any of you jump up and down and scream that I am anti-reform, let me caution you that I am one of the early birds who was clamouring not only for electoral reforms but for political reforms as well -- under which would include electoral reforms.

And I have already openly declared that I joined the Liberal Democrat party because of this desire to see not just electoral reforms but political reforms here in the UK as well, a country that is now my home and where I will eventually be buried when I die in a few years time (hopefully more than 10 years more).

For all intents and purposes, this article is a purely academic exercise to discuss the issue of fair or fairness. I have attached the issue of election boundaries (in the addendum below) merely as the emphasis in discussing this issue. The point I wish to make, however, is that if you subscribe to the doctrine of relativity (a state of dependence in which the existence or significance of one entity is solely dependent on that of another), then everything is open to interpretation and subject to time and place plus dependent on whom you are.

When we look at something we always use the yardstick of where we stand and when that time may be to measure that thing we are looking at. What may be fair at one time and in another place may no longer be fair today in the place where we live. Hence nothing is constant and the only constant thing is change -- an oxymoron of sorts. (If it changes then it is not constant, is it not?)

Let us take voting as one example. In some countries in the past, only the landowners and the elite were allowed to vote (the serfs and landless could not vote). That meant roughly only 20% of the population could vote. In some countries only the whites and/or only the males could vote. 'Blacks' and women were not allowed to vote.

By today's standards that would be most unfair. In those days, though, and in those countries concerned, there was nothing unfair about that. That was the law and the law must be obeyed. Whether this is 'rule of law' or 'rule by law' is another matter for another discussion (just like Malaysia's Sedition Act issue).

Okay, that was in the past. Let us talk about today and let us talk about Malaysia.

In the UK, anyone who resides in the country can vote (as long as you have a UK address). Since you reside in the country, whatever happens in the UK affects you -- so you can vote. Hence even Malaysian students who hold Malaysian passports and are Malaysian citizens can vote in the British elections -- as long as you are old enough.

Malaysia, however, does not allow this. And if you are not a Malaysian citizen and you vote then you would be regarded as a 'phantom voter'. Is this fair (to regard non-citizens as phantom voters)? In the UK it is not fair. But in Malaysia this is fair.

Now, if British citizens can go to Malaysia and are allowed entry into the country without the need of a visa then, to reciprocate, Malaysian citizens can also enter the UK without the need of a visa. However, while Malaysian citizens can vote in the UK, British citizens cannot vote in Malaysia. Is this reciprocating and hence is this fair?

Let's, say, a British citizen votes in Malaysia. What will happen to him or her? Absolutely nothing -- other than getting beaten up by the Pakatan Rakyat supporters, of course. But what will happen if a Malaysian citizen votes in the UK? Well, he or she can lose his/her Malaysian citizenship. Is this fair? It is fair in Malaysia but not in the UK.

In 1969, the voting age in the UK was reduced from 21 to 18. And that is why foreign students can vote since most are above 18 anyway. In Malaysia, the voting age is still 21. But you can drive a car at 18 plus you can also get married at that age. So, we trust 18-year-olds to drive a car and get married but we do not trust them to vote? Is this fair?

Up to 1969 it was fair in the UK. Today, however, it is no longer fair. In Malaysia, though, it is still fair. Hence the interpretation of 'fair' changes over time and over place. In 1969, I was only 18 and could not vote in the 10th May 1969 'historic' general election in Malaysia. But I would have been able to vote in the UK had I gone there to study instead of choosing the life of a hippie in Malaysia. 

So, in reviewing our electoral system, we need to redefine what is fair and hence we need to consider a total overhaul of the system to keep up with the changes in the world. Children of 13 were still considered children back in the time of Merdeka. Children of 13, today, are more exposed to the world and have become more mature partly due to cable TV and the Internet. Children of 13, say, 500 years ago, already went to war and got married and by 30 were considered too old (not many lived beyond 50 anyway in those days).

Hence, the issue of the age of maturity plus the voting age itself needs to be reconsidered and probably changed to keep up with 'world norms'. Even how we look at 16-year-olds changed from 1813 to 1913 to 2013.

Are 18-year-olds old enough and mature enough to be entrusted with the ballot paper? If they are old enough to be sent to jail or to be sent to the gallows then they should be old enough to be allowed to vote.

But what will happen if 18-year old Malaysians are allowed to vote? Well, that would mean Barisan Nasional is finished because then most likely the opposition would garner 60% of the popular vote and if this happens then no amount of fraud or gerrymandering can make any difference. You can only cheat up to a certain extent, mainly in borderline cases. If the swing is too massive, to the level of a Tsunami, then even cheating cannot help any longer.

So the government has to very carefully look into all these issues in the expected re-delineation exercise, which may be conducted soon. However, what is the priority of the Election Commission (SPR)? Malaysia practices the first-past-the-post system. How do we incorporate the one-man-one-vote system into that system? That is the billion-dollar question. And, again, the issue of 'fair' needs to be carefully considered.

But then I have just explained that fair or fairness is relative. It all depends on who you are and what era you live in and in which region you are living. The interpretation of fair changes from time-to-time and from place-to-place and from person-to-person as well. So how do we establish 'fair'? And who will be the one establishing what is fair?

Okay, you may argue that the ones establishing this yardstick of 'fair' must be the majority. But what if what the majority wants is not fair to the minority? Do we then ignore the rights of the minority because we must comply to majority-rule? What if in that particular society the majority happens to be Shia Muslims and the minority are Sunni Muslims? Can the majority Shias pass a law that persecutes the minority Sunnis? Do the minority Sunnis not also have rights?

Say, the majority Shias decide that Sunni Islam is not Islam and Sunnis are heretics who should be put to death. The Sunni Books of Hadith are banned and anyone found in possession of the Sunni Books of Hadith will be arrested and sent to jail.

But Sunni Islam is far larger than Shia Islam. There are an estimated 80-90% Sunnis compared to only 10-20% Shias in the world. In Malaysia, Malaysians who follow Shia Islam are arrested and jailed (unless you are a foreigner). So is it fair that the 'majority' Shias who are actually the minority worldwide pass such laws even though in that particular country they may be the majority?

