The measure of Karpal Singh

Zalman Zulkifli | Updated: April 21, 2014

Astro Awani

WE recently lost Mr. Karpal Singh. A lot have been said about him. And we learned a lot more about him too as his friends shared a bit more about his past.

 My tribute to Karpal is really for who he is and what he stood for.

 We grew up under the shadow of giants: Giants like Mahathir, Ling Liong Sik, Samy Vellu, Lim Kit Siang and yes Karpal Singh.

 Their names emblazoned the news and have etched an everlasting image in our minds. What I admire is that Karpal knew he was fighting a lost cause. His whole life, he knew that change in the country doesn’t just come from politics. Many more things have to change, before change happens.

 And yet, he did his part. In his humble digs, simple life, straight shooting kind of way, he kept the fight going. He won. He lost. He’s ridiculed, sent to jail, and fate dealt him a cruel blow of being paralyzed and what did  Karpal do?

 He kept on fighting. Each and every step of the way. Losing a lot more than winning, he simply kept on going. This tribute isn’t about what Karpal stood for, it is about Karpal — Karpal who made a life of living his principles, standing by it, and teaching his children the values they carry today.

 He made sure that the torch keeps on shining. He fought for the weak, the poor, the victim. And as we now know, he fought often for free. Simply because it was the right thing to do. And because, he can.

 The measure of a man is measured by what he leaves behind. And Karpal left behind a legacy of what is right is right, and what is wrong is wrong. And he lived his life by his belief. And he left behind another generation that will continue to fight the fight: the fight for their victims and their rights.

 We all may not agree with Karpal all the time. But it is the Karpals of the world that changes our beliefs in what is right, and what is wrong: people who believed in something so strongly, that they give their whole life, and their own life in pursuit of change.

 To the family of the late Karpal we would like to share our condolences, and to thank you for your support of him. You too made Karpal the Tiger that he was. We are truly sorry for your loss and wish you the strength to continue the journey that Karpal has laid down thus far.

 And to the politicians who said something stupid and insensitive about the late Mr. Karpal, we wish you a good life. Thank you for ensuring that we know who you are, and how stupid you could be. Karpal probably can’t say it better: “Jangan main-main…”

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 23 April 2014, 6:19 am and is filed under
DAP
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Absolute power corrupts absolutely, Dr Mahathir reminds current leaders

The Malaysian Insider

April 23, 2014

In his latest blog posting today, the country’s longest serving prime minister said that monarchs and dictators in the Middle East had been toppled through violence.

He said in its history, Malaysia had eschewed violence as a means to replace the government, preferring instead to use the ballot box to effect a regime change.

“However, leaders should not be too confident that people would continue with the soft approach,” he warned in his popular blog Chedet.cc.

Dr Mahathir reminded current leaders to be open to criticism and to deal with it.

He admitted that during his time as prime minister, he hardly listened to opposing views, especially from the opposition and noted that it was the opposition’s nature to go against the government.

“However, I find the views aired by third parties were more genuine and worth serious consideration,” he said.

He said there are not many people wanting to advise the authorities for fear of being scolded or being viewed negatively.

Dr Mahathir said it was important for people to be bold and give advice to the country’s leaders if they did not perform.

Dr Mahathir warned that power can lead to corruption and absolute power will result in unfettered corruption.

“Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely,” he said quoting a well-known English proverb. – April 23, 2014.

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 24 April 2014, 6:46 am and is filed under
Mahathir
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


If hudud had been a hot controversial issue in the 13GE, Barisan Nasional would not only have regained two-thirds parliamentary majority to redelineate electoral constituencies at will, Pakatan Rakyat might have lost Selangor and Johore would have reverted as invincible BN “fixed-deposit” state

If hudud had been a hot controversial issue in the 13th General Elections on May 5, 2013, the Barisan Nasional would not only have regained its two-thirds parliamentary majority to redelineate electoral constituencies at will, Pakatan Rakyat might have lost Selangor apart from Kedah and Johore would have reverted as an invincible Barisan Nasional “fixed-deposit” state.

The hudud issue has never been and will never be a vote winner for PAS based on past electoral evidence.

PAS and PKR won all 8 parliamentary seats and 28 out of 32 state seats in Terengganu in the 1999 GE / GE10 because of the backlash against UMNO arising from Anwar’s arrest and the Reformasi movement.

But despite passing the state hudud enactment in 2001, PAS and PKR only managed to retain 1 out of 8 parliament seats and 4 out of 28 state seats in the 2004 GE / GE11.

Furthermore, PAS and PKR won 4 out of 8 parliament and 15 out of 32 state seats in GE13 in Terengganu without campaigning explicitly to implement hudud in the state.

In fact, according to the ‘5 Janji Awal Manifesto PAS Terengganu’ and ‘5 Lagi Manifesto PRU13’ for GE13, the issue of hudud was not even mentioned. The failure to mention hudud in the state manifesto did not cause PAS to lose any ground in Terengganu.

What is interesting to note is that even though PAS Terengganu included the implementation of the hudud enactment in the Barisan Alternatif Terengganu Manifesto prior to the 2008 GE, this did not win PAS and PKR many more votes and seats in the state.

PAS still won only one parliament seat and only managed to increase the number of state seats from 4 to 8 in GE2008. While BN’s support fell by 11% nationwide from 2004 to 2008, BN’s support in Terengganu only fell by 0.5%.

Is this not an indication that voters in Terengganu were placing more importance on other issues rather than the implementation of hudud?

What if PAS had insisted that Pakatan included hudud as part of its manifesto prior to GE13?

In the first place, DAP would never have agreed to such a proposal.

However, let us conduct a simple exercise and assume that this this was the case prior to GE13.

In such circumstances, the increase in the Malay support for Pakatan would have been negligible. If hudud would guarantee a significant increase in Malay support for whichever party or coalition which proposes it as part of the manifesto, UMNO and  BN would have considered it as a way to save their own waning support.

But for the sake of argument, let us be generous and assume that Malay support for Pakatan would have increased by 1%.

The damage for Pakatan in terms of its non-Malay support would have been far more significant. Judging from the 1999 GE, where the non-Malay vote would have otherwise turned against the BN if the BN was not so successful in painting the image that a vote for the then Barisan Alternatif was a vote to support an Islamic state, Pakatan’s support for hudud may have decreased non-Malay support for Pakatan by between 10% to 20%.

Under Scenario 1 where PR experiences a 10% decrease in non-Malay support versus a 1% increase in Malay support, PR would only have won 70 parliamentary seats or 32% of total seats compared to the 89 parliament seats or 40% of seats actually won.

Under Scenario 2, where the non-Malay support for PR decreases by 15%, PR would only have won 57 parliamentary seats or 26% and under Scenario 3, where the non-Malay support for PR decreases by 20%, PR would only have won 46 seats or 21%.

Under all three Scenarios, PKR would have been the biggest loser since many of the ethnically mixed PKR seats were won with relatively smaller majorities (compared to DAP seats).

In all of these three scenarios, PR would have lost out as a whole as Barisan Nasional would have regained two-thirds parliamentary majority to enable it to redelineate electoral constituencies at will to perpetuate its undemocratic hold on political power.

Table 1: Number of parliament seats PR would have won in GE13 under 3 different scenarios

Actual GE13 results

Scenario 1 (PR Malay vote increase by 1%, Non-Malay vote decrease by 10%)

Scenario 2 (PR Malay vote increase by 1%, Non-Malay vote decrease by 15%)

Scenario 3 (PR Malay vote increase by 1%, Non-Malay vote decrease by 20%)

PAS

21

18

18

16

DAP

38

30

25

23

PKR

30

22

14

7

Total

89 (40%)

70 (32%)

57 (26%)

46 (21%)

What about the state seats? How would the number of state seats won by PR changed in GE13?

Using the same 3 scenario calculations, PR would have seen a 40-seat, 63-seat and 95-seat decrease in the number of state seats won by PR under Scenarios 1, 2 and 3 respectively.

Table 2: Number of state seats PR would have won in Peninsular Malaysia in GE13 under 3 different scenarios

Actual GE13 Results

Scenario 1 (PR Malay vote increase by 1%, Non-Malay vote decrease by 10%)

Scenario 2 (PR Malay vote increase by 1%, Non-Malay vote decrease by 15%)

Scenario 3 (PR Malay vote increase by 1%, Non-Malay vote decrease by 20%)

PAS

85

77

71

62

DAP

95

77

67

57

PKR

49

35

28

15

Total

229 (45%)

189 (42%)

166 (37%)

134 (30%)

Would hudud have saved the PR government in Kedah? The simple answer is no. In fact, Pakatan would have lost even more state seats if hudud was part of PR’s GE13 manifesto.

Table 3: Number of state seats PR would have won in Kedah in GE13 under 3 different scenario

Actual GE13 Results

Scenario 1 (PR Malay vote increase by 1%, Non-Malay vote decrease by 10%)

Scenario 2 (PR Malay vote increase by 1%, Non-Malay vote decrease by 15%)

Scenario 3 (PR Malay vote increase by 1%, Non-Malay vote decrease by 20%)

PAS

9

7

7

5

DAP

2

1

1

0

PKR

4

3

3

1

Total

15 (42%)

11 (31%)

11 (31%)

6 (17%)

Under Scenarios 1 and 2 in Table 3 above, PR would have won only 11 state seats compared to the 15 which was actually won in GE13. Under Scenario 3, PR would have won a measly 6 seats as the decrease in the non-Malay support would have cost all three parties many of the marginal seats.

What about the situation in Penang and Selangor?

Fortunately, because the majority won by PR in Penang was so large in GE13, PR would still managed to hold on to the state government even under Scenario 3. (See Table 4 below) The number of seats won by PR would have decreased to 25 (out of 40) under Scenario 3.

Table 4: Number of state seats PR would have won in Penang in GE13 under 3 different scenarios

Actual GE13 Results

Scenario 1 (PR Malay vote increase by 1%, Non-Malay vote decrease by 10%)

Scenario 2 (PR Malay vote increase by 1%, Non-Malay vote decrease by 15%)

Scenario 3 (PR Malay vote increase by 1%, Non-Malay vote decrease by 20%)

PAS

1

1

1

1

DAP

19

19

19

17

PKR

10

7

7

7

Total

30 (75%)

30 (75%)

27 (68%)

25 (63%)

For Selangor, the case is not so positive. Under Scenario 3, PR would have lost control of the state government as it would have only won 21 out of 56 state seats. PAS and PKR would have lost the most number of seats under Scenario 3 (compared to DAP).

