MALAYSIA Call for release of Hindu minority lawer arrested a year ago under security law

Reporters Without Borders calls for the release of Malaysian human rights lawyer P. Uthayakumar, who has been held since 13 December 2007 at Kamunting prison (northeast of Kuala Lumpur) under the Internal Security Act (ISA) for posting a letter he wrote to British Prime Minister Gordon Brown on his website (http:// www.policewatchmalaysia.com).

"Uthayakumar's detention yet again shows to what degree the ISA is used to violate the principle of free expression," Reporters Without Borders said. "By allowing someone to be arrested and held without charge, this law enables the government to silence its opponents. We urge the authorities to release Uthayakumar, who just used his right to free speech."

Uthayakumar was arrested under article 8 of the ISA, which says: "If the [interior] minister is satisfied that the detention of any person is necessary with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of Malaysia or any part thereof or to the maintenance of essential services therein or the economic life thereof, he may make an order directing that person be detained for any period not exceeding two years." The detention order can be renewed indefinitely.

Reporters Without Borders secretary-general Jean-François Julliard wrote to the British prime minister on 3 November asking him "to intercede as quickly as possible and to press for Mr. Uthayakumar's release." The 10 Downing Street staff told Reporters Without Borders that the prime minister had "taken note of his request."

In his letter to Brown, dated 15 November 2007, Uthayakumar asked him to support a UN security council resolution condemning the Malaysian government's "atrocities" and "persecution" of the country's Hindu minority and referring the case to the International Criminal Court.

Urging Brown to act on behalf of Malaysia's Hindus, Uthayakumar wrote that: "Since independence in 1957, the Malaysian Indians have been permanently colonialised by the Islamic fundamentalists and Malay chauvinists of the (...) government." He also wrote that: "Every week one [Hindu-minority] person on average is killed in a shoot-to-kill policy and every two weeks one person is killed in police custody."

Aged 47, Uthayakumar has been campaigning for more than 10 years on behalf of Malaysia's Hindu minority and trying to alert public opinion about the deaths of Hindus in detention.

MORE INFO : http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=29661

----------------------

MALAISIE

Un an de prison pour rien : Reporters sans frontières demande la libération de l'avocat Uthayakumar

Reporters sans frontières demande la libération de l'avocat malaisien Uthayakumar, détenu depuis le 13 décembre 2007 à la prison de Kamunting (nord-est de Kuala Lumpur) au nom de la loi sur la sécurité intérieure. Les autorités lui reprochent d'avoir publié sur son site Internet (http:// www.policewatchmalaysia.com), une lettre, datée du 15 novembre 2007, qu'il a fait parvenir au Premier ministre britannique, Gordon Brown.

"Cette détention montre une nouvelle fois à quel point la loi sur la sécurité intérieure porte atteinte au principe de liberté d'expression. En permettant d'arrêter et de garder un individu en détention sans chef d'accusation, cette loi sert à faire taire les opposants au gouvernement. Nous demandons aux autorités de libérer Uthayakumar, qui n'a fait qu'user de son droit à prendre publiquement la parole",a déclaré l'organisation.

Le 13 décembre 2007, Uthayakumar a été arrêté en vertu de l'article 8 de la loi sur la sécurité intérieure (Internal Security Act, ISA) après avoir rendu publique sur Internet une lettre à Gordon Brown. Cet article autorise le ministre [de l'Intérieur], s'il "pense que la détention d'une personne est nécessaire afin de l'empêcher de nuire à la sécurité intérieure de la Malaisie, à l'ordre public ou à son bon fonctionnement économique", à ordonner sa détention "pendant deux ans". Cet ordre est renouvelable indéfiniment.

Le 3 novembre, le secrétaire général de Reporters sans frontières, Jean-François Julliard, a fait parvenir un courrier au 10 Downing street, afin qu'il agisse en faveur de la libération de Me Uthayakumar. Le cabinet du Premier ministre britannique a confirmé à l'organisation qu'il "prenait acte de sa requête". Dans sa lettre, Jean-François Julliard demande à Gordon Brown d'"agir le plus vite possible en faveur de la libération de Me Uthayakumar".

Dans son courrier daté du 15 novembre 2007, Me Uthayakumar priait Gordon Brown de soutenir l'adoption d'une résolution du Conseil de sécurité de l'ONU, condamnant les "atrocités et les "persécutions" perpétrées par le gouvernement malaisien à l'encontre de la minorité hindoue et de renvoyer l'affaire devant la Cour pénale internationale. Il lui demandait, par ailleurs, d'agir pour améliorer le sort des Hindous de Malaisie, victimes de la "colonisation permanente du fondamentalisme islamique et du chauvinisme malaisien, organisé par le gouvernement depuis l'indépendance du pays en 1957". Il relevait également que "chaque semaine, une personne [membre de cette communauté] en moyenne est tuée par les forces de l'ordre et, toutes les deux semaines, l'une d'entre elles meurt en détention".

Me Uthayakumar, 47 ans, milite depuis plus de dix ans en faveur des droits des minorités indiennes et tente d'alerter l'opinion sur les décès des prisonniers indiens en détention.

PLUS D'INFOS : http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=29662

Clothilde Le Coz

------------

Internet Freedom desk

Reporters without borders

0033 1 44 83 84 71

0033 1 45 23 11 51

internet@rsf.org

RSS feed : http://www.rsf.org/backend_internet.php3

Skype : rsfnet

Twitter : rsfnet

HOUSE OF LORDS BRIEFING ON THE PLIGHT OF MALAYSIAN ETHNIC INDIAN COMMUNIT

HOUSE OF LORDS BRIEFING ON THE PLIGHT OF MALAYSIAN ETHNIC INDIAN COMMUNITY - 8TH DECEMBER 2008 A NEW BEGINNING ON THE CAMPAIGN TO HIGHLIGHT THE ATROCITIES OF UMNO GOVERNMENT AT INTERNATIONAL LEVEL.

British Conservative party's Shadow Minister for Education and a member of the House of Lords Baroness Verma of Leicester today (Dec 8, 2008) hosted a briefing on the plight of minority Indian rights of Malaysia.

The briefing was held at the House of Lords on behalf of the Friends of Minority Communities in Malaysia.

The purpose of the briefing was for members of the House of Lords and House of Commons to obtain a true picture on the plights of the ethnic minority Indian community in Malaysia.

Baroness Verma had extended invitation to key personalities from Malaysian as well as from the USA.

The speakers were the Director of Public Policy of the Hindu American Foundation Ishani Chowdhury, the Director of Centre for Public Policy Studies (Malaysia) Tricia Yeoh, Human Rights Advocate (Malaysia) P Waythamoorthy and the editor of Malaysiakini.com K Kabilan.

"This is an important event that emphasizes the need to sustain focus on a nation that continues to discriminate against the minority Hindu population by judicial onslaughts, educational impediments and temple destruction," Ms Chowdhury told the briefing.

"The Malaysian government needs to work with its peaceful and productive minority community and address these legitimate grievances. Only then can it ensure true upliftment of its people and progress as a multi-ethnic nation," she added.

Ms Yeoh said that Indians in Malaysia were excluded from the mainstream, were mismanaged, and was a misunderstood community.

She said that there were an estimated 40,000 unregistered Indian children nationwide and as a result they were excluded from examinations, university, scholarships, access to healthcare, business and employment.

"The Indian participation in the civil sector has also dwindled in recent years. Their representation in civil service stood at 7.2% in 2006 and now it is on 2.8%," she said.

Ms Yeoh also touched on the various Malaysian government measures and efforts to solve the Indian problems.

Kabilan spoke about the plight of the plantation workers in Malaysia, stating that their condition had largely remained unchanged since independence in 1957.

"Issues such as wages, housing rights, education and healthcare are still there," he said.