So, can you see that the issue of majority-rule itself can be disputed because, yet again, it is subject to who you are and where you happen to live at that time and what era you happen to be living in?

Okay, back to Malaysia's election system, what would Barisan Nasional consider fair? Fair to Barisan Nasional is whatever it is that can keep them in power. What about Pakatan Rakyat? To Pakatan Rakyat, fair is whatever it is that can kick out Barisan Nasional.

Hence, to start off, both Barisan Nasional and Pakatan Rakyat have different interpretations of fair. So how do we come to a consensus on what is fair? If we go by the majority in Parliament then Barisan Nasional has 133 votes compared to Pakatan Rakyat's 89. So, if majority rules, then Barisan Nasional wins.

You may argue that Barisan Nasional may have 133 seats in Parliament but then they won these 133 seats with less than 50% of the votes. Okay, but is Malaysia's election based on votes or based on seats? Undoubtedly it is based on seats and not votes. And if on seats then Barisan Nasional will win the shouting match.

The bottom line is: both Barisan Nasional and Pakatan Rakyat have two different interpretations of fair and have different priorities in the re-delineation exercise. So there is no way they can meet in the middle. One has to lose while the other will win. The question is: which one will lose and which one will win?

In the meantime, be prepared for a long-drawn shouting match and probably even more street demonstrations before this issue is going to be resolved. And at the end of it all, one party is going to benefit and another is going to be frustrated. And the whole reason for this is because the present system is not perfect. Any system that can be manipulated and exploited cannot be perfect.

Is the solution, therefore, to look for another system?

Yes, something to mull over and sleep on, don't you think so?

Nevertheless, treat this piece of mine as merely an academic exercise to discuss the issue of what is fair. 

*************************************

PSC recommended fairer election system, DAP rep reminds BN, EC

Clara Chooi, The Malaysian Insider

Barisan Nasional (BN) was reminded today of recommendations approved last year by Parliament to improve the country's current electoral system and for the coming redrawing of boundaries to ensure fair weightage is given to every vote. 

DAP election strategist Dr Ong Kian Ming mocked BN leaders Datuk Seri Ahmad Zahid Hamidi and Datuk Seri Noh Omar for criticising those who dared to challenge the alleged unfairness of the current system, pointing out that their own colleagues had made the recommendations as members of the Parliamentary Select Committee for electoral reform.

The recommendations, tabled in the Lower House on April 2 last year, included a call on the Election Commission (EC) to use a "fair and equitable" formula when determining the number of voters in one constituency, after taking note of the proposal to follow the "one-man, one-vote, one-value" principle.

The bipartisan PSC also took note of the proposal to improve the country's current use of the simple majority or first-past-the-post system by considering a more proportionate system of representation for elections.

Ong (picture), the newly-elected MP for Serdang, told both Ahmad Zahid and Noh to take a week-long study leave abroad to better understand how other countries practising the same simple majority "first-past-the-post" system adhere to the "one-man, one-vote, one-value" principle in the drawing of their electoral boundaries.

"If the home minister (Ahmad Zahid) and the MP for Tanjong Karang (Noh) are too busy... I would be more than happy to sit down with them for a one-hour briefing to show them how other democratic countries using the first-past-the-post system redraw their boundary lines in order to reduce the disparity in the number of voters per seat," Ong said.

He explained that if constituencies are fairly delineated, any party or coalition that wins the vote majority in any first-past-the-post system should win the majority of seats contested.

But in the just-concluded Election 2013, the ruling BN government emerged victors again by snapping up 133 seats or 60 per cent of the 222 federal seats to Pakatan Rakyat's (PR) 89 seats, despite losing the popular vote when it garnered only 48 per cent of votes cast to PR's 51 per cent.

The outcome triggered the string of "Black 505" protests nationwide as indignant opposition leaders and voters rallied against BN's return to power despite failing to win the majority number of votes cast.

Responding to the protests, Ahmad Zahid sparked an uproar when he wrote in Umno-owned daily Utusan Malaysia that Malaysians should accept PR's failure to win federal power in Malaysia's first-past-the-post system, saying those unwilling to accept the system could live elsewhere.

In a separate remark, Noh had said that those who do not like Malaysia's electoral system to go "live in the jungle".

Ong accused the home minister of failing to remember that prior to Malaysia's independence, the maximum rural weightage given to votes had been two to one which, he said, effectively means that the largest constituency can only have twice as many voters as the smallest constituency.

"Instead, what we have now in Malaysia is a 'bastardized' form of the first-past-the-post electoral system where the largest constituency — P109 Kapar (144,369 voters in GE13) — has nine times the number of voters of the smallest constituency — P126 Putrajaya (15,798 voters in GE13)," he said.

"Indeed, if the home minister had done his research, he would have realised that the United Kingdom passed a Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act in 2011 which specified that the maximum deviation in the number of voters per constituency can only be 5 per cent," he added.

In Australia, which uses the Alternative Vote (AV) in Single Member Constituencies, Ong said the maximum deviation in the number of voters per constituency is 10 per cent.

"However, there is an additional, stricter rule which requires the Australian Election Commission to project the number of voters per constituency 3½ years after a re-delineation exercise.

"This rule allows for a maximum of a 3.5 per cent deviation. The strict rules observed in Australia results in the one-man-one-vote principle being observed," he said.

For example, Ong said the largest constituency in Australia in terms of geographical area is Durack in Western Australia with 88,177 voters when the last redelineation exercise was conducted in 2008.

Durack's land size, he said, is 1,587,758 square kilometres, which is almost five times the size of Malaysia.

The smallest constituency, he said, is the constituency of Wentworth in New South Wales, Sydney, with 98,979 in 2009 when the last redelineation exercise was conducted.

Wentworth covers approximately 30 square kilometres which is about the size of Ipoh Barat, Ong added.

"The rural-urban weightage in Australia is 1.12. In other words, the number of voters in the smallest urban constituency is only 112 per cent the number of voters in the largest rural constituency.

