ASEAN govts must warn Myanmar military – another bloodbath ala-1988 completely unacceptable

With the Myanmar military junta threatening a crackdown as some 100,000 demonstrators led by barefoot Buddhist monks staged  in Yangon yesterday the country’s largest anti-government protest since a failed democratic uprising nearly 20 years ago, ASEAN governments and leaders cannot continue to be on the sidelines and must move quick and fast.

All the nine ASEAN governments must urgently send a clear and unequivocal message to the Myanmar military junta that a crackdown and bloodbath revisiting the 1988 massacre in Burma  is totally unacceptable and incompatible with responsible membership of ASEAN and the United Nations.

A repeat of the 1988 bloodbath with some 3,000 people killed  by the military would be an unmitigated disaster for Myanmar and ASEAN, casting a pall on the 13th ASEAN Summit in Singapore on Nov. 20-21 and  plunging the regional organization into its worst crisis in 40 years.

On the occasion of the  40th anniversary  ASEAN, 2007 should be a year to celebrate another major stride in the development of ASEAN with the adoption of an ASEAN Charter incorporating human rights protection for the people of ASEAN.

A bloodbath in Myanmar will not only smash these high and noble ASEAN hopes into smithereens, but also highlight  the fatal mistake ten years ago in admitting Myanmar into  ASEAN when the military junta had no intention whatsoever to honour its undertaking to work towards national reconciliation and democratization in the country.

China –  and in particular the Beijing Olympic Games 2008 — and India will not be able to escape  adverse international repercussions of a bloodbath in Myanmar as they will be blamed for giving support to the Myanmar military junta and turning a blind eye to the bloody crackdown in the country.

ASEAN, China and India must co-ordinate and work out a common strategy to ensure that the peaceful protests and demonstrations by monks, nuns and all sectors of the Burmese people are resolved peacefully without violence, paving the way towards national reconciliation and democratization in Burma.

The Malaysian Cabinet tomorrow should take a bold and courageous stand, expressing sympathy and support for the peaceful protests and calling on the Myanmese military junta not to resort to violence but to work out a peaceful solution to the Burmese crisis involving the immediate release of Nobel Peace Prize Laureatte Aung San Suu Kyi and all other political prisoners and their participation in a transitional National Reconciliation Government.

Malaysian Foreign Minister, Datuk Seri Syed Hamid Albar, should be instructed to play a leading and activist role both in  ASEAN and the United Nations to formulate a strategy together with China, India, United States and European Union to ensure a peaceful and non-violent resolution to the Burmese crisis.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 25 September 2007, 9:45 am and is filed under
Burma
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Can there be a discussion of Islam thats not STUPID???

By Farish A Noor

It is interesting to reflect on the asinine times we live in, particularly if like me, you are involved in that nebulous thing called ‘Inter-cultural dialogue’. Over the past four weeks I have been engaged in numerous rounds of dialogues between Western Europeans and Muslim migrant communities in Amsterdam, Paris and Berlin, and in every single one of these encounters I came across stereotypes of Muslims and Islam that were so shallow and puerile that I am almost embarrassed to recount them here. Worst still these pedestrian musings on Islam and Muslims were not the offerings of everyday punters, but those who claimed to be well-known and admired scholars and historians.

In one of these exchanges I was told the following: that ‘Islam is a fascist, woman-hating, Christian-killing, gay-bashing macho male ideology of hatred that was built on fourteen centuries of conquest and bloodshed, murder and rape. That is why there cannot be integration of Muslims into Europe, because the Muslims that we have here are the savages of the Arab world who are barbaric, violent and brutal. They do not believe in  reason and the Enlightenment and Islamic civilisation has not produced anything scientific, rational or humane.’ Try substituting the word ‘Muslim’ for ‘blacks’ and one would see how far-fetched and racist such claims really are.

Now why is it that whenever we speak of Islam and Muslims today some of us think they have the licence to drop their IQ level by a hundred points or so? Is talk on Islam a licence to say anything dumb, offensive, provocative, just for the sake of riling up the masses and grabbing a few headlines? A politician in Holland has even stated that there should be a ban on any reading of the Qur’an, on the grounds that it can be compared to Hitler’s Mein Kampf. Others claim that all Muslims are determined primarily by their religion which happens to be irrational, unscientific and anti-Enlightenment.

I was struck by the wilful blindness of these so-called ‘liberal’ and ‘rational’ Europeans themselves, and their inability to put things in relative perspective and to interrogate their own presuppositions about themselves. In my own work as an academic-activist I have tried to deconstruct the grand narratives of official history, be it on the level of the state or religion. I am also aware of the fact that the writing of history is a contested process and that more often than not the writing of history is done by the victors and not the defeated marginalised voices of any community. Is it a surprise then that the history of the West has been only a history of white, male, middle-classed voices? Where is the history of women and women’s participation in politics, economics and nation-building? Only recently with the advances made by Feminist historiography and deconstructive history by the likes of Simon Schama have we seen the writing of history that is inclusive, plural and popular.

Now the conscious historian will inform you that there were (and remain) counter-currents to such dominant grand narratives all along, both in the West and in the Muslim world. (As there are liberal progressive counter-currents against orthodox conservative Hinduism, Buddhism, Christianity and Judaism.) Furthermore, all civilisations and cultures exist in relational terms and develop in relation with and to others: It would be farcical to claim that the European Enlightenment was merely an auto-generated case of isolated genius, for we all know that European civilisation developed by interaction with Muslim civilisation; as did Muslim civilisation develop in relation with and to Chinese, Indian and Persian civilisation.

Of course today Muslims the world over are hostage to a history that is determined either by ruling elites or their conservative lackeys such as the Wahabbis of Saudi Arabia. From the pens of these conservative sectarians, we get only a static account of Muslim history that is told from the point of view of Kings, Sultans and dictators- such as the history of Iraq that was written during the time of Saddam Hussein, or the skewered history of Arabia written by the pro-establishment Wahabbis. But here again the question needs to be raised: How was this historical erasure made possible, and who were the agents behind such erasure? Well, unfortunately the finger of blame also points to the ‘enlightened’ West, who regarded dictators like Saddam Hussein and the Saudi royal family as their strategic allies.

The rise of conservative, fundamentalist, sectarian and violent Islam was aided and abetted by Western states during the Cold War, leading to the rise of men like Saddam Hussein, the anti-Soviet Mujahideen and later the Taliban who have done so much to destroy the plural legacy of the Muslim world. Yet today Western liberals accuse Muslims of having no history and that their own history is one of violence. Where is the enlightened spirit of auto-critique and self-awareness here? Surely liberals in the West should not be surprised to see the rise of  fundamentalist Muslim regimes the world over when it has been their own Western governments that have supported those very same anti-Christian, anti-women, anti-gay regimes in the first

place, ostensibly for the sake of strategic alliances but fundamentally to safeguard the West’s much-needed supply of oil?

I am by no means excusing fundamentalist conservative Muslims here, for there are indeed right-wing Muslims who can only be described as fascist in the real sense of the word. But in the same way that Muslims today need to get out of their shell and stare reality in the face, so do Europeans who claim to be ever-so enlightened and liberal. Europe’s Enlightenment project

created not only its own discontents but also anomalies.

To suggest that every single European today is the product of this historical process would be so simplistic as to beggar belief, and borders on the ridiculous. For should that be the case, then perhaps we can ask how enlightened the Europeans were when they colonised Asia and Africa. Look at the world map and see how so many patches of the earth today — ranging from North America to Australia — are reminders of a colonial expansion that was motivated by irrational greed, irrational racism, irrational hatred for the Other, and not the values of reason or universal humanism. Tell me, was it Kant or Descartes who told the colonisers to invade and occupy Australia, and exterminate the aborigines of Tasmania and then hang their heads as trophies? Or skin the bodies of North American Indians to make boots and tobacco pouches? Where was the European Enlightenment then? Asleep?

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 25 September 2007, 6:50 am and is filed under
Farish Noor
,
Religion
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Lingam Tape – 3-man panel into authenticity unsatisfactory, unacceptable and falls far short of what should be done

Disbelief, shock and outrage — these three feelings sum up the general reaction to news of the announcement by Deputy Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak of the
three-man independent panel
set up by the government to investigate the authenticity of the Lingam Tape  of a telephone conversation between a senior lawyer V.K. Lingam and Chief Justice Tun Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim in 2002 on fixing of judicial appointments and perversion of the course of justice.

Najib said the panel would be headed  by former Chief Judge of Malaya Tan Sri Haidar Mohd Noor, with former Court of Appeal Judge Datuk Mahadev Shankar and social activist Tan Sri Lee Lam Thye as members.

The three-man independent panel into the authenticity of the Lingam Tape is unsatisfactory and unacceptable as it falls far short of what should be done — a Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Lingam Tape and the alleged perversion of the course of justice and the compromising of  judicial independence, integrity, impartiality and integrity.

The establishment of a Royal Commission of Inquiry to conduct a full and comprehensive investigation  is particularly urgent and imperative to restore public confidence in the system of justice as up to now, Ahmad Fairuz has been conspicuously silent in failing to personally issue a statement on the Lingam Tape — five days after its expose by Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim.

The denial which the Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz had made on Ahmad Fairuz’  behalf is just not good enough, with zero credibility.

In restricting the panel to the question of the authenticity of the Lingam Tape instead of allowing full  investigations  into all aspects of the allegations of perversion of the course of  justice and the compromising of judicial independence, impartiality and integrity raised by the video clip, the government is avoiding the imperative issue of the long-standing rot in the judiciary and the urgent need to restore national and international confidence in the system of justice with a truly independent judiciary and a just rule of law.

A Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Lingam Tape would have first to address the issue of the authenticity of the video clip and there is no reason why an independent panel should be formed with the very narrow and restricted focus of deciding whether the video clip is authentic or otherwise, without the further powers of proceeding to further conduct comprehensive investigations into all the allegations of perversion of the course of  justice and the compromising with judicial  independence, impartiality and integrity.

In short, the government is trying to focus public attention on the technical question about the authenticity of the Lingam Tape  and distract and disregard it from  the urgent, imperative and substantive issue of the long-standing rot in the system of justice which must be identified and stopped.

Najib said that the panel’s findings are expected in a few weeks’ time and will be made public.

Is the whole game-plan to drag out the issue until after October when Ahmad Fairuz would have retired as Chief Justice and the whole issue could be laid to rest on the ground that it is now  academic with Ahmad Fairuz’ retirement?

 The selection of members of the inquiry panel is highly questionable, particularly as the former Chief Judge of Malaya Tan Sri Haidar Mohd Noor had played a most controversial role in the 1988 Judicial Crisis  (he was at the time Chief Registrar of Supreme Court) leading to the arbitrary and unconstitutional sacking of Tun Salleh Abas as Lord President and Datuk George Seah and the late Tan Sri Wan Suleiman as Supreme Court Judges.

In the circumstances, it is most regrettable that  Haidar should be involved in any investigation into the Lingam Tape scandal, which should be the first step to clean the Augean Stables in the Judiciary to return it to the  high international repute and esteem  it enjoyed before 1988.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 25 September 2007, 4:50 pm and is filed under
Judiciary
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Lingam Tape: Cry for judiciary – from Minister for “tables and chairs” to Minister for Chief Justice

Cry for the judiciary — for the first time in 50 years, there is a Minister for the  Chief Justice when seven years ago, the then Chief Justice  declared that there was no Minister looking after the judiciary and  ridiculed the Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department in charge of the law  and justice portfolio as Minister for “tables and chairs” for the courts!

Yesterday, when trying to explain why he had issued a denial on behalf of the Chief Justice, Tun Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim in connection with the Lingam Tape, the Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, Datuk Nazri Aziz said that this was because
“I am his minister”
.

He said:  “I am his minister. I am the minister in charge of legal affairs. He is clever enough to know that the reporters will ask me for a response.”

In one fell swoop, Nazri had not only reduced the Chief Justice to that of a subordinate junior but also repudiated the cardinal principle of the independence of the Judiciary and destroyed the fundamental doctrine of the separation of powers among the Executive, Legislature and Judiciary.

In the five decades of nationhood, the Minister delegated the law and justice  portfolio  by the Prime Minister was never regarded as a Minister for the judges because of the doctrine of separation of powers of the three branches of government and the principle of the independence of the judiciary.

In June 2000, Malaysians were offered a glimpse of judicial goings-on when  the contretemps between the then Chief Justice of the Federal Court, Tun Eusoffe Chin and the  then Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, Datuk Dr. Rais Yatim erupted after the latter chastised the former for his  improper judicial behaviour in “socialising” with  lawyer Datuk V.K. Lingam  during a New Zealand holiday in 1994.

Eusoffe said he coincidentally “bumped” into Lingam when holidaying in New Zealand, and relegated Rais to a Minister for “tables and chairs” for the Chief Registrar’s Office and not law.

Eusuff said: “I suppose when we need tables and chairs or a new courtroom, we go to him.”   He stressed that the minister “doesn’t look after the judiciary”.
(Star 7.6.00).

However, there seems to be a sea change seven years later, and Nazri has arrogated to himself a position,  which is recognized by the Chief Justice, of  the status of  Minister for the Chief Justice and the judiciary —  when in 2000 such a Minister was  “only in charge of the Chief Registrar’s office relating to logistical matters”!
(New Straits Times 7.6.2000)

For agreeing to subordinate the position of the Chief Justice to the Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department in charge of law and order, and  unconstitutionally reducing the judiciary to a subservient position to the Executive, Ahmad Fairuz has committed a gross judicial misconduct bringing the judiciary into disrepute, both nationally and internationally.

This is sufficient ground to refer Ahmad Fairuz  to a Judicial Tribunal to ask him to show cause why he should not be dismissed as Chief Justice!

Since the arbitrary and unconstitutional  1988 sacking of Tun Salleh Abas as  Lord President and Datuk George Seah and the late Tan Sri Wan Sulaiman as Supreme Court judges, Malaysia has never  really recovered from a series of body blows to the independence, impartiality, integrity and professionalism of the judiciary for almost two decades.

Malaysians had hoped that Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi will  as Prime Minister usher in a change and fully restore national and international confidence in the Malaysian system of justice with a truly independent judiciary and a just rule of law — but Abdullah had failed to deliver this promise in the past four years to the extent that more and more Malaysians are looking to the Conference of Rulers to provide the final  checks and balances against abuses and misuses of power which should have been spelt out in  built-in provisions in the system itself.

The problem of the crisis of confidence in the judiciary are not on all fours with those of the previous administration.  Just one instance.

In the previous administration, the judiciary lost its independence, impartiality and integrity because it was held in thrall by one man, the Prime Minister, but this judicial subservience was not extended to the Cabinet or other Ministers.

This was why there was the 2000 farce of the then Chief Justice bristling at the criticism of the then Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department in charge of the law and justice portfolio, publicly reprimanding the Minister  that he had no responsibility over the judiciary but only for the “tables and chairs” required by the Court Registry!

Today, however, the Chief Justice seems to have accepted a much lowly position – that he is even  subordinate or answerable  to the Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department to the extent that Nazri can unabashedly claim in public: “I am his Minister”.  This is a notion  none of Nazri’s  predecessors, whether Rais Yatim or Datuk Mohd Radzi would have been so presumptuous to entertain, whether publicly or privately!

Nazri’s explanation as to why Ahmad Fairuz evaded the media was another “gem”. Nazri said it was because Ahmad Fairuz  is not answerable to the press.

If true, then this is another indictment as to why Ahmad Fairuz is not fit to continue as Chief Justice, as he clearly had never heard and does not understand the meaning of judicial accountability.

I am reminded of his shocking comment early this year, likening the proposal for an independent judicial commission on appointment and promotion of judges as akin to nudity rather than transparency.

In his four years as Chief Justice, Ahmad Fairuz has failed on both scores of judicial accountability and transparency.

The Prime Minister and the Cabinet must not abdicate from their responsibility to end the  haemorrhage of national and international confidence in the independence, impartiality, integrity and professionalism of the judiciary as it is  a major handicap in Malaysia’s efforts to enhance international competitiveness to  face the challenges of globalization.

The Cabinet tomorrow  must address not only the scandal of Lingam Tape but the crisis of confidence in the system of justice by give a quick and positive response to public demands for a Royal Commission of Inquiry  for a world-class judiciary respected internationally for its independence, impartiality, integrity and professionalism.

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 25 September 2007, 1:00 pm and is filed under
Judiciary
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


De-politicise campus student elections – UPM VC should publicly apologise for porno lie

Universiti Putra Malaysia (UPM) Vice Chancellor  Nik Mustapha should publicly apologise for the  baseless charge that student activist Yee Yang Yang had pornographic material  in his laptop and ensure free and fair student campus elections  so as not to attract for the UPM  the epithet of Mat Rempit University.

I commend the UPM for
owning up to  “flaws”
 in the Mat Rempit-action by the UPM security unit in  its high-handed arrogance in confiscating Yee’s laptop, mobile phone, MP3 player and 10 other items valued at RM6,000 during a spot check of his hostel room but what is unpardonable and inexcusable is the lie that Yee had pornographic material in his laptop.

I do not believe that this lie was concocted by the Vice Chancellor but he would have relied on it based on a report by the security unit, which had no password to access Yee’s notebook.

I do not call for Nik Mustapha’s resignation as UPM Vice Chancellor although this is a grave mistake but he should at least publicly  apologise for his error and misjudgment in running an university administration where his departmental heads  and officers are not aware of the importance of truth and integrity.  In the process, they have brought brought UPM into public shame and disrepute.

Apart from his public apology to Yee for the lie about pornographic material in the notebook, he must take disciplinary action against the  security personnel for their Mat Rempit behaviour against UPM students, whether anti or pro-establishment, including expulsion of the security officer who had embarrassed him and UPM publicly in telling the lie against Yee.

With the campus student elections on Oct 2 and nomination today, Nik Mustapha should take special pains to ensure that UPM will be an exemplary university where student elections are held in a free and fair manner so that the epithet of Mat Rempit University will not stick to UPM under his Vice Chancellorship.

In this connection, I call on the Higher Education Minister, Datuk  Mustapha Mohamed  to take the first bold step to give meaning and substance to the National Higher Education Action Plan 2007-2010 to start the long journey to make Malaysia a world leader in higher education by sending a clear message to all Vice Chancellors to hold free and fair campus elections in public universities and to respect and accept the election results.

Mustapha should de-politicise campus student elections by  publicly declaring  that as Higher Education Minister, he would not be partisan and would not take sides with any candidate or group of candidates contesting in the campus polls, and that he would not mind and would fully accept the verdict of the campus elections regardless of who wins or loses, so long as the campus elections are held in a free and fair manner.

