Friday 24 October 2014
Terror grips Ottawa: Gunman was flagged as ‘high risk’
Terror gripped the Canadian capital of Ottawa on Wednesday when a convert to Islam shot and killed a soldier guarding the National War Memorial before storming the packed Parliament building, where he was gunned down in a hail of police bullets.
The armed assault, which put Parliament and much of Ottawa on lockdown, came as Canada was already in a heightened state of alert over an attack just two days earlier, when another jihad convert intentionally ran down two Canadian Armed Forces soldiers with his car in Quebec, killing one of them.
Wednesday’s terror attack began when a black-clad man wearing a hoodie and a bandanna appeared at the memorial at 9:52 a.m. and opened fire on the soldier, who was carrying only an unloaded ceremonial rifle.
“All of a sudden, I just heard a shot, turned around and there was a guy with a rifle . . . and just pow, pow,” said a bystander, Raivo Nommick.
The soldier, Cpl. Nathan Cirillo, of Hamilton, Ontario, died despite first responders’ desperate attempts to save him.
The 24-year-old father was a member of the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders regiment.
The shooter was identified as Michael Zehaf-Bibeau, 32, a drug-addled recent convert to Islam who had been on Canadian authorities’ radar. Sources told the Toronto Globe and Mail that he was designated a “high-risk traveler” and his passport had been seized, suggesting that authorities were wary that he might travel to join foreign jihadis like ISIS.
In other developments:
- Authorities released a photograph showing Zehaf-Bibeau posing with a pointed rifle on a since-deleted ISIS media account. They were trying to determine whether the gunman acted alone or was part of a terror plot.
- The NYPD beefed up patrols at the Consulate General of Canada in Midtown as a precaution.
- Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper spoke to his nation Wednesday night declaring, “Let there be no misunderstanding. We will not be intimidated. Canada will never be intimidated. In fact, this will lead us to strengthen our resolve . . . [and we will] redouble our efforts to work with our allies around the world and fight against the terrorist organizations who brutalize those in other countries.”
- President Obama said, “I expressed on behalf of the American people our condolences to the [slain soldier’s] family and to the Canadian people as a whole.. Obviously, we are all shaken . . . but we’re going to do everything we can to make sure that we’re standing side by side with Canada during this difficult time.”
- British Prime Minister David Cameron tweeted, “I’m appalled by today’s attack in Ottawa.”
After shooting Cirillo, Zehaf-Bibeau ran up the street toward Parliament Hill.
Dramatic video taken by a Globe and Mail reporter showed police warily searching for the shooter in the historic chamber before a loud rifle shot boomed out and then as many as 50 shots rang out in quick succession as cops returned fire.
Politicians and their staffers scrambled down scaffolding that was in place for renovations, while others hid inside barricaded meeting rooms as cops with high-powered rifles and body armor took up positions on the surrounding streets.
A security guard at the building was wounded in the fusillade but was expected to recover.
Canadian authorities said the intruder was taken down by 58-year-old Parliamentary Sergeant-at-Arms Kevin Vickers, a former Royal Canadian Mounted Police officer.
Zehaf-Bibeau had an extensive criminal record for drugs, assault, and weapons. His most serious crime resulted in a two-year sentence for a robbery.
The killer’s mother, Susan Bibeau, is a member of Canada’s Immigration and Refugee Board, while his father, Bulgasem Zehaf, is a Quebec businessman who owns a cafe, the Globe and Mail said.
Neighbors said the shooter grew up living a privileged life in a quiet neighborhood where he attended a private high school.
He told a friend at a British Columbia mosque about three years ago that he was thinking of traveling to the Middle East said “the devil” was after him, the Globe and Mail reported.
The bloodshed came as Canada prepared to join the US-led bombing campaign against ISIS terrorists in Iraq.
The cutthroat jihadis have urged supporters to kill military personnel and civilians in Canada and other countries — even instructing them to use their cars as weapons, as was the case in the Quebec attack.
A witness to Wednesday’s attack said the gunman was dressed in a manner similar to the uniforms worn by ISIS fighters.
“I looked out the window and saw a shooter, a man dressed all in black with a kerchief over his nose and mouth, holding a rifle,” Tony Zobl told the Canadian Press. “The honor guard dropped to the ground, and the shooter kind of raised his arms in triumph holding the rifle.”
Cirillo didn’t stand a chance. Soldiers who guard the memorial are part of a ceremonial guard, and he his comrade were carrying unloaded rifles.
The bespectacled Vickers was hailed as a hero for stopping the attacker’s advance just feet away from the country’s top officials.
Vickers’s brother John told the CBC his sibling called their mom, Monica, in New Brunswick to tell her he was safe.
“I just couldn’t be prouder of him right now,” John said, adding that his brother, a 28-year veteran of the Mounties, has “always been committed to service, people and country” during his law-enforcement career.
'Follow the footsteps of our brave brother': ISIS takes to Twitter to call for MORE attacks on Canada as it's feared more than 130 young Muslims have already left the country to join the terror group
- Suspected terrorist attacks in Canada have sparked commentary from the online jihadist community on Twitter who are calling upon others to strike
- 'Muslims in Canada, follow the footsteps of our brave brother Martin Rouleau who took revenge for Canadian military aggression in our lands,' wrote suspected jihadist Abu Khalid Al-Kanadi
- The Canadian government estimates that over 130 Muslim youth have already left the country to join ISIS and that the number is growing
After two terrorist attacks in Canada in a week left two Canadian soldiers dead, ISIS has stepped up its rhetoric calling for even more radicals to carry out mass murder and mayhem in the country.
An even more horrifying fact is that an estimated 130 Muslim youths in Canada have been seduced and radicalized by ISIS and have even left Canada behind to join forces with them.
The first attack happened Monday night - a hit-and-run by suspected jihadist Martin Rouleau.
After two terrorist attacks in Canada in a week left two Canadian soldiers dead, ISIS has stepped up its rhetoric calling for even more radicals to carry out mass murder and mayhem in the country.
