History is always written by the victor, never by the vanquished

Soon, they will be organising a National Malay Congress to discuss Malaysia’s very confusing Social Contract. Do any of us understand what the Social Contract is? Today, we are reproducing two articles -- which have differing views on the matter. One is by Mavis Puthucheary and the other by Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad. Malaysia Today offers space for conflicting views and debates as long as it is done in a civil and matured manner. Happy debating people -- but try not to be too abrasive and emotional. Stick to historical facts and not unsupported assumptions.
NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Congress on social contract

A National Malay Congress will be held to re-educate the public on historical issues like the social contract and the Malay rulers' role in society. The three-day meeting, on the theme Di Mana Bumi Dipijak, will be held from March 15 at Wisma Sejarah in Jalan Tun Razak.

It is jointly organised by the Federation of National Writers Associations of Malaysia (Gapena) and the Malaysian History Association. Gapena media and communications bureau head Borhan Md Zain said the last such congress, organised by non-governmental organisations, was in 1957.

Gapena has decided to once again hold such a congress as there was a need to re-educate the public on the cultural and academic aspects of Malay society, Borhan said, adding that the congress would help to dispel all the misconceptions that other races have had on the Malay culture.

One of the speakers will be Professor Datuk Dr Zainal Kling, from Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris, who will talk on multi-culturalism. The congress is open to the public and admission is free. For more information call 03-21442412. (The New Straits Times, 7 March 2009)

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

Malaysia’s Social Contract: Exposing the myth behind the slogan: by Mavis Puthucheary

Since the 1980s the term “social contract” has come to supersede the term “inter-ethnic bargain” that was previously used by historians to describe the agreement between the leaders of the founding parties in the Alliance. This original bargain was not spelled out in any clear and precise way so it is not clear what the contract actually entailed. All we have is the Constitution which itself is ambiguous and has been amended nurmerous times. The emergence of the term “social contract” in the public discourse has given rise to a renewal of the debate on what was actually agreed upon at the time of Independence. As we cannot determine in any fixed way what was the content of the original bargain, we are better off trying to understand the debate surrounding the re-formulation of the bargain in terms of a “social contract”.

Central to the narrative of the inter-ethnic bargain is the power-sharing arrangement in which the leaders of the political parties of the Alliance government set out the rules for the sharing of the nation. Nation-building was based on the theme of the making and sharing of nation among its multi-ethnic citizens within a framework which entails the maintenance of the special position of the Malays. It was clear that at the heart of the debate was the issue of power-sharing between the two main ethnic groups, Malays and non-Malays, within a democratic framework. As the Alliance coalition, and later its successor, the Barisan Nasional coalition, won all the national elections, the question of how power was to be shared devolved around the balance of power between the parties in the ruling coalition.

In the first ten years after Independence, the balance of power between the two main parties, UMNO and the MCA, was more or less equal. After 1969, however the balance of power within the ruling coalition shifted significantly in favour of UMNO and the political system itself became less democratic. Although both parties fared badly in the 1969 elections, UMNO leaders who had secured control of the government, concentrated their efforts on regaining Malay support while still maintaining the power-sharing structure. With the introduction of the New Economic Policy and the extension of Malay privileges especially in the fields of education and employment, UMNO regained its popularity among the Malays and consequently assumed a dominant position in the ruling coalition.

However, over the years, new problems arose. First, as the resources of the state expanded, opportunities to become rich through access to these resources resulted in greater competition for positions in all parties in the BN, especially UMNO. Faced with severe challenges from within the party, the top UMNO leadership sought to unify the party under its leadership by the notion of a social contract in which Malay dominance was enshrined. It is significant that whenever the notion of social contract is brought up in the context of Malay dominance, its timing coincides with the eve of the UMNO general assembly elections. One may be tempted to speculate the UMNO leadership may even have introduced the notion of “Ketuanan Melayu” with the intention of incurring the expected hue and cry from the non-Malays so that it can then rally the Malays around their leadership!

Second, as Malay society becomes more complex, largely as a consequence of the successes of the NEP, the race-based politics of the BN structure is becoming less tenable. As Malays have become more socially divided (along issues of class, Islamic ideology, region, etc) UMNO finds itself having to compete with other political parties for the support of the Malay electorate. By promoting the idea of a social contract while foreclosing any open discussion which would clarify precisely what this contract entails, UMNO leaders hope to get the best of both worlds - they can shift their stand between the constitutional “social contract” and the Ketuanan Melayu “social contract” depending on the circumstances. The ambiguity of the notion of the social contract is therefore productive for UMNO. It is easy to gain non-Malay support for a social contract that is couched in the language of the inter-ethnic bargain.

In addition to the crucial distinction between the constitutional “social contract” and the Ketuanan Melayu “social contract” is the distinction between the generally received idea of the social contract as enunciated by the western philosophers and Abdullah Ahmad’s peculiar Malaysian appropriation of the term. By appropriating what was a philosophical notion of the individual giving up some of his “natural” rights to the state, it was hoped to transform what was in effect nothing more than a partisan agreement to the level of a “national consensus” that is binding for all time. Most of all once this idea is accepted, the UMNO-dominated political system would be in a position to decide the substance of this social contract. If this is UMNO’s position, then it is clear that the “social contract” is nothing more than part of UMNO’s strategy to demonstrate its claim to being the sole champion on Malay interests.

Such a system has adverse consequences for the democratization process. We should not feel bound to deal supposedly made in the past and which we have no knowledge of its contents. Ironically, the social contract was developed in the west by liberal-minded thinkers to challenge the authoritarian rule of absolute monarchs. Those who promote the idea of a social contract in Malaysia, however, want to see a political system in which secret deals are struck by the ruling elite in an environment where the scope and level of political participation is severely limited.

In such a situation it is unwise to recognise the legitimacy of the social contract as it is applied in the Malaysian context. In the Philippines, it has been found that the domination of the ruling elite is secured by its ability to effectively use the very principle and ideals of the dominated and then interpret these principles in its own interest. Allusions of the past which have been generally accepted as the single unifying force that contributed to the building of the nation function to disseminate signs that can be apprehended in different ways. In the same way, by using the idiom of the inter-ethnic bargain, which was in effect a partisan agreement, and giving it the status of a national consensus, UMNO’s agenda of Malay dominance is secured within the formal structure of multiracialism.

The UMNO version of the social contract would allow for Malay interests as defined by UMNO (”Ketuanan Melayu”) to be given greater emphasis. For this reason the consensus that is required is limited to the idea without allowing any open discussion. Any call for debate on its contents is viewed as a challenge to the existing political system.

In the search for solutions to dismantling the “social contract” we should be concerned about the impact it is likely to have on race relations in Malaysia. In the current political scenario there are three political parties that claim to protect and advance Malay/Muslim interests - UMNO, PAS and PKR.

Although not mutually exclusive, these parties adopt three different positions. UMNO’s stand is that Malay interests (as defined in terms of Malay dominance) are best safeguarded in a multi-ethnic coalition where UMNO is the sole representative of the Malay community. PAS attempts to unite the Malays through their religion, claiming that in an Islamic-based political system of universal values of social justice and fairness would be automatically delivered. In contrast the PKR takes a non-racial approach to politics claiming that Malay interests would be advanced only through policies and programmes specifically targeted at assisting the poorest sections of the society while at the same time making sure that they have the capabilities to compete with the other races on equal terms. The challenge facing the PKR leadership is how to develop broad principles of social justice, equal citizenship rights and a system of rewarding people based on meritocracy while at the same time having to deal with criticisms of selling out Malay rights.

If the Malay version of the social contract gains wider acceptance among the Malays, PKR may be under considerable pressure to abandon its more inclusive approach to politics and pander exclusively to Malay chauvinism and that would mean the end of PKR’s claim to multiracialism. Therefore it is important for the PKR to strike a balance between the non-compromising “Malaysian Malaysia” position of the DAP on the one hand, and the extreme positions of “Ketuanan Melayu” as enunciated in UMNO’s re-formulation of the social contract or the “Islamic State” of PAS on the other. (September 2008)

Mavis Puthucheary was formerly associate professor in the Faculty of Economics and Administration, University of Malaya. Since retiring, she has continued to research and write about politics in Malaysia, particularly on the issue of the ’social contract’. In 2005, she edited a book with Norani Othman on Elections and Politics in Malaysia.

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

The Malaysian Social Contract: by Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad

1. Before there was Malaya and Malaysia the peninsular was known as Tanah Melayu, or Malay Land.

2. Saying this alone would result in accusations of being racist.

3. But I need to go back in history if I am going to be able to explain about Malaysia's social contract.

4. Through treaties signed by the Rulers of the Malay States of the Peninsular the British acquired the right to rule the Malay States. These treaties obviously recognised and legitimised the States as Malay States. No one disputed this. Even the aborigines accepted this as shown by their submission to the rule of the Malay Sultans.