Table 5: Number of state seats PR would have won in Selangor in GE13 under 3 different scenarios

Actual GE13 Results

Scenario 1 (PR Malay vote increase by 1%, Non-Malay vote decrease by 10%)

Scenario 2 (PR Malay vote increase by 1%, Non-Malay vote decrease by 15%)

Scenario 3 (PR Malay vote increase by 1%, Non-Malay vote decrease by 20%)

PAS

15

12

9

5

DAP

15

13

12

11

PKR

14

13

12

5

Total

44 (79%)

38 (68%)

33 (59%)

21 (38%)

What about the state seats in Johor?

PR achieved an important breakthrough in the BN ‘fortress’ of Johor by winning 5 parliament seats and 18 state seats in GE2013, up from 1 parliament and 6 state seats in GE2008. PR fell one state seat short of denying the BN a 2/3rds majority in the state legislature.

But if hudud had been part of PR’s manifesto in GE2013, this breakthrough would not have occurred. According to the figures in the table below, PR would have just won 8 state seats under Scenario 1, 7 state seats under Scenario 2 and a mere 4 state seats under the disastrous Scenario 3 which would have been a worse performance compared to GE2008.

PAS would have been denied any state representation in the state assembly under Scenario 3.

Table 6: Number of state seats PR would have won in Johor in GE13 under 3 different scenarios

Actual GE13 Results

Scenario 1 (PR Malay vote increase by 1%, Non-Malay vote decrease by 10%)

Scenario 2 (PR Malay vote increase by 1%, Non-Malay vote decrease by 15%)

Scenario 3 (PR Malay vote increase by 1%, Non-Malay vote decrease by 20%)

PAS

4

2

2

0

DAP

13

5

5

4

PKR

1

1

0

0

Total

17 (30%)

8 (14%)

7 (13%)

4 (7%)

What about in the state seats in Sabah? With just a 10% decrease in non-Muslim voters (Scenario 1), PKR would have lost all the 7 state seats it won in GE13.

Table 7: Number of state seats PR would have won in Sabah in GE13 under 3 different scenarios

Actual GE13 Results

Scenario 1 (PR Malay vote increase by 1%, Non-Malay vote decrease by 10%)

Scenario 2 (PR Malay vote increase by 1%, Non-Malay vote decrease by 15%)

Scenario 3 (PR Malay vote increase by 1%, Non-Malay vote decrease by 20%)

PAS

0

0

0

0

DAP

4

4

4

3

PKR

7

0

0

0

Total

11

4

4

3

To summarize, the electoral costs to be paid by PR would have been hefty and significant if hudud had been part of the PR manifesto during GE13, as UMNO and Barisan Nasional would have been able to roll back the political tsunami of the 12th General Elections of 2008.

These scenarios should be serious food for thought for all Malaysians who want to see the forward political progression of the country from the 12th and 13th General Elections into the 14th General Elections with the emergence of a new Malaysia where there is justice, the rule of law, democracy, good governance and prosperity for all Malaysians and not a political retrogression and regression.

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 24 April 2014, 12:51 pm and is filed under
DAP
,
Pakatan Rakyat
,
PAS
,
PKR
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


My last moments with Pa: Ramkarpal Singh

The Malaysian Insider

April 24, 2014

A week after the tragic crash that took the lives of veteran lawyer and politician Karpal Singh and his personal aide, Micheal Cornelius, his son Ramkarpal recounts the final hours with his father that fateful day. This is his story, as told to V. Anbalagan.

“My parents (Karpal and Gurmit) had gone to Pantai Hospital about 8pm on Wednesday (April 16) to visit my brother Gobind (Singh Deo) who was admitted.

They left about 8pm from my father’s office in Jalan Pudu Lama together with Micheal Cornelius and driver V. Selvam. The four returned home (in Bukit Ledang, Damansara) about 10pm and had dinner.

Pa, Michael, Selvam, our maid (Selfiana Rengga) and I were to leave that night for Penang. Pa and I were to appear in court the following day to represent a client charged with murder.

The weekend stay in Penang was also for Pa to meet his Bukit Gelugor constituents and prepare the petition of appeal for Anwar’s (Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim) sodomy case.

Before we left, Pa told Michael to take him to his garden. We moved into this house six months ago and Pa was in love with his garden.

Going around the garden is not unusual for my dad and he does that occasionally. We then left about 11.30pm.

Pa was seated in the front beside the driver (they were in a Toyota Alphard). Michael sat directly behind dad. I was seated beside Michael. The maid sat alone at the back of the vehicle.

We exited through the Jalan Duta toll around midnight and for the next 20 minutes or so, I spoke to Pa about some cases, including a matter he had attended in the Court of Appeal earlier in the day and political issues gripping the nation.

As usual, he was cracking some witty jokes.

Slowly our conversation faded. I was still wide awake and tried to talk to Pa but he merely grunted his replies.

Michael was fast asleep, and so was the maid.

I tried to close my eyes but could not despite having worked out on the treadmill earlier in the evening.

I informed Selvam that I would take over at the wheel if he wanted to sleep but the driver replied he was fine.

Since I had no one to talk to, I looked outside at the passing vehicles.

Suddenly, Pa woke up and asked Michael to adjust his seating position and place a pillow behind his neck. Michael did that.

Moments later, both were fast asleep again.

Suddenly, I heard a loud crash and was jolted in my seat realised we were in an accident. The left side of our vehicle was ripped off.

I screamed and Selvam swerved the vehicle to the right before it came to a stop.

I then realised there was no sound or movement from Pa and Michael. I reached across the front seat and held on to Pa from behind, who was strapped in his seat, lying motionless. Many things ran through my mind in those few moments.

Michael was lying outside on the road. The maid was screaming.

Soon motorists stopped to help us but I did not get out of the vehicle as I was still holding onto Pa, hoping against hope that he had just passed out.

It was traumatic. I was holding on to Pa, Michael was lying outside and the maid was hysterical.

The Fire Department and police were at the scene within minutes and rescued the maid who was trapped by cutting through the vehicle roof.  She is still in Ipoh Hospital but is fine.

Selvam and I had only minor injuries.

The ambulance then arrived and only after they had taken the maid away, did I realise that my father and Michael had died at the scene. (Ambulances do not take away bodies.)

The only consolation was that both probably did not feel the impact of the crash because they were asleep. I think they were killed instantly.P

Passing motorists as well as the cops and firemen were very understanding and compassionate during those brief but difficult moments. They held me as I stood there sobbing.

Before the police took Pa’s and Michael’s bodies away, I called my younger brother Mankarpal and broke the news to him. I went to the hospital in the police vehicle.

Ramkarpal is third among Karpal’s five children. The 38-year-old bachelor worked in his father’s law firm, Karpal and Co, in Pudu, Kuala Lumpur.

He told The Malaysian Insider that he is still trying to get over events of that day.

“It’s not easy. I am having a mental block. It is difficult to work but I will have to pull myself together and carry on his work,” he said.

 The accident occurred at KM301.6 of the North-South Expressway near Kampar, Perak, early Thursday morning. – April 24, 2014

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 24 April 2014, 7:18 am and is filed under
DAP
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


No sedition in heaven: A tribute to the Tiger of Jelutong

 – Jose Mario Dolor De Vega

The Malaysian Insider

April 24, 2014

I refer to Raja Shahrir’s “Thank you for showing us what courage is”, in Free Malaysia Today, April 19, with regard to his moving tribute to the late great Karpal Singh.

I beg the kind indulgence of the reader to allow me to say a few words honouring the intrepid Karpal.

It is my firm belief – and there is no shadow of doubt about it – that besides Anwar Ibrahim and Lim Kit Siang, Karpal belongs to that triumvirate of the opposition leaders in Malaysia which has been consistently maligned and slandered by the powers that be since day one.

However, I would also like to state unhesitatingly that Karpal was the most personally abused among the three, and hounded politically in a persistent and nefarious manner by the establishment.

Yet, Karpal never backed down nor did he ever cease being faithful to the cause. He remained committed until the very end for the reform agenda and for the general movement of the collective struggle of the Malaysian people.

Consider the Tiger’s records of courage:

He was one of the many other opposition politicians who were “detained without trial under the Internal Security Act during Operation Lalang in October 1987 for inciting ‘racial tension’ in the country”.

The powers that be briefly released him for a few hours in March 1988 in response to a habeas corpus application, but he was then rearrested and remained in prison until January 1989. He was deemed “a prisoner of conscience” by Amnesty International.

In January 2000 he was arrested under the Sedition Act “along with four other opposition politicians and the editor of the Harakah Daily, the newspaper published by the opposition Pan-Malaysian Islamic Party (PAS)”.

This time, he “was charged for making seditious remarks in court during Anwar’s first corruption trial”.

According to Wikipedia:

“This was the only known charge of sedition in any country in the Commonwealth of nations brought against a lawyer for remarks made in court in defence of a client. The charges were dropped in 2002.”

Further, in March 2009, “Karpal was charged under the Sedition Act again for allegedly threatening to sue the Sultan of Perak, Sultan Azlan Shah, in the wake of the 2009 Perak constitutional crisis. He had contended that the Sultan had acted beyond his constitutional powers while appointing Zambry Abdul Kadir as Menteri Besar. The charges were dismissed in June 2010 after the High Court determined that the prosecution had failed to prove a prima facie case. However, the Court of Appeal reversed the acquittal in January 2012 and ordered Karpal to enter his defence.”

As I’ve stated in my article, “Long live the tiger, viva Karpal”, in The Southeast Asian Times, March 7, 2014:

I overwhelmingly agree with the contention of Emerlynne Gil, the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) Legal Advisor on Southeast Asia, that Karpal’s “conviction sends out a message that lawyers in Malaysia are not free to express their opinions about legal issues”.

Further “this case is another sign of the lack of respect of the Malaysian government for the principle of free expression”.

This is a shame and an irony by virtue of the fact that Karpal merely “acted in fulfilment of a core function of the legal profession, which is to contribute to the public discourse on matters of law.

“The United Nations basic principles on the role of lawyers specifically provide that lawyers, like ordinary citizens, are entitled to freedom of opinion and expression.”

The ICJ Advisor also added that lawyers have the right “to take part in public discussion of matters concerning the law, the administration of justice and the promotion and protection of human rights” without fear of suffering professional restrictions or repercussions due to their lawful action.

I am commending Karpal’s courage especially when he categorically stated that he was standing by his statement in February 2009 that the Sultan was not above the law.

As the Tiger himself stated:

“I was doing my duty as an MP and lawyer that the Ruler can be taken to court.