An even more horrifying fact is that an estimated 130 Muslim youths in Canada have been seduced and radicalized by ISIS and have even left Canada behind to join forces with them.
The first attack happened Monday night - a hit-and-run by suspected jihadist Martin Rouleau.
'Muslims in Canada, follow the footsteps of our brave brother Martin Rouleau who took revenge for Canadian military aggression in our lands,' he wrote.
One day later his account was suspended.
Insite Blog reports that a second jihadist Twitter account posted on October 21 and said that Canada is 'starting to pay the price of intervention' of the war against ISIS and followed up with a second tweet urging more attacks.
'A Canadian Revert killed a Canadian Soldier then he earned Shahada at the hands of the kuffar All This reward.. without evn leaving Canada.'
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2804359/Follow-footseps-barve-brother-ISIS-supporters-taken-Twitter-call-attacks-Canada-130-youths-left-Canada-join-terror-group.html
Doggy debate reveals Malaysia’s narrow Islamic code
As Malaysian Muslims debate the different views in Islam on handling dogs, the National Fatwa Council today said that teachings under the Shafie school of jurisprudence, which Malaysia follows, had to be obeyed.The council today decided that touching or holding a dog went against Shafie jurisprudence, which the Putrajaya has called the "official" Islamic code for Malaysia, Bernama reported.
Minister in the Prime Minister's Department Datuk Seri Jamil Khir Baharom said even though Islam held animals, including dogs, in high regard, dogs were still "unclean" from a religious standpoint and Muslims had to obey rules on handling them.
"That dogs are held in high regard is another matter, Muslims still have to abide by what has been decided under Islamic laws," he said in Kuala Nerus, Terengganu, today after a meeting of the fatwa council.
Bernama reported that the meeting was also attended by the director general of the Department of Islamic Development Malaysia (Jakim) Datuk Othman Mustaffa and chairman of the National Fatwa Council, Professor Emeritus Tan Sri Dr Abdul Shukor Husin.
A day after the "I want to touch a dog" event in Bandar Utama, Petaling Jaya, on October 19, Shukor had said that there was no need for the council to issue a new fatwa about dogs as "everyone knew" that they were unclean.
Shukor also said that while there were different opinions about dogs between the four main schools of Islamic jurisprudence, the matter should not be debated as Malaysia followed the Shafie school.
This school has the strictest interpretation on dogs, which cannot be touched whether they are wet or dry, and requires Muslims to perform the "samak" cleansing ritual if contact is made.
The Maliki school, on the other hand, does not view dogs as unclean and does not prohibit touching them.
"The council feels there is no need to issue a new fatwa because as we know, in this country, Muslims cannot touch dogs without reason whether the animal is dry, what more if it is wet. And if they happen to touch it, they will need to perform 'samak'.
"The law against touching dogs should not be hyped up as it has already been decided by the ulama that it is haram. So why should we want to debate it. That is why we do not need a fatwa because the matter is clear," Shukor was quoted saying in Utusan Malaysia.
There are four schools of jurisprudence among Sunni Muslims: Maliki, Hanbali, Hanafi and Shafie. All four schools are accepted among Sunni Muslims as being within the confines of Islam. However, Malaysian Muslims traditionally follow the Shafie school of jurisprudence.
The debate has raged on social media between Muslims, and cyber bullying including threats to kill and beat up the event organiser, Syed Azmi Alhabshi, have also been made.
These threats have been condemned by moderate Muslims as bringing shame to Islam, while some scholars analyse the ongoing furore as part of a shift in Malaysian Muslim society with more people becoming open to other schools of jurisprudence.
Former Perlis mufti Professor Datuk Dr Mohd Asri Zainul Abidin (pic, left) said the Malaysian Islamic authorities had to learn how to deal with a "modernising landscape"."We cannot manage it as if we were from the dark ages. We must handle these modern changes in a mature manner,” he told The Malaysian Insider.
Asri has also said that Muslims were free to switch between schools, according to the teachings of Syrian scholar Wahba Zuhayli who held that it was not compulsory to commit to just one school of jurisprudence.
International Islamic University Malaysia lecturer Dr Maszlee Malik also told The Malaysian Insider that Muslim youth are now exposed to the other schools of jurisprudence through books, the media and the Internet. – October 23, 2014.
http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/malaysia/article/doggy-debate-reveals-malaysias-narrow-islamic-code
Top cop looks to ordinary Malaysians to keep police in check
He said the public were tech savvy and made use of their smartphones to immediately expose any abuse of power or misconduct via social media.
"I think this is the best monitoring for us. With the smartphone, they take a picture and put it on YouTube. So the people generally can monitor anything that involves the police," the inspector-general of police said in Kuala Lumpur today.
Khalid was commenting on the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) Consultation and Prevention Panel’s suggestion that the police look into setting up the Ipic, in an effort to reform the force and improve public perception towards it.
"I am waiting for the proposal. We have not seen it yet. We will see what are the suggestions and proposals made by the committee in setting up the Ipic before making any comments.
"But as I have said before, PDRM is not only closely monitored by the new Integrity and Standard Compliance Department but also by the MACC and the Enforcement Agency Integrity Commission (EAIC).
"But more than that, we are also monitored by the people."
The Ipic is similar to the Independent Police Complaints and Misconduct Commission (IPCMC), which was proposed by the 2005 Dzaiddin Police Royal Commission of Inquiry (RCI).
The MACC panel said it believed that the Ipic, which would be independent, would be as effective as the IPCMC in preventing police misconduct and abuse of power, including bribery.
Despite calls by the opposition to set up the IPCMC following a string of death in custody cases, the police and Putrajaya have repeatedly rejected the proposal.
They said it was unconstitutional and would result in overlapping jurisdictions.
Khalid, however, said the police have never objected to the setting up of IPCMC, but only certain terms in the clause that did not leave police any rights.
"It is as if we are second-class citizens. That we have no rights under the law with IPCMC."
