Umno’s perfect game plan

by Amran Ariffin

Free Malaysia Today

May 8, 2012

“If you tell a lie and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the state can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its power to repress dissent, for truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension the truth is the greatest enemy of the State” – Joseph Goebbels

Before 428

There was no news on Bersih 3.0 on national (read: BN’s owned) TV, radio and newspapers. Something amiss here! There was no banning of anything yellow from the men in blue! It can’t be right! There was no restriction order for certain personalities from entering KL on 428. Something fishy here! And for Utusan Malaysia not demonising Bersih3.0, it was too good to be true!

Ultimately, the big-mouthed son of Umno’s founder declared Bersih 3.0 had no traction and was not a threat at all. When discussing these rather seemingly unlikely reactions from the establishment with like minded friends, they tended to believe that government had learnt the lesson from Bersih2.0 and will allow Bersih3.0 to proceed without disturbance as with Hijau 2.0 last month. I did not buy into this for one second because a leopard does not change its spots overnight. I strongly believed Umno had sinister plan in place but I was more than happy to be proven wrong.

During 428

There was no police around. There were no early morning roadblocks leading to the city.  There was no jamming of commuter and LRT lines.There were no morning arrests as soon as you came up from LRT station looking remotely like PAS member. There was no shouting from men in blue to clear the station. There was no SB loitering around pretending to be a “tabligh”.

There was no fear in the air; it was so surreal yet unreal.  I didn’t have that nervous anticipation that I normally experienced in all previous rallies.  It was so easy and smooth.  people were not scared or people were made to believe that there was nothing to be scared of? What an amazingly calm Saturday morning or was it calm before the storm?

At Kelana Jaya LRT station, people, young and old were happily donning their official yellow Bersih 3.0 t-shirts. Others were wearing green Hijau 3.0 t-shirts. Some came with that hideous yellow and green permutation (sorry, going to rally doesn’t mean you have to wear ugly shirts). All were in good spirits. Pretty girls were carrying yellow roses and sportingly posed for pictures with those who requested (me included), sorry I digress.

Group photos were taken, Malay, Chinese, Indian and DLL (Dan Lain-Lain) all in one big group, this is the real 1Malaysia in action. people were giving knowing looks of “we are going there too”. “Stay safe!” were ringing all around from strangers. This was Malaysia that I knew as a kampong boy. It was an incredible pre-game party, but will someone crash our party?

At Masjid Jamek, more carnival-like atmosphere. I saw yellow Power Rangers, Batman, Angry Birds, Upin and Ipin joining in. Heck even Telly Tubbies were there, off course the yellow one. The chanting started early, “Duduk Bantah”, “Bersih! Bersih! Bersih Pilihanraya”, “Bersih! Bersih! Bersih Malaysia”, “Bersih, Bersih, Bersih SPR”, “Bersih! Bersih! Bersih Polis”, “Hidup, Hidup, Hidup Rakyat!”, “Hancur, Hancur, Hancur Barisan!”

The winner though got to be “Undur! Undur! Undur Isteri Rosmah”. What a diabolical chant! The atmosphere was almost like watching a live football game with everyone supporting the same team. Inching closer to the heavily cordoned Dataran Tak Merdeka, the chanting grew louder and reverberated throughout KL. “Negaraku” and “Barisan Kita” were sung non-stop. It was an incredible march, but will it rain on our parade?

At Dataran Tak Merdeka, crowds from all corners started to converge. A sea of yellow can be seen as far as Parliament House. It was body-to-body crowds and space was premium. The air was thick and people were getting restless after few hours under blazing sun. I was taking my front row seat just across the barbed wires. The chanting turned more forceful into “Buka! Buka! Buka Dataran”, “Undur! Undur! Undur Polis”.

PAS’ Unit Amal managed to control the restless crowd and even apprehended troublemakers. The provocation started in earnest with police ramming their trucks and patrol cars through a sea of people for no apparent reason. On the protestor side, bottles were thrown and shouts of “Polis Bodoh!” were heard out of frustration. They were urged by mean-looking beefcakes to push forward.

These were the agent provocateurs in action. However there was no concerted effort from the crowd to storm the barricade even at the urging of dumb politicians like Azmin Ali. The barbed wires were as thick as my thumbs; there was no way anybody could move beyond them without getting seriously hurt. About 2.45pm, Husam Musa was telling anyone who cared to listen that the police had agreed to allow the protestors into Dataran by 5pm but the leaders were negotiating with the police to allow us in earlier. I began to relax but feeling of uneasiness lingered.

Right on cue at 3pm, Anwar Ibrahim finished his speech, out of nowhere a group of professional guys with steel cutters and full protection heavy duty gloves started cutting the barbed wires. Behind them, a group of mean looking “protestors” making a dash to the barrier and amazingly they were allowed in by the police manning the frontline.

Unknown to the protesters that they were SBs, some of the naïve protestors were following their lead. Frontline policemen started to withdraw in droves behind the FRU instead of catching the perpetrators. No warning, no siren, no warning bell, only the pop pop pop sounds of tear gas cannisters were heard and quickly the KL skyline was covered in smoke.  FRU and water cannon taking over front line.

They fired incessantly and directly into the crowd. There was no way they were trying to disperse the people. They were trying to hurt the people and teach them the lesson.  People had nowhere to run because it was sardine-packed, some fainted on the spot.  Going forward you were facing the FRU with their signature combat gear, going backward you need to run through cloud of tear gases.

There were a lot of shoving, screaming and crying because people were trying to escape the melee. Some ran all the way to Dang Wangi and in the process lost their shoes, BB and sprained their ankles. My worse fear was unraveling in front of me, they planned this!  They planned this and the victims were in the lair ready to be slaughtered. The blame will be squarely pinned on the opposition for not respecting the law.

I was lucky because I left the front row seat looking for drinking water just before they started firing the gas. The FRU came charging towards people and beating the hell out anybody who was on their rampaging trail. They were marching all the way to Petaling Street without even missing a beat on the tear gas. They charged the people all the way to KLCC and they weren’t shopping there either! We were dressed for costume party but they were going for war!

Witch hunting sessions started in earnest after that when rumours made their round that one of the policemen was killed in the line of duty. The policemen were moving like a pack of mad dogs baying for blood in exacting revenge for their fallen brothers. They simply picked up people from the streets, isolated them and beat the crap out of that unlucky soul in a large group.

Some of the brave cameramen and journalists managed to get close to the action. They too, got whacked and their equipment smashed to the ground. Some of the policemen were seen challenging the crowd to fight with them. It was now free for all. Sections of the crowd started retaliating by throwing objects in the police’s direction. That was what the evils in Putrajaya wanted to see in the next day’s newspapers and their political wet dreams came true!

In all this madness, the true caring spirit of Malaysians showed. Strangers were consoling each others, they were crying in each others’ arms. An old Indian Achi was washing the face of young Chinese who was hit by tear gas. A Malay boy was offering salt and water to the panic stricken protestors. A young Bangla even offered to share his mango juice with me. Some were carrying the injured comrades to safety. I was overwhelmed; it brought tears to my eyes. This was the Malaysia that we longed for. Why can’t our government behave the same way?

After 428

Newspapers started to churn stories that police had no choice but to take action to protect themselves. TV started showing group of protestors throwing things to the angelic police.  The most damaging of all, a you tube video purportedly showing Anwar and Azmin instructing the crowd to breach the barricade making its round.

The old broken record by the name Che Det started singing old tunes of opposition trying to topple democratically elected government. Last but not least, Ah Jib Gor came out of his hiding place and praising the professionalism of the police. Now the wayang is completed with Tok Dalang slowly showing their hands.

All these had a very familiar feeling to it. That was what they planned all the while, lull the protestors into believing that police will not act against them. Herd the protestors into the slaughterhouse and when the time comes cut their throats without them knowing that they were being slaughtered. That will teach them painful lesson, never to challenge the authority.

You got to give this one to Umno and evil geniuses behind it! If only they were this meticulous in planning for the well-being of our country we will not need a clean election. Hell, we don’t even need an election, they can rule Malaysia forever! If only….

So never mind the darkness

 We still can find a way

 ‘Cause nothing lasts forever

 Even cold November rain

– Guns ‘N Roses, November Rain, Use Your Illusion I, Sept 17, 1991

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 8 May 2012, 6:19 pm and is filed under
Bersih
,
Elections
,
Police
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Will Najib live up to his pledge to make Malaysia “best democracy in the world” and concede defeat in a gentlemanly fashion like Sarkozy?

In the recent French presidential elections on Sunday, the incumbent Nicolas Sarkozy conceded defeat minutes after the polls closed, announcing that he had called the Socialist candidate Francois Hollande to wish him “good luck” as the country’s new leader.

The question that immediately occurred to Malaysians is whether Datuk Seri Najib Razak, who had declared that he wanted to make Malaysia “the best democracy in the world”, would concede defeat in a gentlemanly fashion like Sarkozy if this is the verdict of the voters in the next general elections.

Or will Najib stand by his deplorable speech at the UMNO General Assembly two years ago when he used the language of “crushed bodies, lives lost” for Umno to defend power at any cost in Putrajaya?

It is most deplorable that  Najib has come out with the wild, irresponsible and baseless allegation that the Bersih 3.0 “sit-in” at Dataran Merdeka on April 28 was a coup attempt by the Opposition to topple the government.

It suggests that Najib has become quite  paranoid as even to believe that there could be a coup by a gathering of peaceful Malaysians, although numbering in hundreds of thousands, united by a common cause for clean elections, who are at most armed with salt and water bottles to defend themselves against police tear gas and chemically-laced water cannon.

Najib owes Malaysians a clear accounting what he would do if the voters in the 13th general elections choose to change the Federal government in Putrajaya – whether he would accept the verdict of the voters like Sarkozy or whether he would revert to his UMNO General Assembly threat of “crushed bodies, lives lost” to defend UMNO power in Putrajaya at any cost?

How can Malaysia become the world’s best democracy when we cannot even qualify the first test of being a normal democratic country – where change of government through the ballot box is accepted as a normal event?

