Amnesty International Malaysia launches human rights report

Di antara Chin Peng, komunisme dan perkauman — Zaid Ibrahim

MEI 29 — Meninjau tindakan pihak polis terhadap orang ramai beberapa bulan kebelakangan ini, saya tidak terkejut kalau ada kedengaran rintihan bahawa Malaysia telah menjadi sebuah negara polis (police state). Antara ciri-ciri sebuah “police state” ialah apabila polis menjadi satu kuasa pengawalan yang ditakuti. Polis mula menyekat kegiatan serta kebebasan orang ramai bersuara, yang merupakan amalan biasa di sesebuah negara bebas dan demokratik. Kita dapat lihat bahawa pasukan polis lebih ditakuti dan bukan dihormati. Bloggers seperti saya juga turut berada dalam pemerhatian mereka. Undang-undang yang digunakan mereka telah menyekat kebebasan rakyat.

Di dalam sebuah “police state”, polis boleh mengambil tindakan atas apa sahaja yang ditafsir atau dianggap berbahaya kapada kerajaan. Ini membolehkan mereka menyekat apa sahaja kegiatan orang awam yang dianggap menjejaskan kententeraman awam. Hari ini rakyat ditangkap kerana memakai baju warna hitam, menjual CD, tidak mahu makan, berkumpul secara aman dan sebagainya.

Rakyat ingin tahu mengapa Menteri yang bertanggungjawab terus-terusan membiarkan polis bertindak sedemikian? Besar kemungkinan Menteri juga sudah tidak mampu atau mempunyai kuasa untuk mempengaruhi pihak polis. Mungkinkah Ketua Polis Negara lebih berkuasa dari Menteri?

Saya masih lagi ingat tentang soal penubuhan IPCMC yang dicadangkan oleh Pak Lah dahulu. IPCMC merupakan satu cadagan baik pada tahun 2004 supaya sebuah suruhanjaya ditubuhkan bagi menyiasat penyalahgunaan kuasa, kepincangan etika dan amalan rasuah yang sering berlaku dalam pasukan polis negara. Cadangan ini merupakan saranan Tun Dzaiddin dan Tun Haniff serta ahli-ahli lain Suruhanjaya DiRaja pada masa itu. Menurut laporan mereka terdapat banyak kepincangan dan kelemahan polis yang ketara. Walaupun Pak Lah berniat baik untuk menubuhkan IPCMC dan merealisasikan saranan Dzaiddin ini, pihak polis telah menolaknya secara terbuka. Saya tidak fikir dalam sebuah negara demokrasi lain seperti Australia atau India, pihak polis mereka berani menentang secara terbuka akan dasar yang diusulkan oleh seorang Perdana Menteri. Namun di Malaysia, begitulah berkuasanya seorang Ketua Polis Negara.

Saya juga teringat tentang kuasa polis dalam isu dadah. Parlimen telah lama menggubal rang undang-undang khas untuk penubuhan Agensi Dadah Kebangsaan. Menurut undang-undang ini, segala isu mengenai dadah, sama ada kawalan siasatan dan rehabilitasi adalah tanggungjawab dan di bawah kuasa agensi ini. Ini sebenarnya telah diamalkan di Negara Filipina dan Amerika Syarikat. Peruntukan berjuta-juta ringgit telah disediakan untuk menggerakkan agensi dengan kakitangan yang cukup. Namun sehingga hari ini, polis masih juga bertanggungjawab dan berkuasa dalam hal “prevention enforcement” dan siasatan kes dadah. Mereka akan membuat keputusan mengenai segala aspek kes dadah dan bukannya Agensi Dadah Kebangsaan. Kononnya agensi yang baru ditubuhkan itu tidak mempunyai pengalaman menjalankan tugas-tugas tersebut. Begitulah berkuasanya Polis DiRaja Malaysia sehinggakan Parlimen atau Perdana Menteri tidak boleh menukar apa sahaja yang mereka tidak restui.

Parlimen sebenarnya memberi kuasa yang luas kepada polis di bawah the Police Act 1967. Maklumlah kita sebuah negara yang masih di bawah pengisytiharan darurat. Kita juga mempunyai sejarah hitam seperti peperangan dengan komunis dan peristiwa 13 Mei. Kuasa luas yang diberikan itu perlu dilaksanakan secara sederhana dan penuh bijaksana mengikut keadaan politik dan keperluan semasa.