“If you are afraid, then you cannot represent the people. The fight goes on.”

Indeed, “It was just barely a month ago, when Karpal Singh was found ‘guilty’ of sedition. Many cried out at the plain injustice laid out on a veteran fighter who has seen more jail time than most real criminals. To many of us Malaysians, Karpal was one who held the baton for change back when discourse of politics, justice and human rights were gloomy and dark.”

It is with this great sense that I completely concur with the contention of Raja Shahrir when he stated that:

“When no one stood up in a time when standing up meant persecution, Karpal did. When no one dared to face the courts of injustice to fight tirelessly for the rights of others, Karpal did. At a time when being an opposition politician equaled harassment and endangerment, Karpal did.

“When no one was brave enough, Karpal took on the courage to stand up for the nation and the people around him.

“Time after time, for decades, this man fought tirelessly for what he knew and whole-heartedly believed was rightfully Malaysia’s. He knew our country deserved so much better in terms of human rights, political freedoms, real democracy and fairer opportunities for all.

“It was he who paved the way for the following generation of leaders to stand up for the nation. He showed true unwavering vigour as a lawyer and fought for others inside and outside of court.”

He used consistently and persistently his keen and sharp legal knowledge and brilliant technical expertise to fight and counter the abuses, barbarity and the arbitrariness of the powers that be in defense of the people’s welfare even if, most of the time, in doing so, he would end up in jail, be suspended or be denounced and slandered by some neurotic and fanatical groups!

He cast them aside like he was merely rubbing away some cobwebs and dust. He did not give a damn whether he would lose his seat or not. He dedicated all his being for the general welfare of the Malaysian public and he helped tremendously in developing the political consciousness of the people through his unwavering bold actions and brave deeds through the years.

No one can deny or question Karpal’s consistency and tirelessness in fighting for justice, “from the Perak state crisis sedition case, to his countless times representing Anwar Ibrahim in court, to the period he found himself behind bars, these notable events are often shadowed by the probably frequent harassment, personal danger, insults and abuses he faced hidden from the eye of the public.”

Needless to say, the Malaysian people “should be thankful for his efforts and contributions in shaping the future of our country. If anything, this man made history.”

He defied the powers that be all throughout his conscious political life and in the end: he stood victorious, mighty and invincible! He was such a freedom–loving man!

As the saying goes: a life without freedom is no life at all and Karpal, undeniably, had lived such a good life, because it was a well fought life, a struggle until the very end.

Indeed, Karpal is a giant, a hero and an icon for justice and equality of Malaysian contemporary history!

The Tiger is dead, long live the Tiger of Jelutong! Long Live Karpal Singh! – April 24, 2013.

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 24 April 2014, 10:20 am and is filed under
DAP
,
Judiciary
,
Law & Order
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Object found on Australian shore examined for link to flight MH370

Paul Farrell

Guardian

23 April 2014

Search officials play down likelihood that material, believed to be riveted sheet metal, is from missing Malaysia Airlines plane

An object has washed ashore in Western Australia that may be linked to missing Malaysia Airlines flight MH370, Australian officials have said.

Australia’s joint co-ordination centre announced on Wednesday that police had taken possession of an object 10km from the town of Augusta. Malaysian officials have also been provided with photographs of the object.

“The Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) is examining the photographs of the material to determine whether further physical analysis is required and if there is any relevance to the search of missing flight MH370,” the joint coordination centre said.

An Australian search official involved with the search has stressed they were treating the discovery of the object with scepticism.

ATSB chief commissioner Martin Dolan said the object appeared to be sheet metal with rivets, according to CNN.

“It’s sufficiently interesting for us to take a look at the photographs,” he said, but added: “The more we look at it, the less excited we get.”

The Malaysia Airlines flight went missing more than a month ago, but search officials are yet to find anything that would confirm the fate of the plane. The plane is believed to have crashed in the Indian Ocean, claiming the lives of all 239 passengers on board.

The find in Western Australia comes shortly after the suspension of the air and underwater search for the missing plane because of poor weather conditions.

A tropical cyclone stalled an underwater search for the plane on Tuesday. The remote submersible Bluefin-21 was searching an area where the second of four pings believed to be from a black box was detected.

Australia’s defence minister, David Johnston, indicated the approach to the search might be revised with more powerful underwater vehicles if Bluefin’s search yields no results.

The rest of the military craft involved in the aerial search on Wednesday were also forced to land because of the cyclone.

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 24 April 2014, 6:17 am and is filed under
MH 370
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Opposing hudud does not mean opposing Islam

— Nadira Ilana

The Malay Mail Online

April 23, 2014

APRIL 23 — I’m just not sure what’s a ‘nice’ way to have a conversation about a set of laws that legitimises amputations, slavery and public stoning in God’s name. There are many reasons why I think that hudud has no place in the modern world.

Hudud neglects what we know today about economics and social science. We know that robbers don’t all rob because they’re bad, it’s because they’re often poor, sick or desperate. We know that sociopathy and psychopathy are personality disorders and that people are a product of their environment therefore evil acts are not Satanic manifestations in men. In that respect, not all women and men can be judged the same.

We know that just because four men didn’t witness a rape, it doesn’t mean that a woman has committed adultery. A woman is not the proverbial tree fallen in the forest so a rape kit will do just nicely to prevent her from getting stoned. Consider that if accusations of adultery are punishable too then Mahathir should get a huge walloping for what he’s dragged Anwar through.

Another inconsistency with hudud is that in Islam you can’t amputate livestock if you want to consume their flesh because it’s inhumane but then if a man steals you can amputate his hands. I don’t see the justice here. Taking away the hands of a man who steals because he is hungry is a low blow.

We know that people are capable of reform and that humanity is largely good before it is bad. We know that people can change when they are treated with kindness and given an education or opportunities, not stoned by various sizes of rock. People can’t be ‘scared away’ from crime. Dead men don’t learn. Deterrents are what you tell children to make them finish their dinner. The human conscience should be guided by reason, not fear if you want meaningful change hence the importance of education and independent thought.

Another thing about hudud is that it deals with petty misdemeanours excessively. Theft and adultery are the things of tabloids. There are worse crimes out there with extremely lenient sentences like wildlife trafficking and animal abuse. The monstrosity of it all is that child marriage is legal in Malaysia under Islamic law. Politicians and developers get away with building dams and deforestation, capitalism and corruption. How does hudud address these bigger issues? Hudud has no place in a society whose priorities have changed. It’s perfectly medieval.

If we thought that ISA abuse was bad, hudud will be far worse because our religious authorities are government funded. Ultimately the people whose lives will be endangered the most will be Muslims themselves yet – none of us live in a bubble. We all have Muslim family members and friends. Because of certain Islamic laws in place, the number of Muslims in the country is growing artificially. No one will be unaffected by hudud. Not even non-Muslims. Hudud is not going to frighten people from committing crime. It’s just going to make people afraid of Islam. Religious freedom in Malaysia is on its death bed as it is. Should we be entertaining a debate on something that is only going to make things worse?

Even Mahathir has pointed out that the poor are the most likely to commit crime and that the majority of Malaysians living in poverty themselves are Malays, the very people whom ISMA, PAS and Perkasa are trying to defend in the first place – when they’re not fighting to implement hudud.

So no, this isn’t a discussion that needs to take place between Muslims and non-Muslims but between the proponents and opponents of hudud. For this discussion to go further, Malaysian Muslims and non-Muslims, need to be assured that opposing hudud does not mean opposing Islam.

It also helps for contemporary Muslim scholars who oppose hudud to chime in so there can be fair discussion. I understand why people might suggest that we tone down emotional language by not using words like “barbaric” or “inhumane” in discussions on hudud but I don’t think it helps to dumb a conversation down for the mere sake of diplomacy. Call a fork a fork because most of our politicians won’t and that’s why they’re wasting their breath on hudud and not education, the environment or the economy.

You know, stuff that politicians should really be talking about.

Most politicians (save for the dearly departed Karpal Singh) continue to play it safe by avoiding the topic because hardly any of them have the guts to oppose religious authorities outright for fear of seeming anti-Islam, that is, if their Islam stood for violence and vengeance.

Ask the proponents of hudud why they are not as passionate about championing education and compassion first since Islam is a religion of peace and reason, as they say. Ancient Muslims were great philosophers, scientists and thinkers. Why should modern Muslims have to go back to where others left off thousands of years ago instead of evolving themselves? Especially in an age where people are learning faster than ever.

Muslims should submit to Allah, not to self-appointed ‘religious authorities’ who want to play Qada and Qadar by speaking and acting upon others on Allah’s behalf, which is worse than any Dutch cartoon or Aronofsky movie.

People should be entitled to have an unadulterated say on the big decisions to do with religion because it affects our private lives from the birth of our children to our funerals. Especially since we live in a country that refuses to acknowledge the part of our constitution that stipulates that Malaysia is a secular state. We should definitely be included on discussions on whether Jakim officers should be given guns. I can’t believe I even have to say this out loud.

If Islam stood for good things then it should be a prerogative for Muslims to do the right thing even if that means acting contrarily to what others tell them their religion demands of them. Promote Ijtihad and reasoning. Stop dumbing people down with half truths because it’s only turning us into really polite hypocrites.

Hudud is messed up. Just say it. Why should we get caught up by people who want to fight to be the Muslimest-Muslim they can possibly be but can’t even wrap their heads around what it means to be a Muslim or even just decent people in the first place? Kindness, compassion, respect for others should be the forefront of every God fearing man. Not suspicion and moral policing. While we are on this earth, people should be entitled to learn from their own mistakes.

Ultimately we all know the answer to this debate. Instil the fear of God in people through religious authority and people won’t be able to tell the difference between the fear of God or the fear of men. At the end of the day, hudud is not a conversation about Allah’s will but the supremacy of a few men trying to play Allah because we refuse to separate religion from state. So what’s unIslamic about opposing hudud then?

*Nadira Ilana is a filmmaker and aspiring aspirer currently based in Kuala Lumpur. She makes fiction films and documentaries and wants to shoot her first feature in her home state of Sabah. You can watch her Freedom Film Fest documentary ‘The Silent Riot’ here on Youtube.

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 24 April 2014, 10:36 am and is filed under
Islam
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


The night we lost our moral compass

by
Terence Fernandez
 | 7:01am, Apr 24, 2014

FZ.com

AS the tributes poured in for Karpal Singh I detached myself from the out-pouring of grief to become an observer, not a mourner hoping that this will enable me to be more objective when I pen my thoughts.

I also took my time as I did not want to be influenced by the emotions of the moment so I could present an unadulterated perspective of this man’s life and work.