"In 1941 and then in 1946, there were reports published which stated that these plantation workers wanted a better wage structure, an improvement of living quarters, a proper healthcare and a proper education.

"Malaysiakini did a story on bonded laborers’ two years ago and we found out that these workers were still in want of the same things which were originally sought in 1941," he added.

He also said that the measures implemented by the government had been insufficient in addressing the problems faced by these plantation workers.

Waythamoorthy, who is also the chairperson of the Hindraf, spoke on the marginalisation of the Indian community for the past 50 years.

"And for speaking up these issues, five Hindraf leaders have been detained under the draconian Internal Security Act which provided for detention without trial," he said.

He urged the Baroness to look into the sorry situation of the Indian community in Malaysia and to influence British politicians to raise their concerns to the Malaysian government.

"We will continue in highlighting the grievances of this community in the international arena as the local government is not keen to meet us and address the issues," he said in the briefing.

Representatives of Civil societies within the UK also attended the briefing which included Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, European Centre for Human Rights Studies, The Law Society of England and Wales. Community leaders of the local Hindu/Indian community pledged their support and agreed to take up the matter further with the European Parliament members.

It's not over yet for Razak Baginda

By Debra Chong

KUALA LUMPUR, Dec 12 – Lawyer and politician Karpal Singh is determined to drag Abdul Razak Baginda back into the dock.

Karpal told The Malaysian Insider today that he plans to apply for a judicial review of Abdul Razak's recent murder acquittal at the Shah Alam High Court near here next week.

He is acting under orders from the victim's father who was not happy at all with the court's decision to free Abdul Razak.

Abdul Razak was recently acquitted of abetting in the murder of his Mongolian mistress Altantuya Shaariibuu.

The attempt to review the acquittal will bring what is surely unwanted attention to the case for Deputy Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak.

Abdul Razak was a close confidante of the DPM, and despite constant denials and the lack of any concrete evidence otherwise, Najib has been accused of being linked to the murder.

This has cast a cloud over his impending rise by next March to become Umno president and prime minister.

Meanwhile, the victim's father Dr Shaariibuu Setev is also planning on suing the Malaysian government, Abdul Razak and the two policemen who are still on trial for the murder for RM100 million in damages over his daughter's death.

The Attorney General, on behalf of the federal government, has already asked Dr Shaariibuu to pay RM1 million “security for costs” while Abdul Razak is demanding half a million ringgit for the same reason.

Karpal explained that it was a standard safety action to take against those suing the government, especially if they are foreigners.

“It's their strategy, in case the applicant loses the suit and runs away,” he added.

However, the hearing for the civil suit is on hold until after the Shah Alam High Court delivers its verdict on the two accused in the murder.-Themalaysianinsider.

Lingam tape: No review of Commission findings (updated)

The Star

By M. Mageswari

KUALA LUMPUR: Two former Chief Justices, a prominent lawyer and two others failed to get a court order to challenge the findings of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the V.K. Lingam video clip that implicated them.

High Court judge Justice Abdul Kadir Musa refused leave applications by the five for a judicial review of the findings.

The five are former Chief Justices Tun Eusoff Chin and Tun Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim, lawyer Datuk V.K. Lingam, tycoon Tan Sri Vincent Tan and Barisan Nasional and Umno secretary-general Datuk Seri Tengku Adnan Tengku Mansor.

Justice Abdul Kadir said he could not agree with the proposition that the findings of the Royal Commission were reviewable based on the common law of other countries being applicable in Malaysia.

“Our court should not import common law from other countries where the provisions of our laws are different, as decided in case laws,” he said.

In dismissing all the applications with costs, Justice Abdul Kadir said he was crystal clear that there was no decision ever made by the Royal Commission.

“They only conveyed their said findings in the report by submitting it (the report) to the Yang Di-Pertuan Agong,” he said.

He said the findings should not be construed as decisions within the ambit of Order 53 Rule 2(4) of the Rules of the High Court 1980.

He said the Commissioners made their findings based on their inquiry into the facts made available to them.

“Such findings was never ever made known to any of the five applicants between the period of Jan 14 and May 19.

“Whatever happened after that period, especially as from the May 9 (the date the report was submitted to the King) is entirely beyond the control of those Commissioners,” he said.

He said it cannot be disputed that it was not the decision of the Royal Commission to make the report public.

The judge then allowed the preliminary objection by Senior Federal Counsel (SFC) Azizah Nawawi over the leave application by the five who wanted to quash the relevant parts of the report which implicated them.

“I have no doubt that public interest is involved, I rule that Attorney-General got necessary locus to oppose the application,” he said.

On July 16, SFC Azizah had argued that the Royal Commission did not make any binding or conclusive decisions and that its findings could not be reviewed.

Justice Abdul Kadir further said that “even though it cannot be denied that all the five applicants are adversely affected in a natural sense by those findings of the Royal Commission, they are nevertheless not so adversely affected within the context of Order 53.”

The Royal Commission had commenced its inquiry by way of a public hearing on Jan 14. It concluded on Feb 15 after hearing testimony from 21 witnesses and receiving more than 100 exhibits and over 15 statutory declarations.

The Royal Commission in May had found, among other things that the video clip was authentic. It found that Lingam was the person in the clip and was in a telephone conversation with Ahmad Fairuz.

It had recommended in its report for six persons to be investigated under the Sedition Act, Legal Profession Act, Official Secrets Act and Penal Code.

In asking for the review in August, Lingam said he had at least 12 reasons to persuade the High Court to consider reviewing the findings of the Royal Commission of Inquiry.

“The commission had acted in excess of jurisdiction by going beyond its terms of reference. It took into account irrelevant matters and completely lost its focus,” Lingam had said.

He had argued that the disparaging remarks made against him by commissioner Datuk Mahadev Shankar was clearly infected and tainted with bias when he (Mahadev) continued to “sit in participation and adjudication at the inquiry and made perverse findings” against him.

He said there were also apparent bias on the part of commissioners Prof Tan Sri Dr Khoo Kay Kim and Tan Sri Steve Shim Lip Kiong.

“There were breach of rules of natural justice when the commission did not allow Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim, lawyer R. Sivarasa and Anwar’s personal assistant Sim Tze Tzin who were already summoned as witnesses to give evidence at the inquiry.

“The evidence of the three under cross-examination of my counsel would establish that the video clip was edited,’’ Lingam had said.

The Tale of PPP’s Supra Maniam s/o Kolanda Velu And His Ultimatums.

Supra Maniam s/o Kolanda Velu, later known as K.V.S Maniam and now Datuk M. Kayveas has issued an ultimatum to Barisan Nasional, threatening to withdraw from the coalition if Barisan Nasional fails to amend the Internal Security Act. Many have applauded this move. The rest associate him with a faulty radio, which often fails to strike the right frequency and has a volume that can reach the highest level at one point, and turn mute the very next. Truth to be spoken, I too, fail to understand this Supra Maniam.

Political analysts have formed a near consensus, claiming Kayveas’ controversial antics are driven by the motive of keeping the People’s Progressive Party within sight in the political radar. They believe that without these occasional outbursts, or rather mere sparks, Kayveas and his party may face the prospect of being wiped out from Barisan Nasional. Well, maybe not literally, but their voices may soon be insignificant.

In 2007, in the eve of the People’s Progressive Party’s 54^th anniversary, Kayveas was quoted as saying that his party would leave the Barisan Nasional coalition if they are not allowed to contest the number of seats they held prior to joining Barisan Nasional in 1972. This did not go down well with members of other Barisan Nasional component parties, and he was gunned down by the likes of Muhyiddin Yassin, Ali Rustam and Chua Soi Lek, amongst others. What transpired next was his change of tune, much to the dismay of even most People’s Progressive Party’s members. He claimed that it was only a request, and not a threat.