Contohnya, walaupun undang-undang memerlukan rakyat memohon permit polis apabila mengadakan perhimpunan lebih dari empat orang, tetapi wajarkah kita mengikut peraturan ini jika perhimpunan mereka itu tidak membahayakan masyarakat? Jika mereka mahu pakai baju hitam dalam perhimpunan itu juga saya rasa tidak berbahaya dan tidak perlu ditangkap. Tetapi begitulah hakikatnya Malaysia pada hari ini. Wakil-wakil rakyat dan penyokong-penyokong mereka ditangkap semata mata berhimpun secara aman dan memasang lilin. Mereka juga ditangkap kerana mereka mahu berlapar selama tiga hari. Ini semua berlaku kerana dalam sebuah “police state”, sesetengah kumpulan orang awam dianggap musuh kapada pihak polis. Apabila musuh berkumpul maka tindakan menangkap mereka akan dilakukan. Namun jika yang berhimpun itu bukan musuh dan tidak mempunyai permit, ia dibenarkan tanpa tangkapan. Malang sekali nasib Malaysia.

Polis sepatutnya tidak memihak kepada sesiapa dan tidak ada musuh dari kalangan rakyat. Polis perlu bertindak secara professional dan adil dalam menjaga keamanan negara. Bukan menjaga Barisan Nasional sahaja.

Polis tidak perlu terlalu mendengar pandangan orang-orang politik. Menurut Rais Yatim dan Ahmad Zahid Hamidi, ada pula musuh baru sekarang ini. Kumpulan yang mahu hidupkan komunisme. Agaknya Pak Menteri membuat kesimpulan begitu kerana ada segelintir orang Cina yang mahukan Chin Peng dibenarkan pulang ke negara ini. Ramai orang bersimpati dengan hasrat Chin Peng mahu kembali dan mati ditanah Malaya. Ini tidak bererti mereka ini mahu hidupkan Komunisme. Jauh bezanya antara mahu menghidupkan Komunisme dengan rasa kemanusiaan yang membenarkan Chin Peng pulang.

Lagipun ramai peguam , di antaranya dari International Bar Association berpendapat Chin Peng ada hak untuk pulang ke tempat lahirnya. Cuma mahkamah kita tidak bersetuju dengan hujah tersebut kerana Chin Peng tidak mempunyai sijil kelahiran. Saya tidak pasti jika Malaya pada waktu itu memberi kemudahan pendaftaran kelahiran anak, terutama sekali di Baling, Kedah.

Berbalik semula kepada isu kononnya terdapat minat orang ramai kepada Komunisme seperti yang disebut oleh Pak Menteri. Orang-orang Cina di Negara China pun telah menjadi kapitalis besar dan selesa. Mereka ini berniaga dalam “free market capitalism”. Ini adalah sama dengan rakyat Malaysia berketurunan Cina. Mereka juga selesa dengan system kapitalis di Malaysia. Tidak masuk akal jika mereka mahu bertukar kepada sistem Komunis. Jadi apakah tujuan ahli-ahli fikir Umno dalam memperbesarkan soal Komunisme hari ini?

Janganlah kita melaga-lagakan rakyat dengan mencipta musuh baru. Tidak cukupkah kita Berjaya memecah-belah rakyat selama ini kerana politik?Jika ada yang bersetuju dengan cadangan supaya Chin Peng pulang ke Malaysia kerana dia hendak menghabiskan sisa-sisa hidupnya di Malaysia, itu tidak bererti bahawa dia adalah Komunis atau mahu menghidupkan ideology Komunis. Dia seorang rakyat Malaya. Usia Chin Peng pun sudah tua. Mustahil dia boleh membuat kekacauan lagi. Pengaruh Komunisme telah lupus. Lagipun pihak polis cekap seperti yang ada sekarang sudah tentu berupaya mengawal keselamatan negara.

Saya terfikir, jika Chin Peng itu seorang Melayu, apakah pendirian dan emosi kita akan sama? Utusan Malaysia berkempen secara agresif agar Chin Peng tidak dibenarkan pulang. Sehubungan itu gambar-gambar veteran tentera keselamatan yang cedera dan kehilangan kaki dipamerkan. Memang benar, Chin Peng dan komunis berperang dengan kerajaan Malaya pada masa itu. Memang Chin Peng dan komunis kejam. Termasuklah Rashid Maidin dan Shamsiah Fakih. Dalam peperangan itu, kedua-dua pihak telah terpaksa melakukan kekejaman. Jepun juga pernah berlaku kejam kepada kita semasa zaman pemerintahannya. Lebih kejam daripada Chin Peng. Namun kita tetap memberi pelukan yang sangat rapat kepada Jepun. Kita juga memberi kontrak besar kapada syarikat milik Jepun kerana Jepun memberi pinjaman wang kepada kita. Kita tidak boleh mengubah apa yang berlaku dalam peperangan melawan British. Yang melawan British ada komunis, ada yang berhaluan kiri (leftist) dan ada juga nasionalis. Ada bermacam-macam kumpulan. Namun mereka semua menetang British dan menuntut kemerdekaan.