However, I will tell you right now that I am going to fail miserably.

This is because I too as many Malaysians do, feel that we have lost our moral compass. Karpal after all was the only politician who called a spade a spade, unafraid of what it may do to his political career.

Who is going to roar his disapproval when we go down the wrong path? Who is going to rap our knuckles when we step out of line?

He was our conscience. Yes he was a politician but for Karpal politics was merely a tool for the cause.

He does not belong to the DAP. He belongs to all of us who subscribe to his ideals of justice and fairness.

“If you have no principles, you have nothing,” the Tiger growled when I last interviewed him at his practice in Jalan Pudu Ulu in August.

“You have to make a stand and stick by it even if it makes you unpopular,” he said, in between sips of tea from a cup held by Michael Cornelius – Karpal’s loyal aide who died in the same accident that robbed us of his Boss.

While many politicians had to eat their words, Karpal always put his money where his mouth is, always sticking by his principles even if it meant going after his senior DAP colleagues when they crossed the line.

Asked about his public reprimand of his senior party colleagues and if it was prudent politics to do so, he said what was important was to assure the people that the party sticks to its principles.

Hence when the DAP endorsed party hoppers from Barisan Nasional when the party had made a stand against such practices, he took his comrades to task.

“It is a betrayal of the electorate,” said Karpal who had championed a law to penalise party-hopping.

“This is not the way we want to win elections.”

Much has been written about his prowess as a lawyer, his crusade against the death penalty, his battles in Parliament, the hostility between him and his arch “nemesis” Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad who at the end also conceded that Karpal had contributed to the nation.

However those privileged enough to know him outside the courtroom or the Dewan Rakyat will attest that he reserves his roar only for those who deserve it.

Otherwise, Karpal was a gentle soul who was kind to the Press and ever obliging to his numerous “fans” who would walk up to him for a handshake or selfie.

He generally spoke softly yet convincingly about his concerns for the country we are leaving behind for the next generation.

He was worried about the dearth of younger leaders.

While talking about future leaders, he suddenly stopped mid-way and told this interviewer: “Even you! You should think about it.”

I laughed it off as a joke only to have the glare of the Tiger upon me: “I’m serious.”

I turned him down, saying meekly that I’d make a lousy politician.

“No one is asking you to be a politician! Just stick to your principles!”

Principled to the end

My sessions at his office were few but each time I met him there he would give more than the one hour I’d request. Hence we would end up talking for hours, where I’d end up helping Michael to close up the office and wheel his boss to a waiting car – usually driven by his son Ramkarpal, who had survived the accident that killed his father.

During our meeting Karpal would pull out his books, letters he wrote to the likes of Mahathir and the Yang Di-Pertuan Agong for clemency for a client on death row.

We would speak regretfully of being unable to save some of his clients – notably Australian Kevin Barlow who was hanged for drug trafficking in 1986.

“He was caught in a bad situation and got fixed. They should have commuted his sentence,” said the crusader against the mandatory death penalty who had dedicate his autobiography “Karpal Singh: The Tiger of Jelutong” which was launched last October to “The Executed”.

One of his favourite topics was the judiciary, where he named Supreme Court Judge Tan Sri Wan Sulaiman Pawan The, a victim of the 1988 judicial crisis as “one of the best judges we ever had”.

Ironically Karpal’s last court battle was just two weeks ago when he lost against a move to cite him for sedition and fined RM4,000 which would have seen him lose his Bukit Gelugor seat.

“I did not challenge the Sultan, I was just giving a legal opinion,” he would say of the sedition charge he was convicted of for saying the Sultan of Perak’s decision to accept that the Pakatan Rakyat Government did not command the confidence of the State Legislative Assembly, could be challenged.

It may be a crafty way for the wily Karpal to get around a sticky situation, but the powers that be were not convinced, swayed perhaps by his numerous confrontations with royalty – suing the Sultan of Selangor for his refusal to pardon condemned persons; the Yan Di-Pertua Negeri of Negri Sembilan for a contractual matter and the Sultan of Johor in 1987 for assault.

Umno had demanded Karpal apologise to the Johor Sultan. In true form he refused. Six years later it was the BN who moved for legislation to clip the powers of the constitutional monarch.

His opposition to Hudud was consistent – but he was not anti-Islam. A fact that PAS spiritual advisor Datuk Nik Abdul Aziz Nik Mat acknowledged.

“Don’t play with the constitution” was Karpal’s last words in Parliament – a testament of how sacrosanct he believed the constitution to be.

“He opposed BN and Umno when it was unglamorous to do so,” PKR strategic director Rafizi Ramli opined.

Indeed Karpal took the lead and stepped up when others did not have the guts to do so.

“It was the right thing to do” was the only motivation he needed.

In his 45 years in politics, the only accusations Karpal ever had to fend off were that of being “anti-Islam” and “anti-Monarchy”.

He had been locked up on what some may say are “trumped up” charges. But the longer he spent in jail, the more popular he became.

No one has ever accused Karpal of corruption or conflict of interests. He is one of the few politicians untainted by scandal, also managing to answer to claims that he had backtracked from his 1997 statements on allegations of sexual impropriety against then deputy premier Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim – who had since become a close friend.

“I have been consistent. I said these are serious allegations against a man who may become the next prime minister hence he needs to clear his name. What’s wrong with that?”

Fate was unkind to Karpal. For someone who had survived an accident that put him in a wheelchair in the last nine years of his life, and then to die in yet another crash is unfathomable.

His reward should have been a peaceful end surrounded by those he loved, after seeing some of his dreams realised.

The unprecedented scenes at his funeral in Penang are a testament to his service and the huge sense of loss. Everyone aspires to be Karpal Singh but few can live up to him. How many of us are willing to sacrifice family and freedom for a greater good?

His reputation as a person who stuck to his guns and the hero who stood up for the little man made him the icon he was in life and now, immortalised as a legend, where generations to come will speak his name.

It is incumbent upon us who subscribe to Karpal’s ideals to impart to our children the lessons the Tiger of Jelutong had taught us – to keep doing the right thing, even if it is the most difficult thing to do.

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 24 April 2014, 2:10 pm and is filed under
DAP
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


3,000 turn up at emotional memorial service for Karpal

by Lee Shi-Ian

The Malaysian Insider

April 25, 2014

It was a night of mixed emotions at a memorial for the late Karpal Singh which was attended by more than 3,000 people at the Kuala Lumpur-Selangor Chinese Assembly Hall yesterday.

There were tears, laughter, defiance, grief and above all, respect from those who begin arriving as early as 6pm to pay their respects to the late veteran lawyer and politician affectionately known as the “Tiger of Jelutong”.

Young and old, Malaysians from all walks of life came to honour the memory of Karpal who died in a road accident last Thursday along with his trusted aide, Michael Cornelius.

Outside the hall, Rela personnel ensured that traffic was smooth, directing vehicles to various parking areas.

At the main entrance of the premises a large screen had been erected, on which scenes from Karpal’s state funeral on Sunday were depicted.

Another screen was set up inside the main hall where the memorial service was held.

Volunteers handed out flowers, posters and stickers of Karpal to people as they entered the hall. There were also donation boxes placed at the entrance.

A large portrait of Karpal was set on the stage and people were seen placing flowers and bowing before the image.

By 7.20pm, the hall was packed to its capacity with some 3,000 people. Many sat on the floor after all available seats were filled. Others stood at the entrance when there was no more room in the hall.

A thunderous applause rocked the hall when the emcees, who spoke in Mandarin, English and Hindi, announced the arrival of Karpal’s son, Gobind Singh Deo. Some shouted “DAP! Karpal!” as others clapped.

The memorial service kicked off with a speech from Cheras MP Tan Kok Wai, who criticised Barisan Nasional for not attending.

Then former National Human Rights Society president Malik Imtiaz Sarwar took to the stage and reminisced about his childhood days growing up with Karpal’s children.

He spoke fondly of Karpal, describing him as “the coolest uncle I ever knew”, and related how Karpal often protected the children when they got into trouble with their mothers for being mischievous.

A speech and song were then presented by political activist Hishammuddin Rais and Nik Jidan.

National Laureate A. Samad Said touched the crowd when he presented a sajak (poem) composed in honour of Karpal.

Former Bersih chairperson Datuk S. Ambiga, in her tribute to Karpal said: “The thousands who are (here) tonight, the thousands who came on Sunday, that was the biggest tribute and honour of all for Karpal.”

PAS deputy president Mohamad Sabu, or Mat Sabu, said Karpal was a fiery MP who had reprimanded the Speaker in Parliament on numerous occasions, even telling him he was not fit to sit in the chair.

Mat Sabu regaled the crowd with stories of Karpal, saying even when Karpal was thrown out of the Dewan Rakyat, he always returned unrepentant as he believed in what he was fighting for.

Speeches were also made by DAP life adviser Dr Chen Man Hin and Dr Norleen Heyzer, who is the special adviser to the United Nations secretary-general for Timor Leste and the widow of the late Fan Yew Teng, the former Kampar MP and Petaling Jaya state assemblyman.

Penang Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng, DAP adviser Lim Kit Siang and PKR de facto leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim also took to the stage to pay tribute to Karpal.

At 10.30pm, after Kit Siang gave the last speech, the emcees asked the crowd to queue in an orderly manner to place flowers in front of Karpal’s portrait. Some were seen crying as they stopped at the portrait before leaving the memorial. – April 25, 2014.

                This entry was posted on Friday, 25 April 2014, 8:25 am and is filed under
DAP
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Kit Siang: Let thousands of Karpals rise

Kow Gah Chie

Malaysiakini

Apr 25, 2014

After his sedition conviction, Karpal Singh had uttered these famous words, “You knock out one Karpal, a hundred Karpal Singhs will rise.”

His long-time friend and political colleague Lim Kit Siang recalled this quote during the memorial service held for the late politician, who was killed in an accident on April 17, in Kuala Lumpur last night.

However, Lim had a grander vision.

The DAP supremo wanted to see not a hundred but thousands of Karpals rising up to the fight.

“I promise to continue his fight… Karpal’s dream is to uphold the rule of law, justice, good governance as well as a united and harmonious Malaysia… This will be our dream… and to make it a reality in the next general election,” he added.

Lim also said millions are still grieving over Karpal’s death and this reflected how great a man he was.

Nine years ago, an accident left Karpal paralysed from the waist down and he remained confined to a wheelchair until his death.

While most would break down when dealt such a cruel twist of fate, Ambiga Sreenevasan noted that the incident failed to dampen Karpal’s fighting spirit.