"If Australia, given its large geographic area, can follow the one-man-one-vote principle, there is no reason why Malaysia cannot follow suit," he said.

The EC is expected to kick off the re-delineation exercise at the end of this year, shortly after all election petitions for the May 5 polls are heard.

 

Suara Keadilan turut dirampas

Posted: 22 May 2013 06:20 PM PDT

(Harakah Daily) - Selepas Harakah, kini akhbar lidah rasmi parti Keadilan Rakyat Suara Keadilan juga dilaporkan dirampas oleh Kementerian Dalam Negeri (KDN) di beberapa buah negeri sejak semalam.

Menurut Setiausaha Agung Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR) Saifuddin Nasution Ismail ribuan naskah akhbar Suara Keadilan telah dirampas dari kedai-kedai pembekal dan pengedar di seluruh negara.

Dalam tempoh 24 jam mulai semalam, katanya pegawai-pegawai KDN,  telah bertindak merampas dan mengancam untuk menangkap pembekal dan pengedar akhbar Suara Keadilan di beberapa tempat.

Katanya, di Ipoh Perak malam tadi, tujuh orang pegawai KDN telah menyerbu premis salah seorang pembekal Suara Keadilan dan merampas 214 naskah akhbar tersebut.

Jelasnya, pegawai-pegawai tersebut bagaimanapun enggan memberi sebarang bukti surat kuasa rampasan.

"Di Melaka pula, pada jam 10 pagi hari ini 70 naskah Suara KEADILAN telah dirampas dari seorang pengedar yang menurut beliau, pegawai-pegawai KDN hanya memberi alasan bahawa ia telah menyalahi Akta Mesin Cetak dan Penerbitan 1984," katanya.

Tambahnya, kejadian yang sama juga telah berlaku hari ini di Johor Bahru, Johor, Seremban, Bangi dan juga di Kota Bharu, Kelantan.

"Kita menjangkakan bahawa tindakan kasar, zalim dan sangat tidak demokratik ini akan berterusan, seperti yang dilihat dalam penangkapan beberapa tokoh dan aktivis pembangkang seperti  Nik Nazmi Nik Ahmad, Adam Adli, Tian Chua, Haris Ibrahim dan  Tamrin Ghafar dan 18 orang aktivis lain yang menunjukkan sokongan kepada  Adam Adli," katanya.

PKR mengecam tindakan rampasan akhbar Suara Keadilan yang jelas melihat ia sebagai satu lagi pembuktian bahawa kerajaan Umno BN terus-terusan mahu memperbodoh rakyat Malaysia dengan cubaan menyorokkan berita dan laporan alternatif dari rakyat yang sebenarnya mampu menilai dengan bebas tentang perkembangan politik negara.

Malah, tegas Saifuddin rampasan akhbar Suara Keadilan ini bermotifkan politik dendam serta cubaan menyekat penyebaran maklumat terutama mengenai penipuan pilihanraya.

"Tindakan ini juga jelas membayangkan ketakutan kerajaan Umno BN sendiri kerana mereka memperolehi kuasa hanya berdasarkan mandat minoriti dan kerana itu terpaksa mengunakan kaedah tidak demokratik untuk mengekalkan kekuasaan," katanya.

 

EC to re-delineate constituency boundaries this year

Posted: 22 May 2013 06:09 PM PDT

(Bernama) - A study on the re-delineation of electoral constituencies, which was postponed two years ago, will begin soon, said Election Commission (EC) deputy chairman Datuk Wan Ahmad Wan Omar.

He said the re-delineation of electoral constituencies and boundaries could be carried out in accordance with Article 113 (2) (ii) of the Federal Constitution as the last exercise was done eight years ago.  
 
"The last exercise should have been conducted in 2011 as the last one was done in 2003, but we had to postpone it until the 13th general was over. 
 
"The review and re-delineation of the parliamentary and state constituencies has to be carried out as the constitution stipulates than the EC has to carry out the exercise once every eight years. 
 
"So we will carry out the exercise gradually before submitting it to Parliament," he told Bernama after an interview with Bernama TV on the 'Hello Malaysia' programme last night. 
 
He said the re-delineation exercise was very important because the country had undergone many changes, including migration of people from city to city, over the last 10 years. 
 
"For example, when we review the electoral boundaries in 2003, Kota Damansara was not as advanced as it is now. There was no Mutiara Damansara then and many squatter settlements had been cleared to make way for apartments, so definitely the number of voters have changed," he said. 
 
Commenting on Pakatan Rakyat's call for the EC chairman and him to resign, claiming fraud in GE13, he said it was disrespectful of the constitution and the Yang di-Pertuan Agong. 
 
He said as an independent body that did not represent any party and appointed by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong after consultation with the Conference of Rulers, the EC's role should not be undermined. 
 
"This call comes from narrow minded people. We had done our best. If we are not transparent and if the EC is in favour of Barisan Nasional, how come they could win 89 seats, and wrested Selangor and Penang easily?" he said.
 
Wan Ahmad said he believed the opposition had another agenda in mind or wanted to create havoc by inciting the people, particularly the younger generation by inflaming hatred. 

Donald Lim: Re-evaluate Matang-Scope merger price

Posted: 22 May 2013 05:56 PM PDT

Azril Annuar, fz.com

The RM145 million price tag for the merger of Matang Holdings Berhad into ACE market-listed Scope Industries Bhd should be reviewed by the Valuation and Property Services Department (VPSD), MCA vice president Datuk Donald Lim said.

This is necessary as there are two different valuations for the deal with the RM145 million valuation being the lower one, Lim told a press conference here today.

"There were two valuations and one was lower by around RM20 to RM30 million. So I think it's best that the VPSD conduct a third valuation on how much it really costs," said Lim.

He also pointed out that the current Matang shareholders should have the option to sell out their shares instead of just being granted shares by Scope Industries.

"By giving shares there will be a four-year moratorium and the shareholders cannot sell it. We won't know what will happen in four years. What happens if the share prices go down? Maybe from RM1 to RM0.30 in four years.

"Matang has nearly 20,000 shareholders controlling 90 per cent of the shares. The other 10 per cent is held by the MCA-owned Huaren Foundation. So for the sake of the other shareholders they should allow them to cash out if they want to.