Kadangkala sejarah pahit lama hanya akan diterima apabila kita membuang rasa dendam dan digantikan dengan sifat kemanusiaan. Bila kita menyimpan dendam terhadap musuh, ia tidak akan membawa apa-apa keuntungan. Lihatlah di Afrika Selatan. Kerajaan kulit putih dan polis risik kerajaan apartheid telah membunuh dan berlaku kejam terhadapan ratusan ribu rakyat kulit hitam Afrika Selatan. Ramai yang telah hilang dan telah mati dalam penjara. Namun Nelson Mandela tidak mahu berdendam. Sebaliknya beliau menubuhkan badan Reconciliation and Truth. Beliau mahu kedua-dua pihak hitam dan putih bersama-sama mencari kebenaran tentang apa yang berlaku dalam zaman apartheid.

Tujuannya ialah untuk mengajar rakyat supaya bermaaf-maafan dan menghentikan prejudis serta persengketaan antara kaum. Amnesty atau pelepasan dari tindakan undang-undang diberi kapada pihak pihak yang terlibat. Ini supaya mereka tidak lagi berdendam dan menghentikan kekejaman antara satu sama lain. Lima belas tahun dahulu di Rwanda, orang Tutsi dan Hutus berperang saudara. Kedua-duanya rakyat Rwanda. Sejumlah 800,000 rakyat mereka dari kedua-kedua kaum terbunuh dan dalam tempoh lapan bulan iaitu waktu kegilaan memuncak. Presiden baru telah memanggil semua kaum dan mengadakan dialog serta perbincangan tentang apa yang telah berlaku. Mereka menceritakan apa yang menyebabkan mereka benci dan membunuh satu sama lain. Mengapakah puak Tutsi tidak membenarkan Hutus memasuki perkhidmatan kerajaan? Mengapa Hutus tidak banyak mempunyai urusan perniagaan dan sebagainya? Mengapa hanya pasukan tentera Hutus yang layak menduduki jawatan tinggi. Dialog in berjalan tahun demi tahun dan telah menjadi satu penawar yang kuat dan membolehkan negara kecil Rwanda kembali aman. Hari ini Rwanda mengamalkan sistem demokrasi yang baik dan ekonominya kukuh kerana mereka sudah tidak lagi bermusuh. Itulah kelebihan bangsa dan Negara yang tahu serta mempraktikkan nilai kemaanusian. Mereka sanggup bermaafan antara satu sama lain dan bukannya sengaja mencari musuh. Buang yang keruh, ambil yang jernih.

Amatlah sukar bagi Umno untuk berbuat demikian. Mahu minta maaf kepada hakim-hakim yang dipecat pun mereka enggan. Masakan mereka sanggup melupakan Chin Peng? Saya harap sekalipun kerajaan tidak mahu Chin Peng kembali, janganlah sampai menuduh mereka yang bersimpati dengan hasrat Chin Peng mahu mati di Malaya sebagai musuh kerajaan. Biarlah rakyat bersuara dan menunjukkan pendirian mereka sendiri. Jangan terlalu mudah mengkategorikan rakyat dan menganggap golongan Cina sendiri sebagai musuh. Ini semua adalah timbul dari perbezaan pendapat kerana perspektif sejarah yang rumit dan tidak banyak diketahui umum. — myzaidibrahim.com

Datuk Zaid Ibrahim adalah mantan Menteri di Pejabat Perdana Menteri Malaysia dan juga Ahli Parlimen Kota Bharu.

Invoke judges' code of ethics: Investigate these judges

Justice is becoming a rare commodity in our courts when judges of questionable ability sit in judgment. This situation raises serious concerns regarding the appointment of judges and their elevation to the bench.

In the recent cases involving the Perak crisis, we wonder whether the Federal Court judges and the Court of Appeal judges who heard these cases were right in ignoring Article 72(1) of the Federal Constitution. We are appalled with their judgment which went against the grain of justice.