It was reported that under the IPCMC, there is no clause to permit convicted officers to appeal decisions in court.
Critics of the IPCMC, including former IGP Tan Sri Musa Hassan, have said that the IPCMC must include an avenue for this, arguing that police should be accorded fairness and justice. – October 23, 2014.
- See more at: http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/malaysia/article/top-cop-looks-to-ordinary-malaysians-to-keep-police-in-check#sthash.WvTftmir.dpuf
Melayu perantau, bukan pendatang, kata Isma
Masyarakat Melayu di negara ini adalah penduduk asal wilayah Nusantara dan bukannya pendatang dari wilayah luar seperti kaum lain, kata Naib Presiden I Isma Muhammad Fauzi Asmuni.
Fauzi berkata, ahli parti politik Gerakan yang membicarakan isu pendatang di Tanah Melayu, Tan Lai Soon sebenarnya tersilap berhubung perkara itu ketika mengatakan Melayu juga pendatang di negara ini seperti kaum Cina dan India.
"Jika beliau merujuk orang Melayu yang duduk di Malaysia sekarang ini datang dari Sumatera, Kepulauan Sulawesi, Kepulauan Borneo, maka dalam sejarah ia tidak dipanggil bangsa pendatang. Orang Melayu yang berhijrah dari kawasan tadi, kita gunakan istilah sebagai perantau," katanya di laman sesawang Isma hari ini.
"Sebabnya, bila kita sebut Tanah Melayu, ia bukan merujuk kepada Malaysia sahaja, Tanah Melayu adalah satu wilayah cukup luas yang bermula dari Champa, sekarang ini dikenali sebagai Vietnam, Thailand, Singapura sehingga ke Riau Lingga.
"Kemudian di sebelah barat, Sumatera keseluruhannya, turun lagi ke bawah Kepulauan Jawa, kemudian naik semula ke atas Kepulauan Sulawesi, Borneo dan Filipina."
Beliau berpendapat, kenyataan pemimpin Gerakan itu tidak wajar disebut kerana ia amat bercanggah dengan fakta dalam sejarah.
"Saya tidak pasti sama ada perwakilan Gerakan tersebut merujuk kepada mana-mana kajian untuk mengaitkan atau menyimpulkan kaum Melayu adalah pendatang," katanya.
Fauzi berkata, kawasan Nusantara itu disebut sebagai rantau Melayu kerana penduduknya bertutur menggunakan bahasa Melayu dan mereka mengamalkan adat istiadat dan budaya Melayu secara saksama.
"Kalau kita lihat orang di Borneo, di Filipina, Maguindanao, Luzon dan sebagainya. Begitu juga jika di Sumatera, Jawa, mereka menggunakan nama-nama Melayu, bertutur dalam bahasa Melayu. Jadi itu dipanggilnya rantau Melayu.
"Rantau Melayu ini adalah rantau orang berpindah dari satu lokasi ke satu lokasi. Ia tidak dipanggil pendatang. Ia dipanggil perantau. Istilah itu lebih tepat," katanya.
"Jadi bila kita kata orang selain Melayu adalah pendatang, mungkin mereka akan sensitif dengan perkataan ‘pendatang’."
Fauzi berkata, rumpun Melayu menjadikan wilayah di Nusantara ini sebagai kediaman lalu menduduki rantau ini.
"Orang Cina berasal dari Tanah Besar China, orang India berasal dari tanah besar India. Kalau ada di sini saki baki keturunan orang Portugis, Belanda, mereka berasal dari Eropah.
"Jadi mereka ada tanah asal dan mereka datang ke sini. Kalau sensitif gunakan perkataan pendatang, gunalah apa-apa istilah pun.
"Tetapi mesti menunjukkan mereka itu datang dari tanah asal mereka dan masuk ke sini (Tanah Melayu)," katanya.
Fauzi berkata, pakar arkeologis dan pengkaji DNA serta seumpamanya mengatakan orang Melayu sudah bertapak di sini sejak penghijrahan awal manusia lebih kurang 35,000 tahun sebelum Masihi lagi.
"Jadi apabila pemimpin Gerakan itu mengatakan Melayu juga adalah pendatang, kita kena tanya semula kepada beliau, apa maklumat yang dia ada sampai dia sebut begitu? Sebab saya tidak nampak dia merujuk kepada mana-mana fakta ilmiah," katanya.
Fauzi berkata, selepas kemerdekaan sebahagian individu mula lupa sejarah terutama sebahagian kaum Cina dan India.
"Mereka menuntut kita lupakan sejarah dan mulakan sejarah baru bermula dengan kemerdekaan.
"Jadi mereka kata, selepas merdeka, mereka sudah duduk di sini, jadi sepatutnya kita bina negara baru.
"Saya tidak setuju dengan cadangan itu kerana sepatutnya kita perlu lihat kembali sejarah kita," katanya.
Beliau berkata, apabila kaum luar menuntut perubahan konsep kesamarataan, kumpulan itu tidak memahami konsep negara asal.
"Contoh, jika kita beramai-ramai pergi ke China dan menuntut mengubah konsep negara tersebut, pasti mereka tidak akan bersetuju.
"Mana-mana negara pun tidak bersetuju. Jika kita pergi ke Amerika, Amerika bertapak dengan konsep sekarang sejak pertengahan kurun ke-18.
"Jadi adakah satu cadangan daripada sesuatu pihak dengan mudah boleh diterima Amerika untuk mengubah konsep negara mereka? Mereka tidak akan ubah," katanya.
"Jadi logiknya, orang Islam Melayu di sini untuk tidak bersetuju terhadap beberapa tuntutan yang dituntut."
Beliau turut menegaskan konsep negera ini adalah Tanah Melayu dan ia adalah tanah Islam.
"Semua orang perlu bersetuju dengan konsep ini dan ia dipersetujui datuk nenek moyang mereka ketika kemerdekaan dulu.
"Jadi itulah hakikat kedatangan bangsa Cina, India dan bangsa lain ke Tanah Melayu," tambahnya.
