Rise of Parang Culture and fall of Rule of Law

Letters

by
Bong AP

I am appalled and disgusted to witness and read the dailies of such happenings every day and the problems seem to be endless.

In spite of so much that  have been written, highlighted and discussed its’ always  remained forgotten.The country and cities’ public safety have declined to a very low level where lawlessness prevails to an extent where hardcore criminals can have a free hand to commit vicious crime freely anywhere .

This has come to a boiling point where the general public perceptions are criminals rule by Night and the government Rule partially by Day. Very soon we will end up like Somalia where anarchy prevails and there is no day and night creating warlords  all over the country.

The public are being tyrannized by such deteriorating situations in their daily life. Even simple folks are affected like small time traders, news vendors, hawkers  and delivery boys are being robbed.

We will soon become a Nation of rot and decay if nothing is being done to arrest this complacency and inaction.

The government must have ZERO tolerance on all criminal activities and come up with a policy to deal with hardcore criminals. It’s not rational to keep on treating the problems which the police also failed miserably and leaving no time to treat the root cause.

One good example is the Mat Rempit social menace issue which remains  unresolved year after year and the sickness has spread nation-wide without any long term solutions  to the “Two Wheels of Death” problem. They have turned to robberies and assaults . Daring robberies are even staged by these MAT REMPITS  on PENANG BRIDGE. Indeed they bring shame to us in the eyes of the tourists.

THESE SOCIAL MISFITS ARE NO DIFFERENT COMPARED WITH THE SOMALIA  SEA PIRATES. Someone in the Government  has even come up with an idea to glorify them and the work he has done remained half-cock and forgotten  Serious research must be done in this respect to preempt such lawlessness in this country.

The government has failed to administer strict social order and lacks the political will to maintain law and order. The situation has been exacerbated to such an extent is primarily also due to the free and uncontrolled  flow of illegal and legal immigrants in large numbers into the country. To the extent of building illegal settlements scattered all over the countryside which have taken root here a long time ago.

To make matters worse illegal immigrants  while holding jobs are adding to the crime statistics by moonlighting as hired killers, armed robbers, kidnappers, rapists etc ,etc.

The present system begets inefficiency from police shoddy investigations, arrests, detentions, right up to the judicial system. Our enforcement officers should be firm and fair in exercising their duties to instill in the public that the laws in this country are sacrosanct.

Generally the public have lost trust in the institution of Justice where punishment meted out does NOT reflect the seriousness of the crime committed.

Given the rampant crime rate in the country it is justified to change the laws with the times to give harsher sentences to transgressors as a deterrent especially recurring cases .

The vicious recalcitrant criminals obviously cannot be reformed.Their lack of remorse and thinking clearly place no value on the sanctity of human life. How many robberies, killings, rapes, assassinations etc must it take to make Malaysians realise the weight of the current problems and situations we have at hand?

Malaysians naturally are peaceful and forgetful lots and history will repeat again and  again . We must not let down our guard and stay alert always. There will be no future for all Malaysians if we cannot enjoy simple thing like Peace and Public Security which is the constitutional rights of all MALAYSIANS.

Can we afford to be indifferent about it, ignore it and let the number of crimes to escalate?

ALARM BELLS ALREADY RINGING A LONG TIME AGO.

Wake  UP  Malaysia !

[The language in this letter is not the most exemplary (with minimal editing)  but the cry of desperation shared by Malaysians at the breakdown of law and order and rampat crime rate must be heard by the authorities. – Admin]

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 29 April 2009, 7:16 am and is filed under
Crime
,
Letters
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


N.H. Chan: An inconvenient judge

by Debra Chong | The Malaysian Insider

IPOH, April 30 — Chan Nyarn Hoi lives in a modest two-storey semi-detached house in a quiet lane near the state stadium in Perak with his wife, a dog and seven large Japanese carp.

At 74 years old and with ruddy smooth cheeks under a full head of snowy white hair, few would connect him to the acerbic, no-nonsense former judge Datuk N.H. Chan, who has in the last couple of months done the unthinkable: fire away missives at judges who have trampled on the Federal Constitution in deciding issues related to the power grab in Perak. His lengthy articles have reminded Malaysians of a time gone by when towering individuals sat on the Bench and simplified the Perak constitutional crisis for the common man.

Still seething over the events that transpired in Perak and decisions of the apex court, he says that if Malaysians are upset with the state of the judiciary and think that the present crop of judges are not up to the mark, they should exercise the power of their  vote to change the state of affairs in the country.

Born in Ipoh on March 27, 1935, Chan was admitted to the Bar in 1961. He was a lawyer for almost two decades before becoming a High Court judge and moving to Kuala Lumpur.

He was among the first batch of High Court judges to be elevated to the Court of Appeal, set up in 1994 to act as an intermediate court between the High Court and the apex court.

Chan’s first book, “Judging the Judges”, was published in 2007 and is a collection of his articles for the Perak Bar. Only 1,000 copies were published.

His second book, “How to Judge the Judges”, is expected to come out some time in the middle of the year. The final draft has just been sent to the publishers. They wanted him to include the Perak saga as well, but because it is ongoing, he had to draw a line somewhere. He has included some information in the epilogue.

In an exclusive interview, the former judge, who was recommended to the Bench by none other than Sultan Azlan Shah, the Sultan of Perak and a central figure in the present crisis, tells The Malaysian Insider why he feels compelled to speak out.

Q: Unlike many former judges, you have been very vocal in your criticisms against the judiciary. What drives you?

A:
 In the first place, I am not against the judiciary. I am sure there are some good judges around, only they have not manifested themselves in the present constitutional, should I say, crisis in Perak.

I expected James Foong JCA (as he then was, he is now a Federal Court judge) to do the right thing but he failed to do that. I suppose it takes great courage for a Court of Appeal judge who sat as a winger in the Federal Court to give a dissenting judgment.

Now, back to your question. When I became a judge I had to be true to my calling which is to know that the essence of justice is fair trial and the duty of the judge is to administer it according to law.

Lord Devlin in his book “The Judge”, wrote on page 4: “…impartiality and the appearance of it are the supreme judicial virtues. It is the verdict that matters, and if it is incorrupt, it is acceptable. To be incorrupt it must bear the stamp of a fair trial.”

And at page 85 he said: “The first — ought one to say the whole — duty of the judge is to administer justice according to law.”

Back to page 3, the book said: “What is the function of the judge? Professor Jaffe has a phrase for it — ‘the disinterested application of known law’ (Jaffe in his book “English and American Judges as Lawmakers”, page 13)”

This means that the judge’s only duty is to do justice in the disinterested application of known law. Known law means basic law and the term includes both common law and statute law.

The judge who gives the right judgment but does not appear to be impartial is useless to the judicial process. After that, the judge’s whole duty or function is to decide the case according to law on the admissible evidence before him.

And what do you call a judge who does not administer justice according to law? A renegade judge? So now you know why I am so vocal when I admonish the errant judges who did not apply unambiguous law as it stands.

Q: You have been especially blunt in your views over the issues in Perak. Why so?

A:
 You mean for calling a spade a spade? What do you call a judge who doesn’t follow or apply easy to understand and unambiguous statute law as it stands?

Like Article 72(1) of the Federal Constitution which says: “The validity of any proceedings in the Legislative Assembly of any State shall not be questioned in any court”.

This law applies to all members of the legislative assembly — it does not matter if you are DAP or PKR or MCA or Barisan Nasional or any political party. Even a child could understand the plain meaning of the words. We do not need the Federal Court to interpret (meaning “explain the meaning of”) the words for us. Nor do we need any law professor from Singapore to tell us Malaysians that the courts should have the power of judicial review over what has transpired in Parliament or a Legislative Assembly.

There is separation of powers between the Legislature and the Judiciary of this country. We all know that one can apply to the courts for a judicial review over executive actions. But there is no such thing as judicial review over what transpired in the legislature — if there is such a thing then we can have judicial review over the passing into law of certain Acts of Parliament that we don’t like — like the ISA.

A long time ago when I was a High Court judge, I have sentenced many criminals to death without qualms. But personally I am against the death sentence because it is barbaric. But as a judge I must apply the law as it is.

To quote Lord Denning: “It is their [the judges] duty to administer and apply the law of the land. If they should divert it or depart from it — and do so knowingly — they themselves would be guilty of a misuse of power.”

I would never dream of doing such a thing.

Q: Why did you choose to air your views so publicly? I’m trying to understand why you got involved.

A:
 I’m only an outsider and I don’t care. But when everybody is missing the point and all that — and some of them have not even read the Perak Constitution, I thought I better explain why the people are angry.

Q: Why do you think the people are angry?

A:
 Do you know why the Perakians were up in uproar against the Sultan of Perak?

It’s because, as any lawyer will tell you, especially as he was Lord President before, that before you make a decision, you cannot see the parties. If you want to meet any of the parties, both of them must be present. You never do so by seeing one and then making a decision. The moment you do that, to the losing side or to any observer will think you have been influenced. So it’s the impression that counts.

They were angry with the Sultan because they can sense it in their bones that it is wrong to make a decision to see the other side first.

Q: Is the Sultan morally wrong or legally wrong?

A:
 If the Sultan had executive powers to rule, it is legally wrong, so they could apply for judicial review of the Sultan’s decision. But I pointed out in my first article he has no executive power to rule because he is not an executive monarch, he is a constitutional monarch. What he did was morally wrong.

Q: You must have seen many things during your time as a judge. What is wrong with Malaysia’s justice system? What can be done to correct it? And what’s stopping the necessary changes from taking place?

A:
 I don’t think there is anything wrong with our judicial system. It is the players that we should be concerned with — if we get the right people on the Bench, that is, those people who are not interested in power — because power corrupts, those fair-minded individuals who would administer justice according to law, then we will have a judiciary to be proud of.