5. Initially the peoples living in the States were divided into indigenous Malays and aborigines who were subjects of the Malay rulers and foreign guests who were not subjects of the rulers. There were no citizenship or documents about citizenship status as in most countries.

6. The foreign guests prospered in the British ruled Malay States and in the British colonies of Penang, Malacca and Singapore. The Malay subjects of the Rulers and the Rulers themselves did not feel threatened by the numbers of these non-Malays and the disparities between the general wealth and progress of the foreign guests and the subjects of the Rulers. They did not think that the foreigners who had settled in the country would ever demand citizenship rights.

7. When Japan conquered the Malay States and the colonies of the Straits Settlements, the Chinese felt insecure as the Japanese were their historical enemies.

8. Many Chinese formed and joined guerilla forces and disappeared into the jungle. When Japan surrendered the Chinese guerillas came out and seized many police stations in the interior and declared that they were the rulers of the country. They seized many people, Chinese and Malays and executed a number of them.

9. Malay villagers retaliated by killing the Chinese in the rural areas. Tension rose and a Sino-Malay war was only averted because of the arrival of British forces. But the ill feeling and animosity between the two races remained high.

10. It was in this tensed situation that the British proposed the Malayan Union which would give the "guests" the right of citizenship as indistinguishable from that of the Malays.

11. The Malays rejected the Malayan Union and its citizenship proposal. They forced the British to return to the status quo ante in a new Federation of Malaya.

12. Only Chinese who were British subjects in the colonies of the Straits Settlements were eligible to become citizens in this new Federation. Naturally the Malay citizens far outnumbered the Chinese Malayan citizens.

13. Chinese leaders appealed to the British, who then persuaded the UMNO President, Dato Onn Jaafar to propose to open UMNO to all races. This proposal was rejected by the other UMNO leaders and Dato Onn had to resign.

14. The British kept up the pressure for the Malays to be more liberal with citizenship for non-Malays.

15. Tunku Abdul Rahman, the President of UMNO decided on a coalition with MCA (Malaysian Chinese Association) and the MIC (Malaysian Indian Congress). In the 1955 elections to the Federal Legislative Assembly, since there were very few constituencies with Chinese or Indian majorities, the MCA and MIC partners had to put up candidates in Malay majority constituencies after UMNO undertook not to contest in these constituencies but to support MCA Chinese and MIC Indian candidates instead.

16. Such was the support of the Malays for the MCA and MIC alliance candidates that they won even against Malay candidates from PAS. The MCA and MIC candidates all won. Only UMNO lost one constituency against PAS.

17. The Tunku as Chief Minister of a self-governing Federation of Malaya then decided to go for independence. The British continued to inisist on citizenship rights for the Chinese and Indians as a condition for giving independence.

18. To overcome British resistance to independence and to gain the support of the Chinese and Indians, the Tunku decided to give one million citizenship to the two communities based purely on residence. One notable new citizen was (Tun) Leong Yew Koh, a former general in the Chinese National Army who was later appointed Governor of Malacca.

19. It was at this stage that the leaders of the three communal parties who had formed the Government of self-governing British Federation of Malaya, discussed and reached agreement on the relationship between the three communities in an independent Federation of Malaya.

20. It was to be a quid pro quo arrangement. In exchange for the one million citizenships the non-Malays must recognise the special position of the Malays as the indigenous people. Certain laws such as the pre-eminence of Islam as the state religion, the preservation of Malay reserve land, the position of the Malay Rulers and Malay customs and the distribution of Government jobs were included in the understanding.

21. On the question of national language it was agreed that Malay would be the national language. English should be the second language. The Chinese and Indians could continue to use their own languages but not in official communication.

22. Chinese and Tamil primary schools can use their languages as teaching media. They can also be used in secondary schools but these have to be private schools.

23. For their part the Chinese and Indian leaders representing their parties and communities demanded that their citizenship should be a right which could not be annulled, that they should retain their language, religion and culture, that as citizens they should have political rights as accorded to all citizens.

24. Much of these agreements and understandings are reflected in the Federal Constitution of Independent Malaya. For everything that is accorded the Malays, there is always a provision for non-Malays. Few ever mention this fact. The only thing that attracts everyone's attention and made a subject of dispute is what is accorded the Malays and other indigenous people.

25. Thus although Malay is to be the National Language, Chinese and Tamil can be used freely and in the Chinese and Tamil schools. In no other country has there been a similar provision. Even the most liberal countries do not have this constitutional guarantee.

26. The national language is to be learnt by everyone so that Malayan citizens can communicate with each other everywhere.

27. It was understood also that the Chinese language referred in the understanding were the Chinese dialects spoken in Malaysia, not the national language of China. Similarly for Malayan Indians the language was Tamil, not Hindi or Urdu or whatever became the national language of India. However, the Chinese educationists later insisted that the Chinese language must be the national language of China i.e. Mandarin.

28. The official religion is Islam but other religions may be practised by their adherents without any restriction. As the official religion, Islam would receive Government support. Nothing was said about support for the other religions. The non-Malays did not press this point and the Federal Constitution does not mention Government support for the other religions. Nevertheless such support have been given.

29. A quota was fixed for the Malayan Civil Service wherein the Malays would get four posts for every one given to Chinese or Indians. However it was recognised that the professional post would be open to all races as it was never thought possible there would be enough Malays to take up these posts.

30. The result was that in the early years of independence there were more non-Malays in Division 1 than Malays.

31. The Agong or the Rulers of the States should determine quotas of scholarships and licences for Malays. But no one should be deprived of whatever permits or licences in order to give to Bumiputras.

32. The position of the Malay Rulers was entrenched and could not be challenged. There would be a Paramount Ruler chosen from among the nine Rulers who would serve for five years.

33. The rulers were to be constitutional rulers. Executive power was to be exercised by elected Menteris Besar, Ketua Menteri (Chief Minister) and Prime Minister, assisted by members of councils and cabinets. The British practice was to be the model.

34. The most important understanding was the adoption of Parliamentary Democracy with a Constitutional Monarch, again after the United Kingdom model. It should be remembered that the British imposed an authoritarian colonial Government on the Malay State, the power resting with the Colonial Office in London.

35. Before these the Malay States were feudal with the Malay Rulers enjoying near absolute power. Only the elites played a role in State politics. The Malay subjects had no political rights at all. Certainly the guests had no say in politics. Even the Chinese and Indian British citizens had no say though they may be appointed as Municipal or Legislative Councillors.

36. The decision to adopt a democratic system of Government was a radical step in the governance of the Federation of Malaya and of the Malay States. This was agreed to by the leaders of the three major communities as represented by their political parties i.e. UMNO, MCA and MIC. There can be no doubt that these parties represented the vast majority of the three communities in Malaya. The Communists and the other leftists did not signify their agreement to the understanding.

37. The Reid Commission was briefed on all these agreements and understanding so that they will be reflected in the Constitution to be drawn up. All the three parties approved this Constitution after several amendments were made. In effect the Constitution became a contract binding on all the three communities in the Federation of Malaya upon attaining independence in 1957.

38. When Sabah and Sarawak joined the Peninsular States to form Malaysia the social contract was extended to the two Borneo States. The natives of Sabah and Sarawak were given the same status as the Malays. At this time the word Bumiputra was introduced to distinguish the indigenous Malays and Sabah, Sarawak natives from those descendants of foreign immigrants. Because Malay was widely used in the Borneo States there was no difficulty in the acceptance of Malay as the national language. The fact that the natives of the two states are not all Muslims necessitated no change in the Constitution once the word Bumiputra was accepted. But the official definition of a Malay remained.

39. The embodiment of the social contract is therefore the Constitution of first, the Federation of Malaya and then Malaysia.

40. To say it does not exist is to deny the contents of the Constitution which was based upon the acceptance by the leaders of the three communities of the original social contract.

41. All subsequent actions by the Government were the results of this social contract. The fact that the initiators of this social contract and their successors were endorsed by the people in every election reflects the undertaking of the people to honour this social contract.

42. Saying that the social contract does not exist is like saying that Malaysia exists in a vacuum, without a Constitution and laws based on this Constitution.

43. Implementing the social contract requires understanding of its spirit as much as the letter. The social contract is aimed at creating a multi-racial nation that is stable and harmonious. Any factor which would cause instability and result in confrontation between the races must be regarded as incompatible with the spirit of the social contract.

44. For 50 years no one seriously questioned the social contract. Even today the majority of Chinese and Indians and the indigenous Malays and natives of Sabah and Sarawak accept the social contract. But because Dato Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi basically lost the 2008 election and now heads a weak Government the extremists and erstwhile detractors have questioned the social contract. The Bar Council has now become a political party believing that its expertise in law will exempt it from being questioned as to its credentials and its political objectives.

45. Abdullah's UMNO is incapable of countering any attack on the social contract. If anything untoward happens Abdullah and UMNO must bear responsibility. (12 July 2008)

Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad was the Fourth Prime Minister of Malaysia.

