National reconciliation: Nuremberg revengeful justice or RTC restorative justice?

 – Sakmongkol

The Malaysian Insider

Jul 08, 2013

I have to put up a caveat: this is my personal opinion as a writer and blogger. It is not Pakatan’s official position.

PM Najib spoke about national reconciliation in parliament. Yes- he is becoming quite well-known for coining big slogans. He started with all the GTP, ETP, EPP, NKRA, PDP etc. it must have become an addiction.

Now is national reconciliation. Unfortunately his people in parliament take the national reconciliation proposal as a means to do a Nuremberg kind of justice. Impose the victor’s justice on the opposition representing 51 per cent of the voting population. Move on means accepting BN victory and be quiet about it and allow the winner do what it pleases.

This time, Najib needs help from the opposition to ensure that his national reconciliation isn’t turned into another of his useless slogans. We are 89 strong.

He has only given but one precondition- that the results of GE13 must be accepted by everyone. My reading of this is that he is willing to sit down and sort out contentious issues and to engage the opposition to hear out matters they feel strongly about.

I think we should engage him. But then he has to offer something in return. Is he offering us a victor’s justice/the Nuremberg kind of justice?

Most of us know what Nuremberg represented. It represented retributive justice. A court of justice was established by the victorious allies to try Nazi war criminals and other German military leaders after the Second World War. The allies called it de-nazification. Most of those tried were sentenced to death. It was justice imposed by the victors which was retaliatory and revengeful in nature.

The Truth and Reconciliation Commission otherwise known as the TRC method, is a court-like restorative justice body assembled in South Africa after the abolition of apartheid. To restore as much as possible the loss by victims by making the perpetrators of wrongs compensate by reparation. In exchange, the perpetrator gets amnesty. Not all, only the deserving ones cleared by the commission.  Its objective is to get restorative justice.

The Najib government of course hasn’t committed any crimes against humanity. We have no war criminals to prosecute. We don’t have the African apartheid system. We didn’t fight on any of those issues.

We fought for a reformation of the Election Commission. We fought for electoral reforms. We fought against corruption, mis-governance to replace with good governance, we fought for more democracy and we fought for an end to race politics in Malaysia. We fought for integrity, accountability and adherence to the rule of law. These are the noble objectives said out in the King’s speech at the opening session of the current parliament.

And so Najib wants to offer us which? The victor’s Nuremberg justice or the TRC restorative justice?

Personally I have said and still maintain, Najib is a fairly decent fellow. That concession given will not stop me from believing through personal knowledge, that as a leader, Najib is a dud. But if more people believe in him, there is nothing I can do other than sticking to my conviction about the leadership qualities of Najib. I can’t help those who get wet dreams when describing and extolling the virtues of Najib as PM.

Despite my own feelings, I think Najib has some sense of morality and I would therefore think, he wants to choose restorative justice. But he first has to tackle the bigots and the right wing elements within his group. From the belligerent and one-sided demands of BN backbenchers, its clear, what they mean by reconciliation is the Nuremberg kind of Justice.  Meaning, we move on by being subservient in exchange for whatever concessions are given at the pleasure of the victorious party.

Actually Najib does not have to offer any reconciliatory overtures. He won 133 seats and because we follow the first-past-the-post system, he has the right to form a government. He has legal legitimacy. The only reason he offers reconciliation is because he knows he hasn’t got moral legitimacy.

As much as I dislike it, he is correct to demand his precondition. BN won and is the government. But whether we accept the manner by which they won the elections is a different matter. But equally also, however we feel about it, our feelings cannot alter the fact. BN won.

How do we overcome this impasse? If reconciliation is desired, then some sacrifices have to be made and given.

And what elements of restorative justice do we want to put up for negotiation? Maybe top on the agenda is the restructuring of the election commission. Maybe a change in the manner funds are allocated to parliamentarians. The opposition needs funds to service their constituencies. It is simply not right for voters who voted for PR to be starved out of much needed funds. For those who are not aware, neither ADUN nor MPs hold funds personally. The funds are available through the district offices and various government departments.

Maybe get some justice on the issues the opposition fought for in the elections- that corrupt leaders are brought to justice and demanding they restore the wealth they have taken in return for amnesty. Reform of the electoral process. Establishment of a really bipartisan select committee having real oversight powers over so many areas. These are meaningful and worthwhile objectives worth striving for in exchange for willingness to accept the results of GE13.

The results were: BN got 133 seats and PR got 89 seats. Because it has the most number of seats, BN is the government. I don’t think we can change this fact by illegitimate means. And by that I mean, we can’t change the government by way of rallies. And we don’t intend to use it that way- only BN makes propaganda material of these rallies. The rallies such as Black 505 are not meant to do that but are carried out to advertise to the public that the EC was conspiratorial. It conspired with the incumbent to ensure the incumbent retains power.

We can only change through elections and however unpalatable it is, we have to wait for the next general election.

Otherwise there will be anarchy. My own experience in the recent elections, by and large, the election officials manning the counting and polling stations were decent people. But I am suspicious of the supervising officers in dark suits hovering around at the counting and polling stations. Admittedly, unless I can prove any wrong-doings, my suspicions remain as just that.

The objective of national reconciliation is to bring opposing sides of the political divide to sit down together, sort out differences and come to peace. The whole idea being, once differences are put aside, everyone can carry on to perform their respective roles. The government continues to carry out the business of government and the opposition carries out is duties provided by law, as his majesty’s opposition with all the respect and recognition due to it. – July 8, 2013.

                This entry was posted on Monday, 8 July 2013, 8:55 am and is filed under
Elections
,
Najib Razak
,
Pakatan Rakyat
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Panacea to reduce crime?

— Lim Sue Goan

The Malay Mail Online

July 08, 2013

JULY 8 — Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak made a legal reform pledge on the eve of the Malaysia Day in 2011, which was indeed a sign of democratic progress. However, the legal reforms have been questioned. Would the government backtrack?

Home Minister Datuk Seri Dr Ahmad Zahid Hamidi refuses to support the abolition of the 1969 Sedition Act. At the same time, Home Ministry and the police blame the abolition of the Emergency Ordinance (EO) for causing the deterioration of public security and thus, the government is developing a special preventive law similar to the EO.

It was a right move for Najib to announce the abolition and amendments for some draconian laws, as these undemocratic laws had violated human rights and fundamental freedom. They were also accused to have been used against dissidents.

For example, student activist Adam Adli Abdul Halim; Tamrin Ghafar, son of late former Deputy Prime Minister Tun Ghafar Baba; Anything But Umno (ABU) leader Haris Ibrahim and three others were charged with sedition in May. Also, six Socialist Party leaders were detained under the EO.

In fact, as early as in 2005, the Royal Commission of Inquiry (RCI) Report had proposed the abolition of the EO as the Act was “outdated and might become a tool to infringe fundamental freedom”. The EO allowed for 60 days’ detention without warrant or trial, depriving detainee’s right to seek legal defence. Therefore, the announcement to abolish the Sedition Act and the EC was in line with public opinion. The authorities should not resurrect the laws, regardless of whatever excuses.

The authorities believe that the over 2,600 detainees released after the abolition of the EO have continued committing offences and thus, the police need a new law to deal with them. However, who can guarantee that crime cases can be reduced after a new law is made? Is detention without trial really the panacea to reduce crime?

If the increase in crime causes people to fear and thus support a new law allowing detention without trial, it would waste all the efforts so far in legal reform. In fact, many people have tended to this idea and fortunately, Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Nancy Shukri holds a different view.

While exaggerating the effectiveness of preventive laws, we should not neglect the police’s law enforcement efficiency and the judiciary’s professional capacity in imposing sanction against criminals. If the authorities can arrest and take legal action against those who have violated laws quickly, I believe that it can achieve a certain level of deterrent effect. The police can actually learn from Hong Kong, Singapore and other countries or regions with good law and order.

In addition, perseverance is also the key to combatting crime. For example, public security is closely related to the spread of drugs. During the administration of Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad 30 years ago, the government launched drug-abuse prevention campaigns and today, the Federal Police (Bukit Aman) Narcotics Criminal Investigation Department also launched an anti-narcotic crime movement nationwide. If all efforts last only for a brief period of time, we can actually predict the outcome.

On September 26, 2012, the prime minister made a promise at the International Malaysia Law Conference that the government would continue promoting legal reforms and said that there would be no turning back.

Hopefully, the commitment will not be shelved due to various problems. Maintaining social harmony and reducing crime cannot rely on draconian laws as draconian laws are the source of arrogance and wilfulness, instead of the panacea to enhance efficiency. — mysinchew.com

                This entry was posted on Tuesday, 9 July 2013, 8:24 am and is filed under
Crime
,
Law & Order
,
Najib Razak
,
Police
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Is Zahid now confirming that the Prime Minister, Police and previous Home Minister had been wrong and the public right in past four years about worsening crime situation and the fear of crime?

Beginning this month, the Home Minister Datuk Seri Zahid Hamidi and the police have taken a new tack on the crime situation in the country, as illustrated by his speech on Sunday proposing a restoration of a special preventive law to replace the abolished Emergency Ordinance (EO), viz:

“We were pressured to abolish the Internal Security Act (ISA) and EO. Look at what happened after that, the crime rate increased and organised and petty criminals came out of the woodwork.”

Although this new official  tack on increasing crime in the country is in tandem with the public perception about the runaway crime situation in the country in the past four years, it is in direct conflict with the four-year stand by the Prime Minister, the police and the former Home Minister, Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Hussein, that the Government Transformation Programme (GTP) against crime had been a great success since it was launched in 2009 resulting in drastic fall in the crime rate.

Just before Parliament was dissolved for the 13th general election, Malaysians were told that the country’s crime index had decreased by 26.8% since the first phase of the GTP began in 2009 and that Malaysia had been ranked the safest and most peaceful country in South-east Asia according to the Global Peace Index.