He should announce a “hands-off” policy to ensure a vibrant, critical and creative student campus and scrap the secret agenda of Vice Chancellors and deputies to ensure victory of the compliant “pro-establishment” student groups.

One important reason why Malaysian public universities had been on a downward plunge as centres of academic excellence is because it has been drummed into the Vice Chancellors and their deputies that it is more important for their career future that they deliver campus elections to pro-establishment student groups rather than ensuring that the universities achieve international recognition as world-class universities as receiving top rankings in world tables, such as the Times Higher Education Supplement (THES) and the Shanghai Jiao Tong University annual listing of top world universities.

Let the 2007 public university student elections be the first which is fully de-politicised where students are allowed to elect, in a free and fair manner, the student leaders they want without any ulterior agenda from any political party  to stack university student representative councils with their nominees.

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 26 September 2007, 2:06 pm and is filed under
Education
,
Election
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Lingam Tape – Haidar, Shanker and Lam Thye should decline or withdraw from “Independent Panel”

Former Chief Judge of Malaya, Tan Sri Haidar Mohd Noor, should decline or withdraw as Chairman of the three-man panel on the authenticity of the Lingam Tape in view of his controversial role in the 1988 Judicial Crisis to allow for a Royal Commission of Inquiry to be formed to conduct full and comprehensive inquiries into the erosion and ravages of the independence, impartiality and integrity of the judiciary since 1988.

I also call on the other two members earmarked for the Lingam Tape panel, former Court of Appeal judge Datuk Mahadev Shanker and Tan Sri Lee Lam Thye to similarly decline or withdraw from the panel to send a clear and unmistakable message on behalf of all Malaysians and future generations — that the time has come not only for an untrammelled inquiry into the Lingam Tape with all its far-reaching and horrendous implications about perversion of the course of justice but the opportunity must not be missed to right the historic and generational wrongs in the past 19 years which saw Malaysia stumbling from one judicial crisis to another.

The question which Malaysiakini editor-in-chief, Steven Gan, asked in his editorial yesterday,

“Will we miss the boat again”
, must be asked by all Malaysians, including Shanker and Lam Thye.

Steven cannot be more right when he wrote:

“Almost a generation has suffered because of our ‘tidak apa’ attitude to the judicial crisis. Here’s another chance for us to make amends.

“We have missed the boat – not once but twice. Indeed, for the sake of the country, we cannot afford to blow this one chance.”

The establishment of an “Independent Panel” into the authenticity of the Lingam Tape instead of a Royal Commission of Inquiry into the rot in the system of justice in the past two decades and  which had been highlighted by the  Lingam Tape is the height of irresponsibility in trying to reduce the shocking scandal into a joke and a farce.

In the first place, why should there be an independent panel to establish the authenticity of the Lingam Tape when  there had been no full denial  for a week by the two personalities involved, senior lawyer V.K. Lingam or the Chief Justice, Tun Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim  as the so-called “denial” by Ahmad Fairuz through the Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz was clearly unsatisfactory and unacceptable.

In the second place, why should there be continued refusal to have a Royal Commission to conduct  a wide-ranging inquiry into the rot in the system of justice because of the usurpation of the powers of the judiciary by the executive and the erosion of the fundamental principles of the independence, impartiality and integraity of the judiciary, a continuing   national and international scandal for 19 years which had been re-opened by the Lingam Tape?

Are Malaysians to be blamed if they sense that there is a greater eagerness to find a technical excuse to “cover up” the Lingam Tape scandal than to grapple frontally with the serious allegations of the perversion of the course of justice on the fixing of judicial appointments and the fixing of judgments  in the past 19 years?

I call on Shanker and Lam Thye to decline or withdraw from the three-man “Independent Panel” because no one should lend themselves to any stratagem which would, in Steven’s words, cause Malaysia to “miss the boat” to have probably the last opportunity to exorcise the ravages against an independent, impartial and incorruptible judiciary and  lay the basis for the restoration of the Malaysian judiciary to its former high international repute and esteem.

Haidar should know that in these circumstances, considering his controversial role in the “mother” of the string of judicial crisis which afflicted the country in the past 19 years, it is most inappropriate for him to head any investigation to restore public confidence in the independence, impartiality and integrity of the judiciary.

Haidar, who was then the Chief Registrar of the Supreme Court, had played a crucial role in the sacking of Tun Salleh Abas as Lord President and Datuk George Seah and the late Tan Sri Wan Suleiman as Supreme Court judges.

Haidar’s role in the sacking of Salleh Abas, particularly with regard the third charge leveled against Salleh at the Judicial Tribunal, can be read from Salleh Abas’ accounts of the “mother” of all judicial crisis in Malaysia, particularly from
“May Day for Justice”
 by Tun Salleh Abas with K. Das.

In his

“Postmortem of the 1988 judicial crisis”
in Aliran Monthly 2005, Datuk George Seah made the following reference to Haidar:

Haidar’s Dilemma

Lastly, there was the interview given by the retiring Chief Judge of the High Court in Malaysia, Tan Sri Justice Haider Mohd Noor, which was published in the New Straits Times (7 November 2004). The retiring Chief Judge was reported to have said:

“As for the most memorable moment in his career, he cited the impeachment of former Lord President Tun Salleh Abas in 1988. As the Chief Registrar of the Supreme Court, I was very much informed of the action taken. At the tribunal against the five judges of the Supreme Court, I was the star witness.

“It was a very tough time for me because on one side, Tan Sri Wan Sulaiman Pawan Teh was threatening me with contempt if I did not follow his order, and on the other side, Tun Hamid Omar was assuming the power of LP and directed me to act otherwise.

“When I was called up, I said that I was only a civil servant and it was not for me to question the Acting LP’s order. Tan Sri Wan Sulaiman said he could cite me for contempt and I said if I had to go to jail, I would.”

Readers would recall that Tan Sri Haidar Mohd Noor was the Chief Registrar of the Supreme Court of Malaysia during the 1988 Judicial Crisis.

Immediately after the removal of Lord President Tun Salleh Abas and senior Supreme Court Judges Tan Sri Wan Sulaiman and Datuk George Seah in 1988, Tan Sri Haidar was appointed a Judge of the High Court in Borneo. He returned to the High Court in Malaya and was elevated to the Court of Appeal and subsequently to the Federal Court before his appointment as Chief Judge of the High Court in Malaya.

Supreme Court vs Acting Lord President

Tan Sri Haidar’s statement that he had to make a choice — between the instructions given to him by Tan Sri Wan Sulaiman and the contrary instructions given by the Acting Lord President, Tan Sri Hamid Omar — poses a very fascinating constitutional question: Which instructions should take precedence?

At that point of time, it is relevant to note that Tan Sri Wan Sulaiman was giving his instructions in his capacity as the Presiding Judge of a specially constituted 5-member Supreme Court of Malaysia. These instructions were in fact tantamount to an Order of the Supremen Court — whereas Acting LP Tan Sri Hamid Omar was only giving administrative directive to his Chief Registrar. Acting Lord President Tan Sri Hamid Omar’s instructions did not and could not by any stretch of the imagination amount to an Order of the Court or perceived as having similar or equal weightage. Contempt of Court postulates as an Order of the Court and not as instructions of another Judge of the Supreme Court who is not sitting as a Judge in the Supreme Court.

In my opinion, contempt of court can arise only when an Order of the Court is disobeyed. The Chief Registrar of the Supreme Court cannot take it upon himself that the administrative directive of the Acting Lord President can override the Order of the Supreme Court. It is something very basic.

The directive of another Judge of the Supreme Court cannot supersede the Order of the Supreme Court. It is prudent to note that even the Lord President is not accorded any special privilege to override or exempted from this rule — leave alone an Acting Lord President!

Which order should have prevailed?

Contrasting the two instructions in this way there is no doubt whatsoever, whose instructions should have taken precedence, namely and without any fear of doubt the instructions given by Tan Sri Wan Sulaiman, in his capacity as Presiding Judge of the 5-member Supreme Court of Malaysia should have prevailed.

Tan Sri Haider, as Chief Registrar, had no right to question the legality of the 5-member Supreme Court. As Chief Registrar, his duty was merely to carry out the Order of the Supreme Court — and nothing less! Instead Tan Sri Haidar preferred to comply with the administrative instructions of the Acting Lord President rather than obey the instructions given to him by the Presiding Judge of the 5-member Supreme Court.

In hindsight, Acting Lord President Tan Sri Hamid Omar seemed to be interfering or countermanding the Order of the Supreme Court! This episode will no doubt, make an interesting academic article on Malaysian constitutional law for law students.

Haidar should clarify his role in the 1988 “Mother of all judicial crisis” in Malaysia and the arbitrary and unconstitutional sacking of  Tun Salleh Abas as Lord President  Datuk George Seah and the late Tan Sri Wan Suleiman as Supreme Court judges before he takes up any role connected with restoring national and international confidence in the independence, impartiality and integrity of the judiciary.

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 26 September 2007, 11:02 am and is filed under
Judiciary
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Saffron revolution in Burma – Malaysia and ASEAN must do more to avoid bloodbath

Malaysia and ASEAN must do more  to impress on the Myanmese military junta to seek a peaceful solution to the “saffron revolution”  and not to turn it into a bloodbath as in 1988.

Malaysia and ASEAN must come into the very forefront in regional and international efforts to support a peaceful resolution of the monk-led mass protest  marches in Rangoon and Mandalay especially as ASEAN had given the Myanmar military junta a new legitimacy and fresh lease of life by admitting Myanmar into ASEAN ten years ago.