Malaysians want to know whether Najib would apologise and retract not only his wild and baseless allegation of Bersih 3.0 as a coup attempt to overthrow the government, but also his irresponsible speech at the 2010 UMNO General Assembly of “crushed bodies, lives lost” for UMNO to defend power at any cost in Putrajaya as it is totally inimical to his claim of wanting to make Malaysia the best democracy in the world.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 8 May 2012, 10:47 am and is filed under
Elections
,
Najib Razak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


‘Brutal’ M’sian police must learn from 1992 LA riots

Ye Choh Wah |  May 7, 2012

Malaysiakini

The police brutality towards the Bersih crowd reminded me of incident in 1992 when the police in Los Angeles, USA, brutally beat up an unarmed black man named Rodney King.

The whole scene was videoed by an amateur (video was not so prevalent then).

Four white policemen were charged but eventually acquitted on April 29th 1992 (almost exactly twenty years ago from 428).

The next day, riots broke out that crippled the city of LA for days. Buildings were burned. There was looting, shots fired and the whole city was closed down.

At the end of the day 54 people were killed.

I happened to be visiting LA that time. My flight had to be diverted to Ontario, two hours drive away, with airlines arranging coaches to take us back to LA.

Upon reaching LA, the city was basically shut down. There were many burnt buildings and smoke everywhere.

We had a hard time to even find food. We had to cancel our plans to visit Disneyland the next day and left town.

However, being a much more open and transparent country, the whole incident did change the police force in LA, every other city in US and the world (except Malaysia maybe).

At Dataran Merdeka, the police may be allowed to take action against those that crashed the barriers, but not to fire at the crowd that never did.

Our chief of police mentioned he had no choice. I think otherwise. I was there that day. The crowd was obedient and orderly in the main.

If the police had just simply used a loudspeaker to ask the crowd to leave or risk facing action, most of the crowd would have dispersed.

It was as simple as that, but no warning was given.

I hope you can run an article on the 1992 riot. Hopefully it will remind our police force what they did was wrong, beating up civilians, and the consequences that it might lead to.

Also remind them it is not too late to change, just like LA did.

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 9 May 2012, 11:19 pm and is filed under
Bersih
,
Elections
,
Police
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Bunyi guruhnya kuat, hujannya renyai-renyai

 — Aspan Alias

The Malaysian Insider

May 09, 2012

9 MEI — Saya telah mendengar secara resminya pengumuman Perdana Menteri Najib Razak tentang “durian runtuh” seperti yang heboh diperkatakan sejak hampir setahun yang lalu.

Saya yang bukan peneroka ini pun tertunggu-tunggu “durian runtuh” ini kerana ia telah mendapat liputan media yang meluas kerana ia berkait rapat dengan penyenaraian FGV di Bursa Malaysia pada bulan Jun yang akan datang ini.

Dengan skala publisiti yang meluas ini saya beranggapan yang “durian runtuh” yang diperkatakan oleh pucuk pimpinan kita itu akan melebihi RM100,000 ribu seorang untuk diseimbangkan dengan publisiti yang teramat meluas sejak berbulan-bulan dahulu.

Cara PM Najib bercerita tentang “durian runtuh” itu, seolah-olah jumlah yang akan diterima oleh peneroka itu tidak boleh kurang dari RM100,000 dan dibayar serentak kepada setiap orang peneroka yang telah meneroka hutan belantara untuk dijadikan perladangan yang terbesar di dunia.

Rupa-rupanya jumlahnya hanyalah RM15,000 sahaja dan akan diberikan dalam tiga peringkat selama tiga bulan. Kalau mengadu, nanti dikatanya peneroka tidak bersyukur. Kalau tak adu pula, ia sangat tidak berbaloi dengan publisiti yang meluas berterusan sejak beberapa bulan yang lalu.

Saya hanya berharap pemimpin kita tidak lagi membuat kenyataan menghina rakyat dengan menasihatkan mereka untuk berbelanja secara betul dan berhemah seperti meereka lakukan semasa memberi bantuan seratus ringgit untuk pelajar sekolah beberapa bulan yang lalu.

Kita masih ingat bantuan RM100 untuk kanak-kanak sekolah yang lalu, pemimpin setinggi pangkat seperti Muhyiddin Yassin telah beberapa kali membuat kenyataan meleter supaya wang seratus ringgit itu dibelanjakan secara berhemah seolah-olah wang yang diberikan itu berjumlah setengah juta ringgit jumlahnya.

Ada di antara yang saya kenal tidak mahu menerima bantuan itu kerana terasa hati dengan leteran Muhyiddin Yassin itu.

Bantuan RM100 itu telah disiarkan berulang ulang kali oleh media masa eletronik arus perdana berminggu-minggu lamanya dan menampakkan sangat pemimpin kita meminta penerima untuk berterima kasih kepada Umno hingga ke liang lahad.

Itu baru bantuan RM100. Tidak tahulah bagaimana pemimpin-pemimpin tertinggi kita akan mengungkit isu “durian runtuh” untuk peneroka Felda ini pula.

Mungkin mereka (pemimpin) mahukan peneroka untuk memberikan pesanan dan wasiat kepada anak-anak mereka sebelum mati untuk memberi undi kepada Umno jika mereka (peneroka) sudah tiada lagi di dunia ini.

Sejumlah apa sekali pun yang kita dapati, kita wajib bersyukur, tetapi apa yang saya persoalkan ialah pemimpin utama kita terminta-minta dan mengungkit-ngungkit dan memaksa peneroka untuk menzahirkan perasaan terima kasih mereka (peneroka) kerana kepentingan politik kepartian dan peribadi.

Peneroka tahu yang wang tersebut adalah wang yang datangnya dari titik peluh mereka sejak puluhan tahun dahulu, bukannya wang saku pucuk pimpinan kita itu. Hanya pihak kerajaan cuba menunjukan yang pemberian ini seolah-olah datangnya dari kantung kerajaan untuk digunakan sebagai bahan ungkitan dalam masa menunggu PRU yang akan datang ini.

Lain-lain perkataan peneroka dituntut untuk berterima kasih walaupun apa yang mereka terima itu adalah wang mereka sendiri. Hanya mungkin peneroka belum lagi mengetahui yang kantung Felda telah kekeringan kerana disalahgunakan oleh pimpinan negara hari ini.

Selepas setahun penyenaraian itu nanti, peneroka dan rakyat akan melihat hasil kerja yang tidak jujur ini. Kata perbilangan, sesal dahulu pendapatan, sesal kemudian tiada gunanya. — aspanaliasnet.blogspot.com

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 9 May 2012, 10:06 pm and is filed under
Felda
,
Najib Razak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Did the police lose control that day?

by Azrul Mohd Khalib

The Malaysian Insider

May 09, 2012

MAY 9 — In my column last week on Bersih 3.0, I was quite hesitant to share in detail my account of what I had seen and experienced on the streets of Kuala Lumpur later that day. My belief that with the many videos, photographs and victims of police misconduct (read: brutality), the truth would surely get out. There would be no denying the fact that the police on that day had lost control of their men.

But I am now quite disquieted by the fact that there seems to be a group of people out there who are saying that the actions of the police (tear gas, water cannon, detention, forceful and abusive treatment of those being arrested) were justified as the rally participants had breached the perimeter of the security barricade, resisted arrest and engaged in hand to hand combat. Basically, that they had it coming because the rally participants provoked the police.

Let’s first put things into perspective.

First and foremost, the perimeter of the security barricade surrounding Dataran Merdeka was breached by rally protestors. It wasn’t undercover agents of the police, members of the Barisan Nasional component parties, paid troublemakers or some shadowy phantom of someone’s armchair conspiracy theory. These guys were one of us.

How do I know? Last week, during the Centre for Independent Journalism’s (CIJ) forum on Bersih 3.0, a person stood up and said, “Let’s find the bastards who broke the agreement and hand them over to the police.” Another person stood up and said, “I am one of those bastards.” I was taken aback because I know the guy. So rally participants did deliberately breach the perimeter.

But did the breach justify the violent, unprofessional, and thuggish behaviour of many members of the police force on that day?

Nobody whom I saw being arrested had resisted. We had been earlier briefed to not resist if we were detained by law enforcement officials. Even those who were eating or drinking peacefully at nearby restaurants or warungs before being dragged away (in one case told to me by the victim, thrown down a staircase) and arrested, did not physically resist.

Based on what I saw that day, the opportunities for inflicted abuse occurred at two points: when a person was being detained on the street and when that person was being brought to the holding area.

Together with a number of media personnel, we saw several incidences of yellow-shirted individuals being thrown onto the ground and assaulted. They could be seen trying to defend themselves while being kicked, punched and trodden upon under the boots of seven to eight police officers who wore uniforms without nametags or identification numbers.

There were repeated kicks and punches to the face, abdomen and back. People were being beaten into the ground. These occurred at several locations opposite the CIMB building and nearby Masjid Jamek LRT station, and were done by different uniformed perpetrators.

A nearby photographer who attempted to take photos during one particular assault was threatened and had his camera battery and memory card confiscated and destroyed. A number of police personnel threatened us with retractable batons. However, I did not see them use them on anyone.

People would later be frogmarched to the holding area behind the Royal Selangor Club (RSC). During the long journey from the main road in front of the OCBC and CIMB buildings to the RSC, those detained had to go through a corridor or gauntlet lined with men in dark blue field fatigues lounging on the side of the road where a fist, a flying kick, or a blow to the head would randomly come out of nowhere.

It was fairly obvious that they were working out their frustrations and anger on those who had been detained. Most of those who arrived at the holding area had head injuries of some kind, had blood on their T-shirts and had experienced some kind of assault by those doing the arresting. Reports later highlighted a case where even a 71- year-old woman was arrested and punched by a police officer!

According to Hospital Kuala Lumpur, 117 persons which included 11 police officers were either hospitalised or sought treatment. This high number of injured persons did not include the number of walking wounded who had relatively light injuries such as cuts and bruises.

To those who have said that the police were provoked, I ask you, what provocation justified such abusive treatment?  Are the police akin to bulls, where the wearing of yellow or green T-shirts would enrage them?

Indeed, after 5pm on that day, I saw both sides provoking each other with projectiles and taunts being thrown in both directions. But the ones with the weapons and utilising tactics that involved beating up unresisting and unarmed rally participants were the ones in uniform.