Malaysians were told that the country recorded around 550.1 criminal incidents per 100,000 population, placing Malaysia lower than Singapore, Hong Kong, Britain and the United States.

What then is Malaysia’s problem? The official answer is:  “The crime rate is down but Malaysians still do not feel so, hence the focus of the second phase of the GTP against crime  will be on improving public confidence on safety” – which was why RM272.5 million was allocated in the 2013 Budget to ensure that the rakyat feel safe!

In fact, this claim of relentless fall in crime rate in the past four years continued to be the official stance after the 13th General Election, with the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak reiterating in his “War Against Crime” speech on June 8 that the crime rate has been falling since the GTP programme against crime, stating that “In April this year, the crime rate dropped by 3.1% compared to the same period last year”.

But beginning in July this year, the new Home Minister and the new Inspector-General of Police seemed to have decided to ditch all the claims about the success of GTP programme in the drastic drop of crime rate in the past four years and instead taken the opposite tack that the country is afflicted with rising crime rate as to justify a restoration of EO-like preventive law.

But where are these new crime statistics?

Is Zahid now confirming that the Prime Minister, Police and previous Home Minister had been wrong and the public right in past four years about worsening crime situation and the fear of crime?

This is a question I put to Zahid during his winding-up of the debate in the Royal Address in Parliament yesterday, but he did not give any satisfactory answer.

Is Zahid prepared to be frank and forthright to state whether Malaysians had been fed false and wrong crime statistics in the past four years, and if so, what assurance can he give that Malaysians will henceforth be given the right and  correct statistics about the crime situation in the country?

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 10 July 2013, 11:25 am and is filed under
Crime
,
Najib Razak
,
Police
,
Zahid
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Perak’s Stolen Election: The Second Time Round

Koon Yew Yin

10th July 2013

Many Malaysians are aware of the first time when the people of Perak had their state election results in which they had chosen the Pakatan Rakyat (PR) coalition to govern the state overturned by trickery and deceit. At that time in 2009, three state legislators elected on PR tickets defected to the Barisan Nasional (BN) in a move which was masterminded by the Prime Minister, Najib Razak, as head of Perak’s BN.

Subsequently, the Sultan of Perak refused Menteri Besar Mohammad Nizar Jamaluddin’s request to dissolve the state assembly and call for new elections. Instead, Barisan Nasional (BN), with support from the three defecting assemblymen, formed the new – and in the minds of Perakians – illegitimate state government.

Close State Election Results Favoured BN

In the recent 2013 elections, history has repeated itself.  This time the election appears to have been stolen with more conventional methods.  According to the official tally, BN won 31 seats to the PR’s 28 in a closely contested race.  But on close analysis of the results, we find that BN won 8 of the state seats (and 2 parliamentary ones) with wafer thin majorities.  State seats that BN candidates won with very small margins can be seen from the table below

State Seat

Total Votes Cast

Winning Margin of BN Candidate

BN % of Votes Obtained

Selama

13,089

619

52.3

Kamunting

22,681

887

51.9

Lubok Merbau

12,469

53

50.2

Manjoi

42,890

132

50.1

Manong

14,579

231

50.8

Pasir Panjang

30,247

30

50.1

Rungkup

12,217

613

52.5

Changkat Jong

23,271

1,118

51.8

Winning by small margins is not unique to BN candidates. A small number of PR candidates also squeaked through by small margins. But the large number of narrow victories by BN candidates – not only in Perak but throughout the country – in our colonial-inspired electoral system of first past the post winner has raised alarm bells among election watchers.

Cheating in Elections

There is general agreement that cheating at the electoral booth can influence outcomes in close races.  Such cheating takes many forms. Some of the major ways include:

1.	Tampering of the electoral rolls including registering foreign nationals as registered voters; individuals registered doubly as regular and postal voters; phantom voters;

2.	Biased and unreliable counting and tallying practices

3.	Questionable postal votes

4.	Dirty tactics of election officials aimed at favouring one candidate or party.

Given the well-known bias of the Election Commission towards the BN, its lack of independence and its inability to implement even the most basic of measures to cut down on electoral fraud through the use of indelible ink, it is not surprising that the BN, especially UMNO, has been able to win the majority of closely contested seats.

BM1 Programme Targeted at Voters

Besides these forms of cheating at local level, other more sophisticated forms of influencing the election outcome were practiced on a nation-wide scale. One of these election abuses in 2013 included the paying out of monetary inducements under the BM1 programme.  This can be regarded as equivalent to general bribery and should have constituted an offence under section 32(a) of the Election Offences Act 1954.

The way in which the BM programme was disbursed was clearly with the specific purpose of influencing the election outcome as applicants were required specific details of his/her State, his/her parliamentary constituency, and state constituency in which each applicant intended to vote.

Once the application was ‘approved’, the applicant was given either a letter or an SMS, setting out the place where the monies were to be collected.  A chit was attached to the letter, stating ‘’BR1M 2.0, Penyampaian Parliamen/DUN” followed by the name of the parliamentary or state constituency.

 On the right hand side of the chit was the logo of the distributing body.  Under that was a description of the BN body, organization or committee that coordinated this payment.  This was indicated by the words, ‘Pusat khidmat masyarakat’, accompanied by a row of symbols representing the Barisan Nasional parties, UMNO and the words ‘Barisan Nasional, followed by the name of the constituency area.

Text messages were also sent confirming the approval, indicating where the monies could be collected.  Government departments handed out the monies. Other bodies that distributed the BR1M monies included the Jawatan Kemajuan dan Keselamatan Kampung (‘JKKK’) which in Perak was dominated by UMNO members.

The primary target of BR1M was the voters in each constituency, whether that was a state or parliamentary constituency. The message that BN sent out through BR1M was that in return for payments under, the recipients ought to vote for BN candidates.  One can see from this procedure how simple minded kampong folk were “persuaded” to cast their votes in favour of UMNO and BN.  If this does not constitute election abuse, then we will have to completely redefine the meaning of the word “abuse”.

PAS: Taking Up the Fight against the State Election Results

It is gratifying to note that PAS has decided to mount a legal challenge to the state election results in at least 6 state constituencies. These cases may take some time to be resolved and the judiciary perceived by many as influenced by BN, may result in PAS ending up on the losing side.

It could also be that PAS may end up with judgements that support its case. This possibility may seem quite remote but given the new found courage and independence of the judiciary, one should not discount that happening. In such a situation, and if new elections are called for (not necessarily in the six disputed seats, three alone would be sufficient) I am confident that the voters in these constituencies – with the eyes of the nation on them – will vote overwhelmingly for the PR and against the BN candidate. A swing of just two seats against the BN will then produce a PR state government.  The impact will not just be in Perak. I predict that this will mark the beginning of the end of BN rule in the country.

Fraudulent and unethical election practices

Finally, whichever way the judgements go, it is still important and necessary to educate the public – both Perak and Malaysian – on the way in which the BN has engaged in various fraudulent and unethical election practices to maintain itself in power. At the very least, PAS will have the full support of the 613,490 voters (55% of the total electorate voted for PR state candidates in 2013) who know that the elections were stolen from them and who will want justice to be done.

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 10 July 2013, 5:40 pm and is filed under
Constitution
,
Elections
,
Perak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Red Bean Barmy

Dean Johns

Malaysiakini

Jul 10, 2013

Lying by the BN regime seems to get more radically ridiculous every day, and nothing better illustrates this than persistent allegations that the opposition has been funding a 3,000-strong ‘Red Bean Army’ to spread its message in cyberspace.

As many have commented before me, there is no way that the DAP or any other Pakatan Rakyat party would have hundreds of millions of ringgit to spend on such a ludicrous exercise even if they wanted or needed to.

And of course there is no need whatever for them to pay their cyber-supporters so much as a single sen, as there are countless Malaysians who are more than happy to take the time and trouble to cyber-criticise BN and cyber-support Pakatan at their own expense, and out of their sheer love of truth and loathing for lies.

In other words, while there is no such thing as an organised and opposition-funded ‘Red Bean Army’, there is certainly a massive, volunteer force that could justly be dubbed the Rid-BN Army. And with the 51 percent popular vote for the opposition in the May 5 general election, it won a momentous moral victory.

If ever there as a telling demonstration of the proverbial wisdom that ‘the truth will set you free’, it was this triumph of countless unpaid, individual voices over the might of the publicly-funded regime propaganda machine.

The triumph of the veracity of the virtual media over the vicious, venomous lies of the regime’s regiments of venal operatives on television and radio, in the press, and via advertising and public relations.

And not to forget the massacre of BN’s so-called ‘cybertroopers’, all those running-dog bloggers paid with public money to try and kid the innocent and ignorant into voting for five more years of BN crime, corruption and incompetence.

So comprehensively outgunned was this Has-Been Army that it should by rights have slunk away in defeat and disgrace. But instead it had the effrontery to invent a ‘Red Bean Army’ allegedly funded by the DAP to “raise political tensions and created political instability”.

This was clearly a typically shameless attempt by BN and its Has-Been Army to get their grubby paws on yet more of the rakyat’s money, as it claimed through 180 regime-friendly NGOs that it needed RM350 million to counter the threat that had been invented.

Who believes BN any more?

Now, Shahidan Kassim, the Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, has tried to render the fiction into fact by calling for a Royal Commission of Inquiry (RCI) into the imaginary Red Bean Army.

DAP parliamentary leader Lim Kit Siang reportedly gave this idiotic suggestion the scornful reception it deserved, commenting in Malaysiakini that “if the cabinet sets up an RCI on the alleged DAP-funded ‘Red Bean Army’, Malaysia will make history as the first country in the world which establishes an RCI on a fictitious allegation”.

Lim is right, of course. BN’s custom is not to hold RCIs on fictitious allegations, but to hold fictitious RCIs on factual allegations on which it needs to buy time or bury altogether, as in the ongoing RCI into the corrupt granting of identity cards to foreigners in Sabah, and the long-ago RCI that recommended the formation of a yet-to-be implemented Independent Police Complaints and Misconduct Commission.