However, the Myanmar military junta’s promises of national reconciliation and democratization have  all come to nought in the past decade, with increasing repression and pauperization of the Burmese people while the constitution-writing and elections appear to have become a century-long project.

Nobel Peace Prize laureate Aung San Suu Kyi has been incarcerated about 12 of the past 18 years while the prisons teem with political prisoners.

Every ASEAN leader taking part in the current United Nations General Assembly debate should use the forum to call on the Myanmar military junta to open up a dialogue with the protest movement to work out an acceptable programme of national reconciliation and democratization — starting with the immediate and unconditional release of Aung San Suu Kyi and all political prisoners.

They should also demand that the United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon should personally  take a more direct charge of the UN initiatives with regard to issues of democracy and human rights in Burma, instead of leaving it to his special adviser Ibrahim Gambari who has  nothing to show for his portfolio to date.

ASEAN should also get the support of China, India, Russia, United States and European Union in its diplomatic initiatives  to avoid any bloody end and  to work for a peaceful solution to the “saffron revolution”.

The Myanmar military junta is to be commended for its restraint so far in not resorting to force to crush the protest marches and it must be told in no uncertain terms of ASEAN and  international condemnation if there is any repeat of the 1988 bloodbath.

As time is of the essence, the ASEAN Foreign Ministers  meeting in the United Nations tomorrow should send a full delegation of ASEAN Foreign Ministers to Myanmar to help open up a channel for dialogue with the protest movement so that Myanmar and ASEAN would not suffer vilification in the event of another massacre of monks, students and ordinary Burmese peacefully protesting against two decades of oppression, human rights violations and economic servitude.

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 26 September 2007, 12:44 pm and is filed under
Burma
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Amendment to Employment Act

by Raymond Lim

Petaling Jaya

I refer to the recent statement by the Minister for Human Resources, Dato’ Dr. Chan Fong Onn that the back-dated wages will be limited to 24 months in cases of wrongful dismissal by employers under the proposed

amendments to the Employment Act.

The Minister justified the proposed amendment by referring to Practice Note No. 1/1987 which was introduced by the Industrial Court on the said 24 months limitation. Practice Note No.1/1987 on 24 months cap on  backdated wages created some confusion. Several Industrial Court decisions applied the 24 months limitation. However, many did not do so on the basis that it is merely a practice note but not legally binding and by doing so, they sought to give more protection to employees from unscrupulous employers.

It is instructive for Members of Parliament to note that the Federal Court, in one of its landmark decisions, had ruled that the “right to live” under the Federal Constitution included the “right to livelihood”. For this reason, many decisions in the Industrial Court took judicial notice of this ruling in their decisions and declined to follow Practice Note No. 1/1987 when dealing with wrongful dismissal cases involving breach of natural justice, mala fide, victimization or unfair labour practice. Put in a nutshell, Practice Note No.1/1987 will not achieve the said ruling of the said Federal Court, the highest Court in the land. As a matter of fact, Practice Note No.1/1987 should be withdrawn by the Industrial Court.

In this letter, I will submit that it is extremely unwise for our Government to approve the said amendment to the Employment Act.

By way of introduction, in the case of wrongful dismissal by an employer, the Industrial Court will order a reinstatement of the employee and payment of back-dated wages from the date of wrongful dismissal to the date of judgment. Since the hearing at the Industrial Court may take place 3-5 years later or even longer, the amount of back-dated wages can be a substantial amount. If the employer-employee relationship is such that it is no longer possible to be continued, the Industrial Court will order the employer to pay one month’s salary for every year of service in lieu of reinstatement.

As a lawyer for close to 20 years, I have encountered countless cases wherein employers were extremely high handed when handling the dismissal of employees. Such high-handedness borders on total disregard to the livelihood of employees, especially employees who have been loyal to their organizations and had given the best years of their lives to their employers. Most wronglful  dismissals arose because many unconscionable employers simply have no respect for employees as human beings or have scant regard for the due process of natural justice. In many cases, employees were transferred to branches far away merely to make them resign or subjected to other forms of victimization or unfair labour practice. Against this background, it is therefore not surprising that the industrial relations law and the industrial courts are protecting the welfare of employees, much to the chagrin of employers.

For many years, the back-dated wages have  been an effective deterrent against wrongful dismissal by unscrupulous employers and the judiciary has been the bulwark in zealously safeguarding the welfare of employees who are victims of wrongful dismissal. Removing this deterrent now by way of legislation is the usurpation of the role of the judiciary by Parliament.

Personally, I see no reason why bona fide employers should take exception to the back-dated issue.

Firstly, if employers have conducted due inquiry with objectivity and fairness, and have sufficient evidence to support their case for dismissal based on just cause and excuse, they should not fear the backlash of reinstatement and payment of backdated wages. The law is on the employers’ side when they have adhered to the principle of natural justice and if they are not guilty of any mala fide or unfair labour practice. Like what Confucius said: “If one has examined his heart and found no wrongdoing, why should he be afraid?”

Secondly, employers’ contention is that they should not be the victim of the slow process and delay in the Courts which result in a hearing taking place 3-5 years later or longer. But the pertinent question is this: “Is the delay of a trial the fault of the employees? If it is not, then why should the policy consideration be in favour of employers (the “rich” people) rather than employees (the “poor” people) on this issue? Who broke the contract of service in the first place? Is it not the employer in the case of a wrongful dismissal? It will be most unconscionable if the policy consideration is in favour of employers when it is the employers who are at fault. Why is  Parliament protecting the employers (the “rich” people) when it is  expected to protect the employees (the “poor” people).

Thirdly, not all employers are penalised by back dated wages as not all unfair dismissal cases end up in the Industrial Court. Many employees just accept what is offered (usually 1-3 months’ salary) by the employers as a settlement because they want to move on with their lives, especially when they found employment elsewhere. They do not have the money to battle it out in Court nor do they wish to endure the agony of attending Court proceedings. Thus, many employers are getting away without having to pay what the back-dated wages that employees are legally entitled if they had taken the matters to the Industrial Court. Hence, we need to look at the back-dated wages issue in a balanced perspective to be fair to employees as well.

Employers expect loyalty from the employees. But what do employees get in return? Some employees had given the best years of their lives to their companies, only to be thrown out in their late 40s or early 50s without misconduct being proven. At that kind of age, they are not “marketable” and it is quite impossible to find employment elsewhere. If they still have schooling children, one can imagine the hardships to their families especially when they could not secure a new job immediately. The untold

trauma and stigma that some victimized employees suffered are not known to many of our Members of Parliament. Employers have many ways to make life very difficult. Some employers resort to planting “land mines” when there is no case for unfair dismissal. They want to get rid of the targeted employees, by hook or by crook. Such employees had to be on full alert daily not to step on any land mine. Materials (e.g. pornography) were planted into the employees’ computers and baseless rumours or poison pen letters on alleged misconduct (e.g. financial or sexual misconduct) were spread to tarnish their character. Our Members of Parliament must realize that such mental torture and stigma cannot really be compensated in monetary terms. As such, employers must not have a warped view that employees are benefiting from the back-dated wages rule.

We have the Labour Day as a public holiday to commemorate the significance and contribution of the labour force to this nation. Let us not do so with a mere public holiday, but also with laws and deterrents that will penalize mala fide, unfair labour practice or victimization by employers.

Good corporate citizens should not fear if they are ready to conduct due inquiry with objectivity and fairness free of all forms of any mala fide, unfair labour practice or victimization. The law should encourage employers to be good corporate citizens rather than vice versa.

If the proposed amendment to the Employment Act limiting backdated wages to 24 months is passed, there is real fear that unscrupulous employers may use it as a “LICENCE” to get rid of their employees. Such employers may offer, say 3 months, and tell the employees to take it now or wait 3-5 years later. After all, their exposure is only 24 months and no longer 3-5 years backdated wages or more. This will not encourage employers in this country to be good corporate citizens. Worse still, it may also result in a higher number of indiscriminate dismissals since the deterrent is no longer in place. Hitherto, reinstatement and payment of backdated wages without the 24 months limit is an effective deterrent. It should remain so. I hope that Yang Berhormat will drive home the severity of these implications to the other Members of Parliament.

Malaysia is not a developed country wherein the wage level is high. In fact, the wage level is much lower compared to many countries. We don’t even have the minimum wage for the lower end wage earners. And when you take into account rising inflation and hidden costs due to increasing corruption, many wage earners, especially those below middle class income earners, are indeed struggling to balance their income with expenditure. In the past, most women stayed at home. Now, many women have to work to supplement their husbands’ income. Life as wage earners is already very tough as their monthly salary is lagging behind rising inflation and hidden costs due to increasing corruption. Accordingly, employees need security of tenure of their employment and protection against unscrupulous employers who have scant or no regard for natural justice or are guilty of mala fide, unfair labour practice or victimization.

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 27 September 2007, 8:42 am and is filed under
Labour
,
Letters
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Lingam Tape – “Unbecoming, irregular, improper” characterise latest developments

“Unbecoming, irregular and improper” are three adjectives which best characterize government and Independent Panel responses in the latest developments on the Lingam Tape scandal.

It was the Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz who was doubly  “unbecoming” in launching a tirade against the Bar Council and Malaysian lawyers for their  historic march for justice yesterday from the Palace of Justice to the Prime Minister’s Department in Putrajaya despite unwarranted police obstructions and in dismissing the Bar Council’s memorandum to the Prime Minister calling for a Judicial Appointment Commission.