"All I did was make a request that the party be allowed to contest for seats it used to hold. It was a friendly request, short of begging. Never at any time did I issue an ultimatum to the Barisan Nasional.”- Datuk M. Kayveas as reported in the New Straits Times on 30 July 2007.

“I just said we would have to think about our future in the BN if we are not going anywhere. I don't think that is an ultimatum. Come on, we are in no position to give ultimatums to anyone."- Datuk M. Kayveas as reported in the Sun on 30 July 2007.

However, on the 30^th of November 2008, Kayveas issued an ultimatum to Barisan Nasional.

PPP president M Kayveas today warned that his party will pull out of the Barisan Nasional coalition if the Internal Security Act (ISA) is not amended before the next elections.- Malaysiakini, 30 November 2008.

Kayveas’ statements appear to be constantly volatile. The merit of the case does not favor him either. He seems to be losing ground on both ends. His claim last year that the People’s Progressive Party should be allowed to contest seven parliamentary seats and twelve state seats in the 2008 General Elections simply because these were the numbers held by them before joining Barisan Nasional is far from justifiable. He conveniently ignored the situational and time-frame elements when making that claim.

At that point of time, People’s Progressive Party was a much respected party under the leadership of prominent figures such as the Seenivasagam brothers. Ipoh Municipality Council, under the People’s Progressive Party in the 1960s, was an exemplary model of local administration which was even highly regarded by Barisan Nasional leaders back then. Kayveas has certainly failed to live up to the legacy of the party’s past leaders. Yes, he may argue that it is a struggle to work under an oppressive system, and that had contributed to the downfall of People’s Progressive Party. But if that was the case, why didn’t he stand firm and make a stand when bullied by other Barisan Nasional component party leaders? In fact, what he did was change tunes to re-establish his ties with them. His flip-flops have been the cause of the public’s confidence in him to decline.

Back to his recent ultimatum to Barisan Nasional, in which he threatened to leave the coalition if the Internal Security Act is not amended by the next General Election. If the party feels that the Internal Security Act is an unjust law, they should push for an immediate amendment or repeal. The next General Election would only be in 2012/2013. Here we have a political leader, who is supposed to represent the people, suggesting that Barisan Nasional has about 4 years to consider the Act, despite acknowledging that those who had been unfairly detained would have to continue serving detention for at least as long as that, unless of course, Syed Hamid chooses to releases them.

It surprises me when people consider Kayveas a bold leader. He may be controversial, if compared with most other Barisan Nasional leaders but he has yet to prove that he is bold. If anything, he is more of a coward who often plays the safe game. For example, threatening to quit Barisan Nasional if the Internal Security Act is not amended, and at the same time, give them an unreasonable time span to consider their decision.

Abdullah Badawi has now made it clear that the Internal Security Act would not be amended, burying any ‘hopes’ left of Kayveas. Abdullah Badawi also said that the People’s Progressive Party was free to leave the coalition. This was decided at the Barisan Nasional Supreme Council Meeting on the 9^th of December 2008. In an immediate reaction, T. Murugiah expressed shock over the statement made by the premier, but went on to say that “But I don't think Pak Lah meant what he said that we can leave because he's a nice man... but sometimes, what to do?”- Malaysiakini, 9th of December 2008.

How do we comprehend this? The Prime Minister has made his stand clear, but the People’s Progressive Party Youth Chairman tries to reinterpret it. Today, the Deputy President of People’s Progressive Party chaired an emergency meeting to discuss their future in their coalition following Abdullah Badawi’s statement. Many who are aligned with them were hoping for the party to leave the coalition and consolidate their position as a formidable party. The outcome of the meeting was that the party would stand by Kayveas. To be fair to them, they may not have opted for a critical decision due to Kayveas’ absence in the meeting.

Let’s watch and see what transpires when Kayveas is back from the States in a couple of weeks. Supra Maniam s/o Kolanda Velu, the party has backed you, and you now have the chance of taking the People’s Progressive Party back to the heights of its glorious heyday. The ball, I’m afraid, is now in your court.

by Argus Eye.

Turmoil in Malaysian party after Badawi sticks to security law

(Malaysian Sun) - Malaysian Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi's reiteration he has no plans to abolish the stringent Internal Security Act (ISA) has led to turmoil in the party, led by an ethnic Indian, that supports the ruling coalition Barisan Nasional (BN).

Peoples Progressive Party (PPP) president M. Kayveas has been challenged by a senior colleague after his threat to withdraw from the BN came a cropper. Kayveas had made PPP's being in the BN conditional to the government abolishing the ISA before the elections in March this year.

But that is not happening and now former PPP president and senior leader S.I. Rajah has asked Kayveas to quit, The Star said Thursday.

Rajah alleged Wednesday that Kayveas had not consulted the party before raising the ISA issue.

The law is a sensitive issue within the BN and with the Badawi government that has rejected demands for its abolition.

On Tuesday, Badawi said the government had no intention of abolishing the ISA and that PPP was free to leave the coalition if it wanted to.

PPP office bearers are rallying behind Kayveas.

Vice president Maglin D.Cruz said Rajah had no right to make the statement as he was not even a PPP member any more.

'Who is he to tell the party president to step down? He (Rajah) is a nobody. I haven't seen him in the party for over 12 years now. And he is certainly not the party adviser,' he said.

Vice president of the dominant BN constituent United Malay National Organisation (Umno) Mohammed Ali Rustam has said Kayveas' threat was 'a cheap publicity stunt.'

He said the ISA was still crucial to maintain peace and security, and added that the PPP's departure would have no impact on the coalition.

In Malaysia - the PM is King, lives in a palace!

Filed under: CORRUPTION, MALAYSIAN MADNESS |

Hey Malaysians, this is where all your heart/hard earned tax money go to!!! What do they mean by “the government pays” ? Where do they get the money from???

(from Malaysiakini)

In a written parliamentary reply to DAP MP Liew Chin Tong, Abdullah had revealed that the government forks out RM6 million a year for rental and maintenance works for his official residence, Seri Perdana.

According to the reply, RM4,149,000 is paid as rental to Putrajaya Holdings - the master developer of the federal administrative capital - while the remaining RM1,896,616 is for maintenance works.

The government also pays RM3.4 million (RM2,273,888 for rental and RM1,129,992 for maintenance) for Seri Setia, the deputy premier’s official residence.

In total, this works out to about RM26,000 per day for both residences.

Total wastage! Total corruption! and total disrespect for the rakyat’s hard earned money!

Fond memories of elections in Terengganu

In another incident, a voter could not decide whom to vote for, as both were his friends, so he voted for both candidates. When asked whom he voted for, he sheepishly admitted that it was a tough choice so he chose to vote for both to be fair to both candidates.

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

With the Kuala Terengganu by-election looming over the horizon, it is starting to bring back memories of the many elections I was involved in during my 20-year stay in that town from 1974 to 1994. Some of the election incidences were most hilarious indeed and I thought I would share them with you.

One case involved a voter who wanted to retrieve his ballot paper from the ballot box because he had made a mistake and voted for the wrong candidate. There was a heated argument between the voter and the polling station personnel who were adamant that, once you place your ballot paper in the ballot box, you can’t take it out again. Anyway, how would they know which is his ballot paper since they are all mixed in the ballot box and there is no way of knowing which ballot paper belongs to whom.

You see, some voters do not recognise the text (candidate’s name) on the ballot papers and instead rely on the party symbols or logos. Some don’t even recognise the symbols or logos and need to be told where to place the X -- in the top box or the bottom box of the ballot paper.

In this particular election in the 1980s, the incumbents’ names were in the top box and the challengers were in the bottom box. So the campaigners told the voters to vote in the top box. In this particular constituency the incumbent was PAS and invariably the campaigner and voter were both PAS.