"And for the upcoming Annual General Meeting on May 31, Huaren should not vote. Since it is owned by MCA and there is no mandate from MCA's Central Working Committee, Huaren should abstain from voting," said Lim who also owns 3,000 units of Matang's shares.

Matang Holdings entered into a business merger agreement with electrical and electronics manufacturer Scope Industries sometime in November last year and transferred its entire business and undertakings including assets and liabilities to the latter.



GST and inflation

Posted: 22 May 2013 05:26 PM PDT

In Malaysia's case however, GST will be replacing a pre-existing tax and at a rate that is lower than the prevailing rate. Under those circumstances, the impact should be a one-time decrease in the price level, not an increase.

Hisham H.

Here are the facts:

  1. Malaysia is one of the last countries in the world to implement a full fledged value-added tax. The only countries of note that have yet to implement a VAT are the United States, Hong Kong, Brunei, and the countries under the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC). Everybody else either has it, or are implementing it.
  2. Malaysia currently levies two forms of consumption tax – sales tax and service tax (henceforth SST).
  3. Sales tax is levied on all goods sold or produced in Malaysia, with the exception of petroleum and exports. The current standard rate is 10%, but a lower rate of 5% is applicable to fruits, certain foodstuffs, timber, building materials, cigarettes and tobacco, and liquor and alcohol.
  4. Service tax is applicable to restaurants, hotels, parking lots, golf courses, clubs, discoes, insurance agents, phone companies, professional services like accountants, lawyers and consultants, and many more at a rate of 6%. Some of these services require a minimum corporate income threshold before the tax is levied. Credit cards are also subject to a service tax, but in this case it's a flat fee levied on principal and supplementary cards.
  5. GST is going to replace both these two taxes (with the possible exception of credit cards), and from which certain essential goods will continue to be excluded i.e. zero-rated (exports, petrol and basic foods for instance).

So, let's assume that a 7% rate will be implemented:

  1. For food, the tax on basic staples will go from 5% to 0%.
  2. For other foods, the tax rate will go from 10% to 7%.
  3. For the "sin" goods, the tax rate will increase marginally from 5% to 7%.
  4. For everything else, the tax rate falls from 10% to 7%.
  5. Certain other goods, like books and petrol, will continue to attract no tax.
  6. For services, the rate will increase from 6% to 7%.

When the basic tax rates on most goods at point of sale are set to fall, how on earth can this be inflationary?

Both in theory and in practice, the implementation of a VAT or an increase in the VAT rate is almost always accompanied by a one time increase in the price level (cost of living), but not the rate of price increases (inflation). There are umpteenth examples of this over the last couple of decades.

In Malaysia's case however, GST will be replacing a pre-existing tax and at a rate that is lower than the prevailing rate. Under those circumstances, the impact should be a one-time decrease in the price level, not an increase.

The regressive nature of GST is completely irrelevant in this discussion, because we're replacing one regressive tax with another, and moreover one that is proven to be more efficient in raising tax revenues.

Almost all the gains in revenue collection from the switch to GST from SST will come from enforcing tax collection across the chain of production and distribution of goods and services, and not an increase in the overall tax burden to consumers.

Again, how can replacing SST with GST be inflationary?

Read more at: http://econsmalaysia.blogspot.ae/2013/05/gst-and-inflation.html?spref=fb

 

Sabah polls outcome surprises analysts

Posted: 22 May 2013 05:18 PM PDT

A political analyst disclosed that despite BN's overall win in Sabah, statistics showed the ruling coalition had lost to Pakatan on popular votes "even among the Malays".

Universiti Malaysia Sarawak (Unimas) political science lecturer Arnold Puyok said there was a "political tsunami in Sabah", but it "wasn't strong enough to cause significant change".

Lisa J. Ariffin, FMT

In the run up to the 13th general election, several parliamentary seats in Sabah were reportedly under severe threat from opposition Pakatan Rakyat.

In fact it was widely speculated that the outcome of these seats would be the "clincher" for Pakatan's Putrajaya aspirations.

But eventually that did not happen, noted political analysts who spoke at a forum here last night.

Despite the opposition's "Ini Kali Lah" wave which was widely spported by the Kadazandusun Murut and Chinese areas, they failed to loosen Barisan Nasional's grip on Sabah.

BN had secured 48 of the 60 state and 22 of 25 parliamentary seats as opposed to Pakatan's three parliamentary and 10 state seats.

Pakatan's failure to threaten BN's hold on Sabah came as a surprise to two political analysts, who had expected the opposition to capture "at least 15″ parliamentary seats in East Malaysia.

Universiti Malaysia Sarawak (Unimas) political science lecturer Arnold Puyok said there was a "political tsunami in Sabah", but it "wasn't strong enough to cause significant change".

"The opposition was making inroads. There were a lot of unhappiness in the Kadazandusun and Chinese areas," he said during a forum organised by Merdeka Centre here.

"With the rise of STAR (Sabah State Reform Party) and "Ini Kali Lah", a lot of Sabahans thought it was time for change," he added.

Swing in Malay popular votes

Arnold also noted that in Malay-Muslim majority areas in the state, support for Umno-BN had increased significantly in GE13.

"The BN-Umno vote bank remains strong in rural Muslim-Bumiputera areas. There is strong dominance by Umno," he said.

He then pointed out that BN was instead losing support in Kadazandusun and Chinese areas.

READ MORE HERE

 

The Sedition Act (1948)

Posted: 22 May 2013 04:46 PM PDT

The Sedition Act started life as the 1351 English Statute of Treasons. Hence sedition is closely associated with treason. In the 1500s, King Henry VIII broke away from Rome and established the Church of England with him and not the Pope in Rome as the head of the church and God's representative on earth. This was, of course, heavily opposed and criticised by the Catholics and this was when the sedition law was heavily used. Those found guilty of sedition were put to death or at the very least imprisoned with their ears cut off.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

As I write this, thus far student activist Adam Adli has been arrested (and charged plus is now out on bail) for sedition and, today, Haris Ibrahim, Tian Chua and Tamrin Tun Ghafar (ex-Umno MP and ex-MARA Chairman) have also been picked up. I expect Hishamuddin Rais (who spent 20 years in political exile in Manchester) and Cikgu Bard (Badrul Hisham Shahrin) to be added to that list very soon plus probably a few more, Anwar Ibrahim included.