Nazri had alleged that the lawyers’ march in Putrajaya yesterday was “unbecoming” while proclaiming: “There is no crisis in our judiciary. No crisis, no problems. I don’t seen any scandal.”

What makes Nazri think it is beneath the station of lawyers to  be involved in a march for justice?

The 2,000 lawyers and supporters of the cause of justice have done themselves and the nation and the 50th Merdeka anniversary  proud in the March for Justice in Putrajaya yesterday, in the  true tradition of the great marches in the struggle of humanity for justice and  freedom, like Gandhi’s Salt March in 1930 to help free India from British colonial rule and Martin Luther King’s March on Washington for Freedom in 1963 which culminated in his electrifying speech “I Have A Dream”.

Gandhi and Martin Luther King are now recognized by history and mankind for their great marches while their detractors, the  Nazris of their era,  have been forgotten!

It is also most unbecoming of Nazri to arrogate to himself the powers of the Prime Minister to dismiss offhand the Bar Council’s memorandum to the Prime Minister calling for a Judicial Appointments Commission or has Nazri been authorized to usurp the powers of the Prime Minister?

Nazri has also shown utter contempt for the other Cabinet Ministers who are treated as utterly irrelevant, incompetent and unfit to give any input on the Bar Council’s memorandum to the Prime Minister.

A lot of irregular things are happening in Malaysia today. It is irregular for the Deputy Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak to announce on Tuesday before the Cabinet meeting yesterday the decision to set up a three-man Independent Panel to investigate into the authenticity of the Lingam Tape.

Such a decision should be taken by the Cabinet or has the Cabinet been reduced to just a rubber-stamp for the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister despite all the talk about a functioning Cabinet where there is genuine power-sharing among the  Ministers?

It is also most irregular for Tan Sri Haidar Mohamed Noor,  Datuk Mahadev Shankar and Tan Sri Lee Lam Thye to meet informally yesterday in their prospective capacities as members of the three-man Independent Panel to investigate into the authenticity of the Lingam Tape when they had not received their letters of appointment and nobody, including the trio, knew about the actual terms of reference of the panel!  They are expected to receive their letters of appointment and be informed of the panel’s terms of reference later today.

Haidar said yesterday that the panel would need help from third parties.

He said: “The panel’s job is to determine whether the clip is authentic or not.

“Being laymen, we will need people to come forward and assist us on this point.”

It is not a question of asking technical people to “assist” the panel but to do the entire job of the panel to determine its authenticity, which would have been the first task of a Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Lingam Tape scandal.

Is the three-man panel just going to adjourn and close shop and report accordingly to the government, ignoring all the explosive revelations about the perversion of the course of justice such as fixing of judicial appointments and manipulating court judgments?

Isn’t this reducing a very grave issue about the independence, impartiality and integrity of the judiciary into pure farce?

There is also gross impropriety — particularly with  Haidar, as Chief Registrar of Supreme Court at the time who played a major role in  the 1988 Judicial Crisis resulting in the arbitrary and unconstitutional sacking of Tun Salleh Abas as Lord President and Datuk George Seah and the late Tan Sri Wan Suleiman Pawanteh as Supreme Court judges now heading an Independent Panel concerning the independence, impartiality and integrity of the judiciary.

It is no exaggeration to say that if Haidar in 1988 had not been a party to the “mother” of all judicial crisis in 1988, the high international reputation and esteem of the Malaysian judiciary would have probably remained intact as the arbitrary and unconstitutional sacking of Tun Salleh as Lord President and Datuk George Seah and the late Tan Sri Wan Suleiman  as Supreme Court judges might have been averted and the country saved from a generation of seismic shocks caused by one judicial crisis after another.

                                                                                Lim Kit Siang

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 27 September 2007, 3:47 pm and is filed under
Judiciary
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Malaysia should support suspension of Myanmar from ASEAN/UN if there is another 1988 bloodbath in Burma

The Myanmar military crackdown of the monks-led peaceful protests in Burma has started with unconfirmed reports of several deaths and hundreds of arrests.

The Myanmese military junta is also shutting off communication with the outside world, closing Internet and telephone links, which through  blogs and cell phone videos of the latest developments, had been  the main source of information of what is happening in Burma to the outsides world.

Malaysia and ASEAN leaders must be  in the international forefront to condemn the violent crackdown of monks-led peaceful protests in Burma and even to support suspension of Myanmar from ASEAN and United Nations if there is a repeat of  the 1988 bloodbath where thousands were massacred.

Foreign Minister Datuk Seri Syed Hamid Albar said in the United Nations yesterday that  Malaysia does not believe in imposing economic sanctions against Myanmar as this will not affect the targeted group but will usually hurt ordinary citizens more.

He said any hard or aggressive action would be counter-productive at this stage.

He said: “We think the best way of resolving the issue is to get the constitutional process on track, to get the reconciliation going.”

It is time for Syed Hamid and all ASEAN leaders to stop such platitudes and respond in a responsible and statemanlike  manner to the Burmese crisis, with Burma on the cusp of another 1988 bloodbath.

The people of ASEAN and the world want to know what ASEAN leaders can do to prevent another bloodbath by the Myanmar military junta as Myanmar had been admitted as a member of ASEAN precisely to undertake national reconciliation and democratization in Burma.

It is not only the Myanmar military junta but ASEAN as a whole which is in the dock of international opinion.

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 27 September 2007, 4:40 pm and is filed under
Burma
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Burma crackdown – Abdullah must speak up in UN to mobilise international opinion against another 1988 massacre

The ASEAN Foreign Ministers have come out with a strong statement in the United Nations demanding the Myanmar military junta stop using violence against demonstrators and voiced  “revulsion” at the killings at Yangon.

However, the time for just strong statements is past as it has been overtaken by the brutality of the violent  crackdown in Burma in the past two days  and concrete ASEAN and international action is urgently needed  to ensure that the 40th ASEAN anniversary  at the 13th ASEAN Summit in Singapore in November and the  10th anniversary of Myanmar’s admission into ASEAN are  not marred  by another dastardly repeat of the 1988 massacre where thousands pro-democracy activisits and supporters were killed by the Myanmese military.

The Myanmar military junta has confirmed that nine people, including a Japanese journalist, had been killed in the brutal crackdown of the peaceful demonstrators led by monks in the past two days, although the true Burma death toll may never be known.

A source from the National League for Democracy inside Burma, citing hospital contacts, said 30 bodies had been brought to the hospital on Wednesday alone.

Having admitted Myanmar as a member of ASEAN with the reciprocal understanding that the Myanmar military junta would seriously embark on national reconciliation and democratization in Burma, ASEAN leaders cannot just wring their hands in impotence and revulsion with another round of violent crackdown of peaceful protestors in Burma.

I urgently call on the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi who is in New York to participate in  the annual  United Nations General Assembly debate  to place Burma as the top priority of his address and, together with other ASEAN leaders,  speak up in United Nations to rally international support for a special debate  in the General Assembly and emergency meeting of Security Council on the violent crackdown of peaceful protests by Myanmar military junta.

They should work with China, India, Russia, United States and European Union to craft a joint response to end the spiral of violence by the Myanmese military.

United Nations Secretary-General Bank Ki-moon should fly direct to Yangon to intercede with the Myanmese military junta and not just depend on his special envoy Ibrahim Gambari.

                This entry was posted on Friday, 28 September 2007, 11:00 am and is filed under
Burma
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


How did Nazri (Protocol No. 16) become Minister for Ahmad Fairuz, when CJ is No. 11 on protocol list?

Malaysia is still reeling from the many shocks reverberating from the expose of the Lingam Tape — confirming what had been widely talked  about concerning the perversion of the course of justice in the fixing of judicial appointments and court judgments but also from the responses from the Executive and Judiciary.

Both the Executive and the Judiciary had come out of the Lingam Tape scandal with their reputation in tatters.

The thunderous ten-day silence of the Chief Justice, Tun Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim has completely drowned out the puny denial which the Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz had made on the Chief Justice’s behalf.

In the 50-year history of the nation, one top judicial officer had been sacked from his office but he retained national and international respect for his honour and integrity. However, two other top judicial officers who completed their term of office  did so under a black cloud and nobody would have thought there would be a third top judicial officer who would be exiting from office in ignominy.

The Executive on its part had brought the whole system of democratic governance into a tragic-comedy of errors — not least of which was the decision to set up a so-called “Independent Panel” to investigate into the authenticity of the Lingam Tape and headed by someone who is tainted by his role in the “mother” of all judicial crisis in the past 19 years, the 1988 Judicial Crisis.

Even now, the term of reference of the so-called “Independent Panel” into the Lingam Tape has not been fully made public.  What is there so secretive that its actual term of reference is still being kept a secret?

But it is Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz, the Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department in charge of law and justice, who has wrought the greatest harm to the system of governance in Malaysia.

Nazri publicly claiming that he  is “Minister” for the Chief Justice when none of the  five  Prime Ministers in 50 years  had  dared to make such a claim shows how lowly the judiciary had fallen and the contempt meted out to the doctrine of separation of powers.

Under the doctrine of separation of powers, the three branches of government, the Executive, Legislature and Judiciary are independent and do not infringe upon each other’s rights and duties — providing an important check and balance for democratic good governance to avert any form of tyrannical government.

In this system, the Prime Minister, the Chief Justice and the Speaker of Parliament are meant to be  independent and almost equal status as respective heads of the three branches of government.