So the voter marked his X in the top box for both the parliament and state ballot papers. But what the campaigner forgot to mention is that the incumbent for the parliament seat was PAS while the incumbent for the state seat was Umno. So the PAS candidate was in the top box for the parliament ballot paper while the Umno candidate was in the top box for the state ballot papers.

As advised, the voter marked an X in the top box for both ballot papers, which means he voted PAS for parliament and Umno for state. When the voter came out from the polling station, the campaigner asked who he had voted for and he replied, “Of course for PAS.”

“You marked an X in the top box of the parliament ballot paper and the bottom box for the state ballot paper?”

“No, I marked an X in the top box of both ballot papers.”

“Aiyah, wrong! You should have marked an X in the top box for the parliament ballot paper and in the bottom box for the state ballot paper. You have just voted for Umno for state.”

And that was when the voter charged back into the polling station to demand the return of his ballot paper. I was called in to pacify the voter and I advised him that once the ballot paper is in the ballot box it stays there. He went off grumbling that they should not confuse him that way by putting the PAS candidate at the top on one ballot paper and at the bottom on another.

In another incident, a voter could not decide whom to vote for, as both were his friends, so he voted for both candidates. When asked whom he voted for, he sheepishly admitted that it was a tough choice so he chose to vote for both to be fair to both candidates.

“Aiyah, undi rosak!” shouted the campaigner. The voter then went back to the polling station to demand that he be allowed to vote again because he had made a mistake and had spoilt his vote. I was, again, called in to talk to the voter and to inform him that one can only vote once and even if you have made a mistake you can’t vote again.

He stormed off mumbling under his breath that there must be something wrong with Malaysia’s election system when a voter can’t vote again if he has made a mistake. This was one angry voter who wanted to see some electoral reforms that would include voting twice if you spoilt your vote by mistake.

Of course, there were many incidences of spoilt votes in the East Coast but not all were because of marking an X in the box for both candidates. Elections is when you ‘lepas geram’ or vent anger. But other than voting opposition to demonstrate your anger with the government, East Coast people also leave messages on the ballot paper.

Many ballot papers had graffiti or hate messages scribbled on them and these were all counted as spoilt votes. Imagine a ballot paper marked X for the PAS candidate with the message “Umno Babi” or “Pergi mampus Umno” written across the Umno candidate’s box. And these were the tamer messages. Some had “berayuk mak mu” written over the Umno candidate’s box. (I am not going to translate that one).

In one election, the imam of our local mosque, Pak Abas, came hurriedly looking for me to report a fight about to break out between a group of voters and a policeman guarding the polling station. We rushed over there and saw a group of angry villagers surrounding the pale and terrified policeman.

“Sabor, sabor (patience),” I told the villagers. “Gapo ni (what’s the problem)?”

The villagers explained that the policeman told them they must first become members of Barisan Nasional if they wanted to vote and this angered the villagers who wanted to ‘teach the policeman a lesson’ (nak ajor dia ni).

I asked the policeman why he did that but he denied doing so. He explained that all he did was ask them to queue up and stop shoving if they wanted to vote.

“Saya suruh dia orang masuk barisan kalau nak undi,” he explained in Bahasa Malaysia.

“No wonder,” I told him. “Next time, don’t say ‘masuk barisan’. They thought you meant join Barisan (Nasional). Instead, say ‘beratur’ (line up or queue up).”

I suppose the correct language for the military and police when they ask you to ‘fall in’ is ‘masuk barisan’ and when they want you to straighten the line it is ‘luruskan barisan’. But ‘masuk barisan’ can also mean ‘join Barisan Nasional’, as the very terrified policeman who was not local enough to understand Terengganu lingo discovered.

In 1990, PAS and Semangat 46 joined forces to take on Umno (Kelantan fell to PAS-Semangat 46 that year while Terengganu remained under Barisan Nasional). That night, as the votes were being counted, I sauntered over to the Pantai Primula Hotel in Kuala Terengganu where some of the top police officers from KL plus the local CPO and OCPD were congregating in the coffee house. The hotel manager was also amongst them.

“How are the results coming along?” the manager asked me.

“Habis!” I told him. “PAS has taken over this state.”

“Oh shit,” he responded. “How now?”

“The first thing they will do tomorrow morning is they will ban liquor. You will have to empty all your bottles and flush your liquor down the toilet. What else?”

“Aiyoh! How to do that? We got so many bottles in stock.”

I winked at the very amused police officers -- they knew I was pulling the manager’s leg. “What to do ah?” I asked the CPO who was trying very hard to hold back his laughter.

With a straight face he said, “The law is the law. If PAS bans liquor tomorrow morning then I will have to send my men here to make sure the law is followed. So better get rid of the entire lot tonight before PAS takes over in the next few hours. Let us assist you.”

The manager immediately asked his staff to bring out all the liquor and place it on the table. You should have seen the party we had that night in the Pantai Primula coffee house. No one went home sober the wee hours of the following morning. Of course, Umno retained the state and PAS-Semangat 46 never did take Terengganu in 1990. But Pantai Primula was ‘relieved’ of many crates of liquor and we had one very happy police force on our hands -- though as drunk as sailors who had never seen land in months.

Talking about PAS-Semangat 46 and the 1990 election, Tengku Ahmad Rithauddeen (Ku Din), the current Chairman of the Umno Disciplinary Committee, was the Umno candidate for Kota Bharu in that election. He went around town to hand over RM50 notes to all the voters and they took the money but handed him back RM4.00.

Ku Din was puzzled as to why they took the RM50 but handed him back RM4.00 until one voter said, “Lima puloh tak seh. Amboh nak pat puloh neh.” (I don’t want 50. I want 46.)

Invariably, Semangat 46 won the Kota Bharu seat. Now, of course, Ku Din is chairing the Umno committee that is supposed to catch all those who indulge in ‘money politics’.

Conversation with MP Manickavasagam

No review for Lingam video findings

KUALA LUMPUR, Dec 12 — The High Court here dealt a blow today to attempts by two former chief justices, a prominent lawyer and two other people who were seeking to clear their names after being implicated in the now infamous V.K. Lingam video clip.

High Court judge Datuk Abdul Kadir Musa denied their application for a judicial review of the Royal Commission of Inquiry's findings into the video clip.

The video clip became fodder for the opposition during their general election campaign against Barisan Nasional, and today's decision could bring attention back into the case which highlighted the extent of judicial misconduct.

This comes as Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi attempts to push through the Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC) Bill in Parliament, in what is an attempt to introduce transparency in the appointment of judges.

In the Lingam video clip, the prominent lawyer was recorded on video allegedly brokering the appointment of a senior judge.

The release of the video over the Internet last year represented a low point in the reputation and integrity of the Malaysian judiciary which has for years been questioned by the public.

The prime minister acknowledged the low level of confidence which the public has in the Malaysian courts after he tabled the JAC Bill, when he pointed out that many companies insist on clauses in their contracts to ensure arbitration overseas or to have cases settled abroad.

Datuk V.K. Lingam, tycoon Tan Sri Vincent Tan, Barisan Nasional and Umno secretary-general Datuk Seri Tengku Adnan Mansor and former Chief Justices Tun Eusoff Chin and Tun Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim had applied for the judicial review.

Besides Lingam, who was filmed talking on the phone, and whose constant refrain of the words "correct, correct, correct" while allegedly promising to arrange for the appointment of certain judges became almost a rallying cry of opposition parties against corruption, the other four were mentioned by name in the recording by him.

The five men wanted to quash parts of the report which implicated them.

They claimed that the commission had prejudged the issues before it and lost its focus by going beyond its terms of reference.

The five-member panel of commissioners, in their report, had found the video clip to be authentic. The commission also recommended that appropriate course of action be taken against the five men and former premier Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad for misconduct.

It found that there is sufficient evidence to investigate the six men for offences under the Sedition Act, Official Secrets Act, the Penal Code and the Legal Profession Act 1976.