On what basis did the Federal Court judges rule that the Speaker of the Perak State Assembly had no power to suspend certain BN Assembly members? In any case, it was the Rights and Privileges Committee that had suspended them – not Sivakumar. That fact fell on deaf years.

But the moot point is can these judges ignore and discard the provisions of the Federal Constitution in deciding their cases? Aren't decisions based on sound reasoning rooted in precedents and written law?

In a well-argued article, the former Court of Appeal judge N H Chan has clearly established that the Judges' Code of Ethics had been breached by these judges who had not paid any attention to the Federal Constitution.

N H Chan has pointed out that Article 72(1) specifically states, “ The validity of any proceedings in the Legislative Assembly of any State shall not be questioned in any court.” How come this provision did not mean anything to them?

The words of this provision are written in unambiguous terms that it is not too difficult to understand what they mean and imply. It is crystal clear that the courts have no business in getting involved in this matter.

And yet, the supreme law of the country, which should be the corner-stone of our judicial system, and justice have been totally side-stepped and circumvented to the utter disgrace of the judiciary.

In the case of the single junior Appeal Court judge, there was no basis for him to grant a stay in spite of the declaratory order of the High Court which was the outcome of a 'well considered judgment' as stated by N H Chan. The stay was deemed as absurd according to authoritative legal circles and the grounds for the stay have not been stated or supported by any sensible logic.

In all these cases there have been no written judgment. This is a ridiculous situation that is not fair to the aggrieved parties, to members of the public and to academia.

Judges simply cannot pronounce judgments that are not backed by sound arguments, reasoned logic, precedents and written law. Litigants have a right to know how a particular judge arrived at a decision so that the aggrieved party has that fundamental right to challenge that decision. That is the only way to seek justice.

N H Chan has suggested the use of the Judges' Code of Ethics 1994.

According to him, “The words of section 3(1)(d) (of the Code) are so clear and easy to understand that we do not need any court of law to explain it to us ordinary folk. We know what the words mean. By not administering and applying the law, which in this case is the supreme law of the land as it stands, the errant judges have brought discredit to the judiciary – grounds for their removal from office.”

ALIRAN supports the view that these judges should at least be investigated as to whether this Code has been violated.

Their continued presence on the Bench is alarming. What is at stake is justice itself when these judges sit in judgment. It would be a travesty of justice if they are allowed to occupy the hallowed positions on the Bench if they have broken the Code or have not discharged their duties properly.

When justice is not rendered based on precedents and the Constitution, it becomes a costly and futile attempt turning to the courts for justice.

P Ramakrishnan

ALIRAN President

28 May 2009

article courtesy of Aliran

Kit Siang: Probe the puppet masters

Andrew Ong | May 29, 09 2:11pm | Malaysiakini

Veteran opposition lawmaker Lim Kit Siang has urged the government to form a commission of inquiry to probe the Port Klang Free Zone (PKFZ) scandal.

“The inquiry must investigate by going beyond the Port Klang Authority (PKA) and probe the Treasury and the previous transport ministers,” Lim said.

The two transport ministers singled out by Lim was Ling Liong Sik (1986 - 2003) and Chan Kong Choy (2003 - 2008).

“The PKA chairperson is only a puppet. The masters were Ling and Chan,” said Lim.

Lim was speaking to reporters after leading a seven-member delegation to the PKA headquarters in Port Klang to study the three-inch thick appendix to the PKFZ audit report for four hours. The appendix was released today.

Lim also lashed out at current Transport Minister Ong Tee Keat for defining a narrow terms-of-reference for the audit by Pricewaterhouse Coopers (PwC) and not granting firm investigative powers.

He said that this falls short of Ong’s promise of a complete disclosure over the scandal.

By doing so, Lim said Ong had done a “great disservice” to the country by “tying the hands and feet of PwC” and thus producing a reported that was “highly unsatisfactory and cannot be accepted”.

Lim said that a thorough probe by means of a commission of inquiry was necessary to probe Lim, Chan and Dr Mahathir Mohamad, who was prime minister when the project kicked in the early 2000s.

MACC probe not enough

In another development, Klang MP Charles Santiago has also urged the government to form a commission of inquiry on the scandal, because the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Agency has proven to be inefficient.

Santiago said numerous reports on PKFZ have already been submitted to the then Anti-Corruption Agency but no action appears to have been taken.

“The (then) Anti-Corruption Agency has took files from PKFZ. They know about the wrongdoings involving the project, but nothing has come out of it,” he told Malaysiakini.