Pak Lah’s Legacy

By Tunku Aziz
Mysinchew.com

As the prime minister begins the process of winding down his stewardship of this country that he inherited from his now much despised predecessor, he would have been less than human if he did not reflect upon the highlights and the low points of his stewardship that in turn cheered and depressed him.

He must wonder why, after such a promising start, fate should have intervened to deal him such a cruel hand. The humiliation of being forced to get on the bicycle and ride off alone into the political sunset prematurely has been, he must admit, largely self-inflicted.

He must sometimes wonder why he was so incredibly naïve as to swallow the proverbial hook, line and sinker, the assurances and protestations of complete and undying loyalty so glibly and convincingly uttered by his closest associates.

I personally would not myself touch them with a long barge pole, but then I suppose I am of a suspicious nature.

When Abdullah Badawi took over the reigns of government, I was among those invited by the media to comment on what his legacy might be. We were swept and overwhelmed by the euphoria of the moment, the dawn of a blessed new era and the end of a morally degrading and debilitating regime.

Anyone after Mahathir Mohamad was a welcome change, and the country was happy to give him and the party he led the biggest ever electoral victory in the history of our country.

Abdullah responded by urging us, his countrymen and women to “work with me and not for me.”

This catchphrase symbolising inclusiveness went down well in the beginning, but when people began to see through this as another clever spin-doctoring exercise, it went down like a ton of bricks.

Abdullah was suave. He could at times be glibly persuasive especially when outlining his agenda against corruption.

As president of Transparency International Malaysia, I was literally “over the moon.” I was, like millions of other Malaysians, completely taken in by all this rhetoric and mock determination to slay the dragon.

Corruption, since his tenure of office, has continued to savage the integrity of this country and much else.

True, he has put in place all the visible symbolic institutions associated with fighting corruption, but sadly they remain nothing more than just weak, ineffectual structures constructed on shifting sand with sub-standard materials.

We do not have to look farther than the Malaysian Institute of Integrity and the recently morphed Anti-Corruption Agency to realise the futility of it all.

Brick and mortar alone cannot sustain our war against national corruption. Abdullah knew that but given the culture of political corruption in his United Malay National Organisation, what could the poor man have done?

My comment in 2003 to the media response on Abdullah was that he would leave an important legacy if he was satisfied with one term during which time he could bring about such changes as were clearly necessary to make a difference to Malaysia in social, economic and political terms.

All he had to do to come out smelling like a million roses was to do the opposite of what Mahathir did during his 22 years of ethically and morally very questionable governance.

As a one term prime minister, Abdullah would not have to be looking over his shoulder constantly. He did try in his usual perfunctory manner to do something, but as many of us have come to realise, it was a case of too little, too late.

I hope history will not be too harsh when evaluating his premiership because he did try after all. He will certainly be remembered as a decent human being which I suppose is more than can be said of many of us.

He will be leaving behind a bloated and lumbering civil service that has been seriously politicised, abandoning any pretence at “neutrality” in discharging its duties and responsibilities, and a police force that lurches from one crisis of confidence to another with regular monotony.

If press reports are to be believed, a major police brutality scandal has already surfaced, and this, in addition to other reported cases of death in custody must surely merit some serious thinking on the part of the authorities about policing in a democratic society.

The manner in which police detainee A. Kugan met his death while under the care and protection of the Royal Malaysia Police has shaken public confidence in our police as never before.

There are no bad policemen, only bad officers and the Inspector General of Police may wish to do the honourable thing; take responsibility and resign.

It is in situations such as this that those of us concerned with effective and ethical policing wonder why the most important of the 125 recommendations of the Royal Commission inquiring into the police service, namely an Independent Police Complaints and Misconduct Commission has yet to be set up four years on.

Has the government the political will to implement this vital recommendation immediately?

The police I know object to this, but it is the people, through their government, who should be wagging the tail, not the other way round.

The IPCMC is intended to protect the people against unethical policing as well as to protect the police against themselves.

Chitrakala: I'm not sabotaging Samy Vellu

— P. Chitrakala Vasu, MIED Maju Institute of Educational Development CEO

KUALA LUMPUR: Maju Institute of Educational Development (MIED) chief executive officer P. Chitrakala Vasu denied that she is "telling it all" now because she wants to sabotage MIC president Datuk Seri S. Samy Vellu's presidential election this month.

"Politics was never my cup of tea. I just want to protect MIED for the community's sake," she said in an exclusive interview with the New Straits Times and an online news media yesterday.

"Politics was never my cup of tea. I just want to protect MIED for the community's sake," she said in an exclusive interview with the New Straits Times and an online news media yesterday.

She also denied that some people were cashing in on her predicament and using her to sabotage the party elections.

"They were only there to give me moral support. The sad thing was people from MIC and even its central working committee members, save for one or two, don't dare to call me. They are just too scared of Samy Vellu."

She also clarified that she did not issue an ultimatum to Deputy Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak when she said she would give him reasonable time before seeing opposition leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim.

"I put in my request to see him to explain my situation since he is head of Barisan Nasional. Where else can I take my case if not to him?"

Human Resources Minister Datuk Dr S. Subramaniam was also not spared Chitrakala's wrath. She claimed he had done nothing about her "wrongful dismissal".

"In MIC, judgment is passed without trial. But no one dares to question Datuk Seri S. Samy Vellu."

The 38-year-old had few kind words to say about her employer who will be celebrating his 73rd birthday tomorrow.

"Thirty years of politics is enough. His birthday gift this year should be for him to go home and spend time with his grandchildren. Enough of his dictatorship."

Selangor MIC Youth leader M. Yogeswaran chided Chitrakala for taking her case to opposition members of parliament like N. Gobalakrishnan and R. Siva-rasa with whom she was seen at Parliament on Tuesday.

"As a responsible CEO, if there was any mismanagement or wrongdoing, she should have reported it at that time itself," he said, adding that Chitrakala was being instigated by some people to drag Samy Vellu down

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

Varsity has no certificate of fitness

NST, March 07 2009

KUALA LUMPUR: The AIMST University, which began operations in Semeling, Kedah, two years ago, is still operating on a temporary certificate of fitness (CF).

This was revealed by MIED chief executive officer P. Chitrakala Vasu in an exclusive interview with the New Straits Times yesterday.

She said the reason it was given a temporary CF was because it had not followed its master plan of building a mosque and a temple.

A source confirmed this, adding that officials were in the midst of getting a CF.

Chitrakala's more frightening claim was that the CF had expired last week.
"If anything happens to the 3,000 students studying there, who would be responsible? If a fire or something happens, there is no insurance."

Another source, involved in the building of the university, confirmed that its CF expired on March 4.

AIMST chairman Tan Sri Dr K. Ampikaipakan, when contacted, said: "I don't want to get involved in all this".

‘Invite UN indigenous peoples' rep to see for himself’

by Hilary Chiew- The Star

KUALA LUMPUR: Malaysia should invite the United Nations special rapporteur on indigenous issues James Annaya to visit the country to allay criticism of its allegedly poor human rights record with regard to the indigenous community.

Asia Indigenous Peoples Pact Foundation (AIPP) secretary-general Joan Carling urged Malaysia to take up the recommendation by other countries such as Mexico, which raised the matter during the Universal Periodic Review (UPR) hearing in Geneva last month.

“Malaysia’s response -- that it is taking good care and recognises the rights of its indigenous peoples -- seemed to suggest that there’s no need for a special rapporteur to visit the country,” she told a press conference here Friday after a two-day gathering of Asian indigenous activists.

She said indigenous groups in Malaysia had long been fighting for their right to their native territories, and these struggles continue today.

Therefore, she said, it is insufficient for Malaysia to adopt the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) -- which it did in September 2007 -- without making real change on the ground to address the land-grab issue affecting many indigenous people, particularly those in Sabah and Sarawak.

Malaysia Indigenous Peoples’ Network president Adrian Lasimbang said many policy-makers are not aware of Malaysian’s adoption of UNDRIP and would be surprised that the country actually supported the commitments undertaken by the non-binding declaration.

“(That’s why) we are still facing all sorts of rights violation brought by development projects that do not consult us or compensate us (for our land loss),” he added.

Carling, who was present at the hearing, said Malaysia was also scrutinised for its poor response to the adoption of other UN human rights instruments.

Non-govermental organisations which submitted their reports on the state of human rights in the country to the Human Rights Council last August had recommended that Malaysia lift its reservations to the Convention on the Rights of the Child and Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against Women.

Other key recommendations was for Malaysia to ratify the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

The UPR is a mechanism under the auspices of the Human Rights Council introduced in 2006 which involves a review of the human rights records of all 192 UN member states once every four years.

Individual governments are given the opportunity to present their self-assessments in an interactive dialogue before the countries of the world. It is designed to ensure equal treatment for every country when their human rights situations are assessed.