Katanya, apabila terdapat seruan mengubah kontrak sosial dan Perlembagaan, ia mencabar doktrin negara yang menyebabkan keadaan harmoni selama ini.
"Kita tidak pernah halang orang luar yang sudah menjadi warganegara atau belum menjadi warganegara mencari rezeki. Siapa jutawan paling kaya di Malaysia?" katanya.
"Berapa ramai Cina berbanding Melayu? Jadi apa lagi yang mereka mahu? Sekolah Cina ada, sekolah India pun ada.
"Semua itu mereka kecapi yang mungkin tidak kecapi jika mereka berada di negara asal," katanya lagi.
Beliau berkata, konsep syukur itu harus difahami termasuk juga konsep berterima kasih.
"Sebabnya dari segi sejarah, kita lihat contoh bangsa luar apabila masuk ke mana-mana negara, adakah akan diterima sebagai warganegara dengan mudah?
"Tidak akan diterima dengan mudah. Tetapi sejarah membuktikan orang Melayu dengan toleransi yang tinggi, pada 1957 memberikan kewarganegaraan kepada lebih sejuta orang dengan pemberian mudah. Jadi jangan lupa sejarah itu," katanya.
Beliau berkata, sebagai seorang manusia dan warganegara, komuniti bukan Melayu sudah cukup dengan apa yang dinikmati hari ini.
"Saya rasa sudah cukup dengan apa yang mereka kecapi, sudah amat memadai dan sepatutnya diucapkan dengan ucapan terima kasih.
"Tetapi akhirnya sebahagian mereka menghasut supaya mereka dapat lebih, sampai nak ubah konsep negara.
"Mereka cuba mahu runtuhkan Perlembagaan, jadi macam mana Melayu tidak respons? " katanya.
"Melayu akan respons dan membalas jika berasa haknya terancam." – 23 Oktober, 2014.
- See more at: http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/bahasa/article/melayu-perantau-bukan-pendatang-kata-isma#sthash.2SwnVU9G.dpuf
'Budget focus on bumis not due to racist gov't'
This is to address the bumiputera population which is set to increase to 70 percent in 2020.
The government feels that only if bumiputeras advance, can Malaysia develop, he explained.
"We do not have the intention of being racist. We do not want this issue to arise," he said.He was speaking at a briefing on GST to some 700 civil servants in Bangi, Selangor.
"However, Malaysia can only advance when 70 percent of its population advances."
"Others (non-bumiputera), they work hard and have managed to move forward, but the 70 percent still lags behind, with most still staying in villages," Ahmad said.
'Rich Chinese, non-bumis reproduce less'
He said that the bumiputera’s composition increased following a drop in
the reproduction rate among Chinese and non-bumiputera families when
they get rich.
The bumiputera meanwhile maintained three to six children in a family.
Najib has underlined the bumiputera agenda as one of the seven
strategies in his budget speech, and announced plans to help the
bumiputera.
Najib said the target of 30 percent bumiputera equity has yet to be
achieved, and that the effective control over corporations was only 10
percent.
In
his Ahmad also took the opportunity to lambast the ‘Rakyat Hakim
Negara’ (People the judge of the nation) campaign being held in
solidarity with the opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim's sodomy appeal in
federal court next week.
He said that it was Anwar as the former finance minister who first proposed the new tax system.
"When you talk about 'Rakyat Hakim Negara', that has only happened during national polls.
"But on a personal issue (like sodomy II trial), you have to take
responsibility in your own capacity, there is no need to involve the
rest of the people," said Ahmad, who is also the Umno information chief.
He cautioned the people against the campaign to flood the Federal Court next Tuesday for Anwar's final appeal.
"Read the judgement of three judges from Court of Appeal, read it. This
was the only judgement in the world that I read to find out (the reason
of five-year sentence,)" he said.
Malaysians urged to demand AG’s accountability
Kit Siang says the opaqueness of Gani and his office cannot be maintained in a democracy.
FMT
KUALA LUMPUR: DAP Parliamentary Leader Lim Kit Siang today issued a clarion call to Malaysians to demand that the Attorney-General’s Chambers submit to public scrutiny for its accountability.
In a media statement referring to AG Abdul Gani Patail’s announcement on Sept 9 that his office would review the sedition charges against academic Azmi Sharom and others, Lim noted that seven weeks had passed “but nothing has been forthcoming on the outcome of this review, or whether such a review has taken place.”
He said the opaqueness of the AG and his office “is not maintainable in a modern democratic country committed to accountability and good governance principles.”
He urged Malaysian citizens and their representatives in Parliament to demand that the AG’s Chambers “submit to public and parliamentary scrutiny for accountability”.
“MPs and the Malaysian public are entitled to know whether in the exercise of the prosecutorial discretion on the basis of public interest, are these purely legal considerations or they also involve political considerations, and if so, the nature of these political considerations,” he said.
The DAP leader also referred to former AG Abu Talib Othman’s criticism of Gani’s Sept 9 statement.
“Is he admitting that he was not fair and transparent when the accused were first charged, and that is why he is reviewing the cases now? Maybe he should clarify,” he quoted Abu Talib as saying.
Lim said Gani, more than failing to clarify, had allowed the sedition blitz to continue.
Contrasting the sedition charges against opposition leaders and activists with the apparent immunity of Perkasa chief Ibrahim Ali despite his call for the burning of Bibles, Lim said Gani was “fuelling the worst crisis of confidence in the nation’s history over the role and powers of the Attorney-General as a result of his silence over the escalating controversy”.
Serious questions
He said the AG’s failure to provide an “acceptable explanation that there has been no arbitrary abuse of the AG’s prosecutorial discretion … has raised serious questions as to whether he is committed to upholding the rule of law and to act as guardian of the public interest”.
Lim also quoted from a letter from former Court of Appeal judge K C Vohrah that the Star published today.
He said Vohrah expressed “the legitimate nagging concerns in many minds”.