Thank goodness that there is a Rid-BN Army if not a ‘Red Bean Army’ to report such regime malfeasance, as there is little or no likelihood of an honest report of this latest regime idiocy by either the Dead-Head mainstream media or the cyber Has-Been Army.

Nobody in his or her right mind believes a word from any BN source any more, and no amount of money plundered from the public purse to pay professional liars will restore this rotten regime’s credibility.

And as if to underscore the dire depths to which BN has sunk in the fake-news and failed credibility department, Malaysia has slid to 145th out of 179 or its lowest score ever on the Reporters Without Borders World Press Freedom Index.

In a lame attempt to shrug-off this disgraceful state of affairs, however, Communications and Multimedia Minister Shabery Cheek has told Parliament that Malaysia’s pathetic press-freedom ranking is just a matter of “perception by foreigners”.

“Different countries have different values,” he was quoted as claiming, “and Malaysia’s values are suited to its laws and culture.”

“As proof that liberal attitudes and rights to expression are implemented well in this country, all opposition parties are free to publish their own newspapers without any restriction,” he lied, in light of the regime’s regular seizure of such opposition newspapers and its failure to license Suara Keadilan.

‘Transparent’ Najib

Meanwhile, Malaysia’s one-man Smarmy Army, minority Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak, was taking time out for a ‘working’ trip to London to pollute the UK media with his customary litany of lies.

According to BN ‘news’ agency Bernama, Najib told BBC interviewer Jon Sopel that “we don’t think there’s a basis for the people to go to the streets to protest against the government” in order to achieve change.

“If people want change, what I’m saying is that we can deliver change but from within,” he said, despite the clearly evident fact that his ‘transformative’ premiership has seen nothing but change for the worse.

On the much-vexed subject of the general election, in which BN fared worse than ever before in its history despite massively illegal gerrymandering, media monopolisation, vote-buying and other alleged illegalities, Najib claimed that “the election was true, fair and transparent”.

Adding that the government is “prepared to be scrutinised on this matter according to the constitution and laws of the country” and that “we have nothing to hide,” he then repeated that “we’re transparent”.

Najib certainly is transparent in the sense that anyone with half an eye can see right through this and indeed his every lie. But he and his regime accomplices are as far from transparent in their misgovernment of Malaysia as the Official Secrets Act and the muzzled mainstream media can manage to make them.

But if they imagine that all these machinations plus the invention of a mythical ‘Red Bean Army’ will save them much longer from the wrath of the Rid-BN Army, they must be stark, staring Red Bean Barmy.

DEAN JOHNS, after many years in Asia, currently lives with his Malaysian-born wife and daughter in Sydney, where he coaches and mentors writers and authors and practises as a writing therapist. Published books of his columns for Malaysiakini include ‘Mad about Malaysia’, ‘Even Madder about Malaysia’, ‘Missing Malaysia’, ‘1Malaysia.con’ and ‘Malaysia Mania’.

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 10 July 2013, 11:28 pm and is filed under
Elections
,
Najib Razak
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Winning at all costs

Mariam Mokhtar

Malaysiakini

Jul 8, 2013

The alleged rape of a 19-year old handball official at the Malaysia Games (Sukma) last week will revive unpleasant memories for the victim and family of another teenager in Malacca. Two years ago, the victim and her family were denied justice when as a 13 year old, she was raped by a Sukma champion.

Her rapist was set free so that he could represent Malaysia in future tournaments. He was allowed to bask in the glory of representing his nation, whilst the victim would spend her life in shame and regret. Court of Appeal President Raus Md Shariff had said that “public interest would not be served” if the rapist was sent to jail as “he had a bright future.”

When will the authorities do the right thing, rather than do things so that the right Malaysian image is presented for public and international consumption? Does the judiciary realise the irony of having a rapist representing the country in sport?

If the government of the country is seen to condone rape and other crimes, what does it say about Umno Baru, the major party in BN? Does winning at all costs for Umno-Baru mean compromising principles, morals and ethics? Are rape victims convenient pawns in Umno Baru’s constant lust for victory?

Last Wednesday’s alleged rape of the Sukma participant took place at the sports village at Universiti Putra Malaysia (UPM). Our trust in the police has been eroded by its failure to serve the rakyat. For decades, Umno Baru politicians have stripped the independence of the police force and made the police serve them, as baruas, thus betraying the rakyat.

How convinced are we, when told that the police will thoroughly investigate this latest alleged rape? It was a foreign NGO which first exposed the rape of the Penan girls in Sarawak. Despite pledges by the police and politicians to bring the rapists of the Penan girls to justice, nothing has happened.

Instead, the Penan women have been branded liars and story-tellers. If the rakyat are cynical about police efforts to stem crime, Umno Baru and the police have only themselves to blame.

The Sukma rape victim claimed that she had gone for a drink with her teammates and had woken up around 4am, semiconscious and naked, with a man on top of her. She alleged that two other men had also raped her.

The police arrested three handball players after a police report was lodged. The IGP, Khalid Abu Bakar, has promised a thorough investigation, and that the case would be treated seriously, as the country’s sporting image was affected by athletes who are alleged criminals.

Every police probe should be thorough

I had naively thought that every police investigation should be thorough. Is preserving the country’s sporting image uppermost in Khalid’s mind? What about the crime itself? What about the victim’s dignity, her mental and physical health, and her future?

Khalid and other readers may recall the incident two years ago, when National Tenpin bowler Noor Afizal Azizan avoided a prison sentence for statutory rape. In 2009, when Noor Afizal was 18 years old, he raped his 13-year old girlfriend, in a hotel room in Ayer Keroh. He was guilty of committing statutory rape (with or without the girl’s consent).

Noor Afizal had represented Malacca, Negri Sembilan and Kedah in Tenpin bowling competitions at Sukma and several other national-level tournaments between 2008 and 2010.

His girlfriend was a minor. They were lovers and although he was the adult, he continued an intimate relationship with her. It was stated at his trial, that “there was a consensual sexual relationship between him and the girl”.

Initially, the Sessions Court in Malacca had placed Noor Afizal on probation for five years with a RM25,000 bond, when he pleaded guilty to the charge of rape. The public prosecutor appealed. The High Court overturned the Sessions court ruling and gave him a five year term in prison.

Noor Afizal lodged an appeal against the High Court judgement, and the Appeal Court overturned his jail sentence. He was bound over to be of good behaviour for five years, with a surety of RM25,000. Had he breached the terms of this order, he would be jailed. In other words, rapists get a second chance; but not their victims.

In last week’s alleged Sukma rape, the victim was heavily intoxicated and was assisted to her room by the three athletes, whom she later alleged had raped her.

The Sports Minister, Khairy Jamaluddin, denied reports stating that the victim was an athlete in the women’s handball team; however, he has ordered stern action against the sports council and association, with the possible suspension of athletes, coach and team managers, for bringing alcohol into the games village at UPM.

At every sporting event, athletes are eager to show off their athletic prowess but out of the sporting arena, many athletes are also sexually promiscuous. The competition for medals is as intense as the chase for erotic pleasure, outside the stadium.

At the last Olympics in London, each of the 10,500 athletes was given 15 condoms. Despite strict controls on drugs and alcohol, drinking, having multiple sexual partners and partying were common. Why should it be any different in local Games events?

Will the Sukma investigations conclude that the girl allowed herself to get into a vulnerable position? Will the investigations reveal that there should be no mitigating factors or excuses for men who rape, and that they deserve the most severe forms of punishment?

Women get the raw end of the deal

If those involved were Malay, will the investigation degenerate into another farce in which the rape is sidelined but the consumption of liquor becomes the main focus, prompting another knee-jerk reaction from the religious authorities?

Brutality against women, including domestic violence and rape is a serious problem in Malaysia. People, especially women need to feel safe, but our track record in dealing with rape shows that women get the raw end of the deal.

Men appear to be let off for good behaviour, because our country’s sporting image or a minister’s obsession with stripping the forests of timber and amassing vast personal wealth, are more important.

MARIAM MOKHTAR is a non-conformist traditionalist from Perak, a bucket chemist and an armchair eco-warrior. In ‘real-speak’, this translates into that she comes from Ipoh, values change but respects culture, is a petroleum chemist and also an environmental pollution-control scientist.

                This entry was posted on Wednesday, 10 July 2013, 8:11 am and is filed under
Mariam Mokhtar
,
Police
,
Sports
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


PM Says One Thing, Ministers Say Another!

By Kee Thuan Chye

Yahoo

10th July 2013

How ridiculous it is that the prime minister says one thing and his home minister says the opposite. Last year, Najib Razak announced that the Government would repeal the Sedition Act and replace it with the National Harmony Act, but now Zahid Hamidi says the Cabinet has decided to only “amend and review some aspects of the Act, not to abolish it”!

Another minister, S. Subramaniam, is neither here nor there about it when asked about the matter. He takes the typical noncommittal MIC approach by saying that the idea of repealing the Act was a “suggestion” by Najib. “He has to bring it back to the Cabinet and state his suggestions,” Subramaniam says.

Only a suggestion? Subramaniam was a member of the Cabinet when Najib announced the repeal in July 2012 and yet he says it was only Najib’s suggestion? Is it because he dare not tell the truth?

Meanwhile, Tourism Minister Nazri Aziz contradicts Zahid and confirms that the Cabinet did indeed agree to repeal the Sedition Act last year. He even says the Attorney-General’s Chambers is looking into framing the replacement law. Unlike Subramaniam, he is unequivocal about it.

“It’s a public commitment made by the prime minister. I don’t see why any minister would go against it,” he adds.

It was indeed a public commitment. Najib’s announcement of the repeal of the Act and its replacement with the National Harmony Act was reported extensively in the media, and political observers – me included – commented on it. We certainly didn’t imagine it.

Surely, Najib would have made the announcement only if he had got the agreement of his Cabinet. If not, his action would have been highly irresponsible. So, what gives?