Except for Dr Mahathir, the other five filed for leave for a judicial review in an attempt to quash the inquiry's finding.

The commissioners — chairman Tan Sri Haidar Mohd Noor, former Chief Judge of Sabah and Sarawak Tan Sri Steve Shim Lip Kiong, retired Court of Appeal judge Datuk Mahadev Shankar, former Solicitor-General Puan Sri Zaitun Zawiyah Puteh and Professor Emeritus Tan Sri Dr Khoo Kay Kim — sat for 17 days to inquire into the 14-minute video clip.

The attempt to get a judicial review is seen also as a protective step as there was then an ongoing investigation into the commission's findings.

The Anti-Corruption Agency has already completed the investigations and a report has been submitted to the Attorney-General's Chambers.

But it is still investigating a separate allegation that Lingam and Eusoff had holidayed together in New Zealand in the 1990s, in a case which suggests impropriety.

Zaid: We need to get our young people to recognise the rights they have

Contributed by Lai Chee Hoe In conjunction with the Human Rights Debate 2008 organised by the Bar Council Human Rights Committee, an International Human Rights Day gala dinner was held at Modesto’s, Desa Sri Hartamas. Lawyers and guests started to stream in at 7.00pm. The event started off with the welcome address by Andrew Khoo, the Co-Deputy Chair of the Human Rights Committee. Andrew brought along a bicycle wheel and voiced his disappointment over the recent arrests of members of Jaringan Rakyat Tertindas (JERIT) by the police. He described human rights as a tyre covering and protecting the spokes and the frame of a wheel. “You could ride the bicycle with a flat tyre but eventually you will damage the frame. Likewise if you ignore human rights, you undermine the basic structure of our country and you will eventually destroy it.” The event continued with Bertrand-Xavier Asselin, the Second Secretary of the High Commission of Canada, saying a few words. The Gala dinner would not have been possible without the generous support of the High Commission of Canada. The highlight of the night however was the inspiring keynote address delivered by Datuk Zaid Ibrahim. He started off his speech by emphasising that human rights are, in essence, the fundamental principles we need to live by as a civil and civilized society and to treat each other as human beings should - with dignity, with due regard to our status as equals and having the same rights :- “We need to get our young people to recognise the rights they have. It is easy to lose or give up what one does not know one possesses. Malaysia’s diverse races and especially those from different economic class seem to have little appetite for common values. We focus more on our differences than on our similarities. For a country segmented by ethnicity and religion and having self doubt about its identity and heritage, a common bond is needed.” Datuk Zaid reminded the audience that we must continue our efforts to defend and promote human rights in our society. He also urged the NGOs to launch a massive public campaign to create public awareness on human rights :- “There must be widespread support for human rights if we want to see changes in our laws and public policy. This is why more public support for human rights is imperative and why leadership in state governments and at the Federal level should also support this initiative” He ended his speech by thanking the Bar Council Human Rights Committee, the Bar Council, Suara Rakyat Malaysia (SUARAM), the National Human Rights Society (HAKAM), Irene Fernandez and Tenaganita and Sisters in Islam (SIS) for their continued fight for human rights of Malaysians. After his speech, Datuk Zaid graciously agreed to take questions from the audience and this lasted for about 30 minutes. The Gala Dinner was attended by all the debaters, volunteers, sponsors, several representatives of the NGOs and members of the Malaysian Bar.

MACC - principles of indepencence and parliamentary accountability too watered down

The Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) Bill is so watered down that the principles of its independence from the Prime Minister’s control and accountability/responsibility to Parliament can be quite tenuous and even fictitious.

The original intention to amend the Constitution to give the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission a constitutional status has been abandoned while there is no clear-cut provision to establish its responsibility and accountability to Parliament.

Five bodies will be set up under the MACC Bill to hold a close watch over the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission to ensure its independence, transparency and integrity, viz: Anti-Corruption Advisory Board; Special Committee on Corruption; Operations Review Panel; Corruption Prevention and Consultative Council; and a Complaints Committee.

However, all these five scrutinizing bodies, including the Special Committee on Corruption which is to comprise of Parliamentarians, are all beholden to the Prime Minister or the Executive, making nonsense of the principle of parliamentary responsibility of the MACC.

As proposed, the Special Committee on Corruption consists of seven members of Parliament from both Dewan Rakyat and Senate to be appointed by the Yang di Pertuan Agong, which means on the advice of the Prime Minister.

Furthermore, the bill provides that the seven MPs shall be nominated by the Leader of the House of Representatives, who again is the Prime Minister , rendering the whole arrangement quite ludicrous – the Leader of the House (who is the Prime Minister) advising the Prime Minister to advise the Yang di Pertuan Agong on the appointments.

As the Special Committee on Corruption is to comprise MPs, why is the Prime Minister shy in calling it the Parliamentary Committee on Corruption?

Is this just to give the impression of some form of “parliamentary” scrutiny without actually permitting robust and proper parliamentary stewardship?

If such a Parliamentary Committee on Corruption is to be meaningful, its composition must reflect the parliamentary representation of the different political parties in the House and its membership decided by MPs themselves and not by the Executive. Furthermore, the Chairman of the Parliamentary Committee on Corruption should be an Opposition MP.

I will propose amendments to the MACC Bill to strengthen the principle of the MACC’s independence from Executive control and reinforce accountability/responsibility to Parliament during the committee stage of the debate on the MACC Bill.

Support Jerit Riders this Sunday 14 Dec 2008

“RIDE FOR CHANGE” reaches Klang Valley this Sunday 14 Dec 08….

One group from the North & another from the South.

Lets hit the road to welcome & support them…

Cars, Bikes, Bicycles or just standing on the road to cheer these brave, young Anak Bangsa Malaysia.

Details to come……

meanwhile… spread the word & get ready for a Sunday family/friends day out =]

Get the details here

NOKTAH SEBENTAR

Hishamuddin Rais

Hari ini kita terus membaca dan diberitahu bahawa dunia kapitalis sedang dilanggar krisis yang maha besar. Krisis ekonomi yang sebesar ini belum pernah dialami oleh dunia kapitalis selama 200 tahun ini. Krisis kali ini lebih buruk dari zaman meleset tahun 1929.

Kita hanya membaca zaman meleset yang berlaku pada tahun 1929 di Amerika Syarikat. Kita tidak mengalaminya. Apa yang kita tahu hanya melalui surah sejarah tidak lebih dari itu. Apa yang kita lihat hanyalah gambar-gambar hitam putih tentang zaman itu. Apa yang kita hayati hanyalah filem-filem yang cuba menggambarkan suasana dan drama di zaman itu.

Zaman meleset di Amerika berlaku 80 tahun dahulu.

Lapan puluh tahun dahulu Tanah Melayu masih di bawah penjajah British. Getah baru sahaja sampai dari Brazil pada tahun 1902. Sistem ekonomi kapitalis belum melebar. Jual beli duit ringgit belum menjadi budaya. Malah banyak warga langsung tidak memiliki duit. Bertukar-tukar barang masih lagi budaya ekonomi. Masyarakat konsumer yang kita lihat disekeliling kita hari ini masih belum wujud.

Rumah kita di kampung memakai lampu damar, kita memasak dengan kayu dan mengambil air dari perigi. Kita ke sawah setahun sekali. Di pekan lampu jalan memakai lampu minyak pam. Kereta satu benda yang ajaib – kalau bernasib baik kereta melintasi kampung kita – kita berkumpul berkerumun untuk melihatnya.

Saya sendiri belum wujud pada tahun 1929. Apa yang saya tulis ini hanyalah menyambung surah dari arwah ibu dan ayah saya. Zaman ini telah lama berakhir. Hari ini kita melihat zaman ini sebagai Zaman Dahulu, kita panggil zaman ini Zaman Lampau atau Zaman Tok Kaduk. Apakah ini tepat?