Maybe we shall be seeing a repeat of the 'Reformasi 10' roundup that we saw in April 2001. In April 2001 the arrests were under the detention without trial Internal Security Act. This time it is under the Sedition Act, which means they will be given a trial.

But why the Sedition Act and what is so 'special' about this law? 

The Sedition Act started life as the 1351 English Statute of Treasons. Hence sedition is closely associated with treason. In the 1500s, King Henry VIII broke away from Rome and established the Church of England with him and not the Pope in Rome as the head of the church and God's representative on earth. This was, of course, heavily opposed and criticised by the Catholics and this was when the sedition law was heavily used. Those found guilty of sedition were put to death or at the very least imprisoned with their ears cut off.

When Queen Mary I took over in July 1553, she restored Roman Catholicism and had over 300 Protestant religious dissenters burned at the stake over five years in the Marian persecutions. In November 1558, Mary's younger sister, Elizabeth took over as Queen Elizabeth I and she restored Protestantism and did to the Catholics what Mary did to the Protestants.

Then England saw its first Civil War in 1640, a power struggle between King Charles I and Parliament. There were many reasons for this conflict but amongst the key factors was religion. Charles was viewed as 'Catholic-friendly' (his wife and mother were both Catholics) while the majority of the Parliamentarians were Puritans who viewed Catholics as heretics and deviants.

Charles I was toppled and executed in 1649 and for 11 years England was ruled as a Republic until Charles II, his son, took the throne in 1660. And that's when the sedition law was formalised as the Sedition Act (1661) -- to put down any further ideas of turning England into a Republic or of restoring Roman Catholicism. In fact, 100 years earlier, Elizabeth I had already got Parliament to pass a law that forbids a Catholic from sitting on the throne of England. Hence to even talk about it is a crime and punishable by death.

And then the British came to the Malay states. In 1824, the British and Dutch exchanged Bencoolen in Sumatra with Melaka. Earlier, in 1786, the British took Penang and then Singapore in 1819. In 1941, the British lost Malaya to the Japanese, and when the Japanese surrendered at the end of World War II, the British returned to Malaya and created the Malayan Union, which was opposed by the Malays and triggered the formation of Umno. Due to this strong opposition, in 1948, the British abandoned the Malayan Union and created the Federation of Malaya or Persekutuan Tanah Melayu.

Nevertheless, while the nationalist Malays (in particular those in Umno) accepted this, the more radical Malays plus the Socialists and Communists opposed it. To stifle this dissent, the British introduced the Sedition Act (1948) and those opposed to the British and to the formation of the Federation of Malaya took to the jungles to continue their opposition as an armed struggle.

And that is the history of the Sedition Act. It started life as a weapon to clamp down on and punish those aligned to Rome and those who criticised the English Monarch. It was then 'exported' to Malaya as a weapon to clamp down on and punish those who opposed the British and the Federation of Malaya.

Now it is a weapon used to stifle dissent or act against those who 'violently' oppose the results of the general election or, like in my case, those who criticise and 'bring hatred' to the wife of the Deputy Prime Minister of Malaysia (now wife of the Prime Minister, of course).

**************************************************

The Sedition Act (1661)

The Sedition Act 1661 was an Act of the Parliament of England, although it was extended to Scotland only in 1708. Passed shortly after the Restoration of Charles II to the throne of England (after 11 years as a Republic), it is no longer in force (abolished on 1st January 2010), but some of its provisions continue to survive today in the Treason Act 1695 and the Treason Felony Act 1848. One clause which was included in the Treason Act 1695 was later adapted for the United States Constitution (US Sedition Act 1798 and repealed in 1920).

**************************************************

The Sedition Act (1948)

In 1948, the British colonial government of Malaya enacted the Sedition Act to combat the Communist insurgency. Amendments were made through an Emergency Ordinance 1971, not long after the May 13 riots of 1969, to criminalise any questioning on Part III (on citizenship), Article 152 (on national language), Article 153 (on the special positions of the Malays and the rights of other races) and Article 181 (the Rulers' sovereignty) of the Federal Constitution.

The Act has a very wide definition of 'sedition' and places many limitations on freedom of expression, particularly regarding supposedly sensitive political issues -- and this legal uncertainty very much favours the prosecutor. It also means that what is seditious is not just a legal but also a political issue.

A 'seditious tendency' is defined in section 3 as follows:

1. To bring into hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection against any Ruler or government.

2. To seek alteration other than by lawful means of any matter by law established.

3. To bring hatred or contempt to the administration of justice in the country.

4. To raise discontent or disaffection amongst the subjects.

5. To promote ill will and hostility between races or classes.

6. To question the provisions of the Constitution dealing with language, citizenship, the special privileges of the Malays and of the natives of Sabah and Sarawak and the sovereignty of the Rulers.

http://cijmalaysia.org/miniportal/2010/09/the-sedition-act-1948/

**************************************************

Sedition Act (1948) cannot be challenged

(NST, 25 June 2012) - The Sedition Act 1948 is constitutional and its validity cannot be challenged.

The Federal Court today ruled that the act is a good Act in dismissing an appeal by lawyer P. Uthayakumar (HINDRAF) against the decision of the Court of Appeal on Feb this year, which had rejected Uthayakumar's application to declare the Sedition Act unconstitutional.

Uthayakumar, 49, a former Internal Security Act detainee, was charged in the Kuala Lumpur Sessions Court on Dec 11, 2007, with publishing a seditious letter on the "Police Watch Malaysia" website, dated Nov 15, 2007, addressed to then prime minister of Britain Gordon Brown.

He made the declaratory application (to declare the Sedition Act unconstitutional), in a bid to have the charge against him under the act to be revoked.