Nazri showed charity to his fellow Cabinet member when he was asked by reporters about Subramaniam’s comment. Nazri replied, “It was made last year, maybe he doesn’t remember. Maybe it’s (because of) so many cabinet meetings.”

Oh? Really? But the matter was publicly announced, so how could any Cabinet member fail to remember? A case of Alzheimer’s affecting the health minister? Or selective remembering a la Mahathir Mohamad?

As for Zahid, why would he contradict Najib? Is he trying to undermine the latter as the build-up begins for the Umno general assembly in November when elections will take place and Najib could be challenged for his leadership of the party? Is Zahid also working overtime to try and retain his vice-presidency in the party, knowing that the position will be hotly contested?

He says he doesn’t want the Sedition Act abolished because people can start questioning the four taboo issues – the special position of the Malays, the sovereignty of the Malay rulers, the position of Malay as the national language, and the position of Islam as the religion of the federation.

That sounds like the thing to say to impress the Umno delegates who will be voting in November. Let us also not forget that a by-election is coming up on July 24 for the Kuala Besut state seat in Terengganu. Harping on Malay issues could well score points for the incumbent Umno.

But Zahid disingenuously chooses to ignore that these four issues are already protected under the Federal Constitution. Article 181, for example, guarantees the sovereignty, rights, powers and jurisdictions of each Malay ruler within their respective states. Other Articles take care of the other three.

In any case, there should be no harm in questioning these issues if we are to be a true, healthy and mature democracy. Placing a ban on it has only deprived Malaysians their constitutional right to freedom of speech. Besides, what can questioning do? Bring about the removal of these guarantees? Who is going to sanction it? Who would dare to? It’s not going to happen even in the distant future.

The real reason the Government would want to retain the Sedition Act – and Zahid should really be honest about this – is to use it to silent political dissent. And this has been proven in practice over the decades. Only last month, it was again selectively used to prosecute six people – Opposition politicians, activists and student leaders – while pro-Government individuals who made seditious statements got away scot-free.

Really, Zahid doesn’t serve the Government cause well to speak as he does. And Subramaniam doesn’t inspire confidence among the public for his gutless deportment. Both of them can’t seem to get their facts right, and they sow confusion with their befuddling statements. What kind of ministers do we have? It reflects badly on Najib for selecting ministers like these.

Speaking of Najib, why has he said nothing since in response to Zahid’s statement? He may be overseas now, but the least he could do is make a statement to clear the confusion. Unless, of course, he is considering flip-flopping on the idea. Especially now that the general election is over and he doesn’t need to win votes.

Is that the reason why the A-G’s Chambers is taking so long to come out with a draft of the replacement National Harmony Act? After a year and still nothing to show? Is this going to be yet another government janji yang tidak ditepati (promise unfulfilled)?

* Kee Thuan Chye is the author of the bestselling book No More Bullshit, Please, We’re All Malaysians, and the latest volume, Ask for No Bullshit, Get Some More!

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 11 July 2013, 8:22 am and is filed under
Constitution
,
Najib Razak
,
UMNO
,
Zahid
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


“Red Bean Army” – UMNO/BN’s RM350 million fatal obsession!

The Red Bean Army is again in the news in Parliament.

Home Minister Datuk Seri Zahid Hamidi told Parliament during question time yesterday that “the Red Bean Army and its ilk” will face criminal and civil action for spreading lies through the Internet.

Many questions come to mind.

Firstly, does the Home Minister with his intelligence and background really believe that a “DAP-funded Red Bean Army” of 3,000 cybertroopers really exist, and is this belief backed up by the Police? Will the Inspector-General of Police Tan Sri Khalid Abu Bakar  speak up?

Secondly,  why the government has not taken any action for the principal  lie that the DAP funded the so-called Red Bean Army of 3,000 cybertroopers with a budget of RM100 million to RM1 billion in the past six years, as it should  not require much professionalism for the cyber-cops to expose the quackery and buffoonery of this tall tale of fiction,  especially as Concorde Hotel, which is the haunt of top UMNO/BN leaders, had been pinpointed as one of the major centres of operation of this mythical cyber-army?

This was why last week I led a team of DAP MPs to visit Concorde Hotel, and all we found was the place crawling with UMNO leaders and operatives and the only discovery was that  there was not only no sign of Red Bean Army, but the exorbitant  ice-kacang in Concorde Hotel had no red beans at all!

Thirdly, has the Home Ministry greater expertise on information technology  than the Communications and Multimedia Ministry when the Communications and Multimedia Deputy Minister admitted to Parliament last Thursday that it does not know who the Red Bean Army is  or whether there is a Red Bean Army  despite all the allegations flying around both in cyberspace and the Barisan Nasional-controlled media.

Fourthly, and most interesting of all, why  the UMNO/BN’s “fatal obsession” with the Red Bean Army tale.

After last week’s discovery that there is not only no  sign of Red Bean Army in Concorde Hotel, a haunt of UMNO leaders and operatives, but there is even no red bean in the hotel’s exorbitant “ice kacang”, the fiction of a  DAP-funded Red Bean Army of 3,000 cybertroopers is the subject of widespread jokes, scorn and derision.

What  Zahid did  yesterday was a desperate attempt to prevent the tall tale of DAP-funded Red Bean Army from dying a “laughing death”.

Clearly, the “fatal obsession” of  Umno/BN to the tall tale of  “DAP-funded Red Bean Army of 3,000 cybertroopers” is  related to a secret agenda reaching high into Umno/BN circles to justify an allocation of RM350 million in the next five years to fight the fictitious Red Bean Army.

This is why the  tall tale of the “DAP-funded Red Bean Army of 3,000 cybertroopers with a budget of RM100 million to RM1 billion in the past six years” must be salvaged and rehabilitated or there would be no case for a RM350 million allocation for the army of Umno/BN cybertroopers for the next five years.

We have hence come to the cause  for UMNO/BN’s RM350 million  “fatal obsession”  with the fictitious  Red Bean Army caper.

                This entry was posted on Thursday, 11 July 2013, 12:13 pm and is filed under
Elections
,
IT
,
Police
,
Zahid
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


A silent Prime Minister confounds the nation

The Malaysian Insider

Jul 12, 2013

NEWS ANALYSIS
 – Eventually it will happen. Not today, not next week, not even next month. But there will come a time when Malaysians will ask this question: for how long more is Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak going to stay silent during roiling debates on the most important issues facing the country?

And then there will come a time when Malaysians will just stop expecting any intervention from the man who occupies Putrajaya; when the mandate he won on May 5 will not matter and Barisan Nasional’s intellectual heft or the last word on government policy will be what the likes of Datuk Seri Ahmad Zahid Hamidi, Datuk Seri Shahidan Kassim and Datuk Seri Dr S. Subramaniam throw at us daily.

Sad but true, isn’t it?

This is what we know about Malaysia since Election 2013:

* The country’s household debt is dangerously high, and those in Malaysia’s lower income bracket are suffocating under a mountain of debt.

* The slowing economy of China presents major challenges for all trading nations, even Malaysia which is dependent on China as a market for oil palm, among other goods.

* Despite all the talk about moving Malaysia up the income chain, the government’s minimum wage policy is mired in confusion – some companies are still exempt.

* The government’s retirement policy, now at 60 years of age to retain talent, is also now seeing exceptions.

* All is not well on the race relations front. The bill which would have allowed the consent of one parent for the conversion of a child to Islam has been withdrawn but raw feelings about the manner in which it was introduced and then withdrawn remain. Non-Muslims are upset that the Cabinet tried to ram through the law without consultation while Muslims see the flip-flopping as a sign of a government in retreat.

* There does not appear to be collective responsibility in the Cabinet. Last year, Najib said the Sedition Act will be replaced by the National Harmony Act but Home Minister Zahid Hamidi believes he is not bound by the decision of the Cabinet.

Simply put, the country has been adrift for awhile. But the PM has chosen the option of silence, which, for a leader, is no option at all. The more controversial the issue, the less likelihood of anyone seeing Najib’s footprint in the debate.

His aides and supporters say that he believes in moderation and that behind closed doors he is full of ideas on helping all Malaysians. Really? How about making public those points? What does he think of the conversion bill? Has he read the riot act to Zahid for breaking ranks with him on the Sedition Act? Has he had a re-think about abolishing certain laws, given the pushback from Umno?

Najib was briefed by Datuk Seri Idris Jala’s brains trust recently on the education system and the need for English to become a big part of teaching here. What are the Prime Minister’s thoughts on this proposal?

Pre-election Najib was advised that staying clear of hot button issues was smart politics and would guarantee self-preservation. Post-election Najib should realise that that policy landed him in no-man’s land. He won, but without a strong enough mandate.

Staying silent and letting Zahid Hamidi, Wan Junaidi and their ilk set the national agenda is just setting up Najib for a big fall. Maybe not next week, or next month but eventually. – July 12, 2013.

                This entry was posted on Friday, 12 July 2013, 8:50 pm and is filed under
Najib Razak
,
nation building
,
UMNO
,
Zahid
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


The Red Bean Army

by Allan CF Goh

The Red Bean Army is coming,

So claim the top security.

They are so very well hidden,

Full of devils’ ability.

But they cannot be found at all,

Even by closest scrutiny.

Do these dangerous beans exist?

Perhaps in one’s mad agony?

Beware! These red delicious beans:

They are the target of buffoons.

Citizens must do their duty,

Seize them all, feed them to the coons.

Save our country, check all the beans.

The red may hide among the brown,

Green, or black sinister cronies,

Causing scared folks to nightmare, drown.

                This entry was posted on Friday, 12 July 2013, 4:02 pm and is filed under
IT
,
Poem
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Launch on “Water Ubah” in Penang in keeping with Malaysian Dream to have a united nation where Malaysians regard themselves as one people despite diversity of race, religion, culture and region

The launch of “Water Ubah” in Penang this morning is in keeping with the Malaysian Dream to have a united nation where Malaysians regard themselves as one people despite the diversity of race, religion, culture and region in the country.