Sebelum menjawab soalan itu kita wajib melihat apakah budaya yang sedang kita anuti hari ini.

Untuk ujian pertama sila buka almari kain baju dan lihat berapa banyak kain baju yang terkumpul dan tidak pernah kita usik-usik. Malah kita terlupa bahawa kita memiliki kain baju ini. Kemudian sila pandang rak kasut. Berapa banyak kasut yang terkumpul.

Jika kain baju bergantang-gantang dan kasut semakin membusut maka tandanya kita sedang menghayati dan merayakan budaya konsumer – budaya yang lahir dari sistem ekonomi kapitalis. Budaya konsumer ini telah sampai ke tahap akhiran kerana sistem ekonomi kapitalis tidak lagi berkemungkinan untuk berkembang melainkan menguncup dan akhirnya meleset.

Jangan dengar cakap cakap para politikus yang memerintah. Mereka sedang berbohong. Kerja dan tugas mereka hanyalah berbohong dan menipu. Jangan percaya bahawa kita semua selamat dari krisis ekonomi ini. Jangan percaya bahawa ekonomi Malaysia kukuh. Tidak mungkin kalau semua negara dalam dunia ini telah mengakui bahawa negara mereka sedang menghadapi krisis mana mungkin hanya Malaysia terselamat. Ini mustahil. Ini pembohongan. Ini betul-betul macam Razak Baginda berkata yang Najib tidak mengenal Altantuya. Bohong.

Fakta : Amerika Syarikat rakan niaga terpenting Malaysia telah memasuki zaman meleset bukan pada tahun 2008 tetapi tahun lalu 2007. Ini fakta resmi kerajaan Amerika Syarikat. Negara Iceland telah jatuh muflis. Tiga syarikat kereta yang terbesar dalam dunia – Ford, General Motors dan Chrysler – telah jatuh muflis.

Di UK syarikat kereta Vauxhall menjalankan dasar – beli satu kereta dapat satu percuma. Ini kerana tidak ada lagi pembeli yang ingin membeli kereta. Di Malaysia pada ketika ini kita boleh beli kereta tanpa duit pendahuluan. Ini hanya permulaan. Akan sampai masanya apabila kereta dari kilang Proton akan tinggal terbengkalai.

Satu demi satu bank besar dan syarikat mata wang gergasi telah tutup kedai.

Harga minyak sawit kita telah jatuh. Harga minyak mentah telah juga jatuh. Bila harga minyak sawit dan harga mentah jatuh ertinya pendapatan negara kita kurang. Tahun lalu Indek Komposit Bursa Saham Kuala Lumpur naik hingga ke 1,300 mata. Lupa? Bukankah Abdullah Badawi merasa amat bangga dan mengeluarkan kenyataan bahawa ekonomi kita cermerlang, gemilang dan terbilang?

Hari ini Indek Komposit hanya di takuk 800 mata. Bukankah ini tanda penunjuk bahawa ekonomi kita sedang merundum. Apakah kalau indek naik maknanya ekonomi baik. Jika indek turun tidak ada seorang menteri pun yang mengeluarkan kenyataan seolah olah mereka semua telah jadi rabun dan buta.

Tahun hadapan kita akan diamuk lagi. Krisis luaran ini badainya akan sampai. Seperti ombak tsunami ianya bermula di Wall Street New York. Limpahan ombak tsunami ini akan sampai enam bulan kemudian ke Malaysia. Ombak ini pasti akan datang tahun hadapan.

Apakah kita semua sedar bahawa nilai ringgit kita telah jatuh. Maknnya kalau dulu kita boleh beli kapal selam dari Perancis dengan harga 10 ringgit sebuah. Hari ini kapal selam yang sama harganya menjadi 12 ringgit. Duit ringgit kita rupa dan warnanya tidak berubah. Apa yang berubah ialah nilainya.

Noktah sebentar untuk bertanya apakah ada jalan untuk menghadapai krisis ini?

Pasti ada. Sebelum ombak krisis ekonomi ini menggelora sampai kita wajib menilai kembali budaya konsumer yang kita rayakan. Budaya ini ialah budaya pembaziran yang sedang membawa laknat kepada umat manusia. Kita wajib kembali melihat bumi ini sebagai rahmat untuk kita bercucuk tanam. Tidak ada jalan lain melainkan kita menanam tanaman yang boleh kita makan. Bukan menanam getah atau sawit untuk di eksport agar negara dapat membeli kapal selam. Ini kerja bodoh.

Di Amerika dan di Eropah – berjuta juta buruh telah mula kehilangan pekerjaan. Apabila mereka hilang kerja mereka tidak ada duit. Apabila mereka tidak ada duit mereka tidak beli barang. Apabila mereka tidak beli barang – kilang kita yang membuat barang akan di tutup sama. Apabila kilang kita ditutup, kita pula hilang kerja dan kita pula tidak ada duit. Inilah lingkaran setan dalam sistem global ekonomi kapitalis.

Lingkaran setan ini dapat kita putuskan jika kita kembali berbakti kepada bumi. Bumi bukan untuk di runtuh rantahkan. Bumi adalah untuk kita bercucuk tanam dan menanam tanaman untuk makanan. Kita wajib memisahkan diri kita dari terjerut dalam sistem global ekonomi kapitalis yang memaksa kita menjadi konsumer.

Noktah sebentar dan lihat kembali Zaman Tok Kaduk dahulu. Tidak ramai yang memiliki duit dan ringgit. Mereka bertukar tenaga bantu membantu – bergotong royong. Mereka hidup bukan sebagai konsumer. Mereak hidup sebagai manusia.

Kini telah muncul kembali di banyak tempat di Amerika dan di Eropah dimana warga-warga menolak pengunaan duit resmi dan menggunakan duit mereka sendiri. Ini untuk memastikan mereka tidak terperangkap dalam ekonomi konsumer. Mereka menjalankan perniagaan tukar menukar. Mereka mahu menjadi manusia yang merdeka bebas dari belenggu sistem ekonomi kapitalis.

Satu pekara yang wajib kita semua sedari. Pada tahun tahun 30'an apabila ekonomi Amerika dan Eropah meleset, apa yang muncul? Perang Dunia Kedua bermula. Dalam sistem ekonomi kapitalis perang adalah jalan pintas untuk kaum pemodal menjual barangan mereka. Dalam masa yang sama perang akan memusnahkan apa yang telah mereka buat. Buat kemudian musnahkan. Buat lagi dan musnahkan lagi. Ini cara untuk memastikan kilang akan terus bergerak.

Perang menjanjikan industri senjata berkembang. Industri senjata adalah satu-satunya industri yang menjadi pasak dan menjana ekonomi sistem kapitalis. Dalam perang kemusnhan akan berlaku. Kapal terbang hancur, kereta kebal musnah, peluru dan bom di letupkan – semua ini perlu diganti dan dibuat lagi.

Industri perang adalah industri terbesar - numero uno - untuk Amerika Syarikat. Amerika Syarikat, atau lebih tepat di Wall Street adalah sarang dimana kaum pemodal multinasional berkumpul dan merancang. Pada ketika ini di kilang-kilang industri perang sedang menggunung dengan peralatan senjata yang belum terjual atau belum musnah.

Justeru – kemungkian perang besar akan bemula tidak boleh di ketepikan. Sejarah telah menunjukkan apabila kaum pemodal dilanggar krisis maka tidak dapat tidak mereka akan merancang perang. Perang di Iraq, di Afghanistan, Kosovo, Somalia dan di Sudan ini masih belum mencukupi untuk memusnahkan senjata-senjata yang telah sedia di buat. Kerana itu perang wajib diluaskan ke Iran, Pakistan dan India. Apa yang berlaku di Bombay baru-baru ini adalah sebahagian dari perancangan perang yang lebih luas.