On the contrary, the former Bar Council president and Bersih said: “He stood taller when he was in a wheelchair.”

Speaking at the memorial attended by some 3,000 people, Ambiga also expressed her gratitude to his widow Gurmit Kaur and the couple’s children.

“Thanks, Gurmit and family, for sharing Karpal with us, you don’t know how much we depended on him.

“You have lost your Karpal, he was a wonderful husband, father and grandfather. We have lost our Karpal, a good representative, friend and supporter,” she added.

Anwar: Goodnight, sweet prince

Anwar Ibrahim, on the other hand, recalled his last telephone conversation with Karpal and remembered how the latter had once gently hit him in public which he (Anwar) regarded as an “affectionate slap of an elder brother on a younger sibling on the wrist”.

“Now cracks a noble heart. Good night sweet prince,” the opposition leader said, quoting Horaitio in William Shakespeare’s Hamlet.

Meanwhile, DAP secretary-general Lim Guan Eng said he missed Karpal’s courage and strength.

“His constant reminder was, no matter you win or lose, it is important to fight and bounce back if defeated,” he said.

PAS deputy president Mohamad Sabu told the crowd that Karpal was a tame cat when he was with friends and family, but turned into tiger when fighting his cause.

He fondly described Karpal as “the lawyer of lawyers”.

“Karpal had his own beliefs and principles, but he would bow to his friends and opponents if they could match his principles and beliefs in debates,” he said.

Also present were special adviser of the United Nations representative for Timor Leste and wife of former actng DAP secretary-general the late Fan Yew Teng, Noeleen Heyzer, and national laureate A Samad Said.

                This entry was posted on Friday, 25 April 2014, 3:43 pm and is filed under
General
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Malaysia to issue MH370 initial findings next week, CNN reports

The Malay Mail Online

April 25, 2014

Kuala Lumpur April 25 – Malaysia has agreed to release its preliminary report on the disappearance of MH370 by next week, caving to pressure from the angry families of those aboard the missing jetliner.

In an exclusive interview with CNN yesterday, Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak reportedly told the global news channel’s aviation expert Richard Quest that the report, now in the hands of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), will be made publicly available.

“I have directed an internal investigation team of experts to look at the report, and there is a likelihood that next week we could release the report,” Najib said, according to CNN’s online report of the interview.

CNN said the prime minister later replied with a more definitive answer that the report will be released next week, and that according to Najib’s office, the internal investigation team has also been told to look into what other information could be revealed at the same time.

Citing ICAO, CNN said Malaysia made a safety recommendation in its report. The country’s investigators reportedly urged the global aviation industry to consider real-time tracking of all commercial aircraft, the same recommendation made after Air France Flight 447 went down in 2009.

Earlier in the day, CNN had quoted Malaysian officials as saying that they were yet to decide if they would make their preliminary findings public.

The news report, however, raised questions over why the Malaysian authorities would not immediately release their findings, particularly at a time when the country was under tremendous pressure from international communities to prove it had not bungled investigations into MH370’s mysterious disappearance.

Quest had pointed out that such preliminary reports are typically made public.

“In most cases, the report is published because it’s not a controversial document,” he said. “It’s a statement of facts ― what happened. And if there are any controversial or difficult facts, they can be redacted.”

The alleged secret nature of the preliminary report also fueled the frustration of MH370’s next-of-kin.

Sarah Bajc, the partner of passenger Philip Wood, told CNN that the Malaysian authorities have been “choosing to treat us as if we are the enemy as opposed to an interested party in helping to solve this mystery.”

“We need a fresh start here,” she was quoted as saying in the channel’s online news report.

“We’ve been sitting on opposite sides of the table. They have a briefing, they tell us what they know and we ask them questions.”

“That’s just kind of broken. I think we need to start from scratch and sit down and have a positive dialogue.”

It has been 49 days since the Malaysia Airlines flight MH370 disappeared from radar. The Boeing 777-200ER carrying 239 people is believed to have diverted radically off its original flight path to Beijing before ending its journey in the southern Indian Ocean.

The conclusion was announced by Najib in a somber press conference on March 24, over two weeks after the jetliner’s disappearance on March 8.

But in his interview with Quest last night, Najib would not say that the plane was considered lost and its passengers dead.

He told Quest that although the circumstances suggest such a scenario, he could not make such a claim for the sake of the families of those on board.

“On the balance of the evidence, it would be hard to imagine otherwise,” he said.

“Right now, I think I need to take into account the feelings of the next of kin..  and some of them have said publicly that they are not willing to accept it until they find hard evidence.”

Searchers now scouring the vast swathes of the remote Indian Ocean off the coast of Perth in Australia have yet to find any evidence of MH370.

On Wednesday, Malaysia announced the formation of an international panel of experts to conduct an extensive probe on the aircraft’s disappearance.

“The main purpose of the international team is to evaluate and investigate and determine the actual cause of the accident so that similar accidents can be avoided,” acting Transport Minister Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Hussein told a press conference here.

“It, however, will not cover the criminal aspects of the case, which come under the purview of the Royal Malaysian Police,” he added.

Hishammuddin explained that the team, which will be appointed by a special sub-committee chaired by his deputy, will cover three key areas ― the plane’s airworthiness, operational aspects related to the plane, and the medical and human factors of those on board.

                This entry was posted on Friday, 25 April 2014, 9:45 am and is filed under
MH 370
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Pakatan Rakyat would suffer devastating setbacks in Perak, Pahang, Negri Sembilan and Melaka in the 13GE if hudud had been a major controversial issue in 2013 general elections

Yesterday I wrote about how hudud was never a vote-winner for PAS in previous elections and would  have given back to the Barisan National (BN)  two-thirds majority control of parliament and cost Pakatan Rakyat (PR) the state of Selangor if hudud had been part of the PR Manifesto prior to GE2013. PR would still have lost the Kedah state government and Johor would have reverted to being a BN “fixed deposit” state.

How would PR’s performance in the other states been affected namely Perak, Pahang, Negeri Sembilan and Melaka if hudud had been a major controversial issue in the 13GE?

The answer is that Pakatan Rakyat would have suffered devastating setbacks in Perak, Pahang, Negri Sembilan and Melaka in the 13GE if hudud had been a major controversial issue in the 2013 general elections.

In Perak, Pakatan was two seats short of forming the state government in GE2013. If hudud had been part of Pakatan’s manifesto, instead of the 28 state seats won, PR would have only won 17 state seats with a 20% drop in non-Malay support (Scenario 3). PAS and PKR would have been reduced to 1 and 2 seats respectively from 5 seats each. DAP would have only won 14 seats rather than the 18 it actually won. (Table 1 below)

Table 1: Number of state seats PR would have won in Perak in GE13 under 3 different scenarios

Actual GE13 results

Scenario 1 (PR Malay vote increase by 1%, Non-Malay vote decrease by 10%)

Scenario 2 (PR Malay vote increase by 1%, Non-Malay vote decrease by 15%)

Scenario 3 (PR Malay vote increase by 1%, Non-Malay vote decrease by 20%)

PAS

5

3

2

1

DAP

18

18

17

14

PKR

5

2

2

2

Total

28 (47%)

23 (39%)

21 (36%)

17 (29%)

In Pahang, PR won 12 out of 42 state seats or 28% in GE2013. With hudud, PR would have only won 4 seats under the worst outcome of a 20% fall in non-Malay support (Scenario 3). PAS and DAP would have only won 2 seats each (Table 2 below).

Table 2: Number of state seats PR would have won in Pahang in GE13 under 3 different scenarios

Actual GE13 results

Scenario 1 (PR Malay vote increase by 1%, Non-Malay vote decrease by 10%)

Scenario 2 (PR Malay vote increase by 1%, Non-Malay vote decrease by 15%)

Scenario 3 (PR Malay vote increase by 1%, Non-Malay vote decrease by 20%)

PAS

3

3

2

2

DAP

7

6

2

2

PKR

2

2

1

0

Total

12 (28%)

11 (26%)

5 (12%)

4 (10%)

In Negeri Sembilan, PR was successful in denying BN a two-thirds control of the state legislature by winning 14 out of 36 state seats or 39% in GE2013. With hudud, PR would have won a mere 6 seats or 17% under Scenario 3. (Table 3 below)

Table 3: Number of state seats PR would have won in Negeri Sembilan in GE13 under 3 different scenarios

Actual GE13 results

Scenario 1 (PR Malay vote increase by 1%, Non-Malay vote decrease by 10%)

Scenario 2 (PR Malay vote increase by 1%, Non-Malay vote decrease by 15%)

Scenario 3 (PR Malay vote increase by 1%, Non-Malay vote decrease by 20%)

PAS

0

0

0

0

DAP

11

10

7

6

PKR

3

2

2

0

Total

14 (39%)

12 (33%)

9 (25%)

6 (17%)

In Melaka, PR won 7 out of 28 or 25% of state seats in GE2013. With hudud, under the worst projection of a 20% fall in non-Malay support, PR would have been reduced to a mere 3 seats or 11%, all won by the DAP.

Table 4: Number of state seats PR would have won in Melaka in GE13 under 3 different scenarios

Actual GE13 results

Scenario 1 (PR Malay vote increase by 1%, Non-Malay vote decrease by 10%)

Scenario 1 (PR Malay vote increase by 1%, Non-Malay vote decrease by 15%)

Scenario 1 (PR Malay vote increase by 1%, Non-Malay vote decrease by 20%)

PAS

1

0

0

0

DAP

6

5

4

3

PKR

0

0

0

0

Total

7 (25%)

5 (18%)

4 (14%)

3 (11%)

We have been down this path before just prior to the 2004 general elections.

PAS insistence of passing the hudud enactment in Terengganu led to the DAP leaving the Barisan Alternatif in 2001. BN went on to a historic victory in 2004 by winning 91% of parliament seats and 89% of state seats in Peninsular Malaysia.

Pakatan Rakyat has been through many challenges since 2008. We have governed and continue to govern as a coalition at the state level.

Many of our comrades-at-arms in PR continue to be persecuted and prosecuted by the BN regime.

Many of them could lose their state and parliament seats if the judicial system dispenses the same kind of justice which was shown to Karpal Singh and Anwar Ibrahim.

Our focus should be on those who continue to abuse their powers, who continue to benefit from corruption, who continue to destroy our institutions and not to be distracted from our larger goal of reforming the country and focusing on the goal to win Putrajaya in GE14 in order to give Malaysians a better future for all.