We used to have that at one time. And if the general public think that the present crop of errant judges are not up to the mark, then the remedy is to use the power of the vote to change the present state of things.

At the general election of 1906 the common people of England toppled the Conservative Government of the day because they were unhappy with the decision of the House of Lords in the Taff Vale case which had virtually put an end to trade unions six years earlier.

That case had immense political consequences. At the general election of 1906 the opposition pledged complete immunity for trade unions.

Lord Denning said in his book “Landmarks in the Law”, page 121: “The result of the general election was like an earthquake. … It was a sweeping victory for the trade unions. Parliament immediately passed the Trade Disputes Act 1906. It is probably the most important Act ever put into the Statute Book. It reversed all the judicial decisions against trade unions. The Taff Vale case was overruled. No trade union could thereafter be sued for damages for any wrongs done by its members. Its funds were unassailable.”

There is a well known Spanish proverb which says, “He who goes with wolves learns to howl.” So that if the electorate don’t trust the judges they tend to put the blame on the government who put the judges there.

Q: Many ordinary Malaysians today feel powerless to affect positive changes to the institution of the judiciary because they lack legal knowledge. Do you agree with this view? How do you think they can work to bring about the change they want?

A:
 I think the real problem is this. In most cases when you read about a court decision in the newspapers, the judgment of the court is expressed in such a way that the average reader will not know if the judge is right. So invariably, we assume that the judge must be right.

I do realise the problem, so I thought I should try to explain the issue in simple language so that everyone will be able to judge for himself whether the judge is doing the right thing or not.

Lord Denning was famous for explaining difficult law in such a way that any lay reader can understand it. Now that they know how to judge the judges by reading my articles, they could, if they thought they have been short-changed by the judges, do the same thing as was done by the electorate in 1906 England. They have the power to change the government of the day by their vote in the next general election.

The opposition, in order to get the people’s vote, could pledge to undo all the wrongs done to the community by the judges. They could pledge that if they were given the mandate of the people to form the next government, they would pass an Act of Parliament to overrule such unjust decisions of the Federal Court such as Adorna Properties vs Boonsorm Boonyanit, the Asean Security Mills, PP vs Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim as well as all the decisions of the Federal Court pertaining to the Perak constitutional crisis which were not decided according to law — where the court had blatantly refused to apply Article 72 of the Federal Constitution.

They could also pledge to remove the errant judges from office. This is how it could be done.

In “What Next in the Law”, Lord Denning said, page 319: “Parliament is supreme. Every law enacted by Parliament must be obeyed to the letter. No matter how unreasonable or unjust it may be, nevertheless, the judges have no option. They must apply the statute as it stands.”

Yet the errant judges, especially the five in the Federal Court, have refused to apply Article 72 of the Federal Constitution as it stands.

In his book, “The Judiciary in Malaysia” (Asia Pacific Publications Sdn Bhd, 1994) the then Chief Justice of Malaysia Tun Abdul Hamid Omar said, page 88: “… the provisions dealing with the removal of judges in pursuance of an address in Parliament … was modified to provide for a special tribunal to be established for the removal of judges.”

That is incorrect. Actually Article 125(3) of the Federal Constitution only applies to judges of the Federal Court.

At the time of the fracas between the then Lord President Tun Salleh Abbas and Prime Minister Datuk Seri Dr Mahathir Mohamad in 1988, Article 125(3) of the Federal Constitution provides for the removal of judges of the Federal Court on the ground of “misbehaviour or of inability”.

Article 125(3) and (4) reads:

“125(3) If the Prime Minister, or the Lord President after consulting the Prime Minister, represents to the Yang di-Pertuan Agong that a judge of the Federal Court ought to be removed on the ground of misbehaviour or on the ground of inability, from infirmity of body or mind or any other cause, properly to discharge the functions of his office, the Yang di-Pertuan Agong shall appoint a tribunal in accordance with Clause (4) and refer the representation to it; and may on the recommendation of the tribunal remove the judge from office.

“125(4) The said tribunal shall consist of not less than 5 persons who hold or have held office as a judge of the Federal Court, the Court of Appeal or a High Court or, if it appears to the Yang di-Pertuan Agong expedient to make such appointment, persons who hold or have held equivalent office in any other part of the Commonwealth, and shall be presided over by the member first in the following order, namely, the Chief Justice of the Federal Court, the President and the Chief Judges according to their precedence among themselves, and other members according to the order of their appointment to an office qualifying them for membership (the older coming before the younger of two members with appointments of the same date).”

The book “The Judiciary in Malaysia” said — this part is significant so do pay special attention to it — page 89: “Until the recent amendment in 1994, the grounds for the removal of a judge was ‘misbehaviour or of inability’, The Constitution (Amendment) Act 1994, however, substituted for the word ‘misbehaviour’, the words ‘any breach of any provision of the code of ethics prescribed under Clause 3A…’. The effect of this amendment is that, besides the inability, either from infirmity of body or mind, or any other cause, properly to discharge the functions of his office, a judge may be removed if he has breached the code of ethics prescribed for judges.

“Article 125(3A) provides that the code of ethics shall be observed by every judge, be it, the judge of the Federal Court, the Court of Appeal or the High Court.”

This is what Section 2 of the Judges’ Code of Ethics 1994 says:

“2(1) This Code of Ethics shall apply to a judge throughout the period of his service.

“2(2) The breach of any provision of this Code of Ethics may constitute a ground for the removal of a judge from office.”

So now we all know that any serving judge could be removed from office for a breach of any provision of the Judges’ Code of Ethics 1994.

Section 3(1)(d) is the provision in the Code of Ethics to apply against the errant judges. It reads: A judge shall not conduct himself dishonestly or in such a manner as to bring the Judiciary into disrepute or to bring discredit thereto”.

I think the words in Section 3(1)(d) are clear enough — we all know what they mean. So that if a judge brings the judiciary into disrepute or discredit, as the errant judges have done by not administering justice according to law, they could be removed from office under this provision. It’s a bit harsh, but it can be done.

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 30 April 2009, 10:07 am and is filed under
Constitution
,
Court
,
Judiciary
,
Perak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Usurper Zambry plotting 2nd unethical, undemocratic, illegal power grab to remove Perak Speaker Sivakumar

The usurper Perak Mentri Besar Datuk Seri Zambry Abdul Kadir has finally admitted that his first agenda at the
illegally-convened Perak State Assembly meeting
 on May 7 is to
move a motion to remove the Perak Speaker V. Sivakumar
, who has become the most famous Speaker in the Commonwealth for his great and valiant battle in the past three months to defend the Perak State Assembly from encroachments from other branches of government and to uphold the doctrine of Separation of Powers.

Zambry should realize that his usurpation of the office of Perak Mentri Besar as a result of the the unethical, undemocratic, illegal and unconstitutional power grab in Perak in early February cannot gain legitimacy by another unethical, undemocratic, illegal and unconstitutional power grab, this time by breaking all parliamentary traditions, conventions and practices by removing the Speaker through the use of three renegade Assembly members and
a renegade State Assembly clerk
.

How can there be any legitimate government when it is founded on two unethical, undemocratic, illegal and unconstitutional power grabs, firstly on the office of Mentri Besar and secondly, three months later, on the office of Perak Speaker – based on three renegade Assembly persons who dare not appear publicly even in their own constituencies for three months after their  political defection and betrayal and one renegade State Assembly clerk who had been sacked from his position for repeated  public insubordination of his immediate superior, the Speaker?

Zambry is also guilty of acting in a most arrogant and high-handed manner  even as an usurper Mentri Besar,  as he seems to be dealing with an unknown usurper Speaker in convening the Perak State Assembly on May 7 – completely refusing to accept and acknowledge that Sivakumar is the Speaker until there is a proper and legal removal.

As the usurper Mentri Besar, Zambry should abandon the second unethical, undemocratic, illegal and unconstitutional power grab in Perak to remove Sivakumar as Perak Speaker in an illegally-convened State Assembly on May 7 based on the support of three renegade State Assembly members and agree to the dissolution of Perak State Assembly for at least three reasons:

Firstly, the convening of the May 7 State Assembly is contrary to the public commitment of the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak who said on February 28 that the Perak State Assembly cannot meet until the court has decided that the Barisan Nasional is the legal government to rule the state in accordance with the Perak Constitution. As the court has not ruled that Zambry is legally the Perak Mentri Besar, the Perak State Assembly meeting convened on May 7 should be called off.

Secondly, a second unethical, undemocratic, illegal and unconstitutional power grab in Perak based on the support of three renegade State Assembly members can neither  confer legitimacy on Zambry as the legal Mentri Besar or mandate to the Perak Barisan Nasional govern the Perak state.

Just as zero plus zero is zero, illegality plus illegality is illegality!

Thirdly, if Zambry cares for the credibility, integrity and legitimacy of Najib as Prime Minister of Malaysia, he should relieve Najib of the baggage of having orchestrated an unethical, undemocratic, illegal and unconstitutional power grab in Perak by demonstrating that the Perak Barisan Nasional can secure the mandate to govern the state through a new state wide elections and not through the
“biggest political robbery”
 in the history of Perak and Malaysia.

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 30 April 2009, 11:39 am and is filed under
Constitution
,
Perak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


What will Najib’s 100 Days Report be like?

(US President Barack Obama’s first 100 days are being evaluated not only in the United States but internationally, like the following Guardian UK piece.  What will be the First 100 Days Report of Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak be like?)

100 days: Obama the politician

Since entering the White House, Obama has shown himself to be a powerful and effective politician – if not a perfect one

by
Lola Adesioy

guardian.co.uk,

29 April 2009

One hundred days is not enough time to make any definitive conclusions about what to expect from Obama’s presidency. As many have been quick to point out, George Bush was very popular during his first 100 days. And look where he ended up.