The senior police leadership have called upon those who have witnessed such abuses to come forward and help identify their men who have been involved in these incidences. I am sorry, sirs, but many of those who were victims of such abuse were too busy trying to protect their faces with their hands and different parts of their bodies.

The faces of the many perpetrators in uniform are a blur even to me, a witness to the abuse and who did not suffer such treatment. Their names? They were not wearing their nametags, which is against police regulations for officers on duty. These perpetrators took the trouble to avoid identification. They felt that they could and would be able to get away with it. They did it with impunity.

I think that the police on that day lost control of their men. How else does a person explain the senseless violence, mistreatment and wanton abuse heaped upon not only a large number of those who were detained by the police, but also members of the media? Not convinced? Read pages 25 -30 of the Bar Council’s interim report on Bersih 3.0.

The police have announced that action will be taken against those who broke the law. I agree. How about the police officers who broke the law in using excessive and disproportionate force as well as physically assaulting those being arrested?

Will action be taken against them and their superior officers? The latter are accountable for the actions of their men. At the very least, a number of senior police officers must resign to take responsibility for the loss of control and for the actions of their men under their command that day.

The Royal Malaysia Police (RMP) has a proud and honourable tradition in law enforcement that is rooted in the very essence and being of Malaysia’s existence. I remember visiting the police museum when I was younger and thinking that it is a tough and thankless job being a law enforcement officer. The men in blue have always been essential and dependent upon to safeguard the security of the Malaysian people.

When we compare the quality of law enforcement in several countries in the region, we should count ourselves lucky to have the RMP. We must have faith in their ability to keep our families, communities and country safe. We must also trust and respect them. But trust and respect must be earned and right now, I think the police force has taken a beating in this area.

The motto of the RMP is Tegas (strict), Adil (fair) and Berhemah (well-mannered). Let us not allow our Malaysian police force to be besmirched by thugs in uniform. They are not representative of all in the service who have chosen to serve.

Indeed the FRU officers in riot gear and those on duty at Pulapol were in control, reasonable and extremely professional. We need to support the RMP in bringing to justice those among their ranks who brought dishonour and disservice to the service by physically assaulting unarmed and unresisting fellow Malaysians that day.

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 9 May 2012, 10:18 pm and is filed under
Bersih
,
Elections
,
Police
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Govt backs off on proposed amendments to Election Offences Act

Hemananthani Sivanandam & Tan Yi Liang

[email protected]

9 May 2012

KUALA LUMPUR (May 9, 2012): The government has decided to withdraw the Election Offences (Amendment) Bill 2012 in the face of much resistance from both Barisan Nasional and opposition lawmakers.

Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz said today he will table a motion in the Senate tomorrow to officially withdraw the bill which the cabinet, the Election Commission (EC), and the opposition had unanimously agreed upon.

The bill to amend the Election Offences Act 1954, which the Dewan Rakyat had passed on April 19, had been heavily criticised for amendments which among others, included the removal of:

Section 11(c), which required printed campaign material to carry the name and address of the printer and publisher;

Section 26 1(e) which allows for checking of the identity of any person entering a polling centre by the candidate or their staff; and

Section 26A Sub-sections (2) and (3) which allow for election agents or candidate to be present at election booths.

The amendments did not involve the 22 recommendations made by the Parliamentary Select Committee on Electoral Reforms, which were passed by the Dewan Rakyat on April 3.

Nazri, who is also de facto law minister, explained that on receiving a memorandum from the EC proposing amendments last year, the government had “out of respect for the independence of the election commission” fully agreed to the recommendations.

He said, however, when the bill was tabled in the Dewan Rakyat, it was met with fierce resistance from the MPs.

“A lot of issues were raised in the Dewan Rakyat so we sat down with the opposition and we managed, with EC’s agreement, to amend (several) sections.

“However, when it came to the Senate, (we came to understand) there were plans to amend two more sections in the bill,” Nazri told a press conference in Parliament today.

He said after looking at the amount of resistance highlighted in the blogs and internet, the government decided it would be best to abort the bill as it would otherwise become too messy, adding that had the Senate proposed additional amendments, the bill would have had to be reverted to the lower house for its approval.

“We met with EC and the chairman (Tan Sri Abdul Aziz Yusof) agreed that if there were to be (more) amendments then the whole bill would become meaningless, so the EC also agreed that it should be withdrawn,” added Nazri.

DAP parliamentary leader Lim Kit Siang, who represented the opposition at the press conference, said the withdrawal of the bill was the best solution, under the circumstance.

“Events have shown that we still are a long way from introducing proper measures for free and fair elections,” said Lim, who urged the EC to seriously consider proposals particularly from Bersih 2.0.

In an immediate reaction, Malaysian Bar Council president Lim Chee Wee said the Bar Council welcomed the move to withdraw the bill.

Meanwhile, Bersih 2.0 steering committee member Maria Chin Abdullah lauded the withdrawal of the bill as a positive move as she claimed the amendments were very draconian and took away the right of candidates to monitor the elections.

She believed that the 250,000 people who turned up for Bersih 3.0 on April 28 had made the government realise its error in bulldozing the amendments through the Dewan Rakyat.

She added that Bersih 2.0 will continue to press for a full commitment from the government to meet its eight demands before the next general election is called.

 “The government has not made any clear commitment to our eight demands,” said Maria, adding that Bersih 2.0 calls for the resignation of the EC leadership and for a more competent, transparent and accountable team to take over.

Commenting on the issue, EC deputy chairman Datuk Wan Ahmad Wan Omar said the amendments to the Act had been proposed with good intentions to improve the electoral system and to ensure the process goes smoothly.

“The EC understands the problems as our workers really know what is happening and how to do the job. We would not have proposed something that creates more problems,” said Wan Ahmad, adding that the EC accepts Parliament’s decision to withdraw the bill from tabling before the Dewan Negara.

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 9 May 2012, 10:58 pm and is filed under
Bersih
,
Elections
,
Parliament
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Gov’t withdraws Election Offences Amendment Bill

By
Aidila Razak
 | May 9, 2012

Malaysiakini

In a rare move, the Election Offences Amendment Bill will be withdrawn from the Dewan Negara tomorrow following “a lot of resistance”.

According to Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Nazri Abdul Aziz, the decision to abort the Bill was arrived at today after a 10-minute meeting between the government, the opposition and the Election Commission (EC).

“I will table the motion in the Dewan Negara tomorrow,” he told reporters at the Parliament lobby today.

The means that the Election Offences Act remains at status quo for the next general election.

Nazri (left) said the decision was first made at cabinet level as the Senate are seeking two more amendments to the Bill.

The Dewan Rakyat passed the Bill last month but with changes, including holding back the amendment which disallowed political parties from assisting voters to check their names and voting streams.

Another amendment rejected by the Dewan Rakyat was one which allowed the Election Commission to dictate when and how long a candidate’s polling and counting agents can stay in the polling stations.

Amendments passed include the proposal to remove the candidate’s agents from the Election Commission registration booth (barong) and to remove requirement for all printed materials to have printers and publishers’ details.

“Amendments made to the Bill by the Senate would have to go back to the lower house and withdrawing is a neater, better way,” he said.

‘More public consultation next time’

Nazri added that the EC had agreed to withdraw the Bill in entirety as more amendments made would render it pointless.

He said that the government had only acted as a “postman” in tabling the Bill to Parliament, and did not know the contents of the Bill which was proposed by the EC.

Nazri, who said that the Bill saw resistance from both government and opposition lawmakers, added that the government had tabled the Bill in toto as it had respected the EC’s independence.

The minister said that the last time something like this happened was three years ago, when a Bill was sent back to the Dewan Rakyat.

“But the Dewan Rakyat did not take it up within three months and it lapsed,” he said.

DAP parliamentary leader Lim Kit Siang, who was also at the press conference, said the EC should engage in consultation with all stakeholders before proposing a Bill to avoid this happening in the future.

In an immediate response, the EC chairperson Abdul Aziz Mohd Yusof (left) denied the withdrawal was a slap in the face for the commission, who mooted the amendments.

“Not really. We had our meeting chaired by Speaker of the Dewan Negara and attended by Nazri and Lim before the press conference.

“We consulted each other and finally all agreed to abort it,” he told Malaysiakini in a text-message.

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 9 May 2012, 6:22 pm and is filed under
Elections
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Lim Teck Ghee responds to Chandra Muzaffar’s refusal to engage on the Net and his threat

by Dr Lim Teck Ghee

CPI

09 May 2012

Commentary

In my note to Chandra on May 6 which he acknowledged, and which was sent well before this latest rebuttal, I had written:

“I hope we can have a sustained discussion on the important subject that you have identified. I don’t think a one-off debate is a good way to have that discussion. I know politicians and their supporters love it but we are not politicians.”

Chandra’s latest reply continues to insist on a one-off debate and argues that a prolonged discourse in lieu of a debate will “generate more heat than light”.

I disagree. So do the great majority of online commentators that have followed our exchange. Despite attempts by cybertroopers to disrupt feedback, many readers have encouraged us to engage over the Net that is an open and unfettered public space in which they can also contribute their say.

If I had thought that the scholar rather than the ex-politician in Chandra would prevail, I was mistaken.

Another reason not to have a debate

A few commentators also pointed to a key reason why a one-off debate is not in the public interest. This is because the intensive official media coverage of the event will, in all certainty, spin the debate in Chandra’s favour to ‘prove’ that the government has embarked on meaningful political changes as well as engage in the further demonizing of Bersih and the opposition.

Bitter experience has taught us that we have a media that is highly skilled in its ability to distort any story in favour of the government. Having a one-off debate covered by our dominant official media will play into the hands of the government and its numerous propaganda agencies (Utusan Malaysia, Berita Harian, NST, RTM, TV3, etc).

I am sure Chandra will not want to be an unwitting tool to any spin (of the debate) by the government. Hence I am appealing to him to reflect on his own media experiences when he was in Aliran and Parti Keadilan, and to accept my proposal for our forum to be held in cyberspace without further excuse.