Secretary-general in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Malaysia, Tan Sri Rastam Mohamad Isa, presented the national report on Feb 11.

He was reported to have said Malaysia remained open to the possibility of further discussions with the various special procedures on the proposed visits and was willing to consider such requests on the merit of each proposal.

Police Shoot Dead Five Armed Robbers

PENANG, March 7 (Bernama) -- Five armed men, believed to be Vietnamese who had staged a robbery, were shot dead in a shootout with the police at Km15.7 of the Butterworth-Kulim Expressway (BKE) here early today.

State police chief Datuk Wira Ayub Yaakob said they were among eight men suspected to have robbed 11 Vietnamese at a hostel in Taman Perak, Kulim, in Kedah and were making their getaway to Seberang Jaya in two cars.

The five, in a silver Perodua Kenari car, were stopped by a police team along the BKE at 3.10am but they starting firing at the police, their shots hitting the rear windscreen of the police patrol car, he said.

"The policemen, in defence, fired several shots at the car and killed the five men in it," he told reporters after flagging off a community and Rakan Cop treasure hunt at the Penang police headquarters, here.

Ayub said a team of five policemen on duty, acting on a tip-off from their counterparts in Kulim, had bumped into the robbers at the Penanti rest and recreation area but they sped off on seeing the police.

However, he said, another police team managed to stop the car at Km15.7 of the BKE.

"A pistol, a live bullet, two ski masks, 11 machetes, a metal cutter and a crowbar were found in the car which had false registration plates," he said.

Preliminary investigation showed that the car was reported missing on Oct 20 last year, he added.

Ayub said the bodies of the five men were sent to the Seberang Jaya Hospital.

He also said that Penang police would help their counterparts in Kulim to track down the three other men who had escaped in another car.

Ayub said the state police had launched a special operation code-named "Ops Rantau" to monitor criminal cases involving foreigners, especially Vietnamese, who might have lost their jobs due to cost-cutting by factories due to the economic downturn.

8 glaring differences: Kugan's mum lodges police report

Kugan : Stop Manipulation Get to Root Issue

Malaysiakini: Syed Hamid, want to offer your office?

…”Kapar MP S Manickavasagam who was also present, responded to Home Minister Syed Hamid Albar’s statement questioning why the Kugan case was politicised.

“The minister asked why we used the PKR headquarters to hold the press conference. Well, if Syed Hamid can offer his office to us, we are willing to use it to meet the press. Kugan’s family cannot afford to book a hotel ballroom, so we offered our party office.”

The Key issue here is MURDER of car Theft Accused A . Kugan while under Police Custody. He has no prior criminal record and he had cooperated with police investigation which lead to some cars recovered. So, why he was murdered and POLICE knows the culprits whom caused his life. Instead of arresting or remanding them, POLICE with support of Home Minister still let them mingling around public. Why, planning to KILL few more?

The Police and Home Minister trying all their level best to manipulate MURDER committed by some unscrupulous Police personnel whom may not necessarily low ranking. Looking at the involvement of a Cabinet Minister , IGP and a State Police chief in trying to protect their own act I can strongly feel possible conspiracy involve in Kugan’s Murder. Why until today Police never arrest the Warehouse Owner whom stored stolen cars? What’s the link between them and Police?

Instead to finding the root cause, look what they had done for far :

1) Asking why held press conference at PKR HQ. Public wanted to come to Parliament to submit memo , their arrest. We go to police station to report, they arrest. Even if we group together, they call it illegal gathering . It’s merely act of Home Minister try to divert public attention.

2) Incomplete Government Hospital autospy report , never touch death body below waist. Hospital administation claim pathologist afraid family will barge into when conducting authsopy. What’s a silly excuse? So they think, the family member all terrorist or what? Or, he afraid of giving false report to police? The Police already at Mortuary before autospy commence, so what made his to worry?

3) When death occurred, the police gave us lies and tried to cover up by telling us that he died while he was drinking water. And when the (first) post-mortem report came out, they said he died of water in his lungs.

4) The police came out with weak excuses and what I call a diversion tactic by saying that we barged into the (Serdang Hospital) mortuary. This was an act to divert the public’s focus from the murder.

5) They tried their very best to prevent us from getting a second post-mortem report. The IGP (Inspector-General of Police Musa Hassan) today in the news said that he can’t wait to read the report, but they used all the obstacles to prevents us from getting a second post-mortem.

6) Up to this day, no one was arrested or remanded for the murder.

So what’s next …. argue the finding of Second Post Mortem?

Check on the First Autospy report page 4 the ,conclusion. The Doctor cann’t identify the true cause ” SEMBAP PARU-PARU” or Bloated Lungs.

The same report also conclude Kugan’s died due to “Pulmonary Oedema” , which Wikipedia says due to direct damage to the tissue or a result of inadequate functioning of the heart or circulatory system. So, why the doctor made a hanging report. Though I’m not medical doctors, this questions easily arise in our mind when we involve into the issue.

When it come to their Cronies all kind of excuses Given, when it involves opposition they search for faults or reasons to charge them.

Let’s Wait for Attorney General’s professional reaction.

Autopsy reports: 8 glaring differences - Malaysiakini

After discovering vast discrepancies in the two post-mortem reports, the family of dead detainee A Kugan did the next sensible thing - lodge a police report and hope to see justice done.

MCPX

This morning, M Indra did just that. She lodged a police report against Serdang Hospital and the pathologist who conducted the first post-mortem on her son’s body.

Accompanying her to the Petaling Jaya police district headquarters to lodge the report were her lawyer, two MPs and several family members.

Dr Abdul Karim Tajudin of Serdang Hospital performed the first post-mortem while Dr Prashant N Samberkar of Universiti Malaya Medical Centre conducted the second one. The Prashant post-mortem report was submitted to the Attorney-General’s Chambers by Indra on Thursday.

The Prashant report revealed that the 22-year-old deceased endured severe beatings and was also starved during his incarceration while the Karim report said the cause of death was inconclusive.

According to the family's lawyer N Surendran, there were eight major differences in the two reports:

1) The Karim report said that Kugan's back had V-shaped abrasions. The Prashant report stated that the V-shaped marks were burn wounds inflicted with a heated object.

2) The Karim report listed down 22 marks of external injuries. The Prashant report listed down almost 40 marks of external injuries.

3) The Karim report said the brain was normal while the Prashant report stated that the brain had congested blood vessels.

4) The Karim report said the neck muscles were normal. The Prashant report indicated hemorrhage of the right neck muscle.

5) The Karim report said the heart was normal. The Prashant report revealed hemorrhage of the heart.

6) The Karim report said the spleen was normal. The Prashant report revealed large area of hemorrhage in the spleen.

7) The Karim report said other organs in the abdomen were examined and were normal. The Prashant report said that in the first post-mortem, organs in the abdomen were not removed for dissection.

8) The Karim report gave the cause of death as pulmonary oedema which cause was unknown. The Prashant report clearly stated that the cause of death was kidney failure due to beatings.

"We are shocked and surprised to see the differences - it is puzzling for a pathologist to miss a burn mark or a large area of hemorrhage in the spleen," said Surendran.

Serdang Hospital’s ridiculous statement

Disappointed and shocked by the significant differences, Kugan's mother today demanded an investigation on whether it was an attempt to cover up the truth by the hospital and the pathologist Dr Abdul Karim.

"Were they trying to protect the police? Was police involved in any cover-up? How could Dr Abdul Karim say the other organs in the abdomen were examined when the second report showed he did not remove those organs for dissection?" Indra asked.

She also questioned why the cause of death in the first report was inconclusive while the second one was able to identify the cause of death. She asked for action to be taken against both Dr Abdul Karim and the Serdang Hospital.

Kugan had died on Jan 20 at the Taipan police station in Subang Jaya, five days after he was arrested in connection with the theft of luxury cars.

On Serdang Hospital director Dr Mohd Norzi Ghazali’s statement yesterday that Kugan's body could have been tampered with, Surendran said it was ridiculous as video evidence clearly indicated that the body was not.

"If what he said was true, the first post-mortem should have stated it as any pathologist can identify cuts and injuries that have been inflicted after the death of a person. Both the post-mortem reports have not indicated such injuries on the body," said the lawyer.

"The statement made by the Serdang Hospital is so ridiculous that I think I don't even need to produce scientific evidence," he said.

Surendran also felt that it was improper for a hospital director to come out with such a statement.Syed Hamid, want to offer your office?

Meanwhile, Kapar MP S Manickavasagam who was also present, responded to Home Minister Syed Hamid Albar’s statement questioning why the Kugan case was politicised.

"The minister asked why we used the PKR headquarters to hold the press conference. Well, if Syed Hamid can offer his office to us, we are willing to use it to meet the press. Kugan's family cannot afford to book a hotel ballroom, so we offered our party office."