What we have got so far, however, is a good sense of President Obama’s political style. In that regard his first 100 days have been, on the whole, pretty good. According to a new New York Times/CBS poll, 68% of Americans believe that Obama is a “different” kind of politician.

In that poll, “different”‘ refers to the president’s personal characteristics and style rather than his policies. Being that Obama won on a platform of “change” promised, it is somewhat disappointing that people are more pleased with his personality than his policies. Ultimately, political substance has more of an effect on lives and in determining a president’s legacy than personal style. But only time will tell whether or not there will be more of a match between the two. It would be unfortunate to see President Obama go in the same direction as Tony Blair – a hugely popular leader who made some unforgivable political decisions.

However, the qualities that create a great – and effective – leader are not to be underestimated. Much of what we’ve seen during the first 100 days is a continuation of the engaging and transformational leadership that Obama presented during the campaign.

The savvy, strategic and analytical nature that allowed him to blindside his opponents during the campaign is still present. His well-considered and thoughtful manner is welcome in times when rushed and embarrassing soundbites make up so much of our media coverage, and when his critics would be more than happy to see him make gaffes.

So far those who have tried to find embarrassing quotes from the president have only really been able to pinpoint an off-hand joke he made about the Special Olympics.

Where the president has made mistakes, he has been quick to admit them and apologise – as he did after Tom Daschle withdrew his nomination for secretary of health and human services due to his substantial tax problems. That’s a refreshing change from America’s previous president.

While many assumed that Obama would spend the first few months learning the ropes, he has instead consistently pushed on his agenda – particularly on the economic stimulus package – in a strong, forthright and decisive style. He has also continued to speak directly to, and involve, the public through press conferences, his Youtube weekly addresses and regular email blasts from his team. This openness continues to create the sense that the president is still genuinely interested in the people who elected him, something which could easily have been lost in the hustle and bustle of everyday Washington life.

There’s no doubt that unexpected and unforeseen events, such as a terrorist attack, could dramatically change the President’s tone and actions, as they did in Bush’s case. However, considering that Obama entered into his presidency facing some of the biggest challenges of our generation – the economic crisis being the most pressing – we have already been given some insight into how he copes under pressure. His calm nature has done much to reassure American people, who for the first time since January 2004 are more likely to say that the country is going in the right direction than the wrong one. This positivity is no doubt also aided by the President’s flexible and pragmatic approach – the public may see that this is a president who is adaptable and willing to do whatever works rather than a rigid, partisan ideologue.

But Obama is no softie and he’s not above politicking. He recognizes that politics is a game that is not for the faint of heart and he plays hardball when necessary, particularly when faced with a Republican party intent on to painting him as an ultra-left socialist. To that end, we’ve seen the president calling out influential conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh and engaging with him in a war of words. Politics as usual? Perhaps. Necessary? Yes.

Another political point-scoring attempt was seen in the release of the CIA memos. On the surface, it seemed that this information was for the public’s benefit. But with the president at first excluding prosecution of the Bush officials who justified torture, it has to be asked: what was the real point of releasing the torture memos was if there was no intention of taking further action?

Sticking with Tim Geithner as Treasury secretary, despite objections, has also raised some eyebrows since raising the ethical and moral standards of Washington has been a key aim for President Obama before and after the campaign. Can the president set standards and then not stick to them himself?

There is no doubt, however, that Obama is a powerful and natural politician. Even if he hasn’t been able to encourage bipartisanship in the way that he had wanted to, his style is effective, not just on regular citizens but on other politicians too. Arlen Specter, a Republican senator for 20 years, has just decided to switch parties and become a Democrat. There’s little doubt that Obama’s performance since he took office on 20 January has much to do with that.

It’s so far, so good, for President Obama on style. For the most part, the good outweighs the bad – and that’s ok. As the right would be so keen to remind us, Obama is not the Messiah – so we can forgive him for not being entirely perfect.

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 30 April 2009, 9:34 am and is filed under
Najib Razak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Invalid Islamic conversion of Indira’s three children – MCA/Gerakan should stop politics of opportunism/hypocrisy

MCA and Gerakan leaders have not learned the message of the March 8 “political tsunami” last year, when both parties  were thrashed in the parliamentary and state general elections.

In the past 11 months, MCA and Gerakan have lost even more public confidence, which was why, according to the Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz, the Barisan Nasional only secured 	11% of the Chinese votes in the recent Bukit Gantang by-election, causing Nazri to remark that  Umno must go on its own to regain the support of non-Malay voters and not depend on other Barisan Nasional component parties.

Shared with Gerakan’s by-election efforts and giving MCA the benefit of the doubt as to who wielded greater influence with the Chinese voters in Bukit Gantang, this means that MCA could only influence at most six per cent, and Gerakan five per cent, of the Chinese voters!

Why is this so?

The answer is very simple – the people can see through the continuing hypocrisy and double standards of the MCA and Gerakan leaders.

The latest example of MCA and Gerakan’s continuing  unprincipled politics of opportunism and hypocrisy is the recent  Cabinet decision on “common religion” for children in controversial unilateral conversion cases – that the civil marriage has to be settled by the civil court and the religion of their children be the common religion at the time their parents were married at civil law.

This Cabinet decision arose from the latest case of controversial unilateral conversion where Ipoh kindergarten teacher Indira Ghandi’s  three  children Tevi Darsiny 12, Karan Dinish 11 and year-old Prasana Diksa were converted by her husband K. Pathmanathan, now known as Mohd Ridzuan Abdullah,  without her consent.

The Cabinet also decided that the year-old baby daughter, Prasana Diksa, forcibly taken away by the father for more than a month although she was still being breastfed by Indira, should be returned to the mother.

This was the decision of the Cabinet, supported by MCA and Cabinet Ministers. However, this decision is not supported by the usurper Perak Barisan Nasional state government, which includes an MCA Exco member and Gerakan appointed adviser who is none other than the Gerakan Deputy Chairman Datuk Chang Ko Yuen.

The refusal of the usurper Perak Barisan Nasional state government, together with the leaders from its  component parties of MCA and Gerakan, to give  full support to the Cabinet decision is all the more  shocking and deplorable as  the “forced conversion” of Indira’s three children is clearly unIslamic, invalid  and violate Perak’s Administration of the Religion of Islam Enactment 2004.

This has been clearly   pointed out by a researcher at the International Institute for Advanced Islamic Studies (IIAIS), Mohamad Hafiz Hassan
(Malaysian Insider 24.4.09)
who said the  current law relating to conversion to Islam in Perak is Section 96 of the enactment.

Mohamad Hafiz states:

“The provisions relating to requirements for conversion to Islam are found in section 96 of the enactment. It states, among others, that for a valid conversion of a person to Islam, the person (a) must utter in reasonably intelligible Arabic the two clauses of affirmation of faith; (2) must be aware that the two clauses mean “I bear witness that there is no god but Allah and I bear witness that the Prophet Muhammad s.a.w. is the Messenger of Allah”; and (3) must utter the two clauses on his or her own free will.

“As soon the person finished uttering the two clauses, he or she becomes a Muslim and shall be referred to as a muallaf (s 97). A muallaf is defined as a person who has just converted to Islam (s 2).

“The muallaf may then apply to the Registrar of Muallaf for registration as a muallaf. If the registrar is satisfied that the requirements of s 96 have been fulfilled, he may register the muallaf’s name and other particulars in the Register of Muallafs.

“In so doing, the registrar has a duty to determine the date of conversion to Islam and enter the date in the register (s 100).

“There is another provision which is of particular importance. It is section 101 which provides that the registrar shall issue a certificate of conversion to every person whose conversion has been registered. It also provides that the certificate of conversion shall be conclusive proof of the facts stated therein.

“There is also section 106 which provides that a person may convert to Islam only if he or she is of sound mind and has attained the age of 18 years. If below that age, he or she must have the consent of the parent or guardian.”

Mohamad Hafiz asked:

“So, how could a child be converted to Islam by the parent? The parent can only consent to the child’s conversion. The child’s conversion to Islam, in any case, is not valid if the child has not uttered the affirmation of faith on his or her own free will.

“A certificate of conversion, if ever issued, will not remedy the non-compliance with requirements of a valid conversion to Islam.”

Are the conversion of Indira’s  three children by Pathmanaban/Ridzuan valid?

This is Mohamad Hafiz’ answer.

“Does the conversion to Islam by a parent make his or her children Muslims? The answer lies in section 2 which defines “Muslim” as … (b) a person either or both of whose parents were at the time of the person’s birth, a Muslim; (e) a person who has converted to Islam in accordance with section 96.”

It is clear that  Indira’s three children have not been validly converted to Islam as neither one of the two provisions of valid conversion had been complied with.

It is most shocking that the usurper Perak Barisan Nasional state government has refused to give full support to the Cabinet decision, both  on the “common religion” decision as well as to  take all necessary measures to help Indira get back her baby daughter.

It is doubly shocking that the MCA and Gerakan leaders in Perak are prepared at the Perak state level to be a party to the refusal of the usurper Perak Barisan Nasional government to give full support to the Cabinet decision – playing the double game of MCA and Gerakan support for the Cabinet’s “common religion” position at the national level but not at the state level.

The MCA and Gerakan leaders should stop this unprincipled politics of opportunism and hypocrisy.

The MCA and Gerakan leaders in Perak should not only give full support to the Cabinet decision but ensure that the usurper Perak BN state government make such a clear stand without equivocation, failing which they should withdraw from the usurper  Perak BN state government.

Alternatively, the national leadership of MCA and Gerakan should repudiate their respective state leaders in Perak for a most unprincipled and opportunistic stand.