In fact, some 50 years ago, on July 9, 1963, the Malaysian nation was conceived when the Federated Malaya, North Borneo (Sabah), Sarawak and Singapore signed the Malaysia Agreement which gave birth to the new Malaysian federation two months later, and this is why the presence of the DAP Iban Central Executive Committee member Dr. John Brian at the ceremony today is particularly pertinent apart from the fact that  the Ubah mascot is inspired by the  hornbill in Sarawak.

Credit must be given to Ooi Leng Hang, the “father of Ubah” and his team of creative artists and publicists in conceiving the Ubah mascot for “Change” and capturing the imagination of all generations of Malaysians, regardless of time, place, age or gender.

As signified by the launch of the  “Water Ubah” today, we must have the conviction and courage to continue to dream of a better Malaysia for ourselves, our children and children’s children, and to do our part to create a Malaysia:

•	which is the model of democratic freedoms and human rights, good governance and public integrity with low levels of corruption in public life;

•	where there is the best education for all children, from primary, secondary to university level; and

•	which is greener, cleaner and safer, where the people are not haunted by high crime rate and live in fear of crime, so that Malaysia and Malaysians can be internationally competitive with the focus on our competitiveness with the rest of the world instead of Malaysians versus Malaysians.

Although there was a drizzle during the launch of the “Water Ubah” at Jelutong IJM Promenade by Penang Chief Minister and DAP Secretary-General, Lim Guan Eng, the spirit of the large crowd who gathered for the event was not affected in any degree, which is most inspiring as it is   symbolic that although  the battle of “Ubah” for a better Malaysia is going to be a long haul, the spirit  and dedication of Malaysians committed to the cause of a better Malaysia will not be doused by any temporary setback or obstacle.

The cause for Ubah in Malaysia is firmly set.

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 13 July 2013, 2:38 pm and is filed under
DAP
,
Elections
,
nation building
,
Politics
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Say no to police state

P Gunasegaram

Malaysiakini

Jul 12, 2013

QUESTION TIME
 Who decides policy in this country? Is it the police? Are we as a nation supposed to be subservient to the police and ask their permission first before we implement anything? Are they, a government department, allowed to lobby actively for what they want and even against things that Parliament has passed?

The way the police have launched a campaign for the return of the notorious Emergency Ordinance (EO), one would think that their crime-fighting abilities have been crippled as a result of the repeal of that oppressive piece of legislation. That’s far from the truth.

The Emergency Ordinance and the infamous Internal Security Act, were repealed in 2011 and replaced with the Security Offences (Special Measures) Act 2012 and changes to other laws. Together with this, the state of emergency that prevailed in this country since independence under three different proclamations was lifted.

A cursory look at the Emergency Ordinance of 1969 and some of its orders made in the aftermath of the May 13, 1969 racial riots gave considerable power to the police and government of the day to override any and all provisions with regard to personal rights. It was terribly draconian – a police state in other words where anyone could be arrested and detained.

If anyone doubts that it was indeed a police state, all one has to do is to take a look at some of the provisions when it was promulgated. Here is a sampling, especially as it relates to police powers:

•Any police officer may arrest anyone if he is satisfied that he should be detained to preserve public order, to suppress violence or to prevent violent crimes.

•Any person arrested can be detained in police custody for up to 60 days. He can be detained for 24 hours with the authority of an inspector or above, and up to 48 hours with the authority of an assistant superintendent and above. With a report to the inspector-general, a person can be detained for more than 30 days.

•With the approval of the home minister, a person can be detained for up to two years.

Note that no crime need be committed before detention and that the police officer just needs to be satisfied that the person needs to be detained for the mentioned reasons. That basically gives a huge amount of discretionary power to the police. And where there is discretion, there is abuse.

It is amazing to think that this law was in existence for some 42 years, long after the conditions that caused its implementation had passed. Its counterpart, the Internal Security Act which also provided for detention without trial, was in existence for more than half a century before being repealed!

It should be noted as well that the EO was promulgated then for the express purpose of nipping any racial violence in the bud by nabbing those who might be positioned to cause trouble, especially given rising tensions at the time. For a short period of time it may have been acceptable but it should never have been prolonged for over four decades. That in itself was serious abuse.

Never intended for crime prevention

It was never intended for the prevention of normal everyday crime. In any functioning democracy which respects and protects the legitimate rights of the people, preventive detention has no place simply because of the substantial room there is for abuse.

It basically makes the police force a lazy, incompetent and even corrupt one. Lazy because, you don’t need to gather evidence – just arrest and detain. Incompetent because over time, investigation is not needed. Corrupt because people will be willing to pay not to get detained.

If the EO is given full rein and policemen and the home minister exercise all their powers under this, we are nothing more than a police state. And it has been shown repeatedly that such powers are often abused and remove the safeguards for the proper functioning of society with adequate checks and balances.

It is horrifying that newly-appointed Home Minister Ahmad Zahid Hamidi seems to be in league with the police to bring back this obnoxious piece of legislation whose only aim is to suffocate legitimate dissent against the ruling party and government and re-instill a climate of fear and apprehension to control the public.

Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak must be regretting his decision to make Zahid the home minister who seems set on undoing everything Najib had done in terms of freeing up the country and giving people back their basic rights. Zahid is also now opposed to repealing the Sedition Act. Reportedly, Najib had promised this to the cabinet.

Lobbying for the EO also involved newspapers, with The Star front-paging reports quoting anonymous police officials who strongly maintained that the repeal of the EO had made the job of the police much more difficult. Other such views were also given prominence with little coverage of opposite views.

The police is the department that is least trusted in government (see chart). Their record has been far from exemplary and death and torture in custody have been a matter of routine with no prosecution significant to the crime committed.

The police publicly fought and even threatened against the implementation of the Independent Police Complaints and Misconduct Commission (IPCMC) recommended by a royal commission headed by a former chief justice which would have the power to investigate police misdeeds.

Then-prime minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi abandoned his election promise to set up the IPCMC, and one of the major reasons was the strong, vocal objection of the police force, which went above the heads of government leaders to appeal directly to Umno.

On top of that, police assertions that the repeal of the IO led to an increase in crimes is not substantiated by its own figures which show that crime (see chart) at first actually increased even when the EO was there and declined afterwards and even after the EO was repealed in 2012.

It would be a dire mistake to give the police back their powers under the EO, a law specifically introduced to curb racial riots. The police must simply get the evidence necessary and make their case in court if they want people put away, the way they are required to in every democratic, developed and ethical society in the world.

Anyone who supports the EO simply and unequivocally supports the establishment of a police state whereby the police can detain and restrict the movements of anyone at their complete whim and fancy. The police and the home minister may want it. The rest of us don’t.

Every Malaysian should strongly oppose such a move and give notice to the powers that be that he will not support a government that takes some of his most basic rights away from him just to keep the police and the home minister happy and satisfied.

——————————————————————————–

P GUNASEGARAM is founding editor of KiniBiz.

                This entry was posted on Saturday, 13 July 2013, 12:49 am and is filed under
Constitution
,
Crime
,
Police
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


21st Century Courts, 20th Century Mindset

 ― Fahri Azzat (Loyarburok.com)

The Malay Mail Online

July 14, 2013

JULY 14 ― You lost your case. The judge decided against you because he found the other side’s witnesses more credible compared to yours and so preferred their testimony to your witnesses’. You complain loudly to any who care to listen, ‘How the hell can the judge prefer their witnesses over mine?’ You angrily tell your lawyer to appeal.

But if your lawyer was honest with you, he will tell you not to bother. Don’t waste your time, money and effort, he should tell you. If you ask why, he will tell you that the appellate court almost always trusts the trial judge’s assessment of a witness’ credibility. They will only depart from it in exceptional cases when the trial judge got it so perversely wrong.

The reason for this was alluded to in the recent Federal Court decision of Isidro Leonardo Quito Cruz v PP [2013] 2 CLJ 1025. It arose when Abdull Hamid Embong FCJ explained why appellate courts did not make finding of facts. He referred to the Privy Council decision of Antonio Dias Caldeira v Frederick Augustus Gray [1936] MLJ 137 (decided on 14 February 1934) which held as follows:

“Now, it settled law that it is no part of the function of an appellate court in a criminal case or indeed any case to make its own findings of fact. That is a function exclusively reserved by the law to the trial court. The reason is obvious. An appellate court is necessarily fettered because it lacks the audio-visual advantage enjoyed by the trial court.” So the appellate court’s reason for not reviewing the credibility of the witnesses during the trial and accepting the trial judge’s opinion on them is because it lacks the audio-visual advantage of the trial court.

Although that may be an acceptable reason in 1936, it is seems incongruous, if not perverse in 2013. After all, audio-visual equipment is now cheap, mobile and ubiquitous.
And to lay on the irony, trials in Malaysia now use the Court Recording and Transcription (CRT) service, which I leave to the former Chief Justice Tun Zaki bin Azmi to extol its benefits (see his speech ‘Using Technology to Improve Court Performance: Malaysia’s Experience’ delivered at the Asia Pacific Judicial Reform Forum 2010, Beijing):

“The CRT system records not only the voice but also visually the proceedings in courts. It keeps track of the date and time and enables the judge to record what he wants without the other parties in the proceedings knowing them. The system allows the appellate court or anybody else viewing the recording to even see the demeanour of the witnesses as well as the conduct of the lawyers in the proceedings, not forgetting the judge himself. A true and detailed record of what were said could be reviewed at any time. Because the audio-visual system can be connected to the internet, I as the CJ, can peek into any court using the computer in my chambers. “For civil cases the recording is burned on a CD-ROM and supplied to the parties to transcribe the notes but in criminal cases, most of which are conducted in Malay, are transcribed by the Department’s typists. Because the typists are able to identify the speaker, this avoids the mistakes of the identity of the speaker.”