 

Zahid’s outburst exposes confused thinking

Posted: 22 May 2013 03:33 PM PDT

In Home Minister Ahmad Zahid Hamidi's view, Malaysians 'must' remain silent about the unfairness of the electoral system.

Luke Rintod, FMT

Public outrage over Umno vice-president and Home Minister Ahmad Zahid Hamidi's childish tantrum telling Malaysians to shove off if they don't like the electoral system is far from over.

The 'wet behind the ear' Home Minister was quoted in the Malay daily Utusan Malaysia last week telling off those unhappy with the first-past-the post electoral system to migrate to countries that practice Single Transferable Vote (republics).

His retort set off an avalanche of criticism from the general public and political writers, including Raja Petra Kamarudin (RPK), and DAP leader Tony Pua.

Raja Petra dared Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak to sack Zahid should he refuse to publicly apologise and resign.

Pua said that Zahid was being arrogant by denying Malaysians the right to a better voting system by telling them to migrate if they were unhappy with a flawed system.

Two days later, newly-minted Youth and Sports Minister Khairy Jamaludin said that Zahid "was merely expressing his own opinion" and that "it did not reflect Najib administration's official position".

While most reasonable Malaysians are still furious with a curlish Home Minister, many, including Zahid, may not be aware that thousands of Malaysians have already left the country.

More than one million Malaysians decided to migrate but perhaps not for the reasons Zahid wished for.

People migrated mainly for jobs, opined a well known economist Dr James Alin in Kota Kinabalu.

In his paper "Should I Stay or Should I Go" (published in June last year), the academic wrote that Malaysia was experiencing a serious brain-drain problem.

Malaysia losing 'skilled talents'

The country, he noted, was losing highly skilled individuals aged 25 years and above with academic and professional degrees.

In 2010, there were 121,662 highly skilled Malaysians working in Singapore as compared to 66,452 in year 2000.

According to Alin, Malaysian emigrants to Australia in year 2000 was 38,620. But this increased to 51,556 in 2010.

Smilar trends were noted by the United States of America. The numbers had spiked from 24,085 to 34,045 in 2010.

In the UK it moved from 12,898 to 16,609 while in Canada it increased from 12,170 to 12,809. Other countries also saw similar shifts.

Emigrants to Brunei shot up from 6,438 to 10,208; India 1,509 to 4,503; China 2,655 to 3,496 and Taiwan 2,916 to 3,235..

"Malaysia needs talent, but talent seems to be leaving. With more Malaysians migrating, the skills and talents base will be shrinking," warned Alin.

He further said that in addition to higher earning potential and better career prospects abroad, Malaysians migrated to seek a better quality of life that includes superior education standards for their children, good governance and more political freedom.

Alin told FMT that the Chinese Malaysians who made up majority of the brain-drain feel that the Bumiputera policy has caused social injustice.

"They voiced dissatisfaction; they are fed up at being constantly reminded that Chinese have fewer rights than the Malay. Brain-drain is not a new phenomenon," said the economist.

READ MORE HERE

 

Outrage grows over scandal-tainted Taib Mahmud

Posted: 22 May 2013 03:21 PM PDT

A Rolls Royce and flashy jet cover his transportation, while a vast war chest has kept his political authority unrivalled in 32 years in charge of the resource-rich Borneo island state, which remains one of Malaysia's poorest.

(AFP) - Despite earning a civil servant's salary for three decades, Taib Mahmud, the powerful chief minister of Malaysia's Sarawak state, is reputed by critics to be one of Asia's richest men.

Taib, 77, and his family are accused of massive corruption and running Malaysia's largest state like a family business, controlling its biggest companies with stakes in hundreds of corporations in Malaysia and abroad.
 
A Rolls Royce and flashy jet cover his transportation, while a vast war chest has kept his political authority unrivalled in 32 years in charge of the resource-rich Borneo island state, which remains one of Malaysia's poorest.
 
"The amount of control he has is astounding. He has been able to dominate politics and society here for nearly four decades," said Faisal Hazis, a political scientist with Universiti Malaysia Sarawak.
 
But pressure is rising both at home and abroad for action against a man referred to by his harshest critics as the "thief minister" and viewed as the prime example of a culture of corruption fueling public disgust.
 
Swiss-based activists Bruno Manser Fund (BMF), citing financial records, last year estimated the 77-year-old's worth at $15 billion, which would make him Malaysia's richest person.
 
Such revelations are hugely embarrassing for Prime Minister Najib Razak, who faces a slide in support due in part to corruption blamed for bleeding the country of billions of dollars annually.
 
But Taib, a member of Malaysia's 56-year-old ruling coalition, is widely considered untouchable because the Sarawak parliamentary bloc he controls helps keep the coalition in power.
 
"We don't see the political will to address grand corruption like this and it could destroy the country" by crippling economic development, said Josie Fernandez, Transparency International's Malaysia director.
 
A 2008 US State Department cable revealed by WikiLeaks called Taib "highly corrupt" and "unchallenged", saying Taib-linked companies dominate Sarawak's emerging economy.
 
He and his family are accused of routinely taking kickbacks for lucrative government contracts or awarding the projects to companies they control.
 
A prime example dominates the languid capital Kuching -- the state-assembly building whose swooping, golden roof gleams like a crown in the tropical sun.
 
A Taib-linked company won the $98 million contract to build the structure, which opened in 2009 and is home to a legislature he controls. A similar story surrounds a futuristic convention centre nearby.
 
Taib's office declined repeated interview requests.
 
A member of the Melanau tribe, supporters see him as defender of the autonomy of Sarawak -- which is marked by Christian and tribal groups -- against the Muslim Malay-dominated federal coalition based on mainland Malaysia.
 
Taib denies wrongdoing, saying Sarawak must be developed for its 2.4 million people. His critics spout "a web of lies and half-truths wrapped around ignorance and twisted logic", he fumed last year.
 
But pressure grows, including in the rugged interior where Taib is blamed for decimating vast rainforests through logging and dam projects and evicting tribes from ancestral lands, sparking protests.
 
Philip Jau travelled for two days by road with dozens of his Kayan tribesmen to protest this week in Kuching against a mega-dam pushed by Taib on the remote Baram river despite local opposition.
 