                This entry was posted on Friday, 1 May 2009, 2:00 pm and is filed under
Gerakan
,
Islam
,
MCA
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Zambry should stop being a “caveman” Mentri Besar of Flintstones era and wake up to  the age of  Internet and new media

Two online media reports on the preparations taken by the usurper Perak Mentri Besar Datuk Seri Zambry Abdul Kadir  for the illegally-convened May 7 Perak State Assembly meeting expose the mentality not only of the  Perak Barisan Nasional leaders but also of the handful of civil servants acting in cahoots with them.

The Malaysian Insider
in its report
“New media rules for May 7 Perak assembly”
, reported that only 13 media organisations will be allowed to cover the Perak State Legislative Assembly when it is held on May 7.

The Malaysian Insider
 reported:

A media notice was sent out by the state Information Department to several media companies yesterday informing them of the tightened security measures.

The notice stated that only 13 media groups in the list would be allowed to cover the entire duration of the assembly from May 7 to 13.

The 13 listed are television stations RTM and BernamaTV, TV3 and newspapers The Star, New Straits Times, Berita Harian, Utusan Malaysia, China Press, Sin Chew Daily, Nanyang Siang Pau, Tamil Namban, Tamil Nesan and national news agency Bernama.

The notice also limited the number of media workers to two people from each organisation: one reporter and the other a photographer.

The only exceptions made were to state-owned television stations RTM, BernamaTV and Umno-linked private station TV3, which are allowed to send in three people each.

Media organisations barred from covering the May 7 Perak State Assembly include Bahasa Malaysia papers like Sinar Harian, Metro, Kosmo; English daily the Sun, the Edge Financial Daily, the Malaysian Reserve; Chinese dailies like Guang Ming Daily, Kwong Wah Yit Poh, Oriental Daily; Tamil press like  Makkal Osai; television stations  like NTV7, NTV7 Chinese and  8TV Chinese.

All online media organisations are barred, including Malaysiakini, Malaysian Insider, The NutGraph, Merdeka Review, Therocknews, etc.  All foreign agencies and media, whether Reuters, AFP, Associated Press, Bloomberg, Jiji Press, CNN, BBC and Al-Jazeera  are also barred.

And a total ban on all  bloggers – the quintessence of the new media!

Those responsible for such a disgraceful and reactionary press directive to bar all online media and foreign agencies, as well as many  local print media betray the cave mentality and mindset of the stone age fearful of the light, exposure and the Internet.

Zambry and his press handlers do not understand how the media works, don’t care how the media operates, are mortally frightened of the media and even more so with regard to the Internet media.

Let me remind Zambry to  stop being a “caveman” Mentri Besar of  the Flintstones era and wake up to  the age of the  Internet and the new media.

The media restrictions of the usurper Zambry administration runs contrary to the public pledge of support  for “a vibrant, free and informed media” made  by the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak in his first week in office.

Malaysiakini  in its report
“Perak state secretariat lockdown, again”

reported that “Security would be severely tightened at the Perak state secretariat building during the crucial state assembly sitting next month, from May 6 until May 11”.

It states:

The state secretariat building, which houses the assembly hall and government offices, would be off-limits to members of the public during the duration.

Floors with access to the state assembly hall will also be off-limits to state secretariat staff that do not possess special permission.

The police would be cordoning off the building, while only a small number of journalists and three television crews would be allowed to cover assembly proceedings, which starts on May 7.

This is the second lockdown in three months. The first was to prevent an emergency sitting called by speaker V Sivakumar from being convened, resulting in the sitting being held under the now famous ‘democracy tree’.

Only three days ago, Najib was talking about revamp  of the civil service and  to hire  “the best of the best in talent and expertise for the sake of the people”, but in Perak we are seeing the bane  of having “the worst of the worst” in scraping the bottom of the barrel when top civil servants in the state blatantly compromise their most important qualities of political neutrality and impartiality.

Why has the Perak State Secretary Abdul Rahman Hashim issued the directive to lockdown the State Secretariat and the State Assembly for next week’s State Assembly meeting, turning the State Assembly into a security prison, as if the whole area has become a “war zone”?

Yes, there is a three-month old political and constitutional crisis and stalemate in Perak, complicated by the nightmare faced by the usurper Mentri Besar and his State Exco as to how to remove the most famous Speaker in the Commonwealth,  the Perak Speaker V. Sivakumar.

The reason why the Zambry administration is confronted with the conundrum of how to remove the Perak Speaker  is very simple and basic – the illegitimate origin of Zambry’s take-over as MB, as it is the result of an unethical, undemocratic, illegal and unconstitutional power grab which have sullied the credibility  and legitimacy of Najib as Prime Minister and the international reputation of the country as a democracy.

But how Zambry is to resolve the problem to remove the Perak Speaker is a matter to be resolved by the political leaders, in particular the Perak State Assembly members, as it is no business of the government servants whether the Perak state secretary or a renegade Perak State Assembly clerk to get into the political battleground to try to help Zambry consolidate his illegal grab for power.

If extra security measures should be taken when the Perak State Assembly meets, it should be the decision of the Speaker or at least in consultation with him. But this was never done whether by the Perak State Secretary or the renegade Perak Assembly clerk.

If there should be a directive on media coverage of the Perak State Assembly, it should come from the Perak Speaker or it is a contempt of the Speaker’s powers to usurp his powers to regulate the proceedings of the State Assembly.

                This entry was posted on Friday, 1 May 2009, 4:25 pm and is filed under
Media
,
Perak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Time for IGP Musa to resign when crime rampages beyond  police control until even  the JB South OCPD is tied up and robbed at knife point in his house

It is time for the Inspector-General of Police Tan Sri Musa Hassan to resign when crime rampages on in the country beyond police control until even the Johore Baru South OCPD Asst Comm Zainuddin Yaakob was tied up and robbed at knife point in his house in Johore Baru on Thursday morning.

ACP Zainuddin was home alone when three men, believed to be Indonesians, tied him up and ransacked his home at about 5.45 am on Thursday, leaving later with some cash and valuables.

The tying-up and robbing at knife-point of an OCPD in his own house is not just a humiliating episode for the Malaysian police, but highlights the sheer inability of the police force to bring crime under check and control, especially in the several capitals of crime in the country.

One of the greatest failures of the Abdullah premiership is his failure to reduce crime to restore to Malaysians their fundamental right to be free from crime and the fear of crime, whether in the streets, public places or the privacy of their homes.

Although Abdullah started  his premiership with the pledge to fight crime, he left office  with Malaysians feeling even more unsafe from crime which has reached endemic dimensions.

Under Abdullah’s premiership, the police fought a losing war against the rising crime index, which had worsened from 156,315 cases in 2003 to crash  through the 200,000 barrier for the first time in nation’s history.

Now, it is not only the ordinary citizens, visitors, tourists and investors who do not feel safe, even police personnel and police officers like the JB South OCPD are themselves victims of crime.  Until recently, only ex-police officers fall victim to crime – like the former Penang Chief Police Officer who was killed when robbed in his Petaling Jaya home recently!

Abdullah did make an attempt to address the endemic crime problem at the beginning of his premiership, setting up the Royal Police Commission to revamp the police force.

However, the Royal Police Commission’s recommendations to create an efficient, incorruptible, professional and world-class police service to declare an all-out war against crime and to keep crime low was opposed by the police force, UMNO and UMNO Youth then led by the present Home Minister, Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Hussein, sabotaging  the establishment of an Independent Police Complaints and Misconduct Commission (IPCMC).

Abdullah did not have the political will to implement the Royal Police Commission’s recommendations to establish a professional world-class police service to keep crime low, eradicate corruption and uphold human rights.

Does the new Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak has the political will to implement all the recommendations of the Royal Police Commission, in particular to set up the IPCMC?

The signs are not favourable, especially from the way the story of the tying-up and robbing of the JB South OCPD had been played down by the mainstream media.

A cold and wintry wind is blowing through the news rooms of all news media organisations, particularly the mainstream media – heralding the return of Mahathirism on news control and censorship to serve the interests of the political leaders in government rather than those of the people.

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 2 May 2009, 4:13 pm and is filed under
Crime
,
Media
,
Najib Razak
,
Police
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Liow Tiong Lai’s IQ is highly suspect when he could not understand simple English

The IQ of the Health Minister, Datuk Seri Liow Tiong Lai, who is  MCA Vice President and Penang MCA State chief,  is highly suspect when he could not understand simple English.

In Georgetown yesterday, Liow challenged me to clearly state my stand on the Cabinet’s recent decision that minors follow the common religion of their parents at the time of marriage when one spouse opts to convert.

He even made the statement that I am at odds with the DAP National Chairman Karpal Singh over the matter on the ground that Karpal had clearly stated his support for the Cabinet’s decision, implying that I had opposed the Cabinet decision.

I presume that before he issued such a challenge, Liow would have combed through my blog and he could not find any statement from me on the Cabinet decision, let alone support for it.

If so, then Liow must have a very low IQ as not to understand what I have  blogged –to be confused by what should be crystal-clear in my statements.

I would advise Liow to return to my blog to go through the various statements and if he still could not find my expression of support for the Cabinet decision, I offer to give Liow a free tutorial to understand basic English and to take him through my statements  to show him how he had committed the colossal blunder of not understanding simple English.

My grouse with the Cabinet is not over the decision it had made, which is highly commendable although after five years of procrastination since the Everest mountaineer Moorthy conversion controversy, but  the Cabinet’s failure to  send out a clear signal that its decision on the “common religion” is not a meaningless one.