Noktah sebentar dan mari kita melihat diri kita sendiri. Apakah kita telah terperangkap dalam sistem dan budaya yang dimunculkan secara terancang oleh kaum pemodal internasional? Apakah kita diperangkap untuk terus menjadi hamba sebagai pengguna dan konsumer untuk membeli barangan yang kini telah menyempit bilik kita sendiri.

Jawapannya – sila buka kembali almari kain baju dan lihat apa yang ada di dalamnya. Jawapannya di hadapan mata.

Dr M thinks Vision 2020 not likely to happen

Dr M foresees goals of achieving Vision 2020 not happening

PUTRAJAYA, Dec 11 - Will Malaysia achieve its target of becoming a developed country by 2020?

Unlikely, says the architect of that vision.

Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad blamed the Asian Financial Crisis in 1997, the current global economic turmoil and policies of the Abdullah administration for his stark assessment.

He made this observation during a question and answer session at a forum on the current market volatility in Putrajaya today.

Dr Mahathir noted that during the last crisis in 1997, the government had twin objectives: to ensure economic growth but at the same time protect social cohesion. That is why the government rejected the remedies suggested by the International Monetary Fund (IMF), which would have included liberalizing the economy.

This strategy has not been followed by the present administration which was weak.

"For 50 years political stability was what attracted investors. Now a weak government has tried to regain popularity by pandering to the demands of extremists. The floodgates are open and all kinds of sensitive issues are being debated. The result is the resurgence of racism on the part of all ethnic groups, " he said.

In such a climate of instability, it will be difficult for the government to tackle the economic downturn.

"The fear of political repercussions will prevent the government from seeking decisive or unpopular measures, " said Dr Mahathir, who has slammed the Hindu Rights Action Force for making excessive demands and non-Malay politicians for revisiting the social contract issue.

The country has been in a state of flux since March 8 when the Pakatan Rakyat shocked Barisan Nasional by denying the ruling coalition their customary two-thirds majority in Parliament and taking control of five states. Dr Mahathir has blamed the weak leadership of Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi for BN's poor performance and campaigned for his resignation.

Dr Mahathir yesterday dismissed the government's RM7 billion stimulus package, saying that spreading a few billion ringgit would not be effective in heading off the economic slowdown.

MACC and JAC Bills – both fall far short of expectations and promise of anti-corruption and judicial reforms

The Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) and Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC) personally presented in Parliament for first reading yesterday by the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi both fall far short of expectations and the promise of anti-corruption and judicial reforms.

The 15th anniversary today of the Highland Towers tragedy in 1993 which killed 48 people and over 1,000 people were made homeless, preceded five days ago by the Bukit Antarabangsa landslide disaster which killed four, with one missing while displacing some 5,000 people, should serve as wrenching reminders of the necessity for urgent and meaningful anti-corruption and judicial reforms.

Even the mainstream New Straits Times yesterday editorialized that “Everything from the loss of faith in national institutions, as measured in both the electoral vote and the rising crime rate, to the catastrophic failure of developed hill slopes seems at least partly attributable to the corrosion of corruption – of corners cut, blind eyes turned, and money paid for benefits unseen”.

The New Straits Times editorial could have cited as another recent example of the far-reaching consequences of the corrosion of rampant corruption – the road carnage in the express bus North-South Expressway (NSE) crash in Tangkak which killed 10 and injured 14 on Sunday.

The Highland Towers tragedy is also a case study of the urgent need for judicial reforms – with the indefensible and unconscionable Federal Court judgment of Feb. 17, 2006 in the Highland Tower case that local authorities are not legally liable for landslides, collapsed buildings and people dying when it should have struck a just and middle ground to hold the Ampang Jaya Municipal Council liable where negligence is established while taking into account the interests of the ratepayers for essential basic services.

Abdullah’s claim after the first reading yesterday that the MACC and JAC bills will restore public and investors’ confidence in the country’s battle against corruption and the judicial system is too premature, as this will depend on whether the two bills can result in meaningful and effective reforms in these two jurisdictions.

Can the MACC and JAC bills wipe out the negative perception, finally admitted by the Prime Minister himself, that the government is not committed towards tackling corruption or addressing the suspicions of investors about the integrity of the judiciary?

The MACC purports to create an independent anti-corruption agency, taking it out from the Prime Minister’s Department to be answerable to Parliament.

However, from the MACC bill, the Prime Minister’s influence and even control through the various provisions of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission Bill are still over-powering and sufficient to undermine its independence and autonomy. For instance, it is the Prime Minister who will decide the appointments of the Chief Commissioner of the MACC as well as the two important “check-and-balance” mechanisms – the Anti-Corruption Advisory Board and the Special Committee on Corruption.

The Special Committee on Corruption is supposed to be the Parliamentary Committee to exercise oversight of the MACC, but who decides on its composition? The Prime Minister, who will advise the Yang di Pertuan Agong on the appointment of seven members from the Dewan Rakyat and Dewan Negara, based on the nomination of the “Leader of the House of Representatives” who is none other than the Prime Minister himself!

Clause 58 of the Bill providing that an offence under the new law may only be instituted by or on behalf of the Public Prosecutor undermines the claim that the Chief Commissioner of the MACC will have absolute discretion to decide on prosecution on corruption.

The JAC Bill is also a letdown. I share the disappointment of Dato’ Param Cumarawamy, former UN Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers who have pointed out two salient points:

• Without amending article 121 of the Constitution to restore the doctrine of separation of powers and conferring the judicial power on the courts, judicial independence cannot be secured by merely conferring on the chief executive of the government the duty to uphold judicial independence.

• The power of the Prime Minister to remove the eminent persons in the Judicial Appointments Commission at any time without giving reasons pursuant to clause 9(1) virtually gives legal legitimacy for executive dominance over the judicial arm of the government.

From the Bill, the Prime Minister can finally ignore the recommendations of the Judicial Appointments Commission to recommend his own candidates for judicial appointments and promotions, which makes a mockery of such a judicial reform.

A meeting will be held to decide on the a common stand on the two bills to be taken by the Pakatan Rakyat MPs next week.

WAYTHA MOORTHY AT THE HOUSE OF LORDS

The Hindu Rights Action Force (HINDRAF), which have been banned by the Malaysian government recently had been extended an invitation by the House of Lords on 8 December 2008 to address and present their case on their plight of Malaysian Indians who claim have been marginalised by the present BN government in every field.

Waytha Moorthy, who is now in self-exile in Britain addressed and answered questions on the issues raised.

Another embarrassing situation for Malaysia from the International world.

pictures courtesy of Makkal Sakti

Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2008 - A Disappointment

Press Statement

Judicial Appointments Commission Bill 2008

- A Disappointment

The long awaited legislation for a Judicial Appointments Commission is a disappointment. While it provides for a mechanism for selection and recommendation for appointments to the superior judiciary namely, the High Court, Court of Appeal and the Federal Court including their respective heads and provides for criteria for such appointments all of which may appear giving a semblance of transparency yet it could lead to executive interference into the independence of the judiciary.

Provisions for the Prime Minister of the day to defend the independence of the judiciary and power conferred on him to appoint and remove any or all the non-judicial members (eminent persons) of the Commission at any time without giving any reasons in essence means that the independence of the judiciary would be dependent on the personality of the Prime Minister in power, in effect the executive arm of the government.

Without amending article 121 of the Constitution to restore the doctrine of separation of powers and conferring the judicial power on the courts judicial independence cannot be secured by merely conferring on the chief executive of the government to uphold judicial independence.

This provision in clause 2 of the Bill read together with the power of the Prime Minister to remove the eminent persons in the Commission at any time without giving reasons pursuant to clause 9(1) virtually gives legal legitimacy for executive dominance over the judicial arm of the government.