So there you have it. A former Chief Justice explains that since 2010 the appellate courts have had audio-visual records of the trial proceedings so accurate and complete that it allows them to appreciate the voice, visual and demeanour of a witness, which are all it needs to decide on the credibility of a witness for itself. They no longer have to rely on the trial judge’s assessment of a witness’ credibility.

Now that we know this, it begs these questions:

Why didn’t the former Chief Justice change the law on this issue when he was implementing the CRT service? And even if his Lordship forgot about it, why don’t our appellate courts now review the trial judge’s decision on a witness’ credibility since they have full access to audio-visual recording of the trial? ― www.loyarburok.com

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 14 July 2013, 3:56 pm and is filed under
Court
,
Judiciary
,
Law & Order
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Across the causeway, Singapore’s top cop expresses sorrow to murder victim’s family

The Malaysian Insider

By Ng Joo Hee

Commissioner of Police

Singapore

July 14, 2013

[Too defensive. Too slow to say sorry. These are the criticisms levelled at the Royal Malaysia Police when the issue of custodial deaths or corruption among the men in blue is discussed. Across the causeway, a Singapore police officer was arrested for the heinous murder of a father and son. The Malaysian Insider reproduces the heartfelt sentiments from Singapore’s top cop who pledges firm action to rebuild trust.(TMI)]

Today is a sad day for the police. Today, we have arrested a murder suspect who is also a policeman. The police have brought into custody Iskandar Rahmat, 34, a Singaporean male, a police officer attached to Bedok Police Division. He will be charged for the brutal murders of Tan Boon Sin and his son Tan Chee Heong at Hillside Drive.

I cannot remember the last time a murder suspect was also a police officer. You may have seen this kind of thing depicted in the movies and on TV, but when it happens for real, it hits you like a freight train.

After the shocking events of Wednesday afternoon, police investigators worked tirelessly around the clock to, first, identify the perpetrator, and then, to hunt him down.

When I was first told that the murder suspect could be one of our own, my initial reaction was disbelief, swiftly followed by anger and anguish. This was the same gamut of emotions police investigators had to deal with in the last few days as they pursued the suspect.

The fact that the suspect is a police officer gave my investigators even greater resolve and determination to solve this case. I commend them for going about their duties in a thoroughly professional manner, and for being ultimately successful in capturing their target.

We have now captured officer Iskandar and we will prosecute him to the maximum extent. He is a murder suspect and will eventually receive just desserts for the heinous crime that he is accused of committing.

Officer Iskandar’s fall from grace has also brought dishonour to the 10,000 other police officers who dedicate themselves every day to protecting others, and who routinely risk their own safety to preserve that of others.

Tragically, Tan Boon Sin and Tan Chee Heong are dead. And untold grief has been brought upon their families and loved ones. Their loss can never ever be made good.

I wish that there is something the police can do to lessen their anger and sorrow. I wish that I can turn back the clock and undo this great misfortune that has befallen upon the Tan family. But I know that no amount of commiseration or regret will lessen the hurt. All we can do is to bring the culpable to justice, and to mourn with the rest of Singapore the senseless loss of two innocent lives.

I expect that after this press conference, newspapers, TV and radio, the blogosphere, and coffee shops and sitting rooms up and down the country will reverberate with talk, comment and opinion about this tragic incident.

Most of it will be an outcry critical of the police, questioning the quality and integrity of police officers. Some of it will be unthinking and plainly unfair. And still some will be deliberately malicious.

Even as we investigate the murders, the police also look to find out what has led an individual who has sworn to uphold the law to now stand accused of breaking it in the most grievous way.

Our police force and every policeman and policewoman is tarred by the actions of this single officer. This is unfortunate, but my officers and I will take every criticism in our stride.

The public’s trust in the police is the only reason why we are able to keep Singapore as safe as it is. This trust is hard-earned and must never be broken. And we will not allow this tragedy to adversely affect the strong bonds that we share with the communities that we protect.

Tomorrow, every police officer will still go to work fully cognisant of his and her sacrosanct mission. And every police officer will still say the police pledge before he goes on duty, and then work as hard as he can to keep Singapore safe and secure.

We are a force for the nation. And we will not be distracted by the current unfortunate event, from continuing with our work of safeguarding Singapore. – July 14, 2013.

* This was first published in the Singapore Straits Times on July 14, 2013.

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 14 July 2013, 2:19 pm and is filed under
Crime
,
Police
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Malala delivers defiant riposte to Taliban militants as UN hails ‘our hero’

Ed Pilkington in New York

The Guardian, Friday 12 July 2013

‘They thought that the bullet would silence us. But they failed,’ says Malala, 16, at UN to push campaign for girls’ education

When the Taliban sent a gunman to shoot Malala Yousafzai last October as she rode home on a bus after school, they made clear their intention: to silence the teenager and kill off her campaign for girls’ education.

Nine months and countless surgical interventions later, she stood up at the United Nations on her 16th birthday on Friday to deliver a defiant riposte. “They thought that the bullet would silence us. But they failed,” she said.

As 16th birthdays go, it was among the more unusual. Instead of blowing out candles on a cake, Malala sat in one of the United Nation’s main council chambers in the central seat usually reserved for world leaders.

She listened quietly as Ban Ki-moon, the UN secretary-general, described her as “our hero, our champion”; and as the former British prime minister and now UN education envoy, Gordon Brown, uttered what he called “the words the Taliban never wanted her to hear: happy 16th birthday, Malala”.

The event, dubbed Malala Day, was the culmination of an extraordinary four years for the girl from Mingora, in the troubled Swat valley of Pakistan.
 She was thrust into the public glare after she wrote a pseudonymous but later celebrated blog for the BBC Urdu service describing her experiences struggling to get an education under the rising power of Taliban militants.

By 11 she was showing exceptional determination, calling personally on the US special representative to Pakistan, Richard Holbrooke, to use his influence to combat the Taliban’s drive against education for girls. By 14, she was on the radar of Archbishop Desmond Tutu, who put her forward for the international children’s peace prize, and by 15 she became the youngest Nobel peace prize nominee in history.

But such dizzying global attention came at a price. Death threats followed her growing recognition, and on 9 October 2012, following a meeting of Pakistani Taliban leaders, the gunman was dispatched to remove what they called the “symbol of infidels and obscenity”.

Multiple operations in Pakistan and the UK followed the attack on the bus, including the fitting of a titanium plate on her left forehead, and a cochlear implant to restore her hearing. She now lives with her family in Birmingham and does what the Taliban tried to stop her doing: goes to school every day. “I am not against anyone,” she said in the UN chamber, having taken this day out from the classroom. “Neither am I here to speak in terms of personal revenge against the Taliban or any other terrorist group.”

Malala responded to the violence of the Taliban with her own countervailing force: words against bullets. “I do not even hate the Talib who shot me. Even if there is a gun in my hand and he stands in front of me, I would not shoot him.”

She spoke confidently, with only an injured eye and a slightly drooping left side of her face to hint at such fresh traumas. There was one other unstated allusion to the horror of her past: she wore a white shawl belonging to a woman who was also targeted by extremists but who, unlike Malala, did not survive to tell the tale: Benazir Bhutto.

“The extremists are afraid of books and pens,” the teenager continued. “The power of education frightens them. They are afraid of women. The power of the voice of women frightens them.”

She cited last month’s attack on a hospital in Quetta, capital of Baluchistan, and killings of female teachers in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. “That is why they are blasting schools every day – because they were and they are afraid of change, afraid of the equality that we will bring to our society.”

And she gave her own opposing interpretation of Islam to the Taliban’s. “They think that God is a tiny, little conservative being who would send girls to the hell just because of going to school. The terrorists are misusing the name of Islam and Pashtun society for their own personal benefits. Islam is a religion of peace, humanity and brotherhood. Islam says that it is not only each child’s right to get education, rather it is their duty and responsibility.”

Such ability to articulate what normally remains unarticulated – to give voice to young people normally silenced – has generated its own response. The “stand with Malala” petition, calling for education for the 57m children around the world who do not go to school, has attracted more than 4m signatures – more than a million having been added in the past few days.

At the start of her speech, Malala said: “I don’t know where to begin my speech. I don’t know what people would be expecting me to say.”

She need not have worried.

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

Malala delivered this address on education to the United Nations Youth Assembly on ‘Malala Day’, her 16th birthday

In the name of God, the most beneficent, the most merciful.

Honorable UN Secretary General Mr Ban Ki-moon, respected president of the General Assembly Vuk Jeremic, honorable UN envoy for global education Mr Gordon Brown, respected elders and my dear brothers and sisters: Assalamu alaikum.

Today is it an honor for me to be speaking again after a long time. Being here with such honorable people is a great moment in my life and it is an honor for me that today I am wearing a shawl of the late Benazir Bhutto. I don’t know where to begin my speech. I don’t know what people would be expecting me to say, but first of all thank you to God for whom we all are equal and thank you to every person who has prayed for my fast recovery and new life. I cannot believe how much love people have shown me. I have received thousands of good wish cards and gifts from all over the world. Thank you to all of them. Thank you to the children whose innocent words encouraged me. Thank you to my elders whose prayers strengthened me. I would like to thank my nurses, doctors and the staff of the hospitals in Pakistan and the UK and the UAE government who have helped me to get better and recover my strength.

I fully support UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon in his Global Education First Initiative and the work of UN Special Envoy for Global Education Gordon Brown and the respectful president of the UN General Assembly Vuk Jeremic. I thank them for the leadership they continue to give. They continue to inspire all of us to action. Dear brothers and sisters, do remember one thing: Malala Day is not my day. Today is the day of every woman, every boy and every girl who have raised their voice for their rights.

There are hundreds of human rights activists and social workers who are not only speaking for their rights, but who are struggling to achieve their goal of peace, education and equality. Thousands of people have been killed by the terrorists and millions have been injured. I am just one of them. So here I stand. So here I stand, one girl, among many. I speak not for myself, but so those without a voice can be heard. Those who have fought for their rights. Their right to live in peace. Their right to be treated with dignity. Their right to equality of opportunity. Their right to be educated.