To assuage his concerns that the Internet forum will generate more heat than light, I would like to propose that we have one of our eminent social science colleagues moderate the forum and for the two of us to be permitted extended space and time to continue our debate. On a matter of such national importance as described by Chandra, this commitment of time is surely the minimal that we can provide.

I am sure that Chandra’s employer the Universiti Sains Malaysia will not only give him recognition and time-off to lead the Internet forum but also that they will prefer a scholarly exchange rather than a one-off debate in which egos rather than substance may be more likely to be prominently displayed.

Speak to the Vice Chancellor and other colleagues on this proposal, Chandra, before you dismiss it out of hand.

The other parts of Chandra’s note are really quite sad and even poignant.

Exposure threat

Firstly, with regard to his threat that he will reveal how I have “metamorphosed from Marxist to MCA intellectual to PR apologist” – that does not frighten me in the least.

Come on Chandra, you really don’t need to give me notice. You have my go ahead to do your worse. But let me provide some empirical data to give you pause.

Yes, I do have Marxist tendencies on an issue-by-issue basis – more pronounced when I was younger but still visible on some key challenges. (See my recent piece ‘Breaking up wealth concentration in Malaysia’ published on Feb 2, 2012 in CPI).

On being an MCA intellectual, when a replacement policy to the New Economic Policy (NEP) was being considered by the government in 1990, I was nominated by the MCA to sit in the National Economic Consultative Council (NECC) convened to prepare the post-NEP policy. This appointment was made arising from my position as an independent academic.

Prior to that, I provided inputs to the MCA’s report on ‘Deviations in the NEP’. I regard that NECC period with mixed feelings as I have always been and still am – both in private as well as in public – critical of the role played by MCA in the country’s political development.

The stint with the NECC, however, provided me the unusual opportunity and opening to work within the system so as to affect a breakaway from the dominant NEP paradigm and to help the country to a new path of development. As a member of the five-man drafting committee set up to break the deadlock over the final submission, I am proud that we were able to produce a national policy report which was well ahead of its time in terms of its merit-based, non-racial philosophy.

Although the Mahathir administration cherry-picked through the report in the follow-up national policy after 1990 and ignored our major recommendations relating to a timeline for ending the NEP, establishing an independent national policy monitoring mechanism and implementing a needs-based approach, our report was instrumental in liberalizing higher education and socio-cultural policy as well as in moving economic policy away from its narrow racial and stultifying approach.

Many members of the NECC have recognized my contribution in working against the odds over a three-year period to ensure the completion of a landmark report. I am sure they will be happy to correct or confirm any impression that Chandra may have of my role and contribution during that period.

I have written on this episode of my career in a chapter that will appear in a book assessing Abdullah Badawi’s contribution to the country as prime minister. I am happy to give Chandra permission to obtain the draft of the chapter from the book editors so he can scrutinize it to substantiate his threat.

Finally as to my final incarnation as a PR apologist, I have spoken in support of a PKR candidate at public rallies on two occasions and have provided comments on the country’s leadership in the way of Anwar Ibrahim’s impact which appeared in a 2009 article ‘The Malay Dilemma’ in the New Yorker magazine. This is the sum total of what can be construed as my service as a PR apologist – quite short and undistinguished, compared with Chandra’s.

I apologize for boring readers with these personal details. However, they are necessary to rebut the insinuations made. In summary, my intellectual positions have mostly (I cannot say always) been consistent both as a scholar and civil activist.

I have spent 26 years researching on poverty and rural development issues. Six of these years were as a graduate student mainly in the archives, whereas the many, many hours in the field were with fishermen, Felda settlers, Risda smallholders, paddy farmers and other marginalized communities.

Unlike those who have pontificated on the issues of “economic justice and equitable distribution of wealth” from the comfort of air-conditioned rooms or political pulpits, I have combined scholarly research with social activism when I was with the Consumers Association of Penang (CAP) and Sahabat Alam Malaysia (SAM). I still do so.

My colleagues, who have worked in academia and in the NGO circles with me in the past can be interviewed, should Chandra or Umno or Barisan supporters be interested in digging up any inconsistency or other muck on me to be put out for public consumption.

Pity Chandra

Most people do not need to recite ad infinitum how well balanced or consistent they are in their views on political or social change, or to repeat the same old tired stories to prove their consistency or scholarly integrity. Action proves louder than words.

When a person protests too much of how balanced, ethical and moral he is; how independent or full of integrity he is; he must expect Malaysians to sit up and take notice – especially when that person puts himself up in the public limelight as often as Chandra has done.

He writes:

[Teck Ghee] accuses me of “intellectual gymnastics”, of changing my position, of doing a volte face. He is not the only one to do this. Many others have. Some have used vulgar and vicious language. In fact, every time an article of mine appears in cyber media, there would an avalanche of crude, coarse, sometimes cruel comments giving the impression that the assault on me is well orchestrated and organised.”

Firstly, let me assure Chandra that I am not part of a well-orchestrated and organized assault on him, and never will be. While I have problems understanding his recent turnaround on several major issues, I have kept them private – after all, we were good friends for 17 years and more.

Secondly, while I sympathize with his predicament, many will say that he has brought it upon himself. Those of his students, associates and even family friends who have written to express their disappointment and displeasure with his recent political positions have done so from the vantage point of close interaction with him, before and after his stint as an opposition politician.

In my view, that avalanche of critical comments (in the thousands) and assault on his integrity is not organized or orchestrated. It has cascaded spontaneously and in many cases, reluctantly and sadly, from many people who once admired his principled positions but who now cannot stomach reading what he has to offer. There is no plot against Chandra. The only one there is, is in his own mind.

In my own case, his unscholarly piece lambasting Bersih and in particular his final pronouncement on the movement’s leaders as “frauds and hypocrites without any sincere commitment to freedom and democracy” who “[t]hrough their politics of deceit and duplicity…continue to manipulate mass sentiments for their own diabolical agenda” was the last straw.

That article convinced me that he needed to be publicly responded to, and that silence or non-response would only embolden him and his supporters in their propaganda war demonizing Bersih and the opposition.

It is not surprising that Chandra’s allegation – though bereft of evidence or scholarly backing – has resonated with the government, its supporters and extremist groups especially. It is not surprising that the government has now gone on the offensive accusing Bersih and the opposition of plotting a coup and planning to overthrow the government through violent means – a claim echoed by former premier Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad and taken up by the police.

Advertently or inadvertently, Chandra has provided the government with the ‘intellectual capital’ to justify turning the clock back in the struggle for a more democratic and free country.

Since his unprofessional lambasting of Bersih’s leaders, he has remained quiet when asked for scholarly evidence to prove his charge. I urge Chandra once again not to dodge the issue and to put the record straight on his serious allegation as soon as possible.

Other points

‘Spirit of Merdeka’ concerns on human rights and basic freedoms

On progress made since the ‘Spirit of Merdeka’ declaration, I would argue that baby steps rather than far reaching progress has been made in the major areas of human rights and democratic freedoms discussed there. For example, the list on legislative freedoms in the declaration referred to abolition of the following:

• Internal Security Act 1960

• Public Order (Preservation) Act 1958

• Prevention of Crime Act 1959

• Emergency (Public Order and Prevention of Crime) Ordinance 1969

• Emergency (Essential Powers) Ordinance 1970

• Essential (Security Cases) Regulations 1975

• Dangerous Drugs (Special Preventive Measures) Act 1985

• Restricted Residence Act 1933

The ‘Spirit of Merdeka’ declaration noted:

“The Federal Constitution has been amended innumerable times since Independence. This has diluted tremendously the spirit of the original document. Important parts of the original Constitution, such as jus soli (right of birth) citizenship, a limitation on the variation of the number of electors in constituencies, and Parliamentary control of emergency powers have been modified or altered by amendments with the result that the present Federal Constitution bears little resemblance in many key areas to the original version.

“We [signatories to the ‘Spirit of Merdeka’] call for the review of various constitutional amendments that have effectively abrogated other constitutionally protected fundamental freedoms and rights. The rescinding of these amendments is a crucial step in the restoration of our democratic rights and freedoms.”

Other notable areas listed include independence of the judiciary, media freedom, fostering civil society (through reform of the Police Act, the Societies Act and the Trade Unions Act) and ensuring free and fair elections.

In all of them, little or no progress has been made since the time of the declaration in 2007.

Peaceful transition of power

I am glad Chandra agrees on the importance of this. Past history is of course no guide to future conduct. It would be more reassuring that a clear and unequivocal statement on the peaceful transition of power came from the prime minister and other senior Umno leaders rather than from Chandra.

In fact, I would have expected Chandra to also press Najib Razak to explain why he dodged the important question posed at the Royal Selangor Club luncheon early this year – “Mr Prime Minister, would you make the transition of the government for Pakatan a smooth one if the opposition wins the next general election?” – rather than engage in dredging up the historical data to show how scrupulous the Barisan record is in respecting the norms of parliamentary democracy.

‘Police state’ issue

I had provided Chandra with the name of the author, the title of his paper which was delivered at an international conference as well as the reference citing Chandra as being moved “[a]fter the events of 1987 and 1988… to use the term ‘police state’ to describe the situation in Malaysia.”.

The onus is on him – and not on me – to follow up with the author and to seek a clarification if he is unhappy with the attribution. He did not. Surely he does not expect others to go around doing this verification on his behalf.

Final words

Even if Dr Chandra declines to take part in the Internet forum, concerned Malaysians especially in academia can provide views and opinions on how meaningful are the political changes taking place, and how to make sure the clock is not turned back on the reforms undertaken so far.

Also, to readers following this exchange as well as commenting on the Internet: please exercise decorum and civility when providing feedback.

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 9 May 2012, 6:59 pm and is filed under
Human Rights
,
ISA
,
Lim Teck Ghee
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Police brutality unacceptable

KJ John

Malaysiakini

May 8, 2012

I am boiling mad! I am really angry with the police force, that they willingly and voluntarily inflicted wanton abuse and injury to so many civilians.

One does not need more evidence. Just scan the YouTube uploads and it will become evident to any observer.

Abuse is abuse of the law and the special privilege and the concomitant responsibility of being in a uniform which we are called to, and demanded to respect.

 In fact, the uniform even carries the insignia of the royal emblem of Malaysia.