For instance, it is 12 days since the Cabinet decision on April 22 on the “common religion” as well as for the return of her year-old baby daughter, Prasana Diksa to  Ipoh kindergarten teacher  Indira Ghandhi, the latest case of controversial unilateral and illegal Islamic conversion of underaged children, but Indira is still pining for her baby daughter who was snatched from her  for more than a month by her estranged husband who had converted to Islam.

What Liow Tiong Lai should “clearly explain” is why the MCA, like Gerakan, is playing the double game of supporting the Cabinet’s “common religion”  at the national level but not at the Perak state level!

The reason why Indira has not been able to get back her year-old daughter  from her estranged husband K. Pathmanathan, now known as Mohd Ridzuan Abdullah, is because the administration of  usurper Perak Mentri Besar Zambry Abdul Kadir, supported by Perak Barisan Nasional component parties like MCA, Gerakan and MIC, is not fully behind the Cabinet decision.

In fact, the Zambry administration is supporting Pathmanathan in not returning Prasana to Indira’s custody.

Can Liow explain why the Perak MCA leaders are allowed to go against the Cabinet decision by supporting the usurper Zambry’s administration on the Indira case?

Is the article in one MCA newspaper today saying that there is nothing wrong with the MCA playing such a double game – at the national level supporting the Cabinet decision while at the Perak state level supporting the usurper Zambry administration in adopting an opposite stance – the official stand  of the MCA leadership?

I have stated that the three Pakatan Rakyat parties of DAP, PAS and PKR have not yet been able to reach a common stand on the Cabinet decision on the “common religion”.

There is however a consensus that in the Indira Ghandi case, the custody of year-old baby daughter Prasana should  be restored to the mother.

Pakatan Rakyat parties do not hide our differences when we disagree with each other.  DAP will continue to discuss with PAS and PKR leaders to try to reach a common understanding on the Cabinet decision on “common religion”, but the DAP will never play the MCA double game of national leaders supporting the Cabinet decision at the national level while secretly  the Perak MCA state leaders do the exact opposite.

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 3 May 2009, 1:30 pm and is filed under
Islam
,
MCA
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Release Manoharan, Uthayakumar, Vasanthakumar under ISA or “1Malaysia. People First. Performance Now” is just a joke

DAP Selangor State Assemblyman for Kota Alam Shah M. Manoharan is considering resigning his seat as he feels guilty at being unable to serve his voters from Kamunting Detention Centre, where he had been incarcerated for the past 17 months.

I can understand Manoharan’s deep frustrations,  helplessness and burning sense of injustice, as he is a victim of the draconian and tyrannical Internal Security Act and deprived of his personal liberty not for any crime he had committed but for his mission to uplift the Indians  from the “new underclass” in Malaysia to take their rightful and equal place under the Malaysian sun.

Furthermore, he is prevented from serving the voters of Kota Alam Shah who had elected him as their State Assemblyman in the past 14 months, although he had tried and exhausted all avenues to seek release from ISA detention, making three habeas corpus applications, barrage of letters to the powers-that-be (to former Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, thrice to now Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak and eigth times to former Home Minister, Datuk Seri Syed Hamid Albar, two letters to the Sultan of Selangor), as well as attending the meetings of the ISA advisory board – all to no purpose.

When he became Prime Minister exactly a month ago, he announced to the nation that he would start on a new page on the country’s draconian laws, particularly the ISA. Why were  only two of the five Hindraf leaders, R. Kenghadharan and  V. Ganabatirau released, and under the most restrictive and undemocratic conditions?

Clearly, the release of Kenghadharan and Ganabatirau was not because there was a change of heart on the part of the Prime Minister that the grievances raised by Hindraf were legitimate and long-outstanding, and that draconian laws like the ISA should be phased out, but mere public relations gambits to give the new Prime Minister a good public image.

I call on Najib to immediately and unconditionally release the three Hindraf leaders, Manoharan, P. Uthayakumar  and T. Vasanthakumar under ISA detention or his slogan of “1Malaysia. People First. Performance Now” will be swiftly be reduced to a joke.

What credibility, for instance, can Najib’s slogan of “1Malaysia. People First” command among the marginalised Indian community when their spokesmen, the three Hindraf leaders, continue to be in unjust and wrongful detention under the Internal Security Act?

Equally important, what have been done in the past 14 months since the political tsunami of the March 8 general election last year by the Barisan Nasional federal government to address the long-standing political, economic, educational, social, cultural and religious grievances of the Indian community which had given birth to the remarkable Makkal Sakti phenomenon?

In the past 14 months, Pakatan Rakyat state governments scored new breakthroughs for the Malaysian Indians when an Indian was appointed Deputy Chief Minister in Penang and another Indian made the  Speaker in Perak – appointments which the MIC dared not even dream of asking in 52 years of “power sharing” since Merdeka,  despite claiming to be  the third most important political party in the Barisan Nasional!

Today’s MIC is a great shame and sham.  In Perak, for instance, MIC could only think of how to benefit from the breakthrough achieved by Pakatan Rakyat state government, which is why the only thing which concerns Perak MIC now is to get former MIC Sungkai assemblyman Datuk R. Ganesan to be  the new Perak State Assembly Speaker to replace  V. Sivakumar.

Perak MIC also dare not  speak up and dissociate itself from the administration of  usurper Perak Mentri Besar Zambry Abdul Kadir and his exco which is going against the Cabinet ruling on the unilateral Islamic conversion of Indira Ghandi’s three children,  even preventing Indira getting back her year-old baby daughter Prasana Diksa despite the Ipoh High Court interim custody order in favour of the mother.

If the MIC is a principled and honourable political party, its leaders should take  a courageous political stand  that the most honourable solution to resolve the Perak constitutional and political crisis  is to dissolve the Perak State Assembly  and to hold new state-wide general election.

But then, MIC leaders in Perak and Malaysia know that all the MIC candidates in such a new general election will be totally wiped out!

Manoharan has said that he will decide whether to resign as  the Kota Alam Shah Assemblyman after his meeting with DAP National Chairman Karpal Singh on May 19.

Monoharan must weigh all the pros and cons  of the issue, in particular  to balance his deep sense of frustration with  the public hopes and expectations when the voters elected him knowing that he was and will continue under incarceration, when making the decision as to whether there is going to be a seventh by-election after the March general election last year.

I assure S. Pushpaneela that I will give full support whatever final decision Manoharan takes on whether to resign from the Selangor State Assembly.

[Speech (2) by at the DAP Public Forum at Hotel Excelsior, Ipoh on Saturday, 2nd May 2009]

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 3 May 2009, 11:31 am and is filed under
DAP
,
Hindraf
,
Human Rights
,
Najib Razak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Zambry – don’t rewrite history to justify his appointment as “People Last” usurper Perak MB

Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak has declared that “1Malaysia. People First. Performance Now” is the overarching philosophy of his government.

However, in less than a month there are enough instances to show that Najib’s slogan of “1Malaysia. People First. Performance Now” is as hollow as  the “Cemerlang, Gemilang, Terbilang” slogan of the Abdullah premiership or the “Amanah, Bersih, Cekap”  slogan of the Mahathir administration.

The unethical, undemocratic, illegal and unconstitutional power grab in Perak, overthrowing the legal and legitimate Mentri Besar Datuk Seri Mohammad Nizar Jamaluddin and foisting on the people of Perak the usurper and illegitimate Mentri Besar Datuk Zambry Abdul Kadir violates two of the three Najib mottos of “1Malaysia. People First”.

How can there be “1Malaysia” when Najib orchestrated the unethical, undemocratic, illegal and unconstitutional power grab in Perak?

How can Najib talk about “People First” when he does not respect the mandate of the people of Perak in the March general election last year in electing a Pakatan Rakyat state government helmed by Nizar as Mentri Besar?

What “People First” is Najib talking about when his unethical, undemocratic, illegal and unconstitutional power grab is based on the betrayal of the people’s hopes and trust by three “political frogs” who in the past three months dare not even visit their constituencies or show their face publicly.  This is “People Last” rather than “People First”!

The least Najib should do if he is not to dishonour his slogan of “People First” is to return the mandate to Perakians – which is why we have consistently called for the dissolution of the Perak State Assembly and the holding of Perak state general elections.

All eyes are now focussed on May 7, when the Perak State Assembly is convened illegally by the usurper Mentri Besar.   Many are asking what would happen on May  7, whether there would be chaos or greater infamy in the three-month-old Perak political and constitutional crisis and stalemate, which has produced two Mentris Besar ,  a renegade State Assembly clerk and the Democracy Tree!

Blatant and flagrant attempts are being made by the usurper Mentri Besar and his excos to clothe the illegal BarisanNasional state government with a veneer of legitimacy.

I advise Zambry not to rewrite history, in particular  what happened on February 4,  to falsely claim that Nizar had lost majority support of Perak State Assembly members to justify his appointment as the usurper Mentri Besar.

Zambry had misled the judiciary when he asked for Federal Court intervention to interpret whether  Perak Sultan Azlan Shah has the right not to accede to Nizar’s request for the dissolution of the Perak assembly, when  Nizar “ceased to command the confidence of the majority of the assembly”.

This is the perversion of the truth. The indisputable fact is that Nizar had never, even up to now,  “ceased to command the confidence of the majority of the assembly” – and this why the coup d’etat  in Perak orchestrated by Najib to topple Nizar as Mentri Besar is unethical, undemocratic, illegal and constitutional and why Nizar continues to be regarded by Perakians and Malaysians as the legitimate Mentri Besar and Zambry the illegitimate and usurper MB.

Article 16 (6) of the Perak Constitution states: “ If the Menteri Besar ceases to command the confidence of the majority of the members of the Legislative Assembly, then unless at his request His Royal Highness dissolves the Legislative Assembly, he shall tender the resignation of the Executive Council.”