Manickavasagam also said that the issue of Kugan's brutal death not only concerned a particular race, but every one in the country.

Teluk Intan MP M Manogaran, who was also present, called for the Malaysian Medical Council (MMC) to take action against Dr Abdul Karim.

"The MMC should be pro-active and call the mother if she wants to lodge a report against Dr Karim," he said.

He also questioned Dr Karim's qualifications and asked if he was influenced by the police.

"How can a pathologist not be able to conduct a complete post-mortem?" he asked.

Manogaran also urged the media not to criminalise Kugan and spare his family from further suffering.

Pakatan turns to palace

IPOH, March 6 — Amidst the ever-rising mountain of legal suits filed and police reports lodged, Pakatan Rakyat has now returned to the palace in hopes of finding a way out of Perak’s constitutional crisis.

Ironically however, it was the palace which was the first stumbling block when their appeal to Sultan Azlan Shah for the dissolution of the state assembly on Feb 4 was met with brusque rejection.

To top it off, the ruler had even gone so far as to demand for the resignation of the Pakatan Rakyat government the very next day, to which Datuk Seri Mohammad Nizar Jamaluddin had “respectfully” rejected.

Now, Nizar faces the possibility of standing before Sultan Azlan Shah yet again and urging the Ruler, for the second time, to dissolve the state assembly.

That is, of course, if he is granted an audience.

Former exco member Nga Kor Ming told pressmen today that Nizar would be carrying more ammunition with him this time, in the form of the three motions approves beneath the tree during an emergency sitting three days ago.

The motions are – a vote of confidence for Nizar as the rightful Mentri

Besar instead of his successor from Barisan Nasional, Datuk Dr Zambry Abd Kadir, a request for royal consent for the dissolution of the state assembly, and the adoption of the decision made by Speaker V Sivakumar as chairman of the assembly’s Rights and Privileges Committee to suspend Dr Zambry and his six “unlawful” exco members from the House.

“It is the wish of Perakians that the assembly gets dissolved and power is returned to them to decide on their own government.

“With greatest respect to His Royal Highness, we hope that this is granted,” Nga told reporters at the Perak DAP headquarters.

The big question now is whether the palace will grant an audience to Nizar in the first place for there are ongoing deliberations in the courts as to whether Tuesday’s sitting had been legal.

The Ipoh High Court had even issued an order on the very day of the sitting, restraining Sivakumar from convening any unlawful meetings, purporting it to be state assembly sittings.

Lawyers have confirmed however that the order, served to Sivakumar two days ago, was not “retroactive”, which means that it did not apply to Tuesday’s sitting.

Nga scoffed at the order, saying that it only applied to stopping Sivakumar from convening “unlawful” meetings and there was no mention of “lawful” ones.

“We do not need a court order to tell us that we are not allowed to convene unlawful meetings,” he joked.

As such, added Nga, the three resolutions passed by the House on Tuesday were legal and should be complied by all assemblymen, even those who had not attended the sitting.

Of Perak’s 59 assemblymen, all 28 from Pakatan Rakyat had attended the sitting, including Sivakumar as the Speaker, while none of the Barisan Nasional’s 28 or the three Independents were there.

“The motions passed remain unaffected for there was no court order declaring otherwise.

“We had the quorum of one quarter of the House, we adjourned to a lawful place under the ‘yellow flame tree’ and we have a legal Speaker,” he said.

“With this, I appeal to my dear friend Dr Zambry to call it a day and resign as the Mentri Besar. After all, he no longer commands the majority support of the House,” he said.

Dr Zambry however, has chosen to turn a deaf ear to his opponents and has instead gone about with his Mentri Besar duties.

In a separate function yesterday, a cheerful Dr Zambry told reporters that since his one month in office, Perak had seen a deluge of investments.

He reassured the people that despite the seemingly unhealthy economic and political climate, Perak’s investment portfolio had remained virile.

Dr Zambry has also decided to keep mum on the Opposition’s antics in trying to wrest his Mentri Besar post back.

When reporters attempted to grill him on political matters, the ever-smiling Dr Zambry reiterated that he would not entertain such questions.

He has chosen to put himself and his government at the mercy of the court of law, a place where the Pakatan Rakyat, despite valiant efforts, has, in recent days, lost some of its advantage.

Earlier yesterday however, an attempt to regain some advantage was made when counsels fighting to represent Sivakumar in two suits, filed notices of appeal in Putrajaya and in Ipoh to overrule the High Court decision that the Speaker had to be represented by the state legal adviser.

The suits against Sivakumar are — an application for a declaration from the court by three Independents stating their resignations had been illegal and a declaration that the suspension of Dr Zambry and his six excos had been unlawful and invalid.

Perak PR to sue Perak State Legal Adviser

By Debra Chong and Edward Cheah- The malaysian insider

KUALA LUMPUR, March 6 — Perak Assembly Speaker V Sivakumar is suing the State Legal Adviser (SLA) to stop the latter from representing him in an ongoing case in the Ipoh High Court.

Prominent lawyer, Tommy Thomas, who is acting on behalf of Sivakumar filed the suit through his legal assistant N. Ganesan at the High Court here close to 4pm today.

However, Sivakumar did not name Datuk Ahmad Kamal Md Shahid personally in the suit.

In the copy of the filed papers given to the media, Sivakumar said the order made by Ipoh High Court judge Ridwan Ibrahim is a “sham order, done in deceit and therefore null and void and not binding on and/ or enforceable against the Plantiff”.

Sivakumar argues the SLA had “acted without authority” when he claimed to represent the Speaker in two separate court proceedings behind closed doors: the first on March 3 and again, yesterday.

He added the SLA had “acted negligently, in breach of contract and in breach of duty” as well as breaking the trust in his professional capacity.

Sivakumar wants the High Court here to set aside Justice Ridwan’s order compelling him to use the SLA as his only legal counsel in court.

Perak DAP chief Datuk Ngeh Koo Ham told reporters earlier that Sivakumar’s suit against the SLA was filed here instead of in Ipoh because “the KL High Court is seen to be more independent”.

“It looks like there is a collusion between Ahmad Kamal and Zambry,” Ngeh noted, referring to de facto Menteri Besar Datuk Zambry Abdul Kadir, who is also represented by the SLA in a related court case here.

“I’m not saying it is collusion but people are saying it is one,” Ngeh defended quickly, pointing out a recent New Straits Times report quoting judicial sources who have already passed judgment on the ongoing matter.

Uthayakumar: I've never refused medication

by Olaichuvadi

Hindraf leader and ISA detainee P Uthayakumar has made a hand-written report at the Kamunting police station refuting a press report that he did not take his medicines while in detention.

In the report, he dismissed the news report in the New Straits Times titled "Refused Treatment, Medicine 18 Times" published on March 3 as based on 'a false police report or false media statement'.

"I wish to state here that from the day I was arrested and detained here on December 13, 2007 up to the day of this police report, I have been taking my diabetic tablets and other medication except when the same was denied to me by the Kemta Prison authorities in early 2008.

uthayakumar sedition trial 201008 02“To prove this, I invite the police to come to my prison block in Kemta Prison @ Malaysia's Guantanamo Bay to check for themselves, verify and confirm the hundreds of empty diabetic and other medicine shells."

He also dared the police to check and verify the prison diary for his requests for medicine every week.

According to Uthayakumar, he has been requesting for private medical treatment at Gleneagles Hospital because he had lost confidence in government hospitals.

Citing A Kugan's suspicious post-mortem as an example, he remarked that he was fearful of the Special Branch interfering with government hospital doctors and medical reports to cover up the true and accurate state of his health.

"The numerous affidavits by these doctors in my High Court case and my two previous police reports dated Feb 2 and Feb 6 made through my family and myself are evidence."

He also said that despite his complaints about the uneven road surface and potholes which have caused his injuries, nothing had been done to repair the conditions in his prison block or shift him to a better location.

'They're trying to kill me'

In addition, he alleged that he was served sugar added bread everyday, and urged the police to confiscate them before evidence is wiped out, saying, "I can't help but think that the home minister and government of Malaysia are trying to kill me in prison for political reasons.

I also want my new found silent heart condition (hypnokinetic) to be checked. I also need to consult a specialist cardiologist on whether I need to start taking aspirin and high blood pressure medication arising out of these depressive prison conditions.

"Should anything happen to me in prison, the home minister and the government of Malaysia are responsible."

In another letter, directed to Home Minister Syed Hamid Albar from Uthayakumar's lawyers Edwin Lim and N Surendran, the lawyers alleged that he had received different reports from two doctors for the same condition.

The letter was written to appeal for Uthayakumar's release so that he could seek independent medical treatment.

According to the letter, the lawyers stated that Uthayakumar was finally allowed to seek treatment at Taiping General Hospital where he took an X-Ray on his left toe after 18 days of police reports, public protests and numerous requests made to the Kemta Prison authorities..