Surely therefore there must be standard operating procedures related to “under what conditions are the Public Order and Preservation Ordinations motions can be called upon” and applied towards violators.

If one is unsure, please go also on the net and find out for yourself, as an ex-military officer has already described and qualified for such “approved procedures of relevant actions”.

If the IGP cannot explain all the obvious abuse by the police upon innocent civilians who simply want a peaceful assembly, then I would like the IGP to resign.

I recognise that his deputy is a worse off character based on his history of public statements and moreover the IGP is a much more sincere and simpler man, but I think the Rupert Murdoch Principle set by the British Parliament must apply.

The IGP must either tell the whole truth or be deemed unfit to hold public office. That was Rupert Murdoch’s No 1 failure; he pretended that the problem did not exist, and thus did not tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

Therefore, the public indictment against his entire reputation, name and image. After all, what does it profit a man when he gains the whole world but loses his soul? Leadership today requires both integration and integrity.

Last week I was invited to attend a closed door review of the history of anti-corruption initiatives in Malaysia since time immemorial. It was good to know, understand and appreciate the real issues and concerns of the past and how they were addressed. It was both revealing and very telling.

Unfortunately though, when the meeting was opened to the floor, objective history concerns were forgotten and the purpose of our meeting lost, as everyone gave their two cents worth of views and opinions.

In fact, to me it was no better than mere coffee-shop talk, as even at our normal the-tarik session, most are usually cordial, honest and transparent with views. But a framework for analysis and review was missing.

Therefore, and because of some personal reasons, I had to leave the meeting early but I am resolved that my views may still be important for the concerns for integrity, and any related issues of bribery and corruption.

Theory of integrity

After all, we were invited as members of the Oriental Hearts and Mind Study Institute (OHMSI), a Christian think and act tank which focus on six issues of national priority for development.

OHMSI defines integrity as the presence or absence between one’s espoused theory and theory-in-use. These can occur at either individual level, through personal actors or at the corporate or group levels when there are public agents or actors.

The degree of variance in the overlap or lack thereof can be called the lack or presence of integrity.

Therefore, allow me to apply this theory of integrity, which I have variously called many different names, but most popularly as Theory R to my burdened concern about the Malaysian police force and their lack of integrity last Saturday; both at personal and public levels.

When in uniform, no individual has the privilege of using the excuse “that is my personal action and has little or nothing to do with the police force”. Therefore, every action of any man in blue is the action of the police force.

Remember the Rupert Murdoch Principle from the British Parliament. Therefore, in any large and pyramidal system the buck of responsibility and accountability finally stops at the highest level.

All organisations are public in that sense; even so-called private ones as we just found out about the Rupert Murdoch Empire.

Therefore and thereby, we always taught at Intan that final and ultimate responsibility (and therefore accountability) always stops at the chief executive and the board of directors who jointly are held accountable for the good governance of the organisation to fulfil the stated and published responsibilities.

All this is today documented with the Securities Commission and their rules and regulations. The failure in all cases is with execution because of poor and incompetent people being placed in responsibilities far above their capabilities.

Therefore, I have some questions for the IGP which I would like the Bar Council EGM to also review and comment upon, so that we will never again see a repeat of “gangs of thugs in blue uniform abuse their authority and power of law, by personal conduct that cannot be defensible in any court of law”.

How were the laws breached?

My questions for the IGP are:

•Under what conditions can we say that there was a breach of the law? Peaceful assembly was allowed by none other than the minister. As far as I know, there is only a breach if some physically ran into the Dataran Merdeka, which never happened.

•Why then were there so many men in blue acting like the vagabond dogs pushing, kicking and physically hurting civilians, who had not committed any known crime, legally speaking?

• Why was a traffic police officer pulling out his gun and threatening the public?

•Why were there so many police personnel in blue uniform without name-tags and regimental numbers? Were they even part and parcel of the Royal Malaysian Police? Were they gazetted officers and sworn to uphold the King’s police rules of conduct?

•Who made their appointment, and who are they ultimately responsible to in this country if not the Agong?

You see Mr IGP, you are appointed by the King and not the prime minister or the minister of home affairs.

They only recommend your name and it is the Agong, and he may consult his brother Rulers, if he so decides and he may consult anyone else if he so chooses, before he makes known his judgement through his office of appointment.

Once he chooses, then you are appointed by him and responsible to no one else. I am sure you know that. And by the way, only the Agong can also tell you to resign; no one else can, not even the minister of home affairs.

In fact, if anyone gives you wrong instructions or unclear ones, you can instead complain to the Agong and he can instruct the PM to require the home affairs minister to resign.

If you do not know all these principles about good governance of our country, then I really believe that you are not fit to remain as the Inspector General of Police. May God bless Malaysia with truth of this matter.

——————————————————————————–

KJ JOHN was in public service for 29 years. The views expressed here are his personal views and not those of any institution he is involved with. Write to him at
[email protected]
 with any feedback or views.

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 9 May 2012, 12:15 am and is filed under
Bersih
,
Elections
,
Police
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Why was Nazri’s parliamentary answer that the Cabinet has agreed to set up RCI on illegals in Sabah blacked out  in Sabah press today when it should make it to all the front-page headlines?

A most bizarre and extraordinary development highlighting the  triple woes about good governance in Malaysia –  the unhealthy state of media freedom in Malaysia, the veracity of Ministerial statements and assurances in Parliament and thirdly, the continued contempt and disregard for the long-standing legitimate  grievances of Sabahans by the  Barisan Nasional Federal Government.

The question all Sabahans and Malaysians are entitled to an answer is why the written parliamentary answer of the Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz tabled in the Senate yesterday that the Cabinet has agreed on Feb. 8 this  year to set up a Royal Commission of Inquiry (RCI) on the  illegal immigrant problem  in Sabah was blacked out in the Sabah press today when it should make it to all the front-page headlines?

In fact, the news story was also killed in all the Malaysian mainstream mass media and all other language print media  – except for the Sun, which appeared as page lead “RCI on illegals in Sabah” (p. 2), Star online (2.45 pm yesterday) and a few online portals like Malaysiakini and FreeMalaysiaToday.

Is it true that Bernama, which had earlier yesterday sent out a news bulletin on Nazri’s parliamentary answer confirming the Cabinet decision on Feb. 8 to form the RCI, had a few hours later sent out a retraction of the news item?

In his parliamentary answer, Nazri was reported to have said that the Cabinet has agreed to set up a Royal Commission of Inquiry (RCI) in an effort to find a lasting solution to the illegal immigrant problem in Sabah and that the process of preparing terms of reference of the RCI has started after the Cabinet made the decision on Feb 8.

Nazri said the terms of reference will be comprehensive and not confined only to investigations as the government wants to resolve the issue conclusively. The terms of reference would entail safety, social, economy and environmental aspects as the RCI would provide a lasting solution to the issue.  The  federal government would also get feedbacks and proposals from the Sabah government and stakeholders.

What right has Bernama to “kill” Nazri’s answer in Parliament, even if Nazri had misled and not told the truth in Parliament?

Will there be answers to these questions?

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 9 May 2012, 11:32 am and is filed under
Media
,
Parliament
,
Sabah
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Hanif should be the last person to head probe of  Bersih 3.0 violence as he should be one of the “star” witnesses to substantiate his allegations that Bersih 3.0 was a coup attempt which  involved pro-communist sympathizers

It is most ironical that the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak  said in an interview on Sinar.FM radio station this morning that as Prime Minister he could not even afford a single mistake, and “if we have to make 10 major decisions, we need to get 10 out of 10 right”, as he had just  made probably his worst decision in his three-year premiership.

This is the appointment of former Inspector-General of Police, Tun Hanif Omar as chairman of the six-member Independent Advisory Panel to investigate the Bersih 3.0 violence and brutality.

Right from the second after the announcement by the Home Minister, Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Hussein last evening, Hanif’s appointment as  the head of the Bersih 3.0 panel had received immediate brickbats and all-round disapprobation and condemnation as being  utterly inappropriate, rendering the whole probe not only lacking in independence but totally bereft of credibility and legitimacy.

I do not think it is possible to find another announcement of the  composition  of a public inquiry by the government in the nation’s 54-year history which had attracted such instant and all-round rejection and condemnation by major national stakeholders in the country!

The answer is very obvious.  Hanif is the last person to head the probe of Bersih 3.0 violence as nobody would believe that he could be impartial and unbiased after he had publicly supported Najib’s irresponsible, wild and baseless allegation that Bersih 3.0 “sit-in” at Dataran Merdeka on April 28 was a coup d’etat attempt by the opposition to topple the government when there is not one iota of evidence whatsoever.

And what is Hanif’s proof for him to endorse Najib’s wild and far-fetched allegation of Bersih 3.0 as a coup to topple the government?

This is Hanif’s lame response as reported by Berita Minggu (6th May):  “Sudah tentu ia berasas kerana Perdana Menteri tidak bercakap begitu saja. Ia memang boleh berlaku. Orang yang menunggu peluang melaku sesuatu demi kepentingan diri memang ada setiap masa.”

(“There has to be a basis because the prime minister cannot simply make claims. It could happen and there are always people bidding their chance to do it for their own interest.”)

Berita Minggu also reported Hanif as saying that Najib must have made the allegation after receiving intelligence from the Special Branch.

The question is whether Najib received “intelligence” from the Special Branch that Bersih 3.0 was a coup attempt by the Opposition to topple the government before or after Bersih 3.0 on April 28, and if it was before, why Hishammuddin as Home Minister was given a different intelligence briefing causing him to say that Bersih 3.0 was not a security threat as it had “little traction” with the people?

Furthermore, why did’nt Najib reveal such intelligence of a coup attempt to topple the government before April 28?

If the Bersih 3.0 Panel is going to be a comprehensive and authoritative probe into the Bersih 3.0 violence, both Najib and Hishammuddin should appear before it to give testimony about the “intelligence” they had received about Bersih 3.0, both before and after April 28.

In fact,  Hanif is the last person to be considered to head the Bersih 3.0 probe as he should be one of the inquiry’s  “star” witnesses to substantiate his allegations that Bersih 3.0 was a coup attempt which  involved pro-communist sympathizers!