Article 16(6) never came into play because Nizar never “ceases to command the confidence of the majority of the members of the Legislative Assembly”, when he sought an audience with the Perak Sultan to dissolve the State Assembly or when Zambry was purportedly appointed as the Mentri Besar.

Let us revisit  the pertinent events surrounding the unethical, undemocratic, illegal and unconstitutional power grab in Perak three months ago.

On February 3 night, the Pakatan Rakyat leadership at both the national and Perak state levels decided that the Pakatan Rakyat Perak state government, though commanding a majority in the State Assembly, should seek the dissolution of the Assembly to avoid political instability and uncertainty.

On the morning of February 4, around 8 am, Nizar as Perak Mentri Besar sought an audience with the Perak Sultan to request a dissolution of the Perak Assembly.

The request for an audience with the Sultan for  the dissolution of the Perak State Assembly was  made by Nizar not because he had lost the confidence of the majority of the Assembly members, as to bring  Article 16(6) of the Perak State Constitution into play.

Nizar  sought an audience with the Sultan to request the dissolution of the Perak State Assembly while  still commanding a majority in the State Assembly to end the political instability and uncertainty –  and the question of Nizar losing the post of Mentri Besar if  the Sultan rejects  the request for dissolution did not arise at all.

However, Nizar was unable to get an audience from the Perak Sultan until some  nine hours later at 5 p.m.

In the meantime, Najib, as the Umno Perak Chairman was in the thick of the plot to  engineer  the defection of three “political frogs” from Pakatan Rakyat, claiming in a media conference  in Putrajaya after 5 p.m. the same day that the Barisan Nasional had the support of the majority members of the Perak State Assembly – a claim that was never tested by a no  confidence motion  against Nizar in the Assembly.

If the Perak Sultan had granted an audience to Nizar in the morning of Feb. 4 and refused his request for dissolution of the State Assembly, it would have been crystal clear that any claim by Najib that the Barisan Nasional had the majority support of the Perak State Assembly members would have to be tested by a no confidence motion against Nizar in the Assembly, and the question of Nizar having vacated the post of Mentri Besar just because he had failed to get  the Sultan’s consent for the dissolution of the Assembly would not have arisen.

Was the Perak Sultan privy to information that Najib was engineering the defection of three “political frogs” from the Pakatan Rakyat and was this the reason why Nizar’s request for an audience with the Sultan to seek the dissolution of the State Assembly was stalled for some nine hours from about 8 am to 5 pm?

The answers to these two questions would throw important light on the events of the Perak political and constitutional crisis on Feb. 4 as it has a vital bearing on a cornerstone of our system of constitutional monarchy – the political neutrality of the Rulers.

Be that as it may, it is indisputable that when Nizar sought the consent of the Sultan to dissolve the Perak Assembly, he commanded the support of the majority of the State Assembly members.

In the circumstances, Article 16(6) of the Perak Constitution did not apply when the Sultan refused Nizar’s request for dissolution of the Perak Assembly the next day.

Although it  may be contended  that by Feb. 5, the Barisan Nasional had the “numbers” to claim majority support of the Perak State Assembly with the defection of the three “political frogs” from Pakatan Rakyat, such a claim is challengeable on at least two grounds:

•	The acceptance of the  letters of resignation of the three “political frogs” by the Speaker, V. Sivakumar; and

•	The established constitutional and parliamentary practice that the determination of  whether the Mentri Besar has lost the support of the majority members of the Assembly is by way of a motion of no confidence in the Assembly, which was never done.  In fact, the Tree Assembly on March 3 reiterated the Assembly’s confidence in Nizar as Perak Mentri Besar.

Zambry has no cause, therefore, to rewrite history of Feb. 4 to  claim that Nizar had lost the confidence of the majority of the Assembly members when he asked for the dissolution of the Assembly on Feb. 4 or when the Sultan rejected his request on Feb. 5.

There is no constitutional provision for the Perak Sultan to dismiss the Mentri Besar or to appoint a new Mentri Besar when there has been no resignation from the incumbent Mentri Besar, and this is why Nizar continues as the rightful and legitimate Perak Mentri Besar as there is no dissolution of the Assembly and no motion of no-confidence had been passed against him.

Zambry is only demonstrating that he is a  usurper “People Last” and not “1Malaysia”  Perak Mentri Besar in insisting on the charade of a May 7 State Assembly meeting, based on the support of three “political frogs” and the illegal convening of the Assembly by a renegade State Assembly clerk!

(Speech  at the DAP Public Forum at Hotel Excelsior, Ipoh on Saturday, 2nd May 2009)

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 3 May 2009, 8:23 am and is filed under
Constitution
,
Najib Razak
,
Perak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


2009 World Press Freedom Day  this year marked in a totally different spirit from the past decade

Malaysian journalists marked the World Press Freedom Day yesterday in a totally different spirit from the past ten years, expecting the worst in the coming year when they had hoped for better times in the past decade.

Ten years ago, when Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi  was first appointed Deputy Prime Minister and Home Minister, there were high hopes that he would accord priority to restore public confidence in various key government institutions by giving the Home Ministry a human face, including loosening up and removing the press controls  in the country to usher in an era of free, fair and responsible  press in  Malaysia.

This was why on the occasion  of the World Press Freedom Day on May 3, 1999, some 600 journalists in Malaysia – which grew to over 1,000 journalists the following World Press Freedom Day 2000 –  presented a memorandum to Abdullah calling for the repeal of the Printing Presses and Publications Act  and other repressive laws fettering the development of a free and responsible press.

Although Abdullah had given a solemn undertaking to the Malaysian journalists at the time  that he would give their memorandum serious consideration, nothing was achieved in the five years and five months of his premiership in reforming or  repealing the most repressive and draconian press laws and regulations.

When Abdullah was forced out  as the shortest-serving Prime Minister early last month, the repressive and draconian press laws he had inherited  from the era of Mahathirism remain intact, although they were more sparingly used as to allow for some opening up of media space in the Abdullah premiership.

It was  most ominous that the new Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak chose to ignore the World Press Freedom Day, which was proclaimed by the United Nations General Assembly in 1991 as a day “to celebrate the fundamental principles of press freedom”, recognizing that press freedom is “a cornerstone of human rights and a guarantee of other freedoms”.

Why didn’t Najib make a speech or issue a message coinciding with the World Press Freedom Day to underline his commitment to “a vibrant, free and informed media”  which Najib had publicly pledged in his first few days as Prime Minister?

The answer is quite simple – a cold wintry wind is blowing through the country’s newsrooms, marking the return of Mahathirism with the control freaks back in place to pull the levers of power  to manipulate the media and the flow of information to Malaysians.

Nobody was surprised when on the eve of World Press Freedom Day, the
Malaysian Insider
  carried a report
“Umno reins in its media”
, with the following opening paragraphs:

KUALA LUMPUR, May 2 — Headlines are being scrutinised. Captions are being commented on. The space for alternative views is shrinking.

Instructions are flowing from Putrajaya, not necessarily from the Prime Minister but from individuals who claim they are empowered to speak on his behalf.

The nett result: the mood in newsrooms across the country has become more cautious and editors more wary of pushing the envelope since Datuk Seri Najib Razak became the chief executive of Malaysia.

Last year, Malaysia fell to  its lowest ranking since the start of  the Reporters Sans Frontieres (RSF) worldwide press freedom index, dropping  to 132nd position in 2008, the worst  in the past seven years, viz:

Reporters Without Borders worldwide press freedom index

2008	–   132 (out of 173 countries)

2007  –    124

2006  –      92

2005  –    113

2004  –    122

2003  –    104

2002  –    110 (out of 139 countries)

Is Malaysia heading towards an even lower ranking in the RSF worldwide press freedom index in the Najib years with the return of Mahathrism?

Mahathir was named by RSF as  one of the “predators” of the press in the world  for the media censorship he exercised as Prime Minister. Abdullah was never named to this category. Will Najib join Mahathir’s infamous company if the Prime Minister allows a return of Mahathirism particularly in media policies?

                This entry was posted on Monday, 4 May 2009, 12:50 pm and is filed under
Media
,
Najib Razak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Star! Oh Star! At least be a smart party hack!

Yesterday the MCA paper, the
Star
, gave prominent coverage to the challenge by MCA Vice President and Health Minister, Datuk Seri Liow Tiong Lai, that I clearly state my stand on the Cabinet’s recent decision that minors follow the common religion of their parents at the time of marriage when one spouse opts to convert.

In the Star report headlined
“State stand on religion ruling, DAP told”
, Liow

even said  that I am at odds with the DAP National Chairman Karpal Singh over the matter on the ground that Karpal had clearly stated his support for the Cabinet’s decision, implying that I had opposed the Cabinet decision.

When I replied to Liow, Star just blacked  out my response.

Reason? Because Liow would be shown to be  a fool who does not understand simple English as I expressed support for the Cabinet decision in several statements on my blog.

Either Liow has a big problem with the English language, in which case he should undergo  a quick refresher course so as not to disgrace the government and country when he appears  in the official capacity as Health Minister whether inside or outside the country,  or he is downright  dumb.

If he is neither, and had been misled by untrustworthy aides to issue such a challenge, then he should know what to do to salvage the situation.

My offer to give Liow a free tutorial on the English language stands.

By blacking out my statement and  refusing to accord me the right to respond to the irresponsible and baseless challenge from Liow, which it had given prominent coverage, the Star has gone against all canons of responsible and professional  journalism and made a mockery of the World Press Freedom Day yesterday.

The overwhelming majority of the Star journalists are honourable, professional and self-respecting men and women who do not agree with such prostitution of sacred journalistic principles.

Let me advise those responsible for the blackout of my reply to Lai – at least be a smart party hack!