                This entry was posted on Friday, 25 April 2014, 10:20 am and is filed under
DAP
,
PAS
,
PKR
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Slippery slope, lawyers say of Pahang ban on holy books in hotels

by Ida Lim

The Malaysian Insider

April 25, 2014

KUALA LUMPUR, April 25 ― A Pahang Islamic body’s recent decision to ban hotels from carrying books on non-Islamic religions signals another step on the path towards further erosion of Malaysia liberties, said several lawyers yesterday.

Raising alarm over the Pahang Islamic and Malay Customs Council (MUIP)’s move, the lawyers said failure to speak up now would see religious bodies steadily take on a bigger role in regulating the daily conduct of non-Muslims and Muslims.

Lawyer Eric Paulsen said the recent ban highlights a “growing Islamisation in Malaysia and growing encroachment of Islamic authorities in the day-to-day lives of all Malaysians, whether Muslims or non-Muslims”.

“There is now a growing acceptance that this is an Islamic country and that Islam must have its way over non-Muslims and Islam is sacrosanct and their policies must trump all other people’s rights,” the co-founder of civil rights group Lawyers For Liberty (LFL) told The Malay Mail Online.

He agreed that the move to officially ban non-Islamic religious materials from Pahang hotel rooms could lead to a slippery slope where more liberties are lost, claiming that both federal and state authorities appear to favour the Muslims’ rights taking precedence over non-Muslims’ rights.

“Where does that policy stop?” he aked.

Paulsen added that Pahang’s Control and Restriction of the Propagation of Non-Islamic Religions Enactment 1989, which MUIP relied on for the ban, was wide and arbitrary, viewing the state law as going against the Federal Constitution’s rights to freedom of speech and freedom of religion.

Silence by the federal authorities over the state department’s move also risks being construed as tacit approval, he added.

Civil liberties lawyer Syahredzan Johan also said this was another case of state religious authorities attempting to “extend their influence on things which may not fall within their jurisdiction”, saying that that both non-Muslims and Muslims alike should be concerned at this trend.

Saying that the state religious bodies’ actions are sending “the message that Muslims are so fragile that they need to live in a protected sphere”, he objected to the increasing official regulation of Islam which he described as a personal faith.

“Because we can’t allow state religious authorities to define what our faith is, how we should practise it, faith is something which is personal, if we believe in something, we should be able to stick to,” he told The Malay Mail Online.

Syahredzan also painted a possible scenario if the Pahang ban could lead to creeping impositions on Malaysians’ freedoms.

“If we don’t do anything or we don’t say enough is enough, we won’t see an end to that and the state would be a state that takes responsibility for one religion and think that religion is supposed to supercede other religion in the state. That is certainly not the case, that’s not constitutional.”

Another civil liberties lawyer, Nizam Bashir, sought to allay non-Muslim’s concern that their rights would be increasingly eroded with such Pahang authorities’ move, saying that they would not be severely affected if they refrain from propagating their faith to Muslims.

He pointed out that the Federal Constitution’s Article 11 (4) ― a provision that enables states to make laws placing restrictions on non-Muslims, including Pahang’s 1989 enactment ― was confined to attempts to spread non-Islamic religions to Muslims.

But he also said allowing Muslims access to books on non-Islamic religion could even be a good thing and enhance their ability to spread their own faith, adding that Muslims were losing out with the existence of provisions in the 1989 law.

“When you have provisions like that, it prevents Muslims from being able to know the bible or any non-Islamic holy books and performing dakwah (evangelism).

“We won’t have people like Ahmed Deedat, Shibli Zaman, Bassam Zawadi. These are all famous Muslim preachers preaching Islamic faith to non-Muslims. I think the culture of fear that we have is not a healthy one,” the Syarie lawyer said.

Effects on liberties aside, the lawyers also cast doubt over MUIP’s jurisdiction.

Nizam also said it was unclear if MUIP was the lawful authority to issue the directive in the first place and whether the ban would be applicable to hotels instead of individuals, saying that the courts would have to decide on these matters.

Syahredzan insisted that MUIP only has enforcement powers under the enactment if there is propagation of other faiths to Muslims, adding that hotel operators can challenge MUIP in court on the grounds that it has “no authority” to issue and impose the prohibition.

But Paulsen said that while the hotel operators could seek a judicial review of MUIP actions, he noted they may choose not to do so “in reality” out of fear that they may not be able to continue getting a business licence.

On Wednesday, MUIP deputy president Datuk Seri Wan Abdul Wahid Wan Hassan said the council has issued a letter to 147 hotels in the state to prohibit them from putting any materials on non-Islamic religions in public reading places especially hotel rooms.

In the March 6 letter obtained by The Malay Mail Online, MUIP said putting such materials in hotel rooms could amount to spreading other faiths to Muslims “as part of the public” residing in hotels, with such an offence punishable in the civil courts by a maximum fine of RM5,000 or a maximum two-year jail term or both.

The letter cited both Article 11 (4) and the 1989 enactment, but did not state the specific provision in the 1989 state law.

                This entry was posted on Friday, 25 April 2014, 1:32 pm and is filed under
Islam
,
Religion
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Thousands gather to pay tribute to Karpal Singh

By Michael Murty

The Rakyat Post

April 24, 2014

Amidst an estimated crowd of 4,000 people inside and outside the KL-Selangor Chinese Assembly Hall, the memorial service for the late Karpal Singh started with everyone standing for one minute in silence in memory of the “Tiger of Jelutong”.

Those who could not get into the hall gathered outside, watching on a large screen.

Lights went off in the hall at one point, and what came was a poignant tribute to the former DAP chairman, through visuals and sound.

A video was played highlighting significant moments of Karpal’s life.

It began with pictures of a young Karpal from his school days, to him passing his Bar exam, marrying Gurmit Kaur, his detention under the Internal Security Act (ISA) and his other famous moments.

Also played on the screen were his famous quotes.

The video moved the packed crowd from cheers to applause and straight to tears within minutes.

It ended with a frame of his last parliamentarian quote: “Do not play with the Constitution. The Constitution is the supreme law.”

As soon as the lights were switched back on, photographers rushed to get pictures of people wiping off their tears.

DAP acting national chairman Tan Kok Wai started off the night by calling Karpal a “towering” Malaysian who had contributed tremendously to the country.

“We are here to pay tribute to this great man. His passing is still fresh in our memory.”

Tan, however, included in his speech, a condemnation of the government for not allowing organisers to use a bigger venue for the memorial service when they refused to allow them to use a school hall.

“That hall would have held more than double the capacity here. Shame on them.

“We at DAP, promise that we will do our best in the next general election to end the hegemony of crooks and tyrants,” he said.

There were heartfelt speeches that included poetry and song.

Lawyer Malik Imtiaz Sarwar spoke of his personal connection with Karpal and the veteran politician’s family.

“We lived close by and all I remember is a towering figure I called Uncle Karpal,”

Karpal’s son and Puchong member of parliament Gobind Singh Deo begun his speech in tears but ended it by roaring Karpal’s words, “Jangan main-main”.

The crowd was moved by his speech, encouraging him and cheering him on.

“Last week, at this time, I was visited by the Tiger. My father met me in KL, before he left for Penang.

“You never know that, that would be the last time you meet someone, you are really never ready to lose them.

“He left my room at 10.30pm on Tuesday night and at 2am I was told that there was an accident. My wife came to see me and didn’t know what to say, she broke down and cried. At that time I was told that two members of my family had died.

“We did not know what actually happened. We rushed to the Kampar mortuary. In the journey, flashes of this great man went through my mind. As the news broke out, many people called in disbelief and shock, many didn’t know what to say.

Gobind said at the Ipoh hospital, people gathered from all walks of life, and everyone asked that one question, “Is it true?”

Tears flowed and emotions ran high, Karpal’s son said.

“Three days in the house and then the funeral. Tens of thousands of people lined up the streets leading to my house to express grief and sadness. It will take time before we come to terms with this loss.

“On behalf of my family we would like to thank all Malaysians who gave the Tiger the send off he deserved. We, our family, thank you from the bottom of our hearts. Special thanks to the state government of Penang.

“We are grateful to Lim Kit Siang and Lim Guan Eng. No words can describe how thankful we are for you to stand by us, not just as politicians but as family friends,” Gobind remarked, referring to the father-son DAP leaders.

“They tried for years to break him, they could not do it.

“I thank God for giving me such a father and to know such a great man. We must carry on his fight,” Gobind told the packed hall.

PAS deputy president Mohamad Sabu described Karpal as a tiger and lion in Parliament and in court, but a tame cat at home and among his family and friends.

“100 or 200 Karpals can come, but to me they will never equal Karpal Singh,” he said.

Opposition leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim echoed those thoughts, saying there will never be a replacement for Karpal.

“The people had lost a courageous defender of their rights and I have lost a great friend.

“From the visits when I was in Sungai Buloh prison, and the service as my legal representation right through the latest case. He always said we would always fight tooth and nail but we would never use dirty tactics or cheat. He was that kind of man.

“Titles didn’t matter to him, instead how he was held in great esteem by everyone was important. That was evident in Penang when a sea of people paid tribute to him,” Anwar said.

Others who made speeches included the Special Adviser of the United Nations Secretary General for Timor-Leste Dr Noeleen Heyzer, National Laureate A. Samad Said, DAP leader Lim Kit Siang, Penang Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng, DAP party life adviser Dr Chen Man Hin and Bersih head Datuk Ambiga Sreenevasan.

There were also diplomats from Finland, representatives from the British and Australian High Commissions at the service as well as representatives from various non-governmental organisations like Bersih, Asalkan Bukan Umno (ABU) and the Malaysian Indian Voice, among others.

The memorial service was a tribute in all sense of the word, as its main purpose was to celebrate Karpal’s life by highlighting key attributes of the former Bukit Gelugor MP through speeches, poetry and songs.

                This entry was posted on Friday, 25 April 2014, 8:40 am and is filed under
DAP
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


We ask no favours, and will ‘fight till the end’ to clear Karpal’s name, says Gobind

by Eileen Ng

The Malaysian Insider

April 25, 2014

Karpal Singh’s family does not expect any “favours” from Putrajaya in their appeal against the late lawyer and politician’s conviction and sentence for sedition, his son Gobind Singh Deo told a crowd of more than 3,000 last night.

The Puchong MP said he was aware of growing calls for Attorney-General Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail to drop the cross-appeal to enhance Karpal’s sentence of a RM4,000 fine, but indicated that the family will continue with the appeal to remove the smudge from his illustrious career.

Karpal was fined RM4,000 after the High Court had in February 21 found the former DAP chairman guilty of uttering seditious words against the Sultan of Perak at the height of the constitutional crisis in 2009.