The X-Ray results showed that he had three toe fractures, compared to an earlier report prepared at the Kuala Lumpur General Hospital which showed only one toe fracture.

Unfortunately, the doctor at Taiping General Hospital could not verify if his toe had healed in 18 days as he did not have the original X-Ray taken at Kuala Lumpur Hospital.

Malaysian Wins Court Battle To Become Christian

An Islamic court in Malaysia ruled Friday (6 March) that a man given an Islamic name at birth was a Christian, a rare victory for religious minorities in this Muslim-majority nation.

The man _ whose original identity card listed his name as "Mohammad Shah alias Gilbert Freeman" _ brought his case to the Shariah court in southern Negeri Sembilan state after the National Registration Department refused to accept he was a Christian and allow him to drop his Islamic name when he applied for a new identity card.

Lawyer Hanif Hassan said his client, who is 61, was raised as a Christian by his mother, and his Islamic name came from his Muslim father, who left the family when he was only 2-months-old. Freeman is married according to Christian rites and has three children who are Christians.

"The Shariah court ruled that he is not a Muslim. He is not practicing Islam, and he hasn't applied to be a Muslim," Hanif told The Associated Press.

He said his client was happy with the Shariah court's decision.

"This is a rare case but it shows that the Shariah courts are not rigid and are able to help resolve inter-religious disputes," he said.

Malaysia has a dual court system. Muslims are governed by the Islamic Shariah courts while civil courts have jurisdiction over non-Muslims. But inter-religious disputes usually end up in Shariah courts, and end in favor of Muslims.

Religious issues are extremely sensitive in Malaysia, where about 60% of the 27 million people are Muslims. Buddhist, Christian and Hindu minorities have accepted Islam's dominance but in recent years voiced fears that courts are unfairly asserting the supremacy of Islam, which is Malaysia's official religion.

Freeman sought the court's help because he said he was getting old and he didn't want any confusion over whether he should receive a Christian burial after, Hanif said.

There have been several cases of Islamic authorities claiming the bodies of people they say converted secretly to Islam. (By EILEEN NG/ AP)

Malaysia's politicians drained by constant wrangling, politicking

While UMNO has blamed the constant politicking for its slow pace of reform, opposition-controlled states such as Penang, led by Chinese-based DAP, just want to be left alone.

By Channel NewsAsia's Malaysia Bureau Chief Melissa Goh

It has been a year since Malaysia's landmark election in March 2008. Since then, constant wrangling has left the country's politicians physically drained and mentally distracted.

The "political tsunami" had swept the opposition Pakatan Rakyat alliance into power in five key states and had denied the ruling Barisan Nasional coalition a crucial two-thirds majority in Parliament.

But the initial euphoria and optimism have now been replaced by a sense of anxiety and frustration.

Anwar Ibrahim, opposition parliamentary leader, said: "There is a danger of complacency or lethargy creeping in. There's a need to rejuvenate."

Mr Anwar has been put on the defensive by a series of events that has gripped the fledging alliance – from Perak, where defections by Pakatan assemblymen caused the northern state to fall, to a nude picture scandal involving Selangor executive councillor, Elizabeth Wong, which saw her resign under mounting pressure last month.

The 62-year-old, who is still fighting off allegations of sodomy, issued a stern warning to all his party members.

"You wish to support the agenda? You remain. You wish to enrich yourself? You join UMNO," said Mr Anwar.

The ruling UMNO party blames him for the turmoil as he had issued threats to topple the federal government by September 16 last year.

Shahrir Samad, domestic and consumer affairs minister, UMNO supreme council member, said: "We are accused of politicking too much whereas we are not the ones who have indulged in politicking."

While UMNO has blamed the constant politicking for its slow pace of reform, opposition-controlled states such as Penang, led by Chinese-based DAP, just want to be left alone.

Jeffrey Ooi, opposition strategist, DAP, said: "We want to focus on our job. We want to have the least amount of distractions because of crossovers and money politics. We intend to stay on."

With three by-elections due on April 7, the political temperature looks set to rise further, and it will not be an easy ride for Deputy Prime Minister Najib Razak, who will become Malaysia's sixth prime minister at the end of this month.

While both sides blame each other for causing all the distractions, the people lament the waste of time, energy and taxpayers' money, which they said could have been better focused to jointly fix the economy, amid an onslaught of the global financial crisis.

Is there no decency left?

Anil Netto succintly sums up the findings of the second Kugan post-mortem report when he describes Kugan’s cause of death in layman’s terms : ‘kidney failure as a result of repeated beatings’.

Anil then reminds us that ‘the findings of the second post mortem report are so different from the first’ and suggests that the ‘Serdang Hospital personnel who conducted the first examination must now explain why all this was not detected or highlighted in their post mortem report’.

“How many other post mortems have there been like this? What have you got to say, Serdang Hospital?”, Anil asks.

Malaysiakini reports today that Bar Council Vice-President Ragunath said that the new autopsy raised several serious questions including “the integrity of the police force and the independence of the pathologist who conducted the initial autopsy”.

“The fact that the results of the second autopsy differ so extensively from that of the first smacks of an apparent attempt to cover up and protect members of the police force who were in charge of A Kugan during the period of detention”, Ragunath is reported to have opined.

NST online reports today that Serdang hospital director, Dr Mohd Norzi Ghazali, said a mob of about 50 people had barged in and tampered with the body before any post-mortem was carried out by the hospital’s forensics pathologist, and that consequently, both post-mortems were “weak evidence” in the case as they had been conducted after the body had been tampered with.

I’d suggest you read the NST report in full.

Even if Dr Mohd Norzi is right about the tampering of the body by the mob, that still does not explain the vast difference in the findings between the two post-mortem reports.

This still remains unexplained.

What I found most distressing, though, in all that Dr Mohd Norzi said, was his contention that the wounds on the body could have been inflicted after Kugan’s death, the clear insinuation being that these were inflicted by the mob, which included family members of the deceased.

Why, Doc, would you imagine that family members of a recently departed might mutilate the otherwise unblemished body of that recently departed?

To save some disgraceful men in the police force?

Doc, you need help!

AZALINA OTHMAN SAID'S POLITICAL SECRETARY QUIZZED BY MACC OFFICIALS FOR GRAFT

The Minister of Tourism, Datuk Sri Azalina Othman Said's political secretary have been identified as senior aide to an UMNO Minister who has been detained and quizzed by the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) for alleged graft involving RM70,000 on Wednesday.

This former senior politician, was quizzed at midnight and released several hours later after his statement was recorded. Its believed as reported that he has been alleged to have received the money from someone but no further details were available.

Money politics is on the rise as the coming UMNO elections are just around the corner (March 24).

picture courtesy of Malaysiakini

How to judge the judge?

by N. H. Chan

In The Sun newspaper, March 4, 2009, I read on page 1 this alarming report:

“Ipoh High Court grants injunction sought by Datuk Dr Zambry Abdul Kadir and the six State Executive Councillors to stop speaker V. Sivakumar from convening any state assembly sitting.
Court also ruled that Sivakumar’s five lawyers have no legal standing to represent him in the case filed by Zambry to seek a declaration that Sivakumar’s decision to suspend him and his executive council was unconstitutional and unlawful.”

The arrogance of a novice judge

I must say I was taken aback by the astonishing ruling of the High Court judge. The full report is on page 6 of the newspaper. There I find that the judge was Mr Ridwan Ibrahim, a judicial commissioner. He ruled that the lawyers “engaged by Sivakumar had no locus standi to represent him in an application by Perak Mentri Besar Datuk Dr Zambry Abdul Kadir, who is seeking a declaration that Sivakumar’s decision to suspend him and his executive council was unconstitutional and unlawful”.

Sivakumar’s leading lawyer was Mr Tommy Thomas, and I quote from the newspaper of what he said:

“Thomas recounted what happened in chambers at a press conference outside the court.
He said the judge had earlier asked that only one lawyer from each party enter his chambers, so he (Thomas) went in on behalf of Sivakumar, while Zambry was represented by a counsel and the state legal officer.
‘An objection was made against me and my team, saying that we had no locus standi to represent the Speaker’.”

The objection was under section 24 of the Government Proceedings Act:

” … ‘the judge ruled against us saying that we had no locus standi and therefore we cannot defend the Speaker who can only be represented by the state legal adviser’.
. . . when he asked if he couid sit in and hold a watching brief with speaking rights, Ridwan ruled that no speaking rights would be granted but he could hold a watching brief.”