There are other flaws in this Bill which are most worrying:

1) While clause 11 sets out at length for avoidance of conflict of interest situations for members of the Commission yet clause 15 dilutes its effectiveness in that contravention of clause 11 does not invalidate “any act done or proceeding taken” pursuant to the same contravention . Hence a judicial appointment made in contravention of clause 11 will in any event be valid. What then is the purpose of the strictures over conflict of interest in clause 11?

2) Clause 5 (1)(f) provides for the Prime Minister to appoint four eminent members to the Commission after ‘consulting ‘ the Bar associations in West and East Malaysia. The word ‘consultation” is not defined in the Bill. Experience has shown in the past how the process of consultation between the Prime Minister and the Conference of Rulers over judicial appointments was abused by one Prime Minister. The process of consultation should not be seen as a sham.

3) While the Bill provides for the Prime Minister to accept persons recommended by the Commission yet it does not expressly provide what happens if he does not accept the recommendations. This omission read together with the power of the Prime Minister to amend the legislation within two years “whenever it appears to him necessary or expedient to do so …………………..” leaves much to be desired. It provides unfettered power to the Prime Minister to amend the legislation under the pretext to “removing difficulties or preventing anomalies”. It will be open to abuse.

4) Further, clause 28 provides for the Prime Minister to tender his advice under article 122B of the Federal Constitution. Under article 122B the advice tendered to the King is after certain processes under the same article including the consultation with the Conference of Rulers. What happens if the Rulers have a differing view from that of the Prime Minister over any recommendation particularly in the light of the choices made by the Prime Minister from those recommended by the Commission? Hence without amending the Constitution to entrench the Commission and harmonize article 122B with its functions conflicts between the Constitution and the legislation could arise.

Finally, it must be stressed that the present Prime Minister may be well meaning and may not abuse his powers. The same cannot be said about future Prime Ministers. We must learn from experiences of the past. What is needed is a legislation which will insulate the judiciary as an institution and individual judges to secure their independence. The Dewan Rakyat as a constituent part of the legislature must be mindful of these concerns and provide for such insulation. The proposed Bill is far from providing such insulation. The Constitution must be amended to entrench the independence of the judiciary.

Dato’ Param Cumaraswamy

Former UN Special Rapporteur on the

Independence of Judges and Lawyers

December 11, 2008

‘Gertak’ tak menjadi…PPP nak terus ‘cuba nasib’ dalam BN

Parti Progresif Rakyat (PPP) nampak macam tidak ada tempat yang nak dituju.Dikala ada yang menduga ia akan berpegang kepada ‘gertak’ Presidennya Datuk M Kayveas nak keluar dari Barisan Nasional jika kerajaan tidak meminda Akta Keselamatan Dalam Negeri (ISA),sebaliknya Majlis Tertinggi parti itu Khamis membuat keputusan untuk kekal dalam BN.

Ia menggangap kenyataan Perdana Menteri Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi semasa sidang akhbar selepas mempengerusikan mesyuarat Dewan Tertinggi BN Selasa lalu bukan bermaksud menghalau PPP keluar BN tetapi hanya sebagai satu respon kepada soalan wartawan.

Mesyuarat Majlis Tertinggi PPP berlangsung di sebuah hotel di Jalan Ipoh, Kuala Lumpur.Ia dipengerusikan oleh Pemangku Naib Presiden Kanan PPP ,Lee Heng kerana Kayveas kini sedang berada di Amerika.

Sebelum mesyuarat itu berlangsung Lembaga Disiplin PPP telah membuat keputusan memecat S.I.Rajah,bekas Presiden parti itu yang mendakwa beliau kini penasihat parti kerana Rabu membuat kenyataan meminta Kayveas letak jawatan berikutan tindakannya gertak mahu keluar daripada BN.

Rajah mendakwa Kayveas membuat kenyataan mengenai ISA tanpa mendapat persetujuan para ahli parti itu.

Lee Heng ketika dihubungi menerusi telefon memberitahu Majlis Tertinggi parti memutuskan untuk berdiri teguh di belakang Kayveas dan juga akan kekal bersama BN dan pada masa yang sama akan terus mendesak kerajaan untuk meminda ISA.

Apabila diminta mengulas mengenai kenyataan Perdana Menteri Selasa lalu yang menyerahkan kepada PPP sama ada mahu terus kekal bersama BN atau tidak,beliau berkata , "kami percaya kenyataan yang dibuat oleh Perdana Menteri semata-mata menjawab soalan media. Dia bukan menghalau kami, dia cuma berkata, ia terpulang kepada PPP sama ada mahu kekal atau tidak.

"Keputusan kami untuk terus bersama BN tidak bermakna kami menyerah kalah dalam isu memperjuangkan supaya akta ISA dipinda. Kami masih mempunyai masa sehingga pilihanraya umum akan datang untuk terus mendesak sehingga cadangan kami didengari."

Lee berkata, beliau telah menelefon Kayveas sebaik selesai mesyuarat itu. "Kayveas memberitahu kami bahawa parti telah melakukan tindakan yang betul,”katanya.

Kayveas dijadual pulang dari Amerika pada 24 Disember.

Sementara itu ahli Majlis Tertinggi UMNO,Datuk Seri Nazri Aziz yang ditemui wartawan di lobi parlimen untuk mengulas mengenai isu PPP itu mempersoalkan apa untungnya kehadiran parti itu dalam BN.

“Dalam BN diibaratkan kita bernikah, kalau dah tak bersefahaman...kalau tak setuju syarat-syarat dalam BN...tunggu apa lagi,”tegasnya.

Menteri di Jabatan Perdana Menteri itu yang jelas tidak senang dengan tindak tanduk PPP mengingatkan parti itu agar tidak mengugut.

“Dia hadir atas simpati kita saja…peminta sedekah jangan mengugut orang,” tambahnya

Hindraf supporters to go on hunger strike

Hindu Rights Action Force (Hindraf) supporters will stage a hunger strike beginning Saturday at an event to commemorate the first anniversary of detention of five of its leaders under the Internal Security Act (ISA).

The banned movement's coordinator S Jayathas told reporters today that the hunger strike - to be participated by about a dozen of people - "will last as long as it takes to make the government listen".

He said the strike was not suggested by Hindraf leaders but a voluntary move on the part of the supporters.

"These people want to see some changes and they have come forward, and will carry on doing so until the government listens to the plight of the minority Indians," he said.

"It has been one year since the leaders were detained for their so-called involvement with the Tamil Tigers (Sri Lankan armed separatist group) but until today there is no proof of this.

"More recently, (others) have been released from detention, but why is the government still holding the Hindraf leaders who were fighting for the rights of the minority Indians?"

Yesterday, Home Minister Syed Hamid Albar said six ISA detainees have been released including Yazid Sufaat who was accused of housing several suspects linked to the Sept 11 terror attacks.

Jointly organised by PAS

Jayathas said the hunger strike will be staged at a temple in Shah Alam where a forum will also be held.

The event is jointly organised by PAS and will be attended by PKR vice- president Syed Husin Ali, blogger and former ISA detainee Raja Petra Kamarudin, DAP MP Gobind Singh Deo, Bukit Raja PAS MP Dr Siti Mariah Mahmud and the wives of the Hindraf Five.

According to a leaflet on the event, Opposition Leader Anwar Ibrahim may be present. Self-exiled Hindraf leader P Waythamoorthy is expected to give a speech from London via a 'live' video feed.

A message from Uthayakumar, a detained Hindraf leader and the brother of Waythamoorthy, will also be delivered.

Uthayakumar and four others were arrested on Dec 13 last year for allegedly carrying out activities that threatened national security.

The others detained are M Manoharan, R Kenghadharan and V Ganabatirau and organising secretary T Vasantha Kumar.

Prior to their arrest, Hindraf had organised a massive protest which saw some 30,000 people taking to the streets in Kuala Lumpur.