Dear friends, on 9 October 2012, the Taliban shot me on the left side of my forehead. They shot my friends, too. They thought that the bullets would silence us, but they failed. And out of that silence came thousands of voices. The terrorists thought they would change my aims and stop my ambitions. But nothing changed in my life except this: weakness, fear and hopelessness died. Strength, power and courage was born.

I am the same Malala. My ambitions are the same. My hopes are the same. And my dreams are the same. Dear sisters and brothers, I am not against anyone. Neither am I here to speak in terms of personal revenge against the Taliban or any other terrorist group. I am here to speak for the right of education for every child. I want education for the sons and daughters of the Taliban and all the terrorists and extremists. I do not even hate the Talib who shot me. Even if there was a gun in my hand and he was standing in front of me, I would not shoot him. This is the compassion I have learned from Mohammed, the prophet of mercy, Jesus Christ and Lord Buddha. This the legacy of change I have inherited from Martin Luther King, Nelson Mandela and Mohammed Ali Jinnah.

This is the philosophy of nonviolence that I have learned from Gandhi, Bacha Khan and Mother Teresa. And this is the forgiveness that I have learned from my father and from my mother. This is what my soul is telling me: be peaceful and love everyone.

Dear sisters and brothers, we realize the importance of light when we see darkness. We realize the importance of our voice when we are silenced. In the same way, when we were in Swat, the north of Pakistan, we realized the importance of pens and books when we saw the guns. The wise saying, “The pen is mightier than the sword.” It is true. The extremists are afraid of books and pens. The power of education frightens them. They are afraid of women. The power of the voice of women frightens them. This is why they killed 14 innocent students in the recent attack in Quetta. And that is why they kill female teachers. That is why they are blasting schools every day because they were and they are afraid of change and equality that we will bring to our society. And I remember that there was a boy in our school who was asked by a journalist why are the Taliban against education? He answered very simply by pointing to his book, he said, “a Talib doesn’t know what is written inside this book.”

They think that God is a tiny, little conservative being who would point guns at people’s heads just for going to school. These terrorists are misusing the name of Islam for their own personal benefit. Pakistan is a peace loving, democratic country. Pashtuns want education for their daughters and sons. Islam is a religion of peace, humanity and brotherhood. It is the duty and responsibility to get education for each child, that is what it says. Peace is a necessity for education. In many parts of the world, especially Pakistan and Afghanistan, terrorism, war and conflicts stop children from going to schools. We are really tired of these wars. Women and children are suffering in many ways in many parts of the world.

In India, innocent and poor children are victims of child labor. Many schools have been destroyed in Nigeria. People in Afghanistan have been affected by extremism. Young girls have to do domestic child labor and are forced to get married at an early age. Poverty, ignorance, injustice, racism and the deprivation of basic rights are the main problems, faced by both men and women.

Today I am focusing on women’s rights and girls’ education because they are suffering the most. There was a time when women activists asked men to stand up for their rights. But this time we will do it by ourselves. I am not telling men to step away from speaking for women’s rights, but I am focusing on women to be independent and fight for themselves. So dear sisters and brothers, now it’s time to speak up. So today, we call upon the world leaders to change their strategic policies in favor of peace and prosperity. We call upon the world leaders that all of these deals must protect women and children’s rights. A deal that goes against the rights of women is unacceptable.

We call upon all governments to ensure free, compulsory education all over the world for every child. We call upon all the governments to fight against terrorism and violence. To protect children from brutality and harm. We call upon the developed nations to support the expansion of education opportunities for girls in the developing world. We call upon all communities to be tolerant, to reject prejudice based on caste, creed, sect, color, religion or agenda to ensure freedom and equality for women so they can flourish. We cannot all succeed when half of us are held back. We call upon our sisters around the world to be brave, to embrace the strength within themselves and realize their full potential.

Dear brothers and sisters, we want schools and education for every child’s bright future. We will continue our journey to our destination of peace and education. No one can stop us. We will speak up for our rights and we will bring change to our voice. We believe in the power and the strength of our words. Our words can change the whole world because we ware all together, united for the cause of education. And if we want to achieve our goal, then let us empower ourselves with the weapon of knowledge and let us shield ourselves with unity and togetherness.

Dear brothers and sisters, we must not forget that millions of people are suffering from poverty and injustice and ignorance. We must not forget that millions of children are out of their schools. We must not forget that our sisters and brothers are waiting for a bright, peaceful future.

So let us wage, so let us wage a glorious struggle against illiteracy, poverty and terrorism, let us pick up our books and our pens, they are the most powerful weapons. One child, one teacher, one book and one pen can change the world. Education is the only solution. Education first. Thank you.

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 14 July 2013, 10:35 pm and is filed under
Education
,
Human Rights
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


The Arab spring – Has it failed?

Despite the chaos, the blood and the democratic setbacks, this is a long process. Do not give up hope

The Economist

Jul 13th 2013

ROUGHLY two-and-a-half years after the revolutions in the Arab world, not a single country is yet plainly on course to become a stable, peaceful democracy. The countries that were more hopeful—Tunisia, Libya and Yemen—have been struggling. A chaotic experiment with democracy in Egypt, the most populous of them, has landed an elected president behind bars. Syria is awash with the blood of civil war.

No wonder some have come to think the Arab spring is doomed. The Middle East, they argue, is not ready to change. One reason is that it does not have democratic institutions, so people power will decay into anarchy or provoke the reimposition of dictatorship. The other is that the region’s one cohesive force is Islam, which — it is argued — cannot accommodate democracy. The Middle East, they conclude, would be better off if the Arab spring had never happened at all.

That view is at best premature, at worst wrong. Democratic transitions are often violent and lengthy. The worst consequences of the Arab spring — in Libya initially, in Syria now — are dreadful. Yet as our special report argues, most Arabs do not want to turn the clock back.

Putting the cart before the camel

Those who say that the Arab spring has failed ignore the long winter before, and its impact on people’s lives. In 1960 Egypt and South Korea shared similar life-expectancy and GDP per head. Today they inhabit different worlds. Although many more Egyptians now live in cities and three-quarters of the population is literate, GDP per head is only a fifth of South Korea’s. Poverty and stunting from malnutrition are far too common. The Muslim Brotherhood’s brief and incompetent government did nothing to reverse this, but Egypt’s deeper problems were aggravated by the strongmen who preceded them. And many other Arab countries fared no better.

This matters, because, given the Arab spring’s uneven progress, many say the answer is authoritarian modernisation: an Augusto Pinochet, Lee Kuan Yew or Deng Xiaoping to keep order and make the economy grow. Unlike South-East Asians, the Arabs can boast no philosopher-king who has willingly nurtured democracy as his economy has flourished. Instead, the dictator’s brothers and the first lady’s cousins get all the best businesses. And the despots — always wary of stirring up the masses — have tended to duck the big challenges of reform, such as gradually removing the energy subsidies that in Egypt alone swallow 8% of GDP. Even now the oil-rich monarchies are trying to buy peace; but as an educated and disenfranchised youth sniffs freedom, the old way of doing things looks ever more impossible, unless, as in Syria, the ruler is prepared to shed vast amounts of blood to stay in charge. Some of the more go-ahead Arab monarchies, for example in Morocco, Jordan and Kuwait, are groping towards constitutional systems that give their subjects a bigger say.

Fine, some will reply, but Arab democracy merely leads to rule by the Islamists, who are no more capable of reform than the strongmen, and thanks to the intolerance of political Islam, deeply undemocratic. Muhammad Morsi, the Muslim Brother evicted earlier this month by the generals at the apparent behest of many millions of Egyptians in the street, was democratically elected, yet did his best to flout the norms of democracy during his short stint as president. Many secular Arabs and their friends in the West now argue that because Islamists tend to regard their rule as God-given, they will never accept that a proper democracy must include checks, including independent courts, a free press, devolved powers and a pluralistic constitution to protect minorities.

This too, though, is wrong. Outside the Arab world, Islamists — in Malaysia and Indonesia, say — have shown that they can learn the habit of democracy. In Turkey too, the protests against the autocratic but elected prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, have more in common with Brazil than the Arab spring. Turkey, for all its faults, is more democratic today than it was when the army lurked in the background.

The problem, then, is with Arab Islamists. That is hardly surprising. They have been schooled by decades of repression, which their movements survived only by being conspiratorial and organised. Their core supporters are a sizeable minority in most Arab countries. They cannot be ignored, and must instead be absorbed into the mainstream.

That is why Egypt’s coup is so tragic. Had the Muslim Brotherhood remained in power, they might have learned the tolerance and pragmatism needed for running a country. Instead, their suspicions about democratic politics have been confirmed. Now it is up to Tunisia, the first of the Arab countries to throw off the yoke of autocracy, to show that Arab Islamists can run countries decently. It might just do that: it is on its way to getting a constitution that could serve as the basis of a decent, inclusive democracy. If the rest of the Arab world moves in that direction, it will take many years to do so.

That would not be surprising, for political change is a long game. Hindsight tends to smooth over the messy bits of history. The transition from communism, for instance, looks easy in retrospect. Yet three years after the fall of the Berlin Wall, Europe was overrun by criminal mafias; extremist politicians were prominent in Poland, Slovakia and the Baltics; the Balkans were about to degenerate into war and there was fighting in Georgia. Even now, most people in the old Soviet bloc live under repressive regimes — yet few want to go back.

Don’t hold back the tide

The Arab spring was always better described as an awakening: the real revolution is not so much in the street as in the mind. The internet, social media, satellite television and the thirst for education — among Arab women as much as men — cannot co-exist with the deadening dictatorships of old. Egyptians, among others, are learning that democracy is neither just a question of elections nor the ability to bring millions of protesters onto the street. Getting there was always bound to be messy, even bloody. The journey may take decades. But it is still welcome.