This is why in the official protocol list as gazetted,  the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister are listed as No. 6 and 7 respectively after the Yang di Pertuan Agong,  Sultans and royal dignitaries, while the Chief Justice is No. 11,  the President of Senate No. 12, the Dewan Rakyat Speaker No. 13 while Cabinet Ministers are placed No. 16.

It is therefore most outrageous for Nazri to claim that he is the Minister for the Chief Justice when even the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister, placed on a higher level than the Chief Justice protocol-wise, cannot make any such claim.

Protocol wise,  the Chief Justice is No. 11 between the Prime Minister (No. 6) and Parliament Speaker (No. 13) — how did Nazri (No. 16 for Cabinet Ministers) become Minister for Ahmad Fairuz?

What is shocking  is that Ahmad Fairuz is now so subservient to an ordinary Cabinet Minister, who is five  places below him in the official protocol list,  that he dared not even bleat a protest to uphold the dignity of the office of Chief Justice and the  independence and integrity of the Judiciary from any Executive interference or encroachment!

However, Nazri had not only wrought great damage to the public standing of the judiciary, the de facto law Minister had also gravely undermined the credibility of the government with his tirade against the Bar Council and Malaysian lawyers for their historic march for justice on Wednesday from the Palace of Justice to the Prime Minister’s Department in Putrajaya and  his comment: “There is no crisis in our judiciary. No crisis, no problems. I don’t seen any scandal.”

Is Nazri seriously suggesting that when some 2,000 lawyers could be so moved as to be involved in a March for Justice express their  long-held and deep-seated concerns about  the rot in the system of justice, Nazri is completely blind and deaf to such concerns?

And is Nazri typical of all the Cabinet Ministers in the country — for if so, then the former Prime Minister Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad was being very kind in dubbing them as “half-past six Cabinet”!

The 50th Merdeka anniversary has seen many knotty nation-building problems surfacing in public — including the long-standing rot in the judiciary. The question is whether the 50th Merdeka anniversary will see the beginning of a new national resolve  to right these generational and historic wrongs or their further aggravation.

                This entry was posted on Friday, 28 September 2007, 1:59 pm and is filed under
Judiciary
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


The Law and Chua Soi Lek

by Jason L

Health Minister, Chua Soi Lek never fails to amuse the general public especially when he makes statements pertaining to the law. I refer to his latest outburst in the media that the Health Ministry is now looking into taking legal action against the DAP if it continues to make false allegations about government hospitals and doctors.

He is further reported to have said that his ministry will “encourage” the Ministry’s hospitals and doctors to sue the DAP if the allegations are baseless. Perhaps he is under the notion that his buddies at the AGs office and the government’s pliable judges will help him fix these pesky complainants once and for all to help boost his rather sagging image of an underperformer in this ministry of many problems. And what will this Minister be remembered for in his contribution to healthcare in Malaysia?

1. PHFSA

Despite numerous problems in his own backyard, and for reasons best known to him, Chua Soi Lek and his contraband of incompetent advisors decided to zero in on GPs and private hospitals as his first task as a Minister by applying the notorious Private Healthcare Facilities and Services Act (PHFSA) on them when even his predecessor Chua Jui Meng, a lawyer by training, knew that the Act was a dud.

Soi Lek initially claimed all doctors had been briefed, then lied that even previous MMA chairmen had agreed to this Act during “meetings”. When they revealed that they were threatened with the ISA if details were released to fellow doctors, he arm-twisted his lackey Teoh Siang Chin, a government doctor who was entrusted as President of the MMA into agreeing. A spineless Teoh betrayed the entire medical profession by agreeing to the Act without a referendum from the very doctors who elected and put him there in the first place.

The Minister then conned parliament into agreeing to the Act bluffing them that doctors had agreed to it after amendments had been made. This guy even ignored the warning by former Court of Appeal Judge Datuk Mahadev Shankar, an authority on medico-legal affairs who warned against passing the Act as it was seriously flawed in law. Till this day “amendments” to this Act have yet to see the light of day.

2. CSMU

Soi Lek’s publicity crazy DG, Ismail Merican almost always trying to upstage his boss, nearly caused a rift in the ruling party, when without prior warning derecognized a 200-year old medical school in the Ukraine, the Crimea State Medical University, where almost a thousand Malaysians were studying causing confusion and anguish to hundreds of parents not to mention a diplomatic row with the Ukraine.  In the process, the rash Merican, not known for diplomacy, got Sothinathan of the MIC suspended for his troubles in trying to defend his boss and party. And all because, the previous Education Minister, Musa Mohamad had murmured during a visit to the CSMU, “Why so many Indians here?”

3.   MMC

Soi Lek’s loose cannon, Merican, desperately trying to be the politician he was not, decided next that doctors should be his target and focused on a round of suspensions and striking off of doctors to appease the general public that he was indeed the good guy at the expense of someone else’s carrier. Not following basic etiquette and showing complete disdain for facts or evidence, he even went so far as mentioning the names of doctors affected without even waiting for their appeals to be heard in court, breaching all rules of natural justice and mocking the medical fraternity to charge him for contempt.

4.   TRADITIONAL MEDICINE

But these two must surely take the cake for now establishing traditional medicine, long seen in Malaysia as a wayward practice comprising of quacks, sinsehs, herbalists, ayurveds etc masquerading as qualified medical practitioners which the MOH itself tried very hard to eradicate in the 60’s, as a definitive service in government hospitals.

Such a unit was first established at Kepala Batas Hospital with great fanfare with Chua being oblivious to the fact that the Malaysian Medical Council’s Code of Ethics Part II (1.4.3) clearly states that any doctor found associating with a person unqualified to treat a patient would have committed an Infamous Act and would therefore be liable to suspension or being struck off. Chua Soi Lek, Ismail Merican, the State Health Director and the Kepala Batas Hospital Director all committed such an offence and should have been disciplined by the MMC.

The Minister however appear undeterred and conveniently unaware that the MMC is an independent body very much like the judiciary. He feels the MMC is beholden to him and by extension he is the law in medicine. It must have riled him proper when his colleague Chan Kong Choy tried to upstage him by calling the shots in trying to implement E-kesihatan. Hopefully the next government would be less generous and call for all four of them to face disciplinary action.

Chua Soi Lek, now truly showing his nefarious colors for the politician that he is in sheep’s clothing rather then his white coat,  his legacy will forever be remembered for all the above and the numerous medical blunders you would expect in Africa rather then 21st century Malaysia. Malaysian doctors who held dear to the principles of standards and good faith of yesteryears should remember and perhaps follow the footsteps of the legal profession who decided enough was enough and appear now on the road to setting the judiciary right in this country by calling for the sacking and disbarment of characters out to hijack this country’s laws and constitution. Healthcare may require the same medicine.

                This entry was posted on Friday, 28 September 2007, 10:32 am and is filed under
Health
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Burma carnage – call on ASEAN Parliaments to meet in emergency session within 3 days

The Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi was shown on world-wide television expressing Malaysia’s “disapproval, together with other Asean countries, on the use of excessive force by the Myanmar government to put down justifiable civilian protests” in his speech at the 62nd General Assembly yesterday.

I commend Abdullah  for  speaking up in the United Nations although stronger language would have been more appropriate and fully justified in keeping with the “revulsion” earlier expressed by the foreign ministers of ASEAN at the UN “over reports that the demonstrations in Myanmar are being suppressed by violent force and that there has been a number of fatalities”.

Abdullah must feel a personal responsibility for the carnage taking place in Myanmar because he was the Foreign Minister ten years ago when Malaysia spearheaded the campaign to defy regional and international opinion to admit Myanmar into ASEAN in 1997, promising a constructive engagement policy which will lead to national reconciliation  and democratization in Burma.

Ten years down the road, the Myanmar military junta’s promises of reform have turned to ashes and Burma is teetering on the edge of another bloodbath to repeat the massacre of 1988 where over 3,000 pro-democracy activists, students and supporters were mowed down by a brutal and inhuman military — a dark page in the history of mankind.

Compounding the bloody military  crackdown of the monks-led peaceful demonstrators in the past three days are the newly-released satellite photos by the American Association for the Advancement of Science providing evidence of ethnic cleansing of the ethnic minority  Karens in eastern Myanmar, destroying villages and relocating people in the countryside.

As a result, it is not adequate for ASEAN leaders just  to “wash their hands” of responsibility of what is happening in Myanmar with expressions of “revulsion” and “disapproval”,  or even admission as by Abdullah  in New York yesterday that the Asean’s constructive engagement policy with the Myanmar military government had failed and the need to “ensure that Myanmar adheres and fulfils the regional grouping’s interest” –  whatever that means.

The human tragedy being played out  in Burma with human lives versus guns, with the courageous and long-suffering people of Burma trembling between the   fear of another 1988 bloodbath and the  hope of regaining their long-suppressed freedom and human rights,  is a triple tragedy — for Burma, Asean and the world.

At this hour of need of the courageous and idealistic people of Burma, Asean and the world must do their utmost to ensure that there will not be another  1988 massacre.

Malaysia and ASEAN nations must act on their “revulsion” of the killings in Myanmar as part of a concerted international effort to enlist the support of China, Russia, India, the United States and the European Union to  save Burma, Asean and the world from another carnage and bloodbath.