I am appalled at the arrogance of the judge. I am quite sure he is not an expert in constitutional law and even if he were, in a case of such great public importance to the nation, it is wise to listen to the views of the other side. Especially in this case, when eminent counsel Mr Tommy Thomas was available to assist him. The judge could have invited him to submit as an amicus curiae - in Latin it means ‘friend of the court’ and when the phrase is used in a court of law i means ‘one who advises the court in a csae’. I have done that many times even when I was in the Court of Appeal. Judges of far greater eminence than this Judicial Commissioner have often asked lawyers of great experience who are in the court for their valued views. Yet this judge thought he knew everything that he did not require any assistance from one of the top lawyers in the country. Dick Hamilton in his book Foul Bills and Dagger Money wrote, at pages 244, 245:

“It is always easy to criticise judges, and some of them deserve it from time to time; but it is even easier to underestimate the difficulty of their task, and to take their successes for granted. No member of the Bar pretends to understand every branch of the law. … But a High Court Judge has to deal with any sort of case which comes before him.”

In order for the judge to tackle all sorts of cases which come before him, the wise and able judge is always humble enough to ask any of the lawyers in court who is an expert in his field for assistance. Here we have Tommy Thomas who is one of the top lawyers in the country who was only too willing to assist the judge, yet this probationary judge, who thinks he knew more law than some of the most eminent judges who have sat on the bench, refused to hear Mr Thomas.

How you can judge this judge

You cannot judge a judge unless you know the basic law yourself. But you do not have to worry because I shall now provide you with the law applicable so that you are in a position to judge the judge. You may be surprised at your own ability after you have read this. You might think that even a layman, after reading the applicable law, knows what is the right decision to make. And when a judge does not know the correct answer, it makes you wonder how such a thing could have happened.

On section 24 of the Government Proceedings Act 1956

I shall start with section 24 of the Government Proceedings Act 1956. I have highlighted the important words for easier reading. Subsections (1) reads:

“(1) Notwithstanding any written law
(a) in civil proceedings by or against the Federal Government …
(b) in civil proceedings by or against the Government of a State a law officer … authorised by the Legal Adviser of such State … may appear as advocate on behalf of such Government … “

As you can see this subsection is not relevant as it only applies to civil suits brought by or against the State Government.

And subsection (2), which is relevant on the subject of discussion, reads:

“(2) Notwithstanding any written law in civil proceedings to which a public officer is a party -
(a) by virtue of his office; or
(b) in his personal capacity, if the Attorney General certifies in writing that it is in the public interest that such officer should be represented by a legal officer;
a legal officer may appear as advocate on behalf of such officer … “

See also section 2 of the Act which gives the definition of:

” ‘legal officer’ includes a law officer”
” ‘law officer’ means . . . in respect of proceedings by or against the Government of a State or to which a State officer is a party, includes the Legal Adviser of such State”

This subsection only applies to civil suits brought by or against a public officer. In such a case, a public officer may (the word is “may” not “must”) be represented by a legal officer which could include the Legal Adviser of the State. There is, therefore, nothing in section 24(2) of the Government Proceedings Act to suggest that a public officer if he sues or if he is sued must be represented by a legal officer such as the State Legal Officer.

In any case, section 24(2) of the Government Proceedings Act only applies to civil proceedings to which a public officer is a party. Therefore, the question is, does the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of a State hold office as a member of the public service - if he does then he is a public officer. Article 132, Clause (3) of the Federal Constitution states that:

“(3) The public service shall not be taken to comprise -
(a) …
(b) the office of President, Speaker, Deputy President, Deputy Speaker or member of either House of Parliament or of the Legislative Assembly of a State;”

So now you koow that the Speaker and the members of the Legislative Assembly of a State are not part of the public service as they do not hold office as such public officers. Therefore, section 24(2) of the Government Proceedings Act does not apply to them. Now we all know, except the judge because he thought he knew better, that Mr Tommy Thomas could not be prevented to appear for the Speaker Sivakumar. If only he would hear Mr Thomas, instead of barring him from speaking, he would not have made such a grave error.

On the conflict between the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly and the Law

According to newspaper reports the case is an application by Mentri Besar Zambry to the court the decision of the speaker Sivakumar in the legislative assembly to suspend him and his 6 exco members unconstitutional and unlawful. The question is, can the courts decide on the validity of the proceedings in the Legislative Assembly?

The answer is staring right at us here in Federal Constitution. Article 72, Clauses (1) to (3) states:

“(1) The validity of any proceedings in the Legislative Assembly of any State shall not be questioned in any court.

(2) No person shall be liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything said or any vote given by him when taking part in proceedings of the Legislative Assembly of any State or of any committee thereof.

(3) No person shall be liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything published by or under the authority of the Legislative Assembly of any State.”

So now you know from the Federal Constitution itself that the validity of the suspension of Zambry and his 6 exco members by the Speaker in the State Assembly cannot be questioned in any court.

Lord Denning tried to inquire into a private Act of Parliament on the ground that Parliament was misled by fraud but he failed. The case is Pickin v. British Railways Board [1974] A.C. 765. He recounted this in his book What Next in the Law at page 319:

“A little while ago there was a case where the British Railways Board got a private Act vesting a man’s land in the Board without payment. He alleged that Parliament had been misled by fraud. In the Court of Appeal we held that the judges could inquire into it. But the House of Lords overruled us. They held that no inquiry by the judges could be permitted.”

It is important to remember that the United Kingdom does not have a written constitution. What more when we have a written constitution which says that “the validity of any proceedings in the State Legislative Assembly shall not be questioned in any court”.

From what we have read from the newspapers it seems that there is an injunction against the Speaker. You may also wonder how an injunction can be obtained against the Speaker when our written constitution says that “no person shall be liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything said or any vote given by him when taking part in proceedings of the Legislative Assembly of the State”.

In The Family Story, Lord Denning tells us this story, at pages 194, 195:

“I would recall the great case of Ashby v. White 1 Smith’s Leading Cases 253 in 1703. There was a conflict between the House of Commons and the Law. A ‘poor indigent’ man named Mathias Ashby went to the polling booth and claimed a right to vote for two members of Parliament: but the voting officers refused to allow him to vote on the ground that he was no settled inhabitant of the borough. Ashby brought an action for damages. The House of Lords then resolved that Ashby was entitled to bring his action and to recover his damages of £5. The House there not only vindicated the fundamental right of a citizen to vote, but it also established the great principle that wherever a man has a right, he shall have a remedy at law to enforce it. The decision, so clearly a broadening of freedom, was, however, furiously opposed by the House of Commons. They ordered the arrest of the solicitor who acted for Ashby; and they committed to prison five other men simply because they, like Ashby, brought actions against the returning officers. These men applied for a writ of habeas corpus. They had counsel to argue for them. But the House of Commons thereupon took action against the counsel. The Sergeant-at-Arms actually arrested two of the counsel and would also have liked to have taken a third, Mr Nicholas Lechmere, ‘but that he got out of his chamber in the Temple, two pair of stairs high, at the back window, by the help of his sheets and a rope’. The controversy between the two Houses was only resolved because Queen Anne prorogued Parliament and the prisoners were released.”

The above account is not as strange as it seems. It is the common law of England and the common law of England that was in force on 7 April 1956 is embodied into the common law of West Malaysia, and the state of Perak is in West Malaysia, by virtue of section 3(1) of the Civil Law Act 1956.

There is an interesting episode in Lord Denning’s The Family Story about a breach of the privileges of the House of Commons. He wrote, at page 192:

“In the ordinary way there is no conflict between our two great institutions - Parliament and the Courts. But in exceptional cases there has been. … The Houses of Parliament enjoy certain privileges. One of them is freedom of speech. Erskine May says: ‘What is said or done within the walls of Parliament cannot be enquired into in a court of law’.”

At page 193:

“On 8 February 1957 Mr Strause M.P. wrote a letter - on House of Commons paper - to Mr Maudling, the Paymaster-General. He complained of the behaviour of the London Electricity Board. He said that they were disposing of scrap cables at too low a price. He said their conduct was a scandal. Mr Maudling … passed the complaints on to the London Electricity Board. … The Board’s solicitor on 4 March 1957 wrote saying:
Your letter is wholly unsatisfactory and we are instituting proceedings …
That simple solicitor’s letter raised the great constitutional issue. Who was supreme? Parliament or the Courts of Law? Mr Strause said the letter (threatening a writ) was a breach of the priveleges of Parliament, and that the Board and its solicitor were punishable by the House itself. The London Electricity Boardsaid that they were entitled to have recourse to the Courts of Law and that the House of Commons could not stop them.
The issue was referred to the Privy Council. Seven Law Lords sat to hear them. I was one of them. I found myself in a minority of one. . . . They held that the House of Commons could treat the issue of a writ against a Member of Parliament - in respect of a speech or proceeding in Parliament - as a breach of its privileges.”

At page 194:

“So if you read the Report in the Law Reports - re the Parliamentary Privileges Act 1770 [1958] A.C. 331 - you would think that it was a unanimous opinion of all seven,”

Those of you who are lawyers will know that the decision or advice of the Privy Council is given as a single opinion - only the majority view is given.

——————————————————————————–
NH CHAN, who is former Court of Appeal judge, lives in Ipoh.