Karpal had filed his notice of appeal against the conviction and sentence and was awaiting the trial judge to provide the grounds of judgment before taking the matter to the Court of Appeal.

The 73-year-old Karpal, known as the Tiger of Jelutong, died in a road accident on the North-South Expressway near Kampar, Perak last week, alongside his aide Michael Cornelius.

“We don’t need any favours from the A-G. We don’t need his sympathies. We won’t back down, we will fight until the end because he would have fought it to the end,” Gobind said to a thunderous applause from thousands present at a memorial service held in honour of Karpal at the Kuala Lumpur and Selangor Chinese Assembly Hall last night.

Karpal was charged with committing the offence at his legal firm in Jalan Pudu Lama in Kuala Lumpur on February 6, 2009.

He had said the removal of Datuk Seri Mohammad Nizar Jamaluddin as the menteri besar of Perak by Sultan Azlan Shah could be questioned in a court of law.

Karpal’s defence was that he offered a legal opinion and not a threat to the ruler, who was once the Lord President of the then Supreme Court.

At the event last night, Gobind took some time to begin speaking when he took the stage, as he seemed overcome by emotions. The crowd clapped and cheered him on.

Thanking those who had come to pay their respects as well as offering prayers and condolences, Gobind said it was important to finish what Karpal had begun for the country.

In saying that he was privileged to have known and have such a great father, whom he described as a “great man”, Gobind called on everyone to carry on Karpal’s fight to defend the rule of law and justice.

He said despite the numerous obstacles faced by his father – from being charged with sedition, detained under the Internal Security Act (ISA) and the automobile accident in 2005 which confined him to a wheelchair – Karpal never gave up.

“Despite his condition, he fought on, never gave up. It was the spirit in him which I think all of us must learn from, his belief in the struggle for a Malaysian Malaysia where there is equality, fairness and justice. We cannot stop here, we must take this fight further,” he said.

He ended his speech with the phrase that has become synonymous with Karpal,  “Jangan main-main, the tiger lives on!”, to which the crowd roared their approval.

Also present at the memorial last night were several top Pakatan Rakyat leaders, including opposition leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim, who said despite the occasional public ticking-off from Karpal, he knew it was made without malice.

“I took it with an open heart, I looked at it like an affectionate slap on the wrist from an elder brother to a younger sibling,” he said, adding that he would not forget the regular visits from Karpal while he was in Sungai Buloh prison.

Anwar said in his final conversation with Karpal at 6.30pm on April 16, hours before the tragic accident, Anwar voiced his worries over the sodomy case.

“We ended our chat with a parting shot from Karpal, ‘Datuk Seri Anwar, you carry on, I will do my best, I will fight on, and you carry on’,” said Anwar.

Karpal’s party comrades also spoke at the event, with DAP parliamentary leader Lim Kit Siang describing Karpal’s death a personal sense of loss as both he and Karpal had fought together for the past 44 years.

“I first met him after I came out from my first ISA detention after the May 13 riots,” he said in referring to the bloody racial riots in 1969.

“Those days, although we had lots of support from Malaysians, very few were prepared to come forward to stick their necks out to face the powers-that-be.

“But Karpal was different, he joined DAP in 1970 and was at the forefront in the battle for a Malaysian Malaysia and we have fought for it together ever since,” he said.

DAP secretary-general Lim Guan Eng said he will miss Karpal’s optimism and cheerfulness, saying that not only was the latter full of courage and vitality, he had also showed much strength, loyalty and idealism.

“When you are in trouble and in need of a friend, you better have Karpal Singh standing beside you because he will be loyal and will be right here to the bitter end with you, no matter what’s in front”.

DAP acting chairman Tan Kok Wai said Karpal had always been a nightmare to BN and this would continue even after his death, as shown in the government’s refused to allow a school hall to be used for his memorial, forcing the party to hold it at the Kuala Lumpur Selangor Chinese Assembly Hall instead.

“To remember his sacrifice and fuilfil his dream of a better Malaysia, we in DAP promise to do our best in the next general election to end the hegemony of the party of crooks, thieves and tyrants,” he said in an apparent reference to BN.

He also paid tribute to Karpal’s aide Michael Cornelius, describing him an as “unsung hero” who had been faithful by Karpal’s side since the latter was left paralysed by an automobile accident in 2005.

“He had served well, without him, it won’t be possible for Karpal to serve as the voice of the voiceless,” he added. – April 25, 2014.

                This entry was posted on Friday, 25 April 2014, 8:09 am and is filed under
DAP
,
Law & Order
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Assemble peacefully without fear, Malaysians told

BY V. ANBALAGAN AND EILEEN NG

The Malaysian Insider

April 26, 2014

The public can now assemble without fear following a Court of Appeal ruling yesterday that a breach of a provision in the Peaceful Assembly Act (PAA) does not amount to an offence, human rights lawyers and lawmakers said.

They said the unanimous decision of the three-man bench led by judge Datuk Mohamad Ariff Md Yusof upheld a fundamental right under the Federal Constitution, which is the right to assemble peacefully.

This means the upcoming May Day anti-GST (goods and services tax) rally will no longer be deemed “illegal” and the public need not worry about the any action being taken against them unless they destroyed properties or committed criminal offences.

The lawyers also saluted the judges who were prepared to uphold the supreme law of the land instead of allowing a basic right that should be enjoyed by citizens to be a mere illusion.

The judgment also said those who went against public order could only be charged under the Penal Code, the Road Transport Act or local government by-laws.

In declaring the punishment provided under the PAA as unconstitutional because it violated the right to assemble peacefully, the appellate court also struck out the charge against Selangor legislative assembly deputy speaker Nik Nazmi Nik Ahmad for failing to give 10 days notice under the Act before organising the May 5 Blackout Rally last year.

Nik Nazmi, who is Seri Setia assemblyman, was facing the possibility of being disqualified from public office, as the offence under section 9 (5) of the PAA 2012 carried a fine of up to RM10,000.

The rally was held to protest the alleged widespread electoral fraud during the 2013 general election which returned the Barisan Nasional coalition to power.

Lawyers for Liberty executive director Eric Paulsen said with the judgment, other provisions in the PAA to punish offenders would appear to be unconstitutional.

“Those charged with offences under other provisions are now very likely to be acquitted as the underlying principle of the judgment is that the state cannot punish anyone under the PAA,” he said.

PKR vice-president N. Surendran, in hailing the judgment as historic, said this was the first time in the nation’s 57 years of independence that the freedom to assemble was given full effect in Malaysia.

“This is a ray of light amidst the murk and gloom of authoritarianism. The judges had defended the right of the people to gather peacefully,” said the Padang Serai MP and lawyer.

Klang MP Charles Santiago said the judgment also meant that it was the responsibility of organisers to inform the police of their intention to hold gatherings instead of seeking permission.

“It redefines what people should do in relation to informing the authorities,” he said.

Santiago said the ruling which had far-reaching implications struck at the heart of the PAA, pointing out that it would open up more space for civil society to assemble.

Lawyer and PAS leader Mohamed Hanipa Maidin said the ruling was sound as punishment for organising or attending an assembly was against a person’s fundamental right to assemble.

“You can provide for laws to regulate assemblies but if you make it an offence, it is no longer freedom to assemble,” he said.

The Sepang MP hoped Putrajaya would abide by the court decision and not rush to Parliament and make amendments to suit the BN government.

“The PAA was enacted to recognise peaceful assemblies. This means the police have a role to play by assisting,” he added.

Former Bar Council chairman Lim Chee Wee, who was present in court when judgment was delivered, said it was one of the proudest moments for the judiciary.

“I salute the judges for living up to their oath of office in upholding and protecting the constitution as we can now enjoy the freedom of assembly without arbitrary restriction,” he said.

Lim said he now looked forward to the Federal Court to affirm this outstanding decision.

Nik Nazmi, who dedicated  his hard-fought victory to the late Karpal Singh, said one must never give up the fight for rights that are already entrenched in the constitution.

“Like Karpal, I came to the courts to test the limit of the constitution and I’m glad all three judges gave well-reasoned grounds,” he added. – April 26, 2014.

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 26 April 2014, 7:51 am and is filed under
Constitution
,
Human Rights
,
Law & Order
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Comparative international data do not support the argument that the implementation of hudud have led to reduction of crime

The arguments in support of implementing hudud have used evidence from other Islamic majority countries to say that hudud can be implemented and also to say that the implementation of hudud will be effective in reducing crime.

But when the evidence is examined closely, comparative international data do not support the argument  that the implementation of hudud have led to reduction of crime.

Just four days ago, it was announced that there would an indefinite delay in the implementation of hudud in Brunei. Some have used the Brunei example as ‘evidence’ that Malaysia too can implement hudud.

But Malaysia is not Brunei. In a recent talk held in February 2014 at the Institute of Advanced Islamic Studies in Kuala Lumpur entitled
“The Implementation of Hudud in Brunei: Differences between Brunei and Malaysia”
, the speaker,
former Chief Justice of Malaysia, Tun Abdul Hamid
 emphasized the many differences between Malaysia and Brunei.

Brunei is an absolute constitutional monarchy with no popularly elected representatives or no provision in the constitution which says that it is the supreme law of the country. It is a unitary country with no distribution of legislative powers between the states and the Federation. There are no constitutional limitations on the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts or the Shariah Courts. The Shariah Court’s jurisdiction, for example, are not limited to persons professing the religion of Islam and there are no restrictions on the types of offences that can be placed under its jurisdiction. There is no law or body which can prevent the Sultan of Brunei to make a law and to implement it.

Malaysia, on the other hand, is a constitutional monarchy with an elected lower house in parliament and elected state legislatures in 13 states. The Constitution is the supreme law of the country and any law that is inconsistent with it is considered null and void. Our courts are empowered to declare a law, whether at the state of federal levels, as null and void if it conflicts with the constitution. Shariah courts are state courts and their jurisdiction is only over matters spelt out in the Federal Constitution and does not apply to non-Muslims.

As such, it is completely inappropriate to use the Brunei example as ‘evidence’ that Malaysia too can implement hudud law. The fact that Brunei too has temporarily suspended the implementation of hudud law should be a reminder to us of the practical complications of such laws and why they should not be implemented in a multi-religious and multi-racial society like Malaysia.

The former Chief Justice also shared his thoughts on the challenges of implementing hudud in other countries with Muslim majority populations. These thoughts should be considered by all who want to push for the implementation of hudud in Malaysia:

“From what we read regarding what had happened in Pakistan, Nigeria and Sudan, since the implementation of the laws in question, we are still unable to say that it is going on smoothly and has achieved greater justice. We read about cases of injustice to rape victims who ended being convicted of the offence of adultery, because they could not produce the witnesses and they were pregnant.”