One measure  which Malaysia and ASEAN can do to give expression to their “revulsion” to the killings in Myanmar and to make amends for the failure of a decade of Asean constructive engagement policy is for all  ASEAN Parliaments to meet in emergency session within the next three days to:

	express ASEAN  “revulsion” at the killings in Myanmar;

	call on China and Russia to condemn the violent crackdown  in Myanmar and to  support Security Council resolution for a tripartite national reconciliation dialogue to seek a peaceful resolution to the peaceful uprising in  Myanmar and to pave the way for national reconciliation and democratisation under the direct responsibility  of the UN Secretary-General  Ban Ki-moon; and

	the release of Nobel Peace Prize Laureatte Aung San Suu Kyi and all political prisoners.

With the real-life violent crackdown in Burma  being played out before the audience of the world by television channels although the Myanmar military junta is shutting down Internet and telephonic communications, turning the Myanmar carnage into a global trauma, all  Parliaments in the world should meet in emergency session to express a global call for an end to the killings by the Myanmar military junta.

I urge Abdullah to act from the United Nations and  to take the initiative to convene an emergency meeting of Parliamemt by Tuesday to provide an opportunity for Malaysians regardless of race, religion or political affiliation to express their solidarity with peaceful demonstrations for reform and democracy in Burma, their revulsion at the carnage and demand for peaceful solution to the long-standing Burmese problem of national reconciliation and democratization.

                                                                       Lim Kit  Siang

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 29 September 2007, 9:39 am and is filed under
Burma
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Lingam Tape – Abdullah should chair next Cabinet meeting to disband 3-man panel and set up RCI

The Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi must reconsider and set up urgently a Royal Commission of Inquiry  into the Lingam Tape scandal as the three-man panel chaired  by Tan Sri Haidar Mohamed Noor, tainted by his role in the 1988 judicial crisis, is just untenable and unacceptable.

Haidar has still to satisfactorily account for his role in the infamous episode in the 1988 judicial crisis where as Supreme Court Chief Registrar, he locked the doors of the Supreme Court and concealed the Supreme Court seal to frustrate the course of justice and prevent  the Supreme Court from issuing an injunction to stop the Judicial Tribunal from continuing with  its proceedings to discipline  the then Lord President Tun  Salleh Abas — which also led to the subsequent expulsion of Datuk George Seah and the late Tan Sri Wan Suleiman Pawanteh as Supreme Court judges.

This  unsavoury episode can be found both in Salleh Abas’
“May Day for Justice”
 as well as
“Freedom under Executive Power in Malaysia”
by the Minister for Culture, Arts  and Heritage, Datuk Dr. Rais Yatim, who was formerly Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department in charge of law and justice.

However, an even more important consideration as to why there must be a Royal Commission of Inquiry is that the issue which has shattered public confidence and caused the “March for  Justice” of some 2,000 lawyers last Wednesday was not just the Lingam  Tape, but  the even more important issue of the independence,  impartiality and integrity of the judiciary and the rot in the system of justice since 1988.

University of Malaya law lecturer Azmi Sharom put it very well when he wrote in his Star column today

“Judiciary must be protected”
:

Our judiciary has not been in the pink of health, especially since the sacking of Tun Salleh Abbas as Lord President in 1988.

Since then the impartiality, the independence and the basic honesty of the judiciary have been questioned time and time again.

Two major concerns are the method by which judges are appointed and related to this, the vital question as to whether the judiciary is truly free from executive interference. These are fears that strike to the heart of a democratic system.

Without the checks and balances that having three separate branches of government — the executive, the legislature and the judiciary — provides, one cannot say that there is a true democracy.

And one cannot say with any certainty that the law will protect the citizens from any sort of despotic behaviour.

This sad lack of faith in the judicial system (which is the penultimate defender of democracy and the citizenry) has been with us for nearly 20 years.

There has been much talk, but this time the lawyers decided that a physical show of their disapproval was needed. Why did this happen?

Well, the straw that broke the barristers’ back is the infamous videotape showing a senior lawyer on the phone with, apparently, a senior judge. This lawyer can be seen and heard discussing how he was trying to broker the appointment of said judge to the highest judicial post in the country.

Suddenly what has been the subject of talk and whispers has taken solid form, to be viewed again and again on our own computer screens.

The appointment of judges has been reduced to tawdry politicking and power play involving politicians and wealthy businessmen. It was too much to bear. And the legal fraternity had to take to the streets or lose its own credibility.

Their demand is simple. The government has to set up a Royal Commission with the necessary powers to thoroughly investigate the entire judiciary. There is a desperate need to clean house and to do so comprehensively.

The decision for a three-man panel over the authenticity of the Lingam Tape is bad and wrong and will redound to the discredit of the Abdullah administration, which has pledged reform and integrity.

It is not too late for Abdullah to undo the harm which the bad decision over the three-man panel can do both to the judiciary and the nation in terms of adversely affecting our international competitiveness.

Heed the wisdom of what Azmi wrote —  that  apart from the legitimacy or the video recording, a Royal Commission is needed now to determine the legitimacy of the entire judiciary!

Abdullah was not present at the Cabinet meeting last Wednesday  as he had left for the United Nations although the Deputy Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak announced the establishment of the three-man panel the day before the Cabinet met.

Abdullah should chair the Cabinet meeting next Wednesday to take  the right and proper decision to disband the three-man panel and replace it with a Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Lingam Tape scandal and the entire issue of the independence, impartiality and integrity of the judiciary. This would be a decision which would receive all-round support, both nationally and internationally.

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 29 September 2007, 11:51 am and is filed under
Abdullah Ahmad Badawi
,
Judiciary
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Malaysia’s Muslim Union? Malaysia Does Not Need Another Sectarian Organisation!

By Farish A. Noor

Sectarianism, be it on the grounds of race, culture, language or religion, can only be divisive in the long run. The sad litany of human history shows that religion can and has been used as a dividing factor that has torn many a society apart, and this is true of all religions and belief systems worldwide. One only needs to look at the process of Balkanisation that took place in Eastern Europe to see how Religion has been instrumentalised and manipulated by sectarian politicians to amplify the centrifugal forces of a

plural society like Bosnia’s, and how that eventually led to all-out civil conflict along religion and cultural lines.

Politicians of course are fully aware of the divisive potential of sectarian politics, so why do they constantly fall back on such parochial and primordial sentiments such as racial, cultural and religious loyalty to serve their own limited ends? Weighing the costs of such moves may point us to the simple conclusion that sectarian politicians seldom care about the unity and well-being of the nation as a whole, particularly when that nation happens to be a complex and plural one in the first place. More often than

not, the demagogues and chauvinists among us would be more inclined to keep to their own narrow corners and seek solace and support from their own respective communities.

These observations should hardly come as news to Malaysia-watchers in particular, for we all know by now that Malaysia’s convoluted 50-year history has been one dominated and almost entirely determined by the logic of racial compartmentalism and communitarianism. Every single leader who has climbed up the greasy pole of power in the country has done so by playing the race — and now increasingly, religion — card close to his chest. It should therefore come as even less of a surprise that there is now talk of forming a Malaysian Muslim Workers’ Union (PPIM) in the country, as if Malaysian society was not divided enough already.

Over the past two years the country has witnessed the emergence of around a dozen now religion-based NGOs and civil society organisations, most of them appealing to Malaysian Muslims in particular. While there used to be universalist, inclusive organisations that brought together Malaysians of various racial and professional background like factory workers, labourers,

lawyers, businesspeople, professionals etc. we now see the emergence of organisations that cater to the interests of Muslims primarily and exclusively. The PPIM is just the latest nail in the coffin of Malaysia’s failed attempts towards pluralism and multiculturalism, and should it come to pass then it would mean that yet another neutral public space in the public domain has been lost. Why was there ever a need for the PPIM in the first place, when surely the Malaysian Trade Unions organisation (MTUC) was there to unite all the workers of Malaysia under a common universal basis of shared collective class interests?

Two factors need to be taken into consideration here:

The first is the fact that since the late 1960s Malaysian society has witnessed the instrumentalisation of religion — and in particular Islam — by right-wing communitarian politicians and activists who sought to mobilise Muslims as a bloc vote and political constituency. It began with sectarian organisations like ABIM and other Muslim students groups on campus that sought to introduce their brand of ‘Islamisation from below’, and whatever radical impact they could have had — by rejecting Western

economic-political-military hegemony across the world, for instance — was compromised by their own limited sectarian and exclusive worldview that was equally hegemonic in its ambitions. In time the potential of such groups was compromised as their leaders and members were co-opted by the ruling elite; the co-optation of ABIM’s leader Anwar Ibrahim by the then Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad being a case in point.

Secondly it should be stated frankly that all this talk of ‘protecting’ the seemingly unique interests of the Malay-Muslims in Malaysia is little more than fluff and nonsense, for the real agenda all along has been the furthering of the right-wing agenda of Malay-Muslim supremacy above all else. Malaysia’s Islamisation process pushed by Mahathir and Anwar in the 1980s and 1990s led to the further entrenchment of Malay-Muslim political and class interests; and benefited the ruling BN-led government and its

clients most of all, further adding to the dominance of Malay-Muslims in the civil service, army and police; and further embedded Islam at the centre of Malaysian politics. It was not the universal values of Islam that were served here, but rather the agenda of Malay-Muslim supremacy otherwise known as ‘Ketuanan Melayu’.

The net result of the current moves to create a parallel Muslim workers movement in Malaysia can therefore only split Malaysian society even further along religious communitarian lines and therefore help to ensure the dominance of the communitarian parties and elites currently running the country. How are the workers of Malaysia — who ought to be united along the basis of class solidarity and common class action — to be served by the creation of such a body that will split their numbers by half at least? Are we to believe that the poverty and exploitation of Muslim workers in Malaysia is qualitatively different to that of his or her non-Muslim comrade? The mind boggles… What will be next? A Malaysian Muslim stamp collectors’ organisation?