                This entry was posted on Monday, 4 May 2009, 2:14 pm and is filed under
MCA
,
Media
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Walkabout Versus Makan Angin Management

by
M. Bakri Musa

It is commendable that Prime Minister Najib Razak is periodically leaving his air-conditioned office to experience first hand what ordinary citizens have to put up with in their daily lives.  Last week saw him riding the Light Rail Transit; the week before, a stroll down Petaling Street.  All these so he could “understand the pulse of the people.”

            Najib would like us to compare him to his late father with his legendary working visits to the various “Operations Rooms” throughout the country to monitor development projects.  Whether Najib would prove to be like his father or closer to Abdullah Badawi, the country’s most inept leader, remains to be seen.

            Recall that Abdullah too made frequent well-publicized visits to various governmental agencies.  One of those was to the Immigration Department, notorious for its less-than-stellar public service, where he announced that all its problems were miraculously solved following the impromptu visit.  The tragic part was that Abdullah believed it; Malaysians of course were much wiser.

            At least thus far Najib had the sense not to wear a three-piece dark suit like Abdullah did on his walkabouts.  Instead Najib opted for the more casual batik look.  While Abdullah appeared formal and imperious, like a sultan showing the flag, Najib was more like someone out for an evening stroll, more jalan jalan (leisurely stroll) and makan angin (lit. eat wind) than a working visit.  Both Najib and Abdullah looked like they were not ready for serious work.

Emulate His Father

I suggest that Najib (or his aides) look at the archives of Filem Negara to see how his father did it.  The image we have of the Tun was of a leader who was serious, brooked no nonsense, and most of all ready to do some heavy lifting.  It was not just an image.  As many who had worked with the late Tun would readily attest, that was also very much the reality.

            The Tun did it long before Tom Peters and Robert Waterman popularized the term “managing by wandering about” in their bestseller In Search of Excellence.  Never mind that twenty years later Peters would confess that he faked the whole data on which their book was based, or that many of the “excellent” companies he cited no longer existed!  Later, the movie Crocodile Dundee brought to the American mainstream the Australian Aborigine’s expression “walkabout.”

            A prominent feature of the late Tun’s walkabouts was that they were working visits, not “photo ops” designed for the day’s prime news cycle.  The Tun’s trademark gear was the bush jacket, not dark suits or casual batik.  Aware of the blasting heat of the tropical sun, the Tun often wore a hat or carried an umbrella.  The Malaysian sun is still as hot today even though I do not see our leaders appropriately attired on their various “official” visits.

            Tun Razak’s frequent visits to the field were focused.  He would first hear the official briefings; and then visit the various projects.  Woe to the official whose glowing reports did not match the reality!  At the same time those visits were also opportunities for junior officers to show off their stuff.  The late Tun effectively used those trips to scout for promising talents.

            How does Razak Junior measure up?  Too soon to tell, but I wish that he would dispense with his colorful batik shirts and three-piece dark suits, have a more purposeful stride, and do away with the media hype.  He should also severely trim his entourage, to a security person, a secretary to jot notes, and the head of the visited department.

            I would also like him to be more prepared.  Surely he did not need to visit the LRT station to know that our commuter trains are overcrowded and frequently late.  What he should have done instead was to query management as to what steps they were taking to rectify the problems, and how could he help solve them.

Short Reading List for Najib

Najib has one thing going for him as compared to his immediate predecessor; he is an avid reader.  I suggest that he read how some great leaders did it.  From our own tradition he could read the various celebrated accounts of the night time walkabouts of our second Caliph, Omar (May Allah be pleased with him!).  Closer to home, Najib could emulate his father.  Unfortunately as not much has been written by Tun’s contemporaries on his unique management style, Najib has to rely on Filem Negara’s archives.

            There are two old books that I would recommend for Najib in developing his own walkabout management.  One is Robert Townsend’s Up the Organization, first published in 1970.  Townsend was the CEO of Avis Corporation, the car rental company whose advertising jingle, “We’re Number Two; We Try Harder!” changed the fortune of the company.

            Townsend related how whenever he was out of town to visit the various franchises, he would phone his headquarters incognito to see how his staff would handle customers’ queries.  This was of course long before the days of outsourcing where such complaints would be routed to service centers in India.  Townsend would also go to the local counters to experience the services his customers were receiving, or not receiving!  When he found that wanting, he did not harangue the poor receptionists but would bring the matter up with their local managers.

            The other book is Jack Welch’s Jack:  Straight From The Gut, co-written with John Byrne.  Welch was the legendary CEO of the giant conglomerate GE Corporation.  Under his leadership, GE’s revenues increased five-fold; and market value, 30 times!

            On his frequent visits out of headquarters, Welch would ask the local managers to name three or four of their promising subordinates.  He would then meet them privately to get a firsthand assessment.  Following that he would ask their managers what they were doing to groom the promising talents they have under them.

            Welch went further.  Whenever young talents were “fast tracked,” he would make sure that their immediate superiors would also be appropriately recognized and rewarded for having played an important role.  Were Najib to subscribe to that, he would help reduce the pernicious habit endemic in our civil service where promising young subordinates would be banished to the ulus lest they would pose a threat to their superiors.

            Najib should also adopt one of Welch’s favorite practices.  He would spend one whole morning addressing about 70 of GE’s “fast tracked” managers attending a three-week development course at the company’s “university” at Croton-on-Hudson, New York.  Those were no cheerleading or pep rallies, rather he would challenge the future leaders of his company, inspire them, and most all get fresh ideas from them.  It was his relished assignment, one he rarely missed.

            Likewise Najib should regularly visit INTAN and challenge those young civil servants.  Get them before they become corrupted by the corrosive civil service work culture.

            I would also suggest Najib heed one of Welch’s more brutal practices, weeding out the bottom ten percent “underperformers” every year.  Were Najib to do that, he would reduce the terrible bloat and greatly enhance the civil service’s efficiency.

            I would not advise Najib emulate another celebrated CEO, Southwest Airline’s Herb Kelleher.  In an attempt to get close to his employees and customers, Kelleher would often fly as an ordinary passenger and also take on temporary assignments as baggage handler and counter clerk.  Najib does not have Kelleher’s charm or sense of humor to carry that out.  Air Asia’s Tony Fernandez could, but not Najib.

            Management by walkabout is a powerful and effective tool, but only when it is done right.  As the management guru Edward Deming put it, “If you wait for people to come to you, you’ll only get small problems.  You must go and find them.  The big problems are where people don’t realize they have one in the first place.”

            Were Najib to do anything less than what have been presented here, his frequent forays would quickly degenerate into makan angin or jalan jalan outings.  All you get with makan angin is foul flatus.  Worse, those visits would only disrupt the normal workings of the visited agencies.  God knows, our leaders have already engaged enough in those already.

                This entry was posted on Monday, 4 May 2009, 4:13 am and is filed under
Bakri Musa
,
Najib Razak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Ipoh Police – don’t prop up usurper Zambry’s hocus pocus May 7 State Assembly proceedings

The Ipoh Police have done enough damage to its reputation and professionalism in its conduct during the three-month Perak constitutional and political crisis,  being used by the usurper Perak Mentri Besar Datuk Seri Zambry Abdul Kadir to undermine the important democratic principle and fundamental doctrine of the separation of powers among the Executive, Legislature and Judiciary.

The Police should not now allow itself to be used to prop up usurper Zambry and his executive council’s hocus pocus proceedings in the May 7 Perak State Assembly but must be aware that it has the sworn duty to protect the Perak State Assembly Speaker A. Sivakumar and all Perak State Assembly members (including Pakatan Rakyat) from interference from any quarter in the discharge of their powers and privileges.

In a political contest between the rightful and legitimate Perak Mentri Besar Datuk Seri Mohamad Nizar Jamaluddin and the usurper and illegitimate Zambry, the least expected of the police is to stay out of  the political fray and not to take sides, or the police will be seen as trying to prop up an usurper Zambry regime that has no legitimacy whatsoever in the eyes of the people of Perak.

This is why reports by Pakatan Rakyat Assembly members that they were  being harassed by the police personnel who snapped photographs of their family houses last weekend must be deplored in the strongest terms and  taken seriously by the top police officers who must give the  satisfactory assurance that they will not be  used to support the unethical, undemocratic, illegal and unconstitutional power grab in Perak.

After the disastrous Umno-BN defeat in the Bukit Gantang parliamentary by-election, the Prime Minister and UMNO President, Datuk Seri Najib Razak, is trying to wash his hands of the Perak imbroglio.  This explains Najib’s withdrawal as the Perak UMNO State Chairman, passing the buck to Zambry.

I do not expect Najib to withdraw as UMNO Perak State Chairman if Umno/BN had won a decisive victory in the Bukit Gantang parliamentary by-election.

However, Najib should realize that as he was personally responsible for the unethical, undemocratic, illegal and unconstitutional power grab, whether he pulls out as UMNO Perak State Chairman is irrelevant as the undemocratic and illegal power grab in Perak will continue as one of his biggest baggages unless and until the Perak State Assembly is dissolved and the mandate returned to the Perakians to elect the state government of their choice.

Either the charade of the usurper Zambry administration is ended now with the dissolution of the Perak State Assembly and the holding of a state-wide Perak general election, or the public judgment on  the  unethical, undemocratic, illegal and unconstitutional power grab in Perak is postponed untll the 13th general election in less than three years’ time.

In the former, Zambry and his illegal exco are most likely to be evicted from the Perak State Government offices, with Nizar and Pakatan Rakyat exco returning to their rightful places.

In the latter case of the 13th general election, the undemocratic and illegal power grab in Perak will not only be the paramount issue in Perak but also the whole country, and it is not only Zambry who will be evicted from power but Najib himself is likely to end up as Parliamentary Opposition Leader and the shortest-serving UMNO/BN Prime Minister – fulfilling the “RAHMAN” political prophecy.