Vohrah called for the review and withdrawal of sedition cases based on three considerations:
The Sedition Act is an oppressive law and that many jurists and scholars consider sedition (based on common law seditious libel) as obsolete. Seditious libel came during a period when the divine right of rulers was not only accepted but believed to be necessary;
That once a person is charged for an offence under the act, looking at the state of case law in Malaysia, there is no defence that can normally be taken for offences, say, under the Penal Code or other acts creating offences. So it appears there can be no defence even of truth, lack of intention, presence of an innocent or honourable intention, absence of consequent harm, or even a lack of possibility or potential for consequent harm.
That the AG before exercising his discretion whether to charge a person for sedition must ignore pressure from any quarter, political or otherwise, the noisy and the cantankerous, and the well-meaning and well-intentioned groups (who have not seen the oppressive implications of the law), and focus on whether it is reasonable to charge such a person in the context of all relevant circumstances in an age of “disagreement in ideas and belief on every conceivable subject” which are the essence of our life in modern Malaysia pushing on for developed status in 2020.
KUALA LUMPUR: DAP Parliamentary Leader Lim Kit Siang today issued a clarion call to Malaysians to demand that the Attorney-General’s Chambers submit to public scrutiny for its accountability.
In a media statement referring to AG Abdul Gani Patail’s announcement on Sept 9 that his office would review the sedition charges against academic Azmi Sharom and others, Lim noted that seven weeks had passed “but nothing has been forthcoming on the outcome of this review, or whether such a review has taken place.”
He said the opaqueness of the AG and his office “is not maintainable in a modern democratic country committed to accountability and good governance principles.”
He urged Malaysian citizens and their representatives in Parliament to demand that the AG’s Chambers “submit to public and parliamentary scrutiny for accountability”.
“MPs and the Malaysian public are entitled to know whether in the exercise of the prosecutorial discretion on the basis of public interest, are these purely legal considerations or they also involve political considerations, and if so, the nature of these political considerations,” he said.
The DAP leader also referred to former AG Abu Talib Othman’s criticism of Gani’s Sept 9 statement.
“Is he admitting that he was not fair and transparent when the accused were first charged, and that is why he is reviewing the cases now? Maybe he should clarify,” he quoted Abu Talib as saying.
Lim said Gani, more than failing to clarify, had allowed the sedition blitz to continue.
Contrasting the sedition charges against opposition leaders and activists with the apparent immunity of Perkasa chief Ibrahim Ali despite his call for the burning of Bibles, Lim said Gani was “fuelling the worst crisis of confidence in the nation’s history over the role and powers of the Attorney-General as a result of his silence over the escalating controversy”.
Serious questions
He said the AG’s failure to provide an “acceptable explanation that there has been no arbitrary abuse of the AG’s prosecutorial discretion … has raised serious questions as to whether he is committed to upholding the rule of law and to act as guardian of the public interest”.
Lim also quoted from a letter from former Court of Appeal judge K C Vohrah that the Star published today.
He said Vohrah expressed “the legitimate nagging concerns in many minds”.
Vohrah called for the review and withdrawal of sedition cases based on three considerations:
The Sedition Act is an oppressive law and that many jurists and scholars consider sedition (based on common law seditious libel) as obsolete. Seditious libel came during a period when the divine right of rulers was not only accepted but believed to be necessary;
That once a person is charged for an offence under the act, looking at the state of case law in Malaysia, there is no defence that can normally be taken for offences, say, under the Penal Code or other acts creating offences. So it appears there can be no defence even of truth, lack of intention, presence of an innocent or honourable intention, absence of consequent harm, or even a lack of possibility or potential for consequent harm.
That the AG before exercising his discretion whether to charge a person for sedition must ignore pressure from any quarter, political or otherwise, the noisy and the cantankerous, and the well-meaning and well-intentioned groups (who have not seen the oppressive implications of the law), and focus on whether it is reasonable to charge such a person in the context of all relevant circumstances in an age of “disagreement in ideas and belief on every conceivable subject” which are the essence of our life in modern Malaysia pushing on for developed status in 2020.
Ridhuan Tee, won’t you please shut up?
Integration does not mean an ethnic community has to give up its cultural identity.
FMT
Perhaps we can forgive his occasional pandering to Umno interests. Perhaps even a slip of the tongue here and there. But the constant attention grabs of columnist and alleged scholar Ridhuan Tee Abdullah have just become tiresome and downright irritating. Not content with throwing tantrums over civil society’s lack of concern when he was under investigation for sedition, Ridhuan is back to rant about vernacular schools and, of course, the “ultra kiasuness” of Malaysia’s Chinese community.
Please, please, just shut up already.
I say this out of an earnest yearning for Mr Tee to learn to hold his tongue and perhaps apply more diligence in his study of the Quran instead of spouting empty rhetoric under the guise of being ethnically Chinese. Every time he opens his mouth, or pens a column, all he does is drive a bigger wedge between Malaysians, as if we didn’t already have enough wedges to deal with.
It seems like he must have an opinion on everything, and his opinion will always lead back to, surprise, someone being “ultra kiasu” (usually Chinese). If there ever was a perfect illustration for the Malay proverb “kacang lupakan kulit”, it would have to be Ridhuan Tee Abdullah.
Let’s appreciate the irony of Tee’s use of “ultra kiasu” for a moment. He often uses this to refer to Chinese whom he perceives as more “cina than China”, whereas Tee often attempts to be more Malay than a Malay himself. Sweet, delicious irony in the form of an identity crisis if there ever was one. And yet he has the cheek to offer himself up as a “guide” for non-Malays to better understand the Malay people.
Here’s the catch: the only way anyone ever succeeds in understanding someone else is by facing him and engaging with him, which usually leads to a realisation that there are other ways of looking at and understanding this world. We don’t learn anything about each other through harangues and diatribes spouted by people like Ridhuan, who expects non-Malays to lend a ear to him while he consistently and constantly refers to them as “ultra kiasu tribes” or “ultra kiasu groups”.