On May 1, at 6.25 pm, Bernama carried the following report which was published by New Straits Times the next morning as follows:

‘Pro-communist elements seen at Bersih rally’

SHAH ALAM: Former inspector-general of police Tun Hanif Omar said pro-communist individuals involved in the 1970s demonstrations were seen in Saturday’s rally in Kuala Lumpur, which turned violent.

“I recognise from the photos and broadcast images (taken from the rally), the pro-communist people who were involved in the 1970s demonstrations,” Hanif said yesterday.

“The tactics of using provocateurs to cause the demonstrators to clash with police and to bring children along in the hope they would get injured were tactics learnt from past pro-communist demonstrations.”

Hanif was clarifying a Bernama report on Monday which quoted him as saying that the gathering could have been masterminded by various parties, including several individuals who tried to spread the communist ideology. Bernama

http://www.nst.com.my/nation/general/pro-communist-elements-seen-at-bersih-rally-1.79784

Hanif should appear before the probe into the  Bersih 3.0 violence to substantiate not only his endorsement of the Prime Minister’s wild allegation that Bersih 3.0 was a coup attempt to topple the government, but his own allegation of involvement of “pro-communist individuals involved in the 1970s demonstrations” in Bersih 3.0 using “pro-communist”, “provocateur tactics” “to cause the demonstrators to clash with police and to bring children along in the hope they would get injured”.

Without casting any aspersions on Hanif’s integrity, I would respectfully suggest that he should spare himself, the Bersih 3.0 probe and the Najib administration any public embarrassment by declining appointment as head of the Bersih 3.0 probe, for the simple reason that he should be appearing before it as a “star witness” rather than its head, in view of his publicly declared position on Bersih 3.0 rally.

Apart from Hanif’s appointment as head, the composition of the members (in particular the exclusion of representatives from Suhakam and Bar Council)  as well as the lack of a proper and acceptable terms of reference are also matters of grave concern to all Malaysians who would want to see a truly impartial inquiry into the Bersih 3.0 violence to ensure that justice is done to all victims of Bersih 3.0 violence and brutality, regardless of whether police, media representatives or peaceful protestors and to demonstrate that Malaysia is capable of maturing to become the world’s best democracy.

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 10 May 2012, 1:48 pm and is filed under
Bersih
,
Elections
,
Hishammuddin
,
Najib Razak
,
Police
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


How BN lost this fencesitting voter: Open letter to PM

Daniel Tan | May 8, 2012

Malaysiakini

I am your average Joe in my late 40’s, living a comfortable life in a quiet suburban part of KL. I call myself a political atheist with no particular inclination to any political party.

You can call me a fencesitter or a middle ground voter. In the last 20 years of my voting life, I have always voted based on issues, swinging my votes between BN and the opposition depending on the hot issues of the day.

I voted BN in 2004, giving your coalition a massive mandate post-Mahathir and the reverberating message of ‘Change’ espoused by your predecessor.

And when the message remained just a message, four years on, I voted for the opposition, and what followed is history.

I understand you are trying very hard to court people like me and I supposed all this alphabet in the soup monikers – ETP, GTP, NEM, etc. are part of your big strategy to win urban voters like me.

Honestly, I am not sure I am thoroughly convinced.

I will let you know why.

Deep down in my gut, I am not sure whether your message of transformation is real or not.

And even if you are sincere, I am not sure whether your party Umno is behind you or not. You see, Dato Seri, we bunch of urbanites are a whole lot of skeptics.

I am aware you are trying to change, modify or remove old archaic laws like OSA, Printing Press & Publication law, Assembly law, etc, in time for the general election.

All that seems good only on paper. Yes, some part of the draconian laws are repealed but they are half measures at best.

Worse, the new revised laws are harsher with many punitive clauses opening the possibility for abuse.

You see, many of us are educated overseas or have worked outside the country – in short, we are fairly connected to what’s happening around the world.

Through the internet and our network of friends around the world, we know about concepts like a free press, freedom of assembly, rule of law, etc – so giving the old furniture a shine on its veneer without removing the termite infested part, is not going to excite us very much.

So on Apr 28, I decided to walk for the first time for Bersih. I was never part of Bersih 1.0 and 2.0 as I was not clear what was the message of Bersih in the first place.

The last thing I wanted was to be used as pawn by any political party.

But Bersih 3.0’s message was very clear to me. After Bersih 2.0 , I followed closely the development on the demands of Bersih to EC, the formation of PSC, etc.

I was stumped over and over again at how your Election Commission brushed off allegations of dubious voters, and its non-committal response to clean up the voting process – I made my conclusion that EC and your coalition BN were never serious about electoral reform in the first place.

To be in Bersih 3.0, was a very big step for me as a political atheist. I just wanted to be there, to feel the environment and be part of something good for the country.

Who doesn’t want a clean and fair election, let alone you the prime minister, who had been quoted more than once that you, too, want a clean election and not win by fraud.

So how bad can Bersih 3.0 be? (Although friends did warn me that violence may happen.)

How wrong (or naïve?) I was.

The violence I witnessed from 3pm onwards that day, completely put me off. Never in my mind, I imagined our police could be so cruel and inhuman as to attack the rakyat who were there just to be part of the nation’s aspiration for a clean election.

To witness the beatings with my own eyes, made it even more painful.

I was spared from bodily harm but my heart is hurt. Hurt for thinking we had a caring government and a responsive prime minister.

All completely vanished in the smoke of the tear gas.

I walked home with only one resolution – that I will give my vote to the federal opposition and this is one middle ground vote that BN lost on that fateful day.

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 10 May 2012, 6:28 am and is filed under
Bersih
,
Elections
,
Najib Razak
,
Police
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


The unshackling of M’sia’s rakyat

Yee Siew Meng |  May 9, 2012

Malaysiakini

Bersih 3.0 is probably the biggest civil protest the country has ever seen. Reports have suggested anywhere from 150,000 to 250,000.

It is hard to establish the figures but depending on which side of the fence you are sitting; I would say that it was an intimidating number of people. Definitely more than Bersih 1 and Bersih 2.

Bersih 3.0, to me was a watershed event, much like BN’s loss of the two-third’s majority in the 2008 general election.

Each time an event like Bersih 3 occurs the ground shakes and the fault lines open up. In 2008, the obvious changes were the new governments which took over the states of Penang, Kedah, Perak and Selangor.

Many were elated but something unseen happened in the psyche of Malaysians which shook the social structure of Malaysia.

The groundswell in 2008 loosed the shackles of fear which had gripped our fathers’ generation. The deep-seated fear shackled our freedom, divided our communities, silenced our elders and compromised our faith.

Lowered voices

I recall the days when we had to lower our voices when speaking about the government in public or fear that our telephone conversations were being listened to. It was very subtle but the fear of “big brother” coming to take you away at any time under the ISA was very real and kept us all in check.

Then in March 2008, the opposition leader was a charismatic Malay man from within the establishment who had been persecuted, beaten and jailed for six years by his own Malay party.

The opposition won the popular votes in that general election and governed five states in Malaysia.

The shackles of race sensitivity were gone and suddenly Malaysians were free. It was like a spell which had been over Malaysians since 1969 were suddenly lifted.

Malaysians had a new sense of freedom and the courage to speak up in the face of injustice and corruption.

At the front lines of this new movement were young Malaysians, those 35 years and younger who had the benefit of an overseas education and who were born long after the dreaded May13 scar in Malaysian history.

The sense of freedom grew after March 2008 and there was no turning back.

Fast forward to Bersih 3.0, no one would have imagined that our Chinese elders, our fathers, those in their 50s and 60s, would go out to join a street protest as the one seen last weekend. Bersih 1 was predominantly and significantly Malay.

Bersih 2 saw more young Chinese and Indian professionals.

So gradually, there is a progressive movement of newfound sense of justice and courage in the hearts of all Malaysians.

This has proven to be a headache for the ruling coalition which is out of its league and totally clueless on how to handle and appease the new Malaysia.

So it was very encouraging to see Malaysians of all races and faces of all ages standing in unity, braving police violence and demanding for clean and fair elections.

It is no longer a communal issue but an issue of justice and fair play. Malaysians are tired of our leaders telling us what is good for us while millions are being siphoned off through kickbacks, mismanagement and corruption.

Malaysians are no longer blind, neither are they fearful. Last week’s Bersih shows that Malaysia is on its way to a mature civil society and one which allows greater democratic space.

It appears, change is inevitable and if the government of the day has lost the plot and is clueless as to what is happening, they will be swept away in the next general election.

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 10 May 2012, 6:11 am and is filed under
Bersih
,
Elections
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


UN does not approve tear gas as a riot control agent

Dr Lin Mui Kiang

Letter

Free Malaysia Today

May 10, 2012

The United Nations in Malaysia would like to refer to the article published in The Star on May 7, 2012 titled ‘Police: Tear gas used at rally safe, UN-approved’. We very much regret that the UN in Malaysia was not consulted before the publication of this article as it contains serious inaccuracies.

The UN has consistently condemned the excessive use of force, including through the use of tear gas. Please also note that the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) and Special Procedures of the Human Rights Council have on various occasions publicly expressed concerns about reliable reports indicating that civilians who died from tear gas suffered complications from gas inhalation, and that security forces have been firing metal tear gas canisters from grenade launchers into crowds.

The UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression after his mission to the Israel and Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT) in December 2011 noted that “while the use of tear gas to disperse a crowd may be legitimate under certain circumstances, tear gas canisters should never be fired directly at demonstrators.”

Moreover, unlike what is alleged in the article, the UN does not set international standards on different kinds of irritants, nor has the UN approved ‘CS Gas’ as a ‘riot control’ agent.

As far as the use of force is concerned, the relevant UN instrument is the Basic Principles on the use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials, which was adopted by the Eighth United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders in 1990, not the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) of 1993. I provide its general provisions below:

1 Governments and law enforcement agencies shall adopt and implement rules and regulations on the use of force and firearms against persons by law enforcement officials. In developing such rules and regulations, Governments and law enforcement agencies shall keep the ethical issues associated with the use of force and firearms constantly under review.