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 14 July 2013, 10:56 pm and is filed under
Middle East/Africa
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


The Red Bean Army witch-hunt

Jeswan Kaur | July 14, 2013

Free Malaysia Today

If BN thinks it can mislead the rakyat by tricking them into believing the Red Bean Army is the real threat back home, it is mistaken.

COMMENT

The federal government seems to be in a disarray, going by its classic sense of missing the woods for the trees.

Instead of tackling the hard-pressed issues beleaguring the rakyat, the Barisan Nasional government has decided it has a bigger battle to fight – that too against an entity called the Red Bean Army, whom BN claims is opposition DAP funded and supported.

So much so that BN is accusing DAP of spending RM100 million since 2008 to fund the Red Bean Army – a claim that remains unsubstantiated and has been refuted several times by DAP’s national advisor, Lim Kit Siang.

Still, BN refuses to pay any heed to the fact that DAP has no hand in sponsoring anything called the ‘Red Bean Army’ (RBA).

Home Minister Ahmad Zahid Hamidi has gone on to say that the government will come down hard on the RBA, including using the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998; the Penal Code; and Facebook to counter it and others who use the Internet to defame the police force.

“There are two ways to take action against cases of defamation. One, criminal action, two, civil action,” the Home Minister told the Dewan Rakyat today during a question session on Wednesday.

The BN government is sore that the RBA, an alleged group of opposition-funded cyber troopers and its ilk have been continuously spreading lies about the police on the Internet.

Ahmad Zahid’s response was prompted by a question from Ikmal Hisham Abdul Aziz (Tanah Merah – BN) on what action the police would take against the Red Bean Army.

Ikmal had condemned the RBA saying: “It is unfortunate that there are some quarters in this country who do not know how to be grateful, who purposefully mock and discredit the police force, particularly through social media such as Facebook and blogs.

“Does the police force intend to set up a special team to investigate the slander hurled against them, and to answer every allegation thrown their way through the social media…including the endless slander from the Red Bean Army cyber troopers?”

Clearly, Ahmad Zahid and Ikmal are doing what they know best – play politics. Had these two BN politicians been a little more rakyat-conscious, they would have realised that the enemy at hand is not a bunch of IT-savvy individuals whom are being targetted for discrediting the police force.

The issue that the BN government is trying so hard to hide is that there is a big problem with the police force, no thanks to some cops who are under the delusion that they are above the law.

Hiding bigger crimes

Are Ahmad Zahid and Ikmal not aware of the never-ending custodial deaths in the country? Have they also conveniently erased the fact that there are one too many rotten apples in the police force and who have no qualms murdering people, raping women in police cells and are ever hungry for their palms to be greased?

The BN government is all riled up with the RBA alleging that it has demeaned the police profession. But what does the rakyat make of cops who do everything wrong by the book?

How should the rakyat react when despite repeated calls being made for the IPCMC, the central government has shown no interest in tackling the malaise affecting the police force?

Early this month, High Court judge VT Singham in his judgment had declared that former Selangor police chief Khalid Abu Bakar, now the inspector-general of police, was responsible for the death of detainee A Kugan while in police custody four years ago.

Singham pointed out that no person of any position or rank should take the court for granted and attempt to hide the truth to escape liability.

“Police officers and Khalid must be reminded that their conduct lies not in the cold print of the statute book but in their integrity and conscience,” Singham said in his judgment.

The judge who opted for early retirement last month after delivering his verdict on the Kugan case, also said that police officers must protect detainees, not abuse their powers.

“If the unlawful act is not checked, the belief that no harm can be caused on police officers will forever be reinforced,” Singham said.

The rakyat has realised that BN will do nothing to persecute Khalid over his role in Kugan’s death. And neither will the judge’s comment that the setting up of the Independent Police Complaints and Misconduct Commission (IPCMC) must not be delayed to enable the public to feel safe and assured will ever be taken seriously.

Fooling the rakyat all the time

If BN thinks it can mislead the rakyat by tricking them into believing the RBA is the real threat back home, it is mistaken.

The people are no longer at the mercy of the federal government when it comes to finding out what the real truth is; be it the Internet or other alternatives, the rakyat is well aware of how best to get to the bottom of a truth.

So to accuse the RBA of tainting the image of the ‘men in blue’ is nothing but another one of BN’s calculated moves to hide the many wrongdoings being perpetuated by it.

The people believe that it is high-time the police force is taken to task for the felonies undertaken by some cops, among them being the recent act of arresting and manhandling an alleged traffic offenderby four police officers in Medan Imbi, Kuala Lumpur.

And the rakyat will find the claims of a fomer drug pusher who claimed that he paid between RM30,000 and RM50,000 a month to the police for protection and information on police stakeouts believeable.

But what the people will not tolerate is the shenanigans of corrupted politicians out to misled and betray the rakyat’s trust in a nation whose’s diversity the people hope can be salvaged.

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 14 July 2013, 2:04 pm and is filed under
Crime
,
IT
,
Police
,
Zahid
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.


Time the Christian politicians protected their flock

The Malaysian Insider

July 14, 2013

NEWS ANALYSIS
 – Datuk Seri Idris Jala. Tan Sri Joseph Kurup. Datuk Seri Dr Maximus Ongkili. Datuk Joseph Salang Gandum. Datuk Joseph Belaun. Datuk Seri Douglas Unggah. Datuk Dr Ewon Ebin. Datuk Richard Riot. Datuk Mary Yap…

These names have several things in common: they are either ministers or deputy ministers in the Najib administration, represent constituencies in Sabah or Sarawak and are Christians.

Yes, they are Catholics, Protestants, Evangelical, and are members of Sidang Injil Borneo but do not expect any of them to lead the charge and defend the position of their faith in public.

Indeed, there is a better chance of there being four seasons in Malaysia than any Christian representative resigning from government on a matter of principle, say, because the administration going back on its word on the use of the word Allah by East Malaysians. Or even taking the fight to right-wing groups who in the past few years have threatened Christians.

They are ensconced in nice and comfortable positions of power and prefer others to do the heavy lifting.

So it is left to the various church leaders and even some non-Christian elected representatives to protect the constitutional right of freedom of worship and ensure fairness in public policies.

Think about it. When the controversy arose over the hurried Bill that allowed the conversion of children to Islam based on the consent of one parent, did you hear loud protests from Idris and gang? Or was it the Tourism Minister Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz who reminded his own colleagues that it was unconscionable to force through legislation which was unfair and once rejected by the Cabinet in 2009?

To be fair, even MCA’s president Datuk Seri Dr Chua Soi Lek went public with his displeasure over the proposed law, noting that the BN component party would not support its passage through Parliament.

The Bill has since been withdrawn, thanks to the principled positions taken by the likes of Nazri, Pakatan Rakyat and religious groups.

Now let’s move on to the more vexatious issue of the use of the word “Allah’’ by Christians. And this is where the silence of the Christian elected representatives is deafening, taking into the account this simple fact: 60 per cent of Malaysian Christians only speak Bahasa Malaysia and have done so since 1731.

The word Allah is used mainly by Christians in Sabah and Sarawak. In short, mainly constituents who voted for Messrs Kurup, Unggah and Riot into power use it.

East Malaysian Christians were allowed to use the word Allah for centuries until the then Home Minister Syed Hamid Albar prohibited its use, leading the Catholic Church to commence legal proceedings against the government.

In 2011, the High Court allowed the Catholic Church to use the word Allah. The government’s appeal against the decision will be before the courts soon.

But in the run-up to the Sarawak state elections in 2011, the Najib government made conciliatory moves, releasing the infamous 10-point resolution to issues faced by the Christian community.

Among other things, the 10-point solution allowed the importation of Malay-language Bibles or Al-Kitab. The 10-point solution was seen as a short-term solution as it did not address a couple of important issues: the prohibition of the use of the word Allah in Christian publications and the continued classification of the Malay-language bible as prejudicial to national security.

Mind you, Idris Jala was a key player in the 10-point solution initiative but he melted into the background when the then Home Minister Hishammuddin Hussein suggested that the government plan was only a work in progress.

Since then, it has been clear that Prime Minister Najib Razak and his colleagues have decided that the word Allah cannot be used by non-Muslims. He said so in an interview with Al-Jazeera a few days before GE13.

And what did the likes of the Christian politicians do when they watched the interview or read transcripts? Zilch. Nothing. Business as usual.

Once again, church leaders had to clear the smog over the issue and come into the line of fire.

The Christian Federation of Malaysia has said that in the Malay language, Allah means God and Tuhan means Lord. Both God and Lord are used in the Bible and have different connotations. Allah cannot be substituted by Tuhan and by doing so, Bahasa-Malaysia speaking Christians will not be able to affirm the deity of Jesus Christ and teach the doctrine of the Trinity, said the federation recently.

“If churches in Malaysia agree to stop using the word “Allah’’, it means that the right to edit the Scripture of a major world religion has been given over to a secular government,” it added.

The usual argument put forward by elected representatives of minority groups is that it is more effective to work quietly behind the scenes and not take a public position on controversial issues. A whole lot of good that approach did in fighting off the proposed conversion law.

It is quite clear that the quiet diplomacy of the Christian representatives in that instance failed miserably.  In fact, by keeping quiet and not bringing the pulse of their constituents to the knowledge of the PM, these leaders are doing the government a great disservice because it creates the impression that only a handful of noisy Christians feel strongly about the Al-kitab or Allah issue.

Similarly, what did the Christian Cabinet ministers and deputy ministers do when Perkasa and Jati attacked the Vatican envoy for stating in moderate tones his support for the use of the word Allah by Christians here?

Precious little.

At some point you have to decide what is more important: the chauffeur-driver car and bodyguard or standing up for your faith and beliefs.

Or perhaps, it is time their constituents in Sabah and Sarawak send them a major message. – July 14, 2013.

                This entry was posted on Sunday, 14 July 2013, 9:55 pm and is filed under
nation building
,
Religion
. You can follow any responses to this entry through
RSS 2.0
.