Consequently the Muslim workers of Malaysia must realise that these attempts to create parallel movements that cater to their own limited exclusive interests will do a disservice to them in the long run. For their own sake, and for the sake of the workers struggle in Malaysia, they need to remember that their loyalty and camaraderie has to lie with their fellow workers and comrades in the workers movement of Malaysia as a whole, regardless of racial, cultural or religious differences.

Dr. Farish A Noor is a political scientist and historian at the Zentrum Moderner Orient and guest Professor at Sunan Kalijaga Islamic University, Jogjakarta. He is also one of the founders of the research site
www.othermalaysia.org
.

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 29 September 2007, 6:48 am and is filed under
Farish Noor
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Burma bloody crackdown – ASEAN high-level delegation to find out actual death toll

ASEAN should send a high-level delegation to Myanmar to ascertain the actual death toll from the bloody military crackdown of the monks-led peaceful protests  as it is not only Myanmar but all ASEAN member nations which are directly  affected by the savage suppression of pro-democracy demonstrations  in Myanmar.

The Myanmese military junta has officially admitted to 10 dead three days ago which has no credibility whatsoever.

British Prime Minister Gordon Brown  has said that the loss of life in Burma is far greater than is being reported while the Australian Foreign Minister Alexander Downer claimed  that the death toll is “substantially higher” than the official Myanmese figure and could be in multiples of ten higher, i.e. over 100 dead.

Dissident groups estimate close to 200 people have been killed by government forces.

Malaysia and all the other ASEAN nations cannot be impervious to the actual death toll in the  carnage in Burma in the past four days.

As the Myanmar military junta had promised to usher in national reconciliation and democratization on its admission into ASEAN ten years ago in 1997, ASEAN and its member nations must be concerned about the actual death toll in Burma as equally at stake are the international reputation, credibility and even legitimacy of ASEAN and its member nations.

As  Myanmar had been admitted  into ASEAN in the teeth of regional and international opposition, ASEAN member nations cannot sit by the sidelines to wait for the outcome of the visit to Myanmar by the United Nations special envoy, Ibrahim Gambari but must undertake its own initiatives.

The least ASEAN can do is to send a high-level delegation to ascertain the actual death toll from the bloody  military crackdown of the  monks-led peaceful protests, seek release of all detained monks and protestors (including Aung San Suu Kyi and all political prisoners)  and broker a peaceful dialogue with all stakeholders in Burma.

If the Myanmar military junta is not prepared to entertain the visit of a ASEAN high-level delegation, then ASEAN must send a clear and unequivocal message that Myanmar is not welcome to the ASEAN gatherings, including the 13th ASEAN Summit scheduled for Singapore next month.

(Media Conference Statement in Tawau on Sunday, 30th September 2007)

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 30 September 2007, 4:31 pm and is filed under
Burma
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


No Malaysian Chinese as Federal Court judge – first time in 50 years

The 50th Merdeka anniversary should be a celebration of the success of Malaysian nation-building after 50 years.  Unfortunately, Malaysians are being given proof of of many things that have gone wrong with the nation — whether national unity,  civil service efficiency, independence of the judiciary, the police, crime,  anti-corruption,  education, economic development and quality of education.

I will just give one instance of Malaysian nation-building which has gone wrong highlighted on the occasion of the 50th Merdeka anniversary.

In the 2008 Budget presentation, the Prime Minister-cum-Finance Minister, Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi announced that as part of the effort to inculcate corporate social responsibility (CSR), all public-listed companies will be required from the financial year 2008 to disclose their employment composition by race and gender.

But has the government set a good example of responsibility with regard to ensuring a civil service which reflects the multi-racial composition of the country?

One of the objectives of the New Economic Policy when it was launched in 1970 as a 20-year programme was to ensure that there will be no identification of race with vocation  and the government had specifically promised that it would set a good example with regard to the racial composition in the public service.

In 1970,  the public service comprised some 60 per cent Malays and 40 per cent non-Malays. Today, the identification of race with the public sector has become more rather than less pronounced, with Malaysian Chinese and Indians falling from some 40 per cent over 35 years ago to less than 20 per cent at present.

For the first time in half a century, there is not a single Malaysian Chinese judge in the highest court of the land, the Federal Court  — another sign that Malaysian nation-building has gone wrong.

Malaysians are entitled to know what is being done by the relevant authorities, including the Chief Justice, Tan Sri Ahmad Fairuz Shaikh Abdul Halim to rectify such  a serious anomaly.

(Speech at the DAP Balakong Solidarity Dinner organized by DAP Taman Indah Branch, Cheras on Saturday, 29th September 2007 at 9 pm)

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 30 September 2007, 5:33 am and is filed under
Judiciary
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Yee Yang Yang – Tawau’s pride in  standing up for the  freedom and rights of university students

I am happy to be back in Tawau, particularly as it has produced a youth who had stood up for the freedom and rights of  all university students in the country.

I refer to Tawau youth,
Yee Yang Yang
, 19, first year student at Universiti Putra Malaysia (UPM) who became the  cause celebre of campus rights of university students as  he was thrown into the limelight when he was victimized by UPM security personnel two weeks ago trying to cow students from asserting their human rights to independent  student activism.

On Sept. 15, UPM security officials raided Yee’s hostel room and confiscated his laptop computer, high-end mobile phone, portable music player and several other items.

Being  interrogated by the security officials was the least of his problems when the UPM Vice Chancellor Nik Mustapha R. Abdullah publicly  defended the action of the security officials and justified the confiscation on the ground that Yee’s  laptop contained pornographic materials.

This was a downright lie, which had virtually been admitted by the UPM authorities who have returned all the confiscated items to Yee.

Any lesser soul would have wilted under such unprecedented pressures from the university authorities.  But Yee stoutly stood his ground.

Nobody wants to be a hero, but it is such unexpected  tests which bring out the true character  and calibre  of a person — and by all accounts, Yee has acquitted himself most creditably for himself, his family, his town Tawau, his state Sabah and his country Malaysia.

All right-thinking Malaysians feel proud that despite his youth, inexperience and unpreparedness, Yee  stood up to the test in UPM and remained firm in defending the freedom and human rights of students in the Malaysian university campuses.

Tawau has every reason to feel proud to have produced Yee.  Malaysia too, as with such principled youths, there is still hope for the state and the country.

Well done, Yee.

(Media Conference Statement 2 in Tawau on Sunday, 30th September 2007)

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 30 September 2007, 5:25 pm and is filed under
Education
,
Sabah
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.


Sub-marginalisation of KDM — rejection of bumiputra status of Sino Kadazandusuns with Chinese surnames

It was only two weeks ago that the people of Sabah celebrated the 44th Malaysia Day on September 16 under protest — as the significance of the formation of Malaysia  on that date had been virtually ignored in the 50th Merdeka anniversary celebrations resulting in a renewed call for Sept. 16 to be declared  a national holiday to be an  annual reminder to all Malaysians throughout the country of its meaning and importance.

However there had been no lack of somber reminders to Sabahans and Malaysians in recent months  that in many important aspects, the clock of national integration and nation-building had gone backwards instead of striking boldly forward to create an united, vibrant, progressive and harmonious Bangsa Malaysia.

Only this month, it surfaced that there is not only the phenomenon of the marginalization of the  Kadazandusun-Murut (KDM) community in Sabah, which I had highlighted in Parliament, but there is also the sub-marginalisation of the KDM when Sino-Kadazandusuns with Chinese surnames suffer a new discrimination when they are rejected from investing in Amanah Saham Nasional Bhd  (ASNB) schemes.

ASNB had announced that the applications by at least 100 persons of Sino Kadazan descent to invest in ASNB were rejected as they could not produce a native certificate.

Section 2(1)(b) of the Interpretation (Definition of Native) Ordinance under the laws of Sabah cannot be clearer that a Sino Kadazandusun is a bumiputra, as it states that a Native is any person ordinarily resident in Sabah and being and living as a member of a native community, one at least of whose parents or ancestors is or was a native.

Sino Kadazandusuns are outraged at the  ASNB rejection of  their birth certificate officially stating the identity and status of  one of their parents as a native and  requiring them to get a Native Certificate when for over 23 years the Sabah State Government  had imposed a freeze order on the Native Court system on the issuance of Native Certificates.

At a time when the government is publicly talking about introducing a more efficient and people-oriented  public service delivery system, there are  increasing instances of new-fangled bureaucracies and red-tapes flying in the face of common sense and logic as well as  causing  unnecessary  frustrations and hardships among the people.

The marginalization and sub-marginalisation of the KDM community in Sabah must stop.

If this issue is not immediately resolved and Sino Kadazandusuns given full recognition of their rights as Sabah Natives in accordance with Sabah customs and law, DAP MPs will take up the issue in Parliament when it reconvenes after the current recess on Oct. 22.

When this happens, I hope that all Sabah Members of Parliament regardless of race, religion or political party, will stand up with the DAP MPs on a common cause to end the marginalisation and sub-marginalisation of the KDM community in Sabah.

(Media Conference Statement 3 in Tawau  on Sunday, 30th September 2007)

                This entry was posted on Monday, 1 October 2007, 5:58 am and is filed under
Sabah
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.                You can
leave a response
, or
trackback
 from your own site.