"The dam is a curse from hell," said Jau, wearing a feather-strewn traditional woven cap. "Taib will benefit, but he is killing the people."
 
Jau fears the dam will destroy a river ecosystem the Kayan rely on, noting that tribes near the already-completed Bakun dam, Malaysia's largest, say that has happened there.
 
BMF head Lukas Strauman said Taib and his family are the "chief culprits in destroying one of the world's last great rainforest areas."
 
In December, Swiss parliamentarians called for a freeze on any Taib assets there, saying he had abused office "in a spectacular way". Swiss authorities are yet to respond.
 
Malaysia's anti-graft agency launched an investigation in 2011, but it is widely accused of foot-dragging.
 
Faisal said action is highly unlikely as Sarawak seats proved crucial to the federal coalition winning May 5 elections, showing Taib is "more important than ever" to the government. Premier Najib's office declined to comment.
 
Taib has gotten even richer since the polls.
 
Shares of Taib-linked CMS -- Sarawak's largest conglomerate -- have soared 65 percent following the ruling-coalition win, and the compliant state assembly tripled Taib's pay to nearly $400,000 on Tuesday -- his birthday.


PKR to file 27 election petitions

Posted: 22 May 2013 03:12 PM PDT

(Bernama) - Parti Keadilan Rakyat (PKR) is to file 27 petitions in court soon over the results of the 13th General Election, its vice-president Tian Chua said today.

"We will coordinate the filing of the petitions with DAP and PAS, our allies in the Pakatan Rakyat," he told Bernama.
 
Electoral candidates and political parties have 21 days from today to file the petitions. This follows the gazetting of the election results yesterday by the Election Commission.
 
PKR won 30 of the 89 parliamentary seats secured by Pakatan Rakyat in the election.

 

Tian Chua, Haris Ibrahim detained

Posted: 22 May 2013 02:28 PM PDT

(The Star) - PKR vice-president Tian Chua says he has been detained by police under Section 4(1) of the Sedition Act.

He said in a tweet message that he was detained at the LCCT before going through the security check as he was to board a flight Thursday.

He believed he is being taken to the Jinjang police station.

Meanwhile, activist Haris Ibrahim was also picked up by police in connection with the May 13 forum which saw student activist Adam Adli Abd Halim being charged with uttering seditious words.

It is learnt that Haris was picked up while having lunch in Segambut and was being taken to the Jinjang police station.

 

Gerakan may accept government positions

Posted: 22 May 2013 01:44 PM PDT

(The Star) - Gerakan, which has decided not to hold any Federal Government position after its dismal showing in the general election, will look into the matter again following objections from within the party.

The party's acting president Datuk Chang Ko Youn said the matter would be discussed at their next central committee (CC) meeting set for next month.

"We will relook the issue. In our last CC meeting, we decided not to take up federal posts but some have disagreed with us," he said at a press conference here yesterday.

He admitted that some issues were not adequately addressed during the May 11 CC meeting as emotions were high following the party's shock defeat in the May 5 polls.

Chang said it was his personal opinion that the party should hold federal positions, adding that both MCA and Gerakan should take up federal positions as they were part of Barisan Nasional and agreed with the coalition's policies.

Chang, who was speaking at his first press conference as acting president following Tan Sri Dr Koh Tsu Koon's resignation, said Barisan should merge into a single multi-racial party and change its approach, given the advent of more young voters in urbanised areas over the next five years.

"In the elections, we saw that the trend of urban voters went across racial lines, such as Chinese voters who voted for PAS candidates and vice versa.

"We can no longer rely on race-based parties. It is getting out of fashion. We must seriously look at the issue of young voters across racial lines. They are looking at transparency, governance, human rights and other issues," he added.

Barisan, Chang added, must adapt as old methods could not be used any more.

"If we use the same methods, I am afraid that we will have worse results in the next elections, which will see an additional two million new voters," he said, adding that Gerakan had always advocated non-racial politics.

Chang also hit out at Pakatan Rakyat and said it should admit defeat and use the parliamentary process to advocate change instead of having rallies that could provoke people.

 

PKR mulls postponing party polls

Posted: 22 May 2013 01:41 PM PDT

(The Star) - PKR may postpone its elections due to be held this November to reconsolidate its support base.

Party secretary-general Datuk Saifuddin Nasution Ismail (picture) said the political bureau had discussed the suggestion to put off party polls.

"We just went through a big battle in the general election, and having the elections in November may be too soon as they take up a lot of time and energy.

"There are views within the leadership to reconsolidate our support base and to close ranks first ... maybe that could be reason enough to postpone our elections," he told a press conference at the party headquarters here yesterday.

"We are currently considering both options to have our elections in November as planned or to postpone the polls," he said.

He added that the supreme council will be discussing the matter further after the party's annual congress, postponed from last year, ends this weekend.

Saifuddin said that if the leadership wanted to postpone the party elections, it would have to convene a special congress to amend the constitution, which now only provides for triennial elections. The last party elections were in 2010.

Saifuddin, who coordinated the previous party elections, said that he was getting feedback to improve the polling process.

Previously, he said, the members had to meet twice to elect their leaders first to elect their division leaders and then to elect the supreme council members.

"The grassroots members say that this is double mobilisation and it takes up too much time, and they are asking if we could vote for both at once," he said. "But a change in procedure would require a constitutional amendment."

He also said the ninth annual congress to be held here this Saturday would see 2,500 delegates from 221 divisions nationwide attending the one-day event.

The Youth and Wanita wings will meet on Friday.

Saifuddin said the theme of the congress was Suara Rakyat, Suara Keramat (The Voice of the People, The Supreme Voice).

 

PSM to review ties with Pakatan after GE13 losses

Posted: 22 May 2013 01:39 PM PDT

(The Star) - Parti Sosialis Malaysia (PSM) is set to review its ties with Pakatan Rakyat after its losses in GE13 due to the alleged underhand tactics against their candidates.

"The issue will be brought up for discussion at our annual congress on June 28.