Bk. Tinggi Murder: Wife detained over contractor's murder

By : Alang Bendahara and Lee Shi-Ian

NST, March 04 2009

S. Sivanathan (left) and R. Kavita.

KUALA LUMPUR: The wife of murdered contractor S. Sivanathan and one of his workers have been detained by police for questioning.

Selangor Criminal Investigation Department chief Senior Assistant Commissioner II Hasnan Hassan, when contacted, confirmed that R. Kavita, 31, and another man had been picked up.

Police believe the duo can assist in investigations into the brutal slaying of Sivanathan, 31, in his bedroom in Bandar Bukit Tinggi 2, Klang, on Feb 22.

Hasnan, however, declined to give details.

It is learnt that police are looking for two other men in connection with the killing.
Sivanathan was asleep when three men walked into his house and slashed him on the neck, legs and hands at 9.15am.

Kavita had earlier said she had opened the front gate to drive to the market when her 3-year-old daughter started crying and insisted on following her.

As she alighted from the car and went into the house to get her daughter, three men brandishing parang walked into the house.

The men herded mother and child into one of the rooms downstairs and told them to be silent.

She had said she waited for several minutes and when there were no more movements in the house, she opened the room door and dashed out of the house to scream for help.

Several neighbours climbed on the roof of the porch and broke one of the windows of the master bedroom.

Sivanathan was found in a pool of blood on the bed, barely moving.

He was rushed to hospital where he died in the intensive care unit due to blood loss.

**********

Detained wife a 'victim of abuse'

By : By V. Shankar Ganesh
NST, March 05 2009

KLANG: R. Kavita, who was arrested in connection with the death of her husband, was a victim of wife abuse.

District police chief Assistant Commissioner Mohamad Mat Yusop said Kavita, 31, had lodged a police report in May last year after a severe beating.

However, police did not file any charges against her husband, S. Sivananthan, also 31.

On Feb 22, Sivanathan was hacked to death by three men at 9.15am while he was asleep at his house in Bandar Bukit Tinggi 2 here.

Kavita had told police the men rushed in after she had left the front gate open to pick up her 3-year-old daughter, who wanted to follow her to the market.
Mohamad said police had arrested eight people, including Kavita, in connection with the murder.

All were brought to the Klang magistrate's court and remanded yesterday.

It is learned that two of the detained men are Sivananthan's workers.

Mohamad said police believed hired killers were involved in the murder.

According to Makkal Osai 05/03/2009, Kavitha, wife of the murdered contractor Sivanathan initially paid RM 25,000 to kill her husband but the person reneged. Later she paid RM 50,000 to a different person who finished the job.

Ganesha temple in trouble

By KHARLEE ZUBIN March 06, 2009 Malay Mail

The oldest Ganesha temple in the country in Petaling Jaya faces possible takeover by the Insolvency Department following a long-standing row among the administrators.

In the event this happens, it will be the first time a religious institution is subjected to such a disgrace.

The Registrar of Societies, Datuk Md Alias Kalil, has issued a showcause letter dated March 3 to the management committee of the Sri Sithi Vinayagar Temple on Jalan Selangor as to why it should not be deregistered.

The committee has until April 3 to respond to the registrar.

The Hindu community, whose elders were contacted by Malay Mail, expressed indignation over the failure of the management committee to run the affairs of the temple.

They said it was a shame that the committee, comprising professionals, had been incapable of running a religious institution.

They speculated that the problems were the result of infighting and a power struggle.

The 50-year-old temple, a Petaling Jaya landmark, is run by the Petaling Jaya Hindu Association that has some 400 members. Concerned ex-committee members and a group of elected office bearers who resigned en bloc in September 2008 had sought the intervention of the registrar.

In a letter to the registrar, they alleged that payments for certain work and purchases had been made by a senior official without the approval of the committee.

It was also alleged that payments were made to certain individuals to prevent the Immigration Department from taking action against the committee for employing illegal foreign workers.

Further, it was claimed that misleading information on the accounts was furnished by the committee to the registrar.

The president and the committee members were not available for comment.

The registrar’s questions

● To show cause why it should not be deregistered for irregularities by the management committee that contravened rules of the association;

● Why office-bearers were elected without an emergency general meeting called;

● How office-bearers were elected without an election;

● To explain alleged irregularities in accounting; and

● To clarify alleged misappropriation of funds.

Ambiga To Receive US Courage Award

KUALA LUMPUR, March 6 (Bernama) -- Malaysia Bar president Datuk Ambiga Sreenevasan has been named among the eight recipients of this year's "International Women of Courage Award."

The award was established by the US Department of State.

According to the Press Office of the US Embassy here, Ambiga would receive the award from US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in Washington on Monday in conjunction with International Women's Day.

It said Ambiga was selected "for championing the rule of law and for advancing human rights, the status of women and religious tolerance in Malaysia.

"Dato' Ambiga Sreenevasan has emerged as a strong voice for tolerance and justice, and has had a direct impact on judicial reform in Malaysia, contributing to strengthening of the role of women in civil society."

Other recipients are Veronika Marchenko (Russia), Mutabar Tadjibayeva (Uzbekistan), Hadjkjatou Mani (Niger), Reem Al-Numery (Yemen), Norma Cruz (Guatemala), Suaad Abbas Salm (Iraq) and Wazhma Frogh (Afghanistan).

"The honorees are recognised for their outstanding contribution on behalf of women and their societies, and for tackling such issues as domestic violence, forced and child marriage, human trafficking; fighting corruption and demanding government transparency; defending access to justice and the rule of law; and safeguarding equal rights and opportunities for women," the Press Office said.

Najib Cautions Against Blindly Rejecting Globalisation

PUTRAJAYA, March 6 (Bernama) -- Deputy Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak said today the people, while striving to empower the Malay language, should not be too obsessed with rejecting elements of other civilisations which can enrich the knowledge, technology and culture of the Malays.

He said that in facing globalisation, it was important to have a rational attitude and consideration in harnessing the logical benefits instead of blindly rejecting globalisation.

"It must be remembered that language is the soul of the nation. Mastering foreign languages does not necessarily erode an individual's identity and intellect but will strengthen his identity and love for his nation and language.

"In the context of Malaysia, mastering foreign languages should not be seen as negating the importance of the Malay language itself," he said in his speech at the International Malay Language Debate Final for the Deputy Prime Minister's Trophy at the Putrajaya International Convention Centre, here.

Najib's wife, Datin Seri Rosmah Mansor, and Higher Education Minister Datuk Seri Mohamed Khaled Nordin were also present at the event.

Najib said that in the ICT era, the Malay language should take advantage of the development of the K-economy to make available sufficient avenues of knowledge for the people.

He said the Malay language should be resilient and resolute enough to steer users of the language along the development of the K-economy in a world which was getting ever more complex.

"At this juncture, it should be acknowledged that the Malay language is still regarded as young in terms of science and technology terminology compared to the English language which is now accepted by the world as the language of ICT," he said.

However, this did not mean that the Malay language would be sidelined, he said and stressed that the government was committed to continuing with the growth of the Malay language in terms of importance and command and would continue to safeguard the Malay language as the premier language of the land.

"Although we give room for the English language in the education system, the government will not back down from its position of ensuring that the Malay language continues to be the official medium of instruction in education in the country," he said.

Meanwhile, Najib proposed that the Higher Education Ministry, Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka and publishing companies in the country work together to provide an unending supply of reading and reference material on the various aspects of the Malay, Malaysian and Asean civilisations to selected institutions abroad.

This was to ensure that information on these civilisations and the country reached the international community, he said.

Najib also said that he wanted private institutions of higher learning in the country to be serious in introducing courses on the Malay language and Malay and Malaysian civilisations in their curriculum.

"It has been emphasised in the Education Act 1996 that the three compulsory courses at the private institutions of higher learning, especially for foreign students, are Malay language, Malaysian Studies and religious or moral studies.

"This is because in our effort to become the regional and international centres of excellence in education, we want the basic elements of our civilisation, particularly the Malay language, to be introduced to the international students," he said.

Slumdog 'breaches $200m barrier'

The film mixes romance with gritty scenes of the Mumbai slums

Oscar-winning film Slumdog Millionaire has crossed the $200m (£140m) mark in box office takings around the world, according to figures in Variety.

The film industry daily says the Mumbai-based movie, which cost $15m to make, has now taken $217m at cinemas.

Slumdog is enjoying a further bounce at the box office after picking up eight Oscars at February's Academy Awards.

Fox Searchlight, which released the rags-to-riches tale, said it expects the box office total to exceed $250m.

The company's Steve Gilula told the paper: "It's extraordinary. Very, very few films get past $200 million worldwide."

Slumdog Millionaire returned to the top slot at the UK box office over the first weekend of March.

The move back up from third place came a week after the Oscar ceremony, where the film took best picture and earned Danny Boyle the best director award. -BBC News