The whole nation and the whole world will be watching the hocus pocus proceedings of the May 7 Perak State Assembly convened by the usurper Mentri Besar.

The reputation of Perak and Malaysia as a functioning parliamentary democracy is at sake, on which will determine whether it is a plus or minus for  Malaysia’s international competitiveness and march towards the goal of being a high-income country.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 5 May 2009, 12:09 pm and is filed under
Najib Razak
,
Perak
,
Police
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Najib and Altantuya murder case – KSK, OTK or any Minister dare to raise  RPK’s latest blog in Cabinet tomorrow?

Blogger Raja Petra Kamaruddin has made more revelations about the Mongolian Altantuya Shaariibuu C4 murder case which calls for response from an administration which claims to be committed to accountability, transparency, integrity and good governance.

In his latest blog, Raja Petra mentioned names, including Datuk Seri  Jamaluddin Jarjis, former Cabinet Minister and  confidante of Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak, Lt. Kol Azmi Zainal Abidin, the number two in the Special Branch of the Military Intelligence, as well as other information which will add grist to the swirling serious allegations about the involvement  of Najib to the Altantunya murder case.

Whether true or otherwise, and regardless of whether Raja Petra has become a fugitive from the courts, the net result of Raja Petra’s latest blog is that  even more questions will be  raised about the swirling, haunting and hounding allegations about  Najib’s involvement in the Altantuya murder case.

This is completely unhelpful to Najib in  establishing his  credibility, integrity and legitimacy as the country’s Prime Minister, whether among Malaysians or the world.

These swirling serious allegations haunting and hounding Najib and his admistration concerning the Altantuya C4 murder case cannot be avoided and  must be addressed frontally.

Will the Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department responsible for the integrity and KPI of Ministers and Gerakan President, Tan Sri Dr. Koh Tsu Koon,  the Transport Minister and MCA President, Datuk Seri Ong Tee Keat, or any other  Barisan Nasional Minister dare to raise in the Cabinet tomorrow the swirling, haunting and hounding allegations about Najib’s involvement in the Altantunya C4 murder case, in particular Raja Petra’s latest blog, so  that it could be an official item of Cabinet agenda?

A special Cabinet meeting should be convened just to discuss this one issue, to consider what is the best way to deal with  these swirling serious allegations which will not go  away, including the proposal I had repeatedly made in Parliament for a Royal Commission of Inquiry to deal with all the allegations haunting and hounding Najib especially as he had said that he was innocent and had not done anything wrong.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 5 May 2009, 5:04 pm and is filed under
Najib Razak
,
Raja Petra Kamaruddin
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


No more claptrap about ISA reform – Najib should first release all ISA detainees, close down Kamunting centre  and suspend ISA for two years pending repeal or review

The St
ar yesterday carried a most misleading front-page headline
“ISA review begins”,
 reporting that the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak was honouring his  promise to initiate  a comprehensive review of the Internal Security Act as he had promised when he  took office last month as the country’s sixth Prime Minister.

But thinking and perceptive Malaysians would have wondered whether this was the case, as many questions cropped up immediately when they read in the report that the government’s “first step towards reviewing the Internal Security Act (ISA)” was the formation of the Law Reform Committee under the chairmanship of the  Deputy Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Datuk Liew Vui Keong on April 29.

Is Najib really seriously about a “comprehensive review of the ISA” when the committee assigned this task is headed by such a political lightweight, who is only a Deputy Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department?

Just on this point, the whole idea of any “comprehensive review of ISA” could be dismissed as hogwash!

The story  on the start of the ISA review took on a surreal and even “Alice-in-the-Wonderland” quality when it is further reported that the Law Reform Committee’s ”first step” to undertake  a “comprehensive review of the ISA” would be a briefing session on Wednesday and Thursday involving the Legal Affairs Department and the Legal Aid Bureau.

What a laughable state of affairs!  What has the “comprehensive review of the ISA” got to do with these two government agencies?

The surreal and “Alice-in-the-Wonderland” quality deepened when Liew made further revelations, viz:

•	The condescending statement that his committee would work with the Home Ministry to “amend the relevant parts” of the ISA; and

•	He  would “engage the Malaysian Bar and other legal associations in the country as well as the Attorney-General’s Chambers, the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission and Suhakam”.

Would the Home Minister, Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Hussein and the Attorney-General Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail “engage” with such a lowly Deputy Minister  in his capacity as Chairman of the Law Reform Committee, or  would Liew  have to “engage” with third or fourth-liners  from the Home Ministry and the Attorney-General’s Chambers?

The message from
the Star
front-page headline report yesterday was that Najib was just not serious at all about any “comprehensive review of the ISA”, when it is left to such a political lightweight.

I withheld comment as I expected a conflicting version, and it came within hours from the
Deputy Prime Minister, Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin
 who said that it is  the Home Minister, Hishammuddin who is tasked to conduct  the ISA review exercise.

Now, who is responsible for the “comprehensive review of the ISA” – Liew or Hishammuddin or jointly, between a deputy minister and a full minister?

The Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department in charge of KPI for Ministers, Tan Sri Dr. Koh Tsu Koon should take note of this “Alice-in-the-wonderland” development in the Najib Cabinet, as it must drag down the KPIs of the Cabinet members concerned!

Malaysians do not want another round of claptrap by Barisan Nasional leaders about reform of Internal Security Act which ends up in nothing, as had happened many a time in the past two decades, whether under the premiership of Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad or Tun Abdullah.

Najib should prove his sincerity about a “comprehensive review of ISA”  by releasing all ISA detainees, close down Kamunting centre  and suspend ISA for two years pending  ISA repeal or review.

Muhyiddin said yesterday that the review of the ISA tasked to Hishammuddin “would take time”?  Two years, three years or indefinitely until after the next general election?

This is ridiculous as in the past two premiership of Tun Mahathir and Tun Abdullah, the ISA had been repeatedly reviewed  internally by the government, and there must be mountains of papers of such review collecting  dust and mould in government archives – not to mention  available  parliamentary, Suhakam, Bar Council and civil society materials.

If Najib is serious about a “comprehensive review of ISA”, there is no reason why the Cabinet at its meeting tomorrow cannot decide on a deadline for such a review so that necessary legislative follow-up actions could be made in the 10-day meeting of Parliament from June 15 – 30, 2009.

After the Cabinet meeting tomorrow, Najib should let the country know who is assigned the task of the ISA “comprehensxive review” – whether Liew or Hishammuddin.

Furthermore, why he is not prepared to allow a high-powered independent committee or even Suhakam  to undertake such a review, giving it a one-moth deadline to submit its recommendations?

Najib and his Cabinet should not be the first to forget their new motto of “1Malaysia. People First. Performance Now” so as not  to become a national joke in record time to mean “1Black Malaysia. People Last. Performance Never”.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 5 May 2009, 10:12 am and is filed under
Human Rights
,
Najib Razak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Start of Najib’s crackdown?

Civil society activist Wong Chin Huat was arrested under the Sedition Act at his home in Taman Sri Sentosa in Kuala Lumpur at about 8 pm tonight.

Is it because of the “1Black Malaysia” campaign?

The following is a
Malaysiakini
 report on Wong’s arrest:

Activist Wong arrested under Sedition Act

Poll reform group Bersih spokesperson Wong Chin Huat has been arrested under the Sedition Act tonight by a team of police at his home in Taman Sri Sentosa in Kuala Lumpur.

According to his lawyer Edmund Bon, the activist was arrested at 8pm after a police report was lodged today.

“I tried negotiating with the police officer (on the phone) but they won’t listen to me. They didn’t want to tell under what section of the Sedition Act (that the arrest was made) and who the complainant is.”

Bon has since unable to contact Wong. According to him, he could be taken to the police headquarters in Bukit Aman.

It is not clear whether Wong’s arrest is linked to a press conference he called earlier today.

At the press conference, Wong (photo) had urged the public to wear black on May 7, to protest the Perak state government takeover by Barisan Nasional which has been seen as undemocratic and unconstitutional.

Wong issued a statement on behalf of Bersih, saying that the protest was aimed at newly-minted Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak, who is widely credited as the mastermind behind the February power grab.

The Bersih’s campaign slogan “1BlackMalaysia: Democracy first, elections now”, is a play on Najib’s “1Malaysia: People first, performance now” tagline.

May 7 is also the date where BN Menteri Besar Zambry Abdul Kadir is convening the Perak state legislative assembly to oust speaker V Sivakumar and pass motions to legitimise his government.

‘Paint every town, village black’

In his statement today, Wong said that the 1BlackMalaysia campaign is a peaceful, yet powerful message of “civil disobedience”.

“We want to let them know that people are the politicians’ bosses and no politician can disregard public opinion and escape punishment in the next general election,” he said.

He urged the public to “paint every state, territory, town and village black” with clothes, headbands, hats, turbans, veils, armbands, ribbons and stickers.

“Let us be united in one black colour and let’s show the world that the 1Malaysia under Najib is 1BlackMalaysia living in darkness,” he said.

Bersih is a coalition of opposition parties and NGOs who have been pressuring the authorities to improve election laws and administration.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 5 May 2009, 8:56 pm and is filed under
Human Rights
,
Najib Razak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Stop Press : Serdang MP among those arrested outside Brickfields police station

Update  11.10pm : Teo Nie Ching, Serdang MP was released.

Update : Arrested count is now 14

Update : 11 arrested by police.

8 people including Serdang MP Teo Nie Ching was arrested while holding a vigil in support of Wong Chin Huat infront of Brickfields police station.

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 6 May 2009, 10:28 pm and is filed under
Human Rights
,
Police
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.