2 Governments and law enforcement agencies should develop a range of means as broad as possible and equip law enforcement officials with various types of weapons and ammunition that would allow for a differentiated use of force and firearms.

These should include the development of non-lethal incapacitating weapons for use in appropriate situations, with a view to increasingly restraining the application of means capable of causing death or injury to persons.

For the same purpose, it should also be possible for law enforcement officials to be equipped with self-defensive equipment such as shields, helmets, bullet-proof vests and bullet-proof means of transportation, in order to decrease the need to use weapons of any kind.

3 The development and deployment of non-lethal incapacitating weapons should be carefully evaluated in order to minimise the risk of endangering uninvolved persons, and the use of such weapons should be carefully controlled.

4 Law enforcement officials, in carrying out their duty, shall, as far as possible, apply non-violent means before resorting to the use of force and firearms. They may use force and firearms only if other means remain ineffective or without any promise of achieving the intended result.

5 Whenever the lawful use of force and firearms is unavoidable, law enforcement officials shall:

(a) Exercise restraint in such use and act in proportion to the seriousness of the offence and the legitimate objective to be achieved;

(b) Minimise damage and injury, and respect and preserve human life;

(c) Ensure that assistance and medical aid are rendered to any injured or affected persons at the earliest possible moment;

(d) Ensure that relatives or close friends of the injured or affected person are notified at the earliest possible moment.

6 Where injury or death is caused by the use of force and firearms by law enforcement officials, they shall report the incident promptly to their superiors, in accordance with principle 22.

7 Governments shall ensure that arbitrary or abusive use of force and firearms by law enforcement officials is punished as a criminal offence under their law.

8 Exceptional circumstances such as internal political instability or any other public emergency may not be invoked to justify any departure from these basic principles.

We at the United Nations appeal to all journalists to correctly and accurately research and report all matters and procedures related to the UN. We believe that such professionalism should also extend to all public officials.

The writer is the United Nations Coordination Specialist, Malaysia

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 10 May 2012, 3:44 pm and is filed under
Bersih
,
Elections
,
Police
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Anwar: Hanif must step down as panel chief in Bersih 3.0 probe

 By Shazwan Mustafa Kamal

The Malaysian Insider

May 11, 2012

PETALING JAYA, May 11 — Tun Mohammad Hanif Omar must step down as head of Putrajaya’s independent panel probe on the Bersih 3.0 violence, Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim said last night.

The PKR de facto leader said this was necessary to ensure the panel was completely fair and neutral in its investigations into incidents surrounding the April 28 rally.

Former Inspector-General of Police Hanif was delusional in thinking Bersih 3.0 would bring a resurgence of communist threat, said Anwar.

“Tun Hanif still thinks he is the Inspector-General of Police fighting the communists, need to fight Chin Peng to the end… eh it (the communist threat) is already over,” Anwar said at a Pakatan Rakyat (PR) ceramah attended by over 1,000 supporters.

“I am asking that Tun Hanif withdraw as chairman. Do not fool the people. You know you are not neutral, insulting Bersih… the other panel members should also step down,” Anwar demanded.

DAP parliamentary leader Lim Kit Siang echoed Anwar’s remarks, saying that Hanif’s appointment was the “worst” decision the Najib administration had made in three years.

“Tun Hanif should be a star witness in the enquiry, not the chairman… save the enquiry from embarrassment,” the Ipoh Timor MP said to loud cheers from people at the ceramah.

“Tun Hanif says Bersih 3.0 was a plot to overthrow the present government… where is the proof?

“Rational Malaysians won’t accept this explanation… that there were pro-communist elements during the rally,” said Lim.

The DAP has maintained Putrajaya’s independent panel probe on the Bersih 3.0 violence would return biased findings following Hanif’s appointment as its head.

DAP secretary-general Lim Guan Eng had said that Hanif had already made clear his opposition to Bersih and his former position as IGP would serve as a conflict of interest when the panel probes allegations of police brutality.

As such, he said, it was a “forgone conclusion” that the panel would absolve all police personnel from blame over the violent incidents during Bersih 3.0 last month.

Home Minister Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Hussein announced the names of the six-man panel tasked to investigate allegations of police violence against Bersih 3.0 protesters on April 28.

Apart from Hanif, the other panel members include former Chief Judge of Borneo Tan Sri Steve Shim, Sinar Harian managing director Datuk Hussamuddin Yaacub, Media Chinese International legal adviser Liew Peng Chuan, Petronas corporate affairs senior general manager Datuk Medan Abdullah and Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia psychology Professor Dr Ruszmi Ismail.

Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak had pledged last week that “credible, experienced and respectable” individuals would form the independent panel to probe the violence during Bersih 3.0.

Najib said that he along with the entire government and members of the public are keeping a close eye on investigations into the allegations that journalists, both local and foreign, had been roughed up during the rally for free and fair elections.

But Najib has come under fire for his administration’s selection of Hanif to head the panel, even after the latter had agreed with the prime minister’s claim that Bersih 3.0 was an attempt to overthrow the government and even claimed that communist sympathisers were involved in the event.

Chaos reigned on the streets of Kuala Lumpur for over four hours after 3pm on April 28 when police fired tear gas and water cannons and chased protesters down the streets to disperse what had initially begun as a peaceful protest calling for free and fair elections.

The Bar Council has said that its observers found that police brutality at the rally was “magnified” compared to already chaotic scenes during a similar gathering for free and fair elections last July 9.

Six local pressmen and 12 photographers and journalists from the foreign media were reportedly assaulted during the fracas on April 28.

Both local and foreign media groups have condemned the hard-handed tactics used on the media, whom they pointed out were merely doing their job.

Police had begun firing the tear gas and water cannons after some demonstrators breached the barricade in front of Kuala Lumpur City Hall (DBKL) and rushed into Dataran Merdeka, which the court had barred the public from entering that particular weekend.

They fired as far as the DBKL premises, which are across Jalan Parlimen, and the move broke up the crowd who fled helter-skelter but police chased them down at Jalan Tun Perak and Jalan Raja Laut.

                This entry was posted on Friday, 11 May 2012, 8:20 am and is filed under
Anwar Ibrahim
,
Bersih
,
Elections
,
Police
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


As Empires Decline – to Umno

By Martin Jalleh

                This entry was posted on Friday, 11 May 2012, 5:21 pm and is filed under
Martin Jalleh
,
UMNO
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Bar EGM denounces police brutality at Bersih 3.0

By Clara Chooi

The Malaysian Insider

May 11, 2012

KUALA LUMPUR, May 11 — The Malaysian Bar has approved a resolution condemning the police for using “excessive” and “indiscriminate” force to disperse Bersih 3.0 protesters on April 28, despite objections raised by a minority group of lawyers at today’s extraordinary general meeting (EGM).

The resolution, passed by way of voting this evening, also demands apologies from the home minister and Inspector-General of Police to the public and members of the media over the conduct of the police during the rally.

According to Bar Council president Lim Chee Wee, only 16 of the 1,270 Malaysian Bar members in attendance today had opposed the resolution, which contained findings of alleged police brutality against protesters and members of the media.

A total of 939 votes were recorded in support of the resolution. There are some 14,000 members in the Malaysian Bar.

Commending today’s high turnout at the EGM, which exceeded the turnout of some 800 members during the Bar’s annual general meeting (AGM) in March, Lim said it was clear that members viewed the events surrounding Bersih 3.0 seriously.

“The fact is, there was widespread reports of police brutality and excessive, disproportionate use of tear gas and water cannons in KL, which only started after the alleged reported breach of the barricades at Dataran Merdeka after 3pm… prior to which, there was a carnival-like atmosphere,” he told a press conference after the three-hour EGM.

Lim, referring to a report by the Bar Council’s team of 78 monitors for the rally, said unlike the chaos during Bersih 3.0 in Kuala Lumpur, other concurrent rallies held in Kuantan, Johor Bahru, Malacca and Ipoh had seen the police acting with restraint.

In KL, he said, the police had failed to offer sufficient warning to protesters before moving to disperse them. The police are also said to have boxed in protesters by sealing off escape routes, instead of offering them sufficient time to disperse.

He said the estimated 100,000-strong crowd that thronged numerous streets in the heart of Kuala Lumpur on April 28 had not been allowed enough room to disperse as volleys of tear gas canisters and chemical-laced water rained down on them even as they attempted to run.

“Which begs the simple question: Why has the police not read or implemented the findings and recommendations of Suhakam (Malaysian Human Rights Commission)?” he asked, referring to four past investigations conducted by the panel on different rallies.

Lim also insisted that the jeering or insults allegedly hurled by protesters at policemen on duty during Bersih 3.0 did not justify the force with which the latter group retaliated.

He pointed out that protesters were unarmed and that the burden of ensuring crowd control lies in the hands of those who are armed, namely the police. Restraint, he said, must be maintained at all costs.

“Does calling the police ‘sampah’ (rubbish) or ‘anjing’ (dog) justify the firing of tear gas or water cannons? Let us not forget this — the police have the responsibility, the powers and the weapons. Malaysians do not,” he said.

Lim noted that debates during today’s EGM had been robust as a number of lawyers in attendance had stood to express opposing views.

But, he stressed, the resolution was later supported by “an overwhelming majority”, indicating that the Bar was unified in its stand on Bersih 3.0.

Among others, the resolution condemns the “excessive, indiscriminate and wrongful” use of tear gas and water cannons against protesters, failure of the police to allow rally participants time to disperse and widespread reports of police brutality against protesters and media professionals.

“Bar members also asked the president (Lim) to highlight to the media that the arrest, assault and confiscation of the equipment of the media are condemned by the Bar. This must never happen

“Secondly, it is most unfortunate the mainstream media, had not given balanced reporting,” Lim said.

Today’s EGM was called to discuss the slew of issues surrounding the rally for free and fair elections, which saw chaos on the streets of the capital when police fired tear gas and chemical-laced water to disperse protesters.

According to a notice issued on the Malaysian Bar’s official website on May 4, the EGM was called to discuss a motion “in relation to the events of and surrounding the public rally on 28 April 2012 organised by Bersih 3.0, and matters in connection therewith”.

Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak recently labelled the demonstration as an attempt by certain quarters to overthrow the elected Barisan Nasional (BN) government, as he hardened his administration’s position towards the electoral reform movement.

Lim previously said that the Bar’s monitoring team had found more instances of police brutality compared to last year’s July 9 Bersih event.

He also said the authorities failed to take heed of criticism and recommendations outlined by the Malaysian Human Rights Commission (Suhakam) with regards to police conduct during Bersih’s first two rallies, and lamented on how “little has changed.”

                This entry was posted on Friday, 11 May 2012, 10:38 pm and is filed under
Bersih
,
Elections
,
UMNO
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Bersih chief: It’s an invasion of my privacy

By
Nicholas Wong
 | May 10, 2012

Malaysiakini

Bersih co-chairperson Ambiga Sreenevasan today criticised Ikhlas for setting up a burger stall outside her home in protest of traders’ loss of income during the April 28 Bersih rally.

Speaking to reporters, she described the incident as an invasion of her privacy and her home, calling it a “terrible precedent” for the country.

“If the authorities accept this then ministers had better be careful, because people will be standing outside their houses next,” said Ambiga (left), adding that the she would let the public judge the situation for themselves.

While expressing concern for her family, Ambiga stressed that she was not afraid.

“Look who I have behind me,” she said, referring to the leaders of the various Bersih-affiliated NGOs standing behind her.

The leaders, which included Parti Sosialis Malaysia secretary-general S Arutchelvan, Ivy Josiah of the Women’s Aid Organisation and Bersih steering committee member Maria Chin Abdullah, were called at the last minute and rushed over in a show of support for Ambiga.

“This is intimidation. I will take the necessary steps.

“This has never happened in Malaysia, except to Lim Guan Eng. Now (he) and I have had our homes violated,” she added, referring to a “funeral rite” held by.Malay rights pressure group Perkasa outside the Penang chief minister’s home earlier today

Ambiga agreed that the traders had a right to make their claims, but questioned how she was to respond to their demands as she had not been given any information on those claims. “Not even a sheet of paper has been handed to me. So what do I respond to?”

She added the traders were perfectly entitled to file their claims in court, and even sue her if they wished to. “Let the judge decide whether they have a claim.”

However, they do not have the right to come to my home and behave in such a manner, she stressed.

She said she would file a police report immediately: “I have a duty to lodge a police report… this is about the whole neighbourhood, and my family.”

The police were present in a patrol car during the incident, but did not act against any of the Ikhlas members.

Stunned at ex-IGP leading probe panel

Meanwhile, she repeated her opposition to the appointment of former inspector-general of police Hanif Omar as the head of the independent panel to probe incidents of violence during the Bersih 3.0.

She stressed his remarks alleging pro-communist elements in the rally recently made him unsuitable for the position.

“(Hanif) has learnt law, so he should know that (his remarks) immediately disqualify him.”

She also lamented the lack of human rights experts or assemblies on the panel, adding that they would have to reconsider Bersih’s involvement in the panel’s investigation given their lack of confidence in it.

Maria Chin Abdullah added that it was not too late to set up a different panel, if the government was sincere in resolving the issue of police violence during the rally.

However, Bersih insists the government accept UN rapporteur Frank William La Rue’s invitation to assist the panel as well as appoint Suhakam to head the panel.

                This entry was posted on Friday, 11 May 2012, 10:33 am and is filed under
Bersih
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Bersih, opposition spun our Bill out, decries EC

By
Kuek Ser Kuang Keng
 | 4:17PM May 10, 2012

Malaysiakini

The withdrawal of Election Offences Amendment Bill is the result of the government succumbing to the “spin and lies” created by Bersih and the opposition, said the Election Commission deputy chairperson Wan Ahmad Wan Omar.

“They spun and twisted (the amendment), made nonsensical stories creating the perception that the Bill is bad…

“To satisfy all quarters, so they won’t be people saying it is fraud, the government took the best way… that is to discuss among BN, the opposition and the EC.

“If that is the best way the Parliament wants, never mind… the EC will just do it,” he said during a luncheon talk today in a Kuala Lumpur hotel.

Wan Ahmad (right) stressed that the EC will not introduce a Bill that will jeopardise the electoral system.

“They spun and spun, lied and lied to create strong pressure, so we were forced to withdraw.”

The three-hour talk entitled ‘Bersih 3.0: What else you want?’ was organised by the Department of Special Affairs (JASA), an agency under the Information, Communications and Culture Ministry and the Institute of Mind Development (Inmind), and attended by many JASA officers.

Whole nation will be in disarray

Yesterday, Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Nazri Abdul Aziz announced that the decision to abort the Bill was arrived at after a 10-minute meeting between the government, the opposition and the EC.

He tabled the motion to withdraw the Bill in the Dewan Negera today.

The Bill includes the proposal to remove the candidate’s agents from the EC registration booth and to remove the requirement for all printed materials to have printers’ and publishers’ details.

However, Wan Ahmad warned that retaining the requirement will bring the whole country into disarray during the election because there will be many campaigning banners without printing details, and taking action against those behind them will be a pain.

He explained that political parties should not be worried over the abolition of the requirement because the EC will form an enforcement team together with the contesting parties. It will have the power to remove any seditious or inappropriate material on the spot.

As for the retaining of candidate’s agents in the registration booth, Wan Ahmad again warned that it will disrupt the voting process in some 8,000 polling centres nationwide because from previous experience, the candidate’s agents would create trouble at the registration booth.

                This entry was posted on Friday, 11 May 2012, 5:33 pm and is filed under
Bersih
,
Elections
,
Parliament
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Besok perayaan ulang tahun Umno, walaupun Umno itu sudah tiada

 — Aspan Alias

The Malaysian Insider

May 10, 2012

10 MEI — Dengar khabarnya Umno akan “celebrate” ulang tahun yang ke 66 besok dengan perhimpunan ahli parti yang besar-besaran. Katanya Umno berumur 66 tahun besok, 11hb Mei. Upacara sambutan besaran-besaran ini akan menjadi seperti pelancaran untuk menghadapi pilihanraya yang bakal diadakan sekejap sahaja lagi.

Saya lebih tertarik jika Umno hanya mengadakan doa selamat besar-besaran untuk Umno yang telah mati itu bukannya merayakan hari lahirnya. Parti itu telah mati dan semua orang tahu siapa yang merancang kematiannya dan kenapa kematian Umno itu amat perlu bagi seorang pemimpin pada tahun 1988 dahulu. Tidak payah diulangi lagi kerana blog inilah yang telah mengulangi kejadian itu berpuluh-puluh kali sebelum ini. Umno sekarang sepatutnya merayakan ulang tahun yang ke 24 sahaja kerana itulah umur sebenar parti Umno yang sekarang ini.

Sepatutnya ulang tahunnya dirayakan pada bulan Februari yang lepas. Tetapi Umno terpaksa mengambil dan menukar tarikh lahirnya ke11 Mei kerana itulah tarikh lahir Umno yang sebenarnya. Saya dan siapa pun tahu kenapa Umno memilih 11 Mei itu sebagai hari ulang tahun parti itu. Sebabnya senang; kerana Umno asal itu merupakan parti tulin perjuangan untuk orang Melayu dan rakyat Malaysia amnya. Umno baru ini ingin menumpang “kekeramatan” Umno lama itu maka ia memilih untuk menggunakan tarikh kelahiran parti yang telah mati dibunuh pada tahun 1988 dahulu sebagai tarikh ulang tahun parti yang baru berumur 24 tahun itu.

Perkara seperti ini memang biasa berlaku dinegara ini. Kalau kita ingat suatu ketika dahulu Keretapi Tanah Melayu telah kerugian puluhan juta ringgit kerana ramai pekerja perbadanan itu yang telah mati masih mendapat pencen mereka yang di terima oleh pihak lain secara haram. Walaupun pekerjanya sudah lama mati tetapi ada pihak yang membuat tuntutan pencen tersebut secara haram dengan tidak mengisytiharkan kematian mereka. Pencen mereka sebaliknya diterima oleh keluarga dan sahabat mereka yang menggunakan tanda tangan palsu untuk mendapatkan wang pencen simati itu. Kejadian ini merupakan satu penipuan besar.

Berbalik kepada perayaan ulang tahun Umno yang 66 tadi, saya berpendapat kita biarkan sahaja mereka (Umno) melakunkan tipu helah moral itu. Umno memerlukan sangat nama baik Umno asal itu untuk mendapatkan sokongan orang Melayu. Tetapi seperkara yang kita mesti terima ialah rungutan orang seperti saya dan ramai yang lain itu memang mempunyai asas yang kuat. Kalaulah pandangan kumpulan seperti saya ini salah, masakan Umno beriya-iya benar untuk mengambil tarikh kelahiran Umno asal itu sebagai tarikh ulang tahun parti itu sekarang sedangkan parti Umno sekarang hanya berusia 24 tahun, lebih muda dari umur anak bongsu saya. Ramai yang mengkritik saya kerana masih bercakap tentang Umno lama itu. Tetapi mereka tidak sedar yang mereka sendiri (Umno) sedang berbelanja jutaan ringgit untuk memperingati Umno lama itu dengan mengadakan majlis besar-besaran.

Besok kita akan mendengar retorik Umno asal yang akan dibuat oleh pemimpin Umno baru ini. Besok kita, ibarat mendengar lagu P. Ramlee yang enak-enak oleh Musli Ramli. Tetapi Musli bukannya P. Ramlee. Musli hanya seorang penyanyi yang pandai menyanyikan lagu-lagu P. Ramlee yang telah meninggal pada tahun 1973 dahulu. Dan Musli pun boleh cari makan dengan kepandaiannya menyanyikan lagu-lagu P. Ramlee dengan baik seperti pemimpin Umno baru menggunakan nama asal Umno itu untuk mencari makan melalui FGVH, Scorpene, MAS, AirAsia dan banyak lagi yang mereka telah selewengkan itu.

Oh ya, mereka yang telah membunuh Umno dulu pun akan bersama-sama merayakan ulang tahun Umno yang telah dibunuh itu besok. — aspanaliasnet.blogspot.com

                This entry was posted on Friday, 11 May 2012, 1:05 am and is filed under
UMNO
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.