Damage to the nation
Wong Chun Wai once said that Tee suffers from an identity crisis, and I’m tempted to concur. Ridhuan, you can’t change who you are and who you are born as. But why the need to spout divisive rhetoric, seemingly without realizing the damage you’re causing us as a nation? Your words will not bring us together as Malaysians. Look at your comment on Thaipusam, for example: “A sea of people of one colour only, as if there are no other colours in this country.”
Congratulations. You hurt the feelings of an entire people that day, as if they don’t figure at all in your daily life.
One could suppose this is Ridhuan indulging in a form of intellectual blackface, wearing a Malay mask as he writes and then stripping it off to assert that he is still of Chinese ethnicity when questioned. Despite claims that he never claimed to be Malay (genetically impossible considering his ethnic background), he certainly writes from a perspective that suggests he wishes that he could lay claim to the privilege.
Integration does not necessarily mean the loss of cultural identity. It does not mean that the dominant culture oppresses or represses that of the minority in the name of “unity” but assimilates it as part of the whole. That has been the guiding principle for most Malaysians throughout our history, and despite the hubbub and noise caused by extremists, for the most part we have integrated and accepted our different cultures as part of a greater whole, Malaysian culture.
I am proud to call myself a son of this country. I am a third generation Malaysian Chinese raised in the capital city of our country. I went to a kebangsaan school that hosted all the colours of Malaysia and do not speak a word of Chinese outside basic greetings and some food names. Most of my friends are Malay, across the strata from the liberal through the apolitical to the conservative. And I have found that they respect my cultural inclinations the same way they expect to be given respect in how they conduct their lives.
We have debated about religion with no animosity and shared a teh tarik together afterwards while laughing over football. I have been to their houses for Raya, and shared cakes my mother baked with them. Nothing, as far as this life here in Malaysia has shown me, has pointed to this idea that the Chinese need to give up their identity to be Malaysian. In fact, our identity is Malaysian because this is the only homeland we have ever known or will ever know, and the only culture we are familiar with.
Ridiculous suggestion
Your disingenuous assertion that we want to get rich so we can die in China is possibly the most ridiculous suggestion I have ever heard. I’m sure you know as well as I do that in China we are barely regarded as “true” Chinese anymore, and I believe China’s culture would be so alien to me that I would pack my bags and head back home to Kuala Lumpur not long after touching down in my so-called “motherland”.
I believe I speak for the majority when I say that Malaysia is my motherland and will be till the day I die, no matter where life may yet take me. This is my home, and has been my family’s home for three generations, and I will not accept the idea that I am “ultra kiasu” or somehow less Malaysian because I do not ape Malay culture. I am who I am, and that is Malaysian.
So Ridhuan, please, enough already. Stop driving a wedge between us the peoples of Malaysia for some obscure reason that only you and God know. As I said before, integration does not mean the loss of identity. With your position, you should be able to spread a message of wasatiyyah, a message of unity and not division. One could even argue that with one leg in your ethnic roots and the other in the majority religion of this country, you should be a bridge in the gaps, that it is your responsibility to be that bridge.
If you can’t, and instead insist on spreading your message of hate—and I’m sure you’ve heard this—“Much silence and a good disposition, there are no two things better than these.” (al-Bukhari)
Perhaps we can forgive his occasional pandering to Umno interests. Perhaps even a slip of the tongue here and there. But the constant attention grabs of columnist and alleged scholar Ridhuan Tee Abdullah have just become tiresome and downright irritating. Not content with throwing tantrums over civil society’s lack of concern when he was under investigation for sedition, Ridhuan is back to rant about vernacular schools and, of course, the “ultra kiasuness” of Malaysia’s Chinese community.
Please, please, just shut up already.
I say this out of an earnest yearning for Mr Tee to learn to hold his tongue and perhaps apply more diligence in his study of the Quran instead of spouting empty rhetoric under the guise of being ethnically Chinese. Every time he opens his mouth, or pens a column, all he does is drive a bigger wedge between Malaysians, as if we didn’t already have enough wedges to deal with.
It seems like he must have an opinion on everything, and his opinion will always lead back to, surprise, someone being “ultra kiasu” (usually Chinese). If there ever was a perfect illustration for the Malay proverb “kacang lupakan kulit”, it would have to be Ridhuan Tee Abdullah.
Let’s appreciate the irony of Tee’s use of “ultra kiasu” for a moment. He often uses this to refer to Chinese whom he perceives as more “cina than China”, whereas Tee often attempts to be more Malay than a Malay himself. Sweet, delicious irony in the form of an identity crisis if there ever was one. And yet he has the cheek to offer himself up as a “guide” for non-Malays to better understand the Malay people.
Here’s the catch: the only way anyone ever succeeds in understanding someone else is by facing him and engaging with him, which usually leads to a realisation that there are other ways of looking at and understanding this world. We don’t learn anything about each other through harangues and diatribes spouted by people like Ridhuan, who expects non-Malays to lend a ear to him while he consistently and constantly refers to them as “ultra kiasu tribes” or “ultra kiasu groups”.
Damage to the nation
Wong Chun Wai once said that Tee suffers from an identity crisis, and I’m tempted to concur. Ridhuan, you can’t change who you are and who you are born as. But why the need to spout divisive rhetoric, seemingly without realizing the damage you’re causing us as a nation? Your words will not bring us together as Malaysians. Look at your comment on Thaipusam, for example: “A sea of people of one colour only, as if there are no other colours in this country.”
Congratulations. You hurt the feelings of an entire people that day, as if they don’t figure at all in your daily life.
One could suppose this is Ridhuan indulging in a form of intellectual blackface, wearing a Malay mask as he writes and then stripping it off to assert that he is still of Chinese ethnicity when questioned. Despite claims that he never claimed to be Malay (genetically impossible considering his ethnic background), he certainly writes from a perspective that suggests he wishes that he could lay claim to the privilege.