"We are leaving it to our members to decide if we should continue ties with Pakatan," PSM secretary-general S. Arutchelvan (picture) said, adding that the decision to work with the Opposition pact was made at the party's 14th Congress in June last year.

He added that PSM was also demanding a meeting with PKR and PAS leaders over the Kota Damansara and Semenyih state seats in Selangor.

"We want an explanation from PAS over the loss of the Kota Damansara seat, and PAS president Datuk Seri Abdul Hadi Awang referring to us as communists," he said.

Arutchelvan added that PKR should also explain its role in PSM's loss in Semenyih.

On May 6, PSM president Dr Mohd Nasir Hashim said his loss in Kota Damansara was due to votes being split and "stolen" by the PAS candidate.

Barisan's Halimaton Saadiah Bohan polled 16,387 votes against Dr Nasir's 14,860 and PAS' Ridzuan Ismail's 7,312.

Arutchelvan was said to be the victim of Pakatan's internal politicking in Semenyih which saw Barisan's Datuk Johan Abdul Aziz getting 17,616 votes compared to PKR's Hamidi Hasan (13,471) while he only polled 5,568 votes.

PSM also contested the Sungai Siput parliamentary seat in Perak with incumbent Dr Michael Jeyakumar successfully defending it while M. Sarasvathy lost the Jelapang state seat.

 

Adam charged with sedition, out on bail

Posted: 22 May 2013 01:24 PM PDT

His lawyers are planning to file an application at the High Court to declare the case against him is frivolous.

K Pragalath, FMT

Student activist Adam Adli was this morning charged under the Sedition Act at the Kuala Lumpur Sessions Court for allegedly making a seditious statement. He claimed trial.

Sessions Court judge Norsharidah Awang fixed the bail at RM5,000 with one bailor, and fixed July 2 for mentioning.

Adam, 24, was arrested in Kuala Lumpur on May 18 for remarks he allegedly made during a post-GE13 forum on May 13. He was held in remand for five days.

This morning, deputy public prosecutor, Mohd Abazafri Mohd Abbas, sought to set bail at RM5,000 "to ensure his (Adam's) attendance in court". Abazafri was assisted by deputy public prosecutors Azrina Ali and Nadia Tahyuddin.

Adam was represented by lawyers N Surendran, S Ambiga, Afiq M Noor and Michelle Yesudass.

Both Surendran and Ambiga argued that the bail amount was high, and said the case was frivolous without prima facie.

"The Sedition Act is also going to be repealed. We will file an application to strike out the case at the High Court as soon as possible," said Surendran.

Upon his release on bail, Adam addressed his supporters at the court lobby.

"It is an experience in defending democracy. Thank you all. This is why I love this country," he said. Funds collected during his remand period was used to bail him out.

Adam was arrested under Section 4(1) of the Sedition Act and Section 124(B) of the Penal Code on May 18 in Bangsar for making statements during a May 13 forum held at the Kuala Lumpur and Selangor Chinese Assembly Hall.

Section 4(1) of the Sedition Act provides that it is a criminal offence to make any oral, printed and published statements or acts with "seditious tendency".

Section 124(B) of the Penal Code states that "whoever, by any means, directly or indirectly, commits an activity detrimental to parliamentary democracy shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 20 years."

If Adam is found guilty of sedition, he could be imprisoned for up to three years, fined up to RM5,000, or both.

In the forum, Adam, along with other activists, had called for a street demonstration to protest alleged electoral fraud during the general election.

READ MORE HERE

 

Is it time to do away with the Senate?

Posted: 22 May 2013 01:19 PM PDT

http://www.fz.com/sites/default/files/styles/1_landscape_slider_photo/public/senate_1.jpg

(fz.com) - The real function of the Senate is being questioned. While it was established and inherited by the British to safeguard law making, has it now turned into a 'back-door' appointment tool for Cabinet positions and is it still relevant?

IN DECEMBER 1997, an unusual outcry arose from the normally placid Senate or Dewan Negara when its members reacted to a dismissive label given to the Upper House by the then parliamentary opposition leader Lim Kit Siang – he had called it a "rubber-stamp to a rubber-stamp."

As senators mostly appointed under the Barisan Nasional (BN) government angrily remonstrated, Lim insisted that he was vindicated in making the ignominious reference. For the Senate had, on Dec 22, passed an important amendment, in the form of the Criminal Procedure Amendment Bill 1997 – without any debate whatsoever.
 
The Senate, he added, was a "rubbish bin for political has-beens, rejects and deadwoods", and one way to remedy the situation was to replace the appointive system with an elective one.
 
"This move would involve sacrifices by the Senators as I do not think many, even any, of them could get into the Dewan Negara if they have first to seek the mandate from the people at large," the DAP secretary-general and MP for Tanjung said.
 
The issue surrounding the Senate's purported inefficacy was not just based on the seeming absence of strong, daring debates. Because the Malaysian Senate had been almost entirely dominated by the BN and its predecessor, the Alliance, since independence in 1957, there was a general view that the senators did not do enough to positively counter the government of the day.
 
A tool for "back-door" appointments
 
The question of the Senate's relevance emerged again recently when Lim's long-time comrade-in-arms, Karpal Singh, who is now DAP chairman and Bukit Gelugor MP, opined that the Senate should be abolished altogether.
 
It has produced a backlash reminiscent of the uproar that Lim had generated in 1997, with current Dewan Negara President Tan Sri Abu Zahar Ujang rebuking Karpal to "respect the rule of law and our constitution." 
 
The issue had resurfaced when Karpal told a press conference in Penang last Saturday that there is no need for the Senate. "In my view, the Federal Constitution should be amended to abolish the senate," he said.
 
"It is an unnecessary expense required to be borne by the people. It does not serve a useful purpose," he added. "It only encourages those who have been rejected by the people or others to be brought into Parliament through the back door via the Senate, as in law Parliament also includes the Senate."

Read more at: http://www.fz.com/content/it-time-do-away-senate#ixzz2U5PQ8gOd

 

Kredit: www.malaysia-today.net
 

Malaysia Today Online

Copyright 2010 All Rights Reserved