“But we know that because “there were demonstrations every day”, the offence of rape was removed from the Hudud Ordinance and placed in the Penal Code again and tried by the civil court until now. I am quoting the words of Dr. Anwarul Haq, a Pakistani, who had spent about thirty years in the service of the Brunei Government, inter alia, drafting the Syariah Penal Code Order 2013 under discussion. Question: What was the reason for the daily demonstration and that only the offence of rape was removed from the Hudud Ordinance and placed in the Penal Code again? Certainly the demonstrations were in regard to the offence of rape. Why?”

“In an article written by Aminu Adamu Bello, from  Faculty of Law, University of Abuja, Nigeria titled “Enforcement of Hudood Punishments under Islamic Law in Nigeria:Implications  for   a  Plural  Legal  System”,  the  author  stated  that  “…..data  do  not support an assertion that the enforcement of hudood penalties has had any effect on the  nature  of   anti-social  behaviour,  especially  armed  robbery  (hiraba),  in  these states.

On Sudan, “First, I remember reading an article (of course I am unable to trace it now) that, for political reasons, one night President Jaafar Nameiri appeared on national television and announced  that from 12.00 am that night, Shar’iah would be implemented fully in Sudan. The next morning everything was at a standstill. Police did not know what to do, Prosecutors did not know what to do, lawyers did not know what to do and Judges too did not know what to do. Lawyers rushed to book shops looking for whatever books they could find on the subject.

Second, we also read that, in March 2013, Sudan’s Deputy Chief Justice, Abdul Rahman Sharfi, made an announcement that if doctors refuse to amputate the hands of convicted criminals, the Government would train Judges to do it! He also suggested that doctors who refused to carry out such punishments could themselves face prosecution!”

“So far, the countries that have implemented the hudud punishments, such as Pakistan, Nigeria and Sudan still lag very far behind in these areas compared to countries that do not implement the hudud punishments such as Sweden, Norway, Iceland, Denmark and Japan in those areas.”

For those who want to point to Saudia Arabia as a successful example of how the implementation of hudud has decrease the crime rate, the following evidence paints a cautionary tale:

The
low number of reported rapes may be due to the harsh sentences meted out to rape victims in the past
, which may have discouraged other rape victims from reporting their cases. In addition, according to Human Rights Watch in 2007, the
criminalization of any contact between unmarried individuals of the opposite sex in Saudi Arabia severely impedes the ability of rape victims to seek justice
. A court may view a woman’s charge of rape as an admission of extramarital sexual relations (or “illegal mingling”) unless she can prove, by strict evidentiary standards, that this contact was legal and the intercourse was nonconsensual.

In 2006, a 19-year-old known as
the ‘Girl of Qatif’ was sentenced to 90 lashes for being alone in a car with a man to whom she was not married – considered a crime
 – at the time that she was allegedly attacked and raped by a group of seven other men. (At the time of reporting, four of the men received between one and five years in prison plus 80 to 1,000 lashes while the other three were awaiting sentencing.)

In 2007, the court in Saudi Arabia doubled its sentence of lashings for the ‘Girl of Qatif’ who had spoken out in public about her case and her efforts to seek justice. According to Human Rights Watch, the court also harassed her lawyer, banning him from the case and confiscating his professional license. An official at the General Court of Qatif, which handed down the sentence on November 14, said the court had increased the woman’s sentence because of “her attempt to aggravate and influence the judiciary through the media.”
The court sentenced the rape victim to six months in prison and 200 lashes, more than double its October 2006 sentence
 after its earlier verdict was reviewed by Saudi Arabia’s highest court, the Supreme Council of the Judiciary.

In Pakistan, the consequences of the hudud laws have been even more severe.

According to a blog post titled ‘Growth of Violent Crimes in Reported News and Pakistani Society (1970s-2000s)’, the general population and crime statistics (as provided by the Pakistan Bureau of Police Research and Development: Pakistan Economic Survey) were as such:

Year

Total Population
 in Millions

Total No. of Crimes Reported

Crime Growth Rate (%)

Crime per thousand of Population

1947

31

73,105

–

–

1951

33.82

76,519

–

226

1958

38.12

81,124

6.02

212

1961

42.97

79,900

–1.51

185

1966

51.98

93,633

17.19

180

1971

62.88

129,679

38.50

206

1976

72.12

167,032

28.80

228

1981

83.84

152,782

8.53

215

1986

97.67

220,035

44.02

248

1991

112.61

403,078

83.19

257

1998

133.61

431,854

7.14

323

2000

139.76

388,909

–9.94

278

2003

149.03

400,680

3.03

267

2005

153.96

453,264

13.12

294

2007

158.17

538,048

18.71

340

2009

180

603,626

15

–

2011

187

28,823 January only

–

–

Various news reports have portrayed general crime rates as increasing alarmingly in the last five to ten years.

This means that the hudud law, introduced in 1979, had little effect in preventing the rise in crime rates in Pakistan since 1980!

On the subject of hudud, according to the ‘Pakistan’ page from the website ‘A Comparative Criminology Tour of the World (Dr. Robert Winslow, San Diego State University), dated 2001:

“…Rape is a pervasive problem. The [Human Rights Comission of Pakistan] estimates that at least eight women, five of them minors, are raped every day, and more than two-thirds of those are gang-raped. The law provides for the death penalty for persons convicted of gang rape. No executions have been carried out under this law and conviction rates remain low because rape, and gang rape in particular, commonly is used by landlords and criminal bosses to humiliate and terrorize local residents. It is estimated that less than one-third of all rapes are reported to the police. Police rarely respond to and sometimes are implicated in these attacks.

According to “Legal Injustices: The Zina Hudood Ordinance of Pakistan and Its Implications for Women” (2005)  by Rahat Imran:

 “A sixteen-year-old blind girl, Safia Bibi, was raped by her landlord and his son in Sahiwal, eighty kilometers away from the Punjab capital of Lahore in 1983. A case was registered against the culprits in July 1983, and the court asked the blind girl to identify the rapists. As she failed to identify them, Bibi’s consequent pregnancy was treated as evidence of fornication (as if pregnancy can only result from consensual sex), and therefore she was sentenced to three years in prison, fifteen lashes, and a fine of 1,000 rupees. The judge said the sentence was light because she was young and disabled.” – p. 90

The evidence from Pakistan shows that rather than dispensing justice, hudud has been used to punish rape victims, whom for various reasons, cannot prove that they were raped and end up being charged for adultery or fornification!

According to the Council for Islamic Ideology’s 2006 report, pertaining to its findings and recommendations about the Hudood laws, the Council itself noted that:

“Statistics show that Hudood Ordinance has not been effective in reducing the crimes in Pakistan. Although the number of registered cases is not a proper indication of crime statistics, but even that shows the rate of Hudud crimes has not decreased. The total number of cases registered under Hudood Ordinance arose from 75,943 in 2001 to 82,545 in 2002, and from 76, 063 in 2003 to 77,420 in 2004. This increase in the rate of crimes is despite the fact that the rate of conviction has been higher than the acquittal.”

In Nigeria, the Cleen Foundation (Center for Law Enforcement Education) released a summary of findings report on victimization surveys conducted in 2012. These surveys identify crime trends and indicate areas for further intervention. Their findings did not find any evidence those surveyed in the states in Nigeria which had implemented some form of hudud punishments experienced less crime in the form of theft of mobile phones, rape or attempted rape and robbery.

In summary, there have been numerous problems and challenges associated with the implementation of hudud in other Islamic majority countries including Brunei, Sudan, Nigeria, Pakistan and Saudia Arabia including the wrongful persecution and prosecution of rape victims.

In addition, the implementation of hudud in Pakistan and Nigeria does not seem to have led to a decrease in crime rates!

The evidence clearly does not support the arguments of those who are in favour of implementing hudud in Malaysia based on the experiences of other Islamic majority countries.

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 26 April 2014, 8:00 am and is filed under
Islam
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Obama should rap Putrajaya’s human rights record, says lawyer in Wall Street Journal

by Eileen Ng

The Malaysian Insider

April 26, 2014

With Kuala Lumpur keen to present its best image as a moderate country during Barack Obama’s visit this weekend, a prominent lawyer has called on the US president not to be hoodwinked and instead, to rap Putrajaya’s human rights record and be aware of rising extremism.

In an opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal (WSJ), Bar Council Human Rights Committee co-chair Andrew Khoo said Obama should not buy into the fiction that Putrajaya is trying to showcase; that Malaysia is a moderate Muslim-majority democracy, a model of interracial and interreligious diversity heading for developed nation status by 2020.

The Barisan Nasional-led federal government will also try to present itself as an ally in combating arms proliferation and transnational crime, and friend of the United States in Asia, Khoo wrote.

“President Obama should not accept this fiction or defer to the Malaysian government because of regional security concerns. Instead, he would do well to note the sorry state of its human rights and call for greater respect for civil liberties.

“President Obama needs to deftly use his public appearances and statements to demonstrate concern about what is happening in Malaysia – and to say what many Malaysians fearfully cannot.

“The usual mantra of moderation can no longer conceal the escalation of extremism and repression,” Khoo wrote in the international news and business daily.

Obama arrives today from South Korea on a three-day visit as part of his Asia trip that also took him to Japan. He leaves on Monday for the Philippines.

In his opinion piece titled The Myth of Malaysia’s Moderation, the lawyer shone the spotlight on the rising racial and religious extremism since the 13th general election last year.

In citing examples, Khoo made references to the persecution of Muslim Shia and Ahmaddiya Islamic sect, the ban on Christians using the Arabic word “Allah” to describe God, Putrajaya’s declaration of human rights coalition Comango as unlawful and the use of a colonial-era law Sedition Act against the government’s detractors.

He said recent legislative changes introduced by Najib are the “opposite of needed reform”, citing laws that outlaw street demonstrations and allow for indefinite detention without trial against those involved in serious criminal offences.

“Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak has promoted Malaysia internationally as a leader in a global movement of moderation. But these actions show the government is anything but moderate.

“Mainstream newspapers, many of which are owned by political parties within the government, brazenly promote such double-speak. Those who dare to criticise put themselves at risk of vituperative attacks from extremist groups, police investigation and politically motivated prosecution,” he wrote. – April 26, 2014.

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 26 April 2014, 6:16 pm and is filed under
Human Rights
,
Najib Razak
,
Religion
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.