Integration does not necessarily mean the loss of cultural identity. It does not mean that the dominant culture oppresses or represses that of the minority in the name of “unity” but assimilates it as part of the whole. That has been the guiding principle for most Malaysians throughout our history, and despite the hubbub and noise caused by extremists, for the most part we have integrated and accepted our different cultures as part of a greater whole, Malaysian culture.
I am proud to call myself a son of this country. I am a third generation Malaysian Chinese raised in the capital city of our country. I went to a kebangsaan school that hosted all the colours of Malaysia and do not speak a word of Chinese outside basic greetings and some food names. Most of my friends are Malay, across the strata from the liberal through the apolitical to the conservative. And I have found that they respect my cultural inclinations the same way they expect to be given respect in how they conduct their lives.
We have debated about religion with no animosity and shared a teh tarik together afterwards while laughing over football. I have been to their houses for Raya, and shared cakes my mother baked with them. Nothing, as far as this life here in Malaysia has shown me, has pointed to this idea that the Chinese need to give up their identity to be Malaysian. In fact, our identity is Malaysian because this is the only homeland we have ever known or will ever know, and the only culture we are familiar with.
Ridiculous suggestion
Your disingenuous assertion that we want to get rich so we can die in China is possibly the most ridiculous suggestion I have ever heard. I’m sure you know as well as I do that in China we are barely regarded as “true” Chinese anymore, and I believe China’s culture would be so alien to me that I would pack my bags and head back home to Kuala Lumpur not long after touching down in my so-called “motherland”.
I believe I speak for the majority when I say that Malaysia is my motherland and will be till the day I die, no matter where life may yet take me. This is my home, and has been my family’s home for three generations, and I will not accept the idea that I am “ultra kiasu” or somehow less Malaysian because I do not ape Malay culture. I am who I am, and that is Malaysian.
So Ridhuan, please, enough already. Stop driving a wedge between us the peoples of Malaysia for some obscure reason that only you and God know. As I said before, integration does not mean the loss of identity. With your position, you should be able to spread a message of wasatiyyah, a message of unity and not division. One could even argue that with one leg in your ethnic roots and the other in the majority religion of this country, you should be a bridge in the gaps, that it is your responsibility to be that bridge.
If you can’t, and instead insist on spreading your message of hate—and I’m sure you’ve heard this—“Much silence and a good disposition, there are no two things better than these.” (al-Bukhari)
Gani Patail fuelling worst crisis of confidence in nation’s history over the role and powers of Attorney-General
Lim Kit Siang Blog The Attorney-General Tan Sri Gani Patail is fuelling the worst crisis of confidence in the nation’s history over the role and powers of the Attorney-General (AG) as a result of his silence over the escalating controversy over non-prosecution of Perkasa President Ibrahim Ali for his threat to burn the Malay-language Bible on the one hand and the sedition blitzkrieg against scores of Malaysians who did not make incendiary statements to create a climate of fear on the other.
This is because the continued absence of satisfactory accountability and acceptable explanation that there have been no arbitrary abuse of the AG’s prosecutorial discretion as highlighted by the decision not to prosecute Ibrahim Ali despite the threat to burn the Malay-language Bible and the mass sedition blitzkrieg have raised serious questions whether the Attorney-General is committed to uphold the Rule of Law and to act as guardian of the public interest.
Gani’s predecessors as Attorney-General, Tan Sri Abu Talib from 1980 to 1993 and Tan Sri Mokhtar Abdullah (1994 – 2000) had their controversies when they served under the country’s most controversial Prime Minister, Tun Dr. Mahathir but Gani Patail had put both Talib and Mokhtar in the shade both in the volume and gravity of controversies since becoming AG in 2002.
Gani has gained another distinction of having been criticized by his predecessor, as last month Talib excoriated Gani Patail for undertaking to review the sedition cases against Pakatan Rakyat leaders, academicians and social activists like Prof Dr. Azmi Sharom after the charges were framed, as the barrage of sedition charges came across as “persecution” and not “prosecution”.
As the former AG said:
“To charge a person is a very serious matter at it affects the accused’s credibility, standing and dignity.
“It will put the accused in an emotional turmoil. Even, if the prosecution withdraws the charge later, the damage is done.”
The former A-G said during his tenure, he only consented to charges being framed if there was “90% evidence to secure conviction”.
He said charges were also framed based on applicable law, fairness and public interest consideration without influence by a third party.
Talib said Gani’s statement that he would review the charges only gave the impression the decision to charge the accused was made without careful and serious consideration of all the available facts.
“Is he (Gani) admitting that he was not fair and transparent when the accused were first charged, and that is why he is reviewing the cases now? Maybe he should clarify.”
Gani had not only failed to clarify, but had allowed the “white terror” regime of sedition investigations and prosecutions to continue unabated – even pressing for the continuation of sedition trials despite Azmi’s successful application on Oct. 13 to challenge the constitutionality of the Sedition Act in the High Court, an outcome which would affect all sedition cases.
It is now seven weeks since Gani responded on Sept 9 to massive public outrage at the sedition blitzkrieg, announcing that the AG’s Chambers would review the sedition charges against Azmi and others, but nothing has been forthcoming on the outcome of this review, or whether such a review had taken place.
Do the Prime Minister or the de facto law Minister Nancy Shukri know anything about this review of the sedition charges by the AG’s Chambers, or are they completely in the dark as they are unable to demand any accountability from the AG’s Chambers apart from reading their prepared answers in Parliament?
The present status quo of opaqueness from public and parliamentary accountability of the Attorney-General and his Chambers is not maintainable in a modern democratic country committed to accountability and good governance principles – and MPs and Malaysians must demand the AG’s Chambers submit to public and parliamentary scrutiny for accountability.
For instance, MPs and the Malaysian public are entitled to know whether in the exercise of the prosecutorial discretion on the basis of ‘public interest’, are these purely legal considerations or they also involve “political” considerations, and if so, the nature of these “political” considerations.
The letter today by the Court of Appeal Judge, K.C.Vohrah on “Doubt in the administration of justice” (Star October 23, 2014) express the legitimate nagging concerns in many minds.
Vohrah wrote:
“I had been with the A-G Chambers for 16 years in the 70s and early 80s and the protocol for dealing with parliamentary questions was strict. An answer had to go through many layers of scrutiny and approval before being sanctioned by the A-G for release. What has happened to the strict procedure in the A-G Chambers?
“Admittedly the A-G Chambers in my days was, and more so now is, never idle as the volume of problems that come to the chambers for legal opinion is enormous.
“But in matters relating to parliamentary questions, truthful and accurate statements of law are expected in the august body of Parliament as the A-G is the ultimate adviser of the government in legal matters.
“There needs to be a re-think probably of the protocol relating to answers to parliamentary questions especially in criminal law matters, and the decision on the law should be for the A-G Chambers and nobody else, except for the courts.”
Vohrah said the AG’s prosecutorial discretion under Article 145(3) of the Constitution to institute, conduct or discontinue any proceedings for an offence is “an awesome power which has to be exercised bona fide and with great professionalism and care.”
He continued: “And any perception that the A-G when exercising such powers, is biased, selective or acts under ministerial pressure or pressure from any group will bring disrepute to the office of the A-G and cause grave misgivings as to the fair administration of the legal system. And when mistrust arises in regard to the exercise of such powers it would be to the discredit of the Government.”
Vohrah called for the review and withdrawal of cases where persons have already been charged based on three considerations:
(1) The Sedition Act is an oppressive law and that many jurists and scholars consider sedition (based on common law seditious libel) as obsolete. Seditious libel came during a period when the divine right of rulers was not only accepted but believed to be necessary; rulers who dispensed laws were above questions and criticism of rulers was considered sinful as well as unlawful.
(2) That once a person is charged for an offence under the Act, looking at the state of case law in Malaysia, there is no defence that can normally be taken for offences, say, under the Penal Code or other acts creating offences. So it appears there can be no defence even of truth, lack of intention, presence of an innocent or honourable intention, absence of consequent harm, or even a lack of possibility or potential for consequent harm. Prove the utterance of words as “seditious” (defined circularly and widely) and there is no defence to the utterance. Very oppressive in the 21st century. And to think this is the law in Malaysia, a democratic country.
(3) That the A-G before exercising his discretion whether to charge a person for sedition must ignore pressure from any quarter, political or otherwise, the noisy and the cantankerous, and the well-meaning and well-intentioned groups (who have not seen the oppressive implications of the law), and focus on whether it is reasonable to charge such a person in the context of all relevant circumstances in an age of “disagreement in ideas and belief on every conceivable subject” which are the essence of our life in modern Malaysia pushing on for developed status in 2020.
Will Gani Patail heed the voice of reason and sanity of an eminent Malaysian jurist, speaking for the overwhelming majority of thinking and reasoned Malaysians?
Human rights lawyer dies at 84
The funeral service will be held at 10:00 am TODAY (23 Oct 2014) at 1 Jalan Jujur 1/2, Taman Bakti, 68000 Ampang, Selangor. The cortege will leave for the crematorium in Cheras at noon.
PETALING
JAYA: Former Parti Sosialis Rakyat Malaysia secretary-general S.
Thaivasigamany died at his home in Ampang on Tuesday morning. He was 84.
He
was better known as “Gamany” to the many detainees and unionists whom
he defended after graduating from the Middle Temple in London in 1963
and admitted to the Malaysian Bar in 1964.
“His
demise is a loss to the human rights movement in the country,” said
Umno veteran Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah, who had known him since their
student days in Britain.
“Even
though Gamany was a socialist, he always took the middle road and was
very fair and reasonable in his views and actions. He will be sorely
missed by his peers and followers alike.”
Lawyer and former Member of Parliament Datuk Dominic Puthucheary remembers Gamany as a pioneer of human rights cases.
“It
was long before civil rights became fashionable. Every October, he
wrote to the Bar Council to remind them of all these people languishing
in jail.”
Gamany
was about the only lawyer in the 1960s and 1970s defending such cases,
said Sivarasa Rasiah, partner of the law firm, Daim & Gamany, which
Gamany set up with Tun Daim Zainuddin in 1968.
Hai-O
Enterprise Berhad group managing director Tan Kai Hee said Gamany was
“a hero who defended those who were in jail and took care of the
families of the detainees”.
Tan
was deputy secretary-general of the Labour Party when he was detained
under the ISA from 1965 to 1973, and is grateful till today for Gamany’s
visits.
Gamany leaves behind his wife Gan Hwee Hong and sons Kapila, Virata and Ushana.
Kapila remembers his father as “always looking out for other people and putting their needs above his own”.
The
funeral will be held at 10am today at 1 Jalan Jujur 1/2, Taman Bakti,
Ampang, Selangor. The cortege will leave for the crematorium in Cheras
at noon.
1DANA Portal To Enhance Research, Development, Commercialisation Returns
PUTRAJAYA,
Oct 23 (Bernama) -- Another government initiative - 1DANA portal - is
launched by Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak Thursday to make
it easier for the people and companies to know of the assistance being
provided for research, development and commercialisation.The one-stop portal also enables the people to see all the grants and sponsorships for research and development (R&D) as well as commercialisation that are offered by government ministries and agencies.
Speaking at the launch, Najib said the portal could provide an overall picture on any ministry or agency that needed to be referred to for loans.
"Hope this portal receives good response and whatever feedback from the people will be taken into account for improvement," he said.
The 1DANA portal also has a dash board that monitors and detects the fund performance that is released for the national main key performance indicators (KPI) and selected KPI projects.
Najib said within a two-year period, the government had allocated RM2.3 billion for R&D.
"During the Malaysian Innovation Agency Governance Council, we have also discussed on detailing all the provisions so as to become a success factor, namely from the R&D process to commercialisation," he said.
He said the combination of demand and supply also needed to be given attnetion so that the success factor could be enhance to a higher level.
For further enquries, members of the public can surf www.1DANA.gov.my
-- BERNAMA
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)