Santiago said that similarly, Bursa Malaysia and the Parliament Public Accounts Committee (under Johor Baru MP Shahrir Samad then) looked into the matter as well, but no action was taken.

“There seems to be a lack of oversight by the relevant regulators. These institutions have failed and nothing short of a commission of inquiry is needed to get to the bottom of this,” he said.

He added that these bodies were aware of the PKFZ scandal even before the audit report and their inaction begs the question of whether there was collusion, political interference of intimidation.

Santiago was commenting on the decision by Transport Minister Ong Tee Keat to hand the audit report of the controversial project over to the MACC for further action.

“This is the biggest financial fiasco in Malaysian history. It is disappointing that the transport minister is gloating that by reporting to the MACC, the problem will be resolved,” added Santiago.

Report handed to MACC

Earlier today, Port Klang Authority (PKA) chairperson Lee Hwa Beng handed a copy of the audit report to the MACC office in Putrajaya at about 8am.

He later spent about 10 minutes in a meeting with MACC deputy commission Abu Kassim Mohammad.

Speaking to reporters later, he said that both PKA and auditors PwC have pledged full cooperation with MACC.

He said that PKA would only take action internally after MACC has completed its probe.

Among others, the audit reports serious mismanagement of the project which has ballooned from a cost of RM1.9 billion to RM7.5 billion till date.

Should there be no remedies, the audit report projected that PKFZ would cost taxpayers RM12 billion by 2051.

Calls for war crimes inquiry over 20,000 civilian deaths in Sri Lanka

TimesOnline, May 29 2009
Sri Lanka faced new calls for a war crimes inquiry today after an investigation by The Times revealed that more than 20,000 civilians were killed – mostly by the army – in the latter stages of the war against the Tamil Tigers.

The army dismissed that figure as an exaggeration and repeated the Government’s assertion that not a single civilian was killed by government forces in the final assault on the northeastern conflict zone.

Brigadier Udaya Nanayakkara, a military spokesman, declined to say how many civilian deaths had been confirmed, but insisted that they had all been caused by the Tigers, also known as the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE).

“This is an exaggerated story. Whoever has put up this report has been paid by the LTTE,” he told The Times.

“There can’t be any civilians killed by government forces in that area. How can the UN know about this? It had no people on the ground.” The UN, however, described its figures as “well-informed estimates”, adding that it did not have “precise, verifiable numbers” because of a lack of access to the conflict zone and the camps holding refugees from the area.

“The UN has publicly and repeatedly said that the number of people killed in recent months has been unacceptably high and it has shared its estimates with the Government as well as others concerned,” said Elisabeth Byrs, of the UN Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs.

“The point is the UN has not been shy about the scale of human suffering and civilian casualties,” she said. “It has been ringing the alarm bells for a long time.”

Sri Lanka officially declared victory in its 26-year civil war with the Tigers early last week after killing almost all of their leadership, including Velupillai Prabhakaran, their founder, in a tiny patch of coconut grove on the northeastern coast.

Backed by China, Russia and other allies, Sri Lanka also easily defeated a proposal for a war crimes inquiry at a special session of the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva on Tuesday and Wednesday.

The new civilian death toll figure has prompted new calls for an inquiry, which could still be ordered by Ban Ki Moon, the UN Secretary-General, or by Navi Pillay, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights.

Managala Samaraweera, a former Foreign Minister who left the Government to become an opposition politician in 2005, told The Times that an inquiry was the only way for Sri Lanka to repair the damage to its international reputation. “As Sri Lankans, we’re extremely concerned about what happened during the last stages of the conflict,” he said. “The Government must immediately initiate an independent inquiry. Only by doing so will Sri Lanka be able to clear up its good name.”

Human rights groups, aid workers and numerous civilian witnesses have accused the Tigers and government forces of repeatedly firing on non-combatants in violation of international humanitarian law. The Tigers have also been accused of using civilians as human shields and recruiting children forcibly, while the army has been accused of deliberately shelling hospitals in the conflict zone.

Brad Adams, Asia director of Human Rights Watch, told The Times: “There’s no doubt there’s a need for a war crimes inquiry. The whole operation has been done in secret and the scale of deaths is so large that it has to be investigated. This is not going to go away.”

The UN and the Red Cross also complained today that the Sri Lankan Government was still refusing to provide aid workers with full access to the former conflict zone despite a direct appeal by the UN Secretary General.

*********

From The Times

May 29, 2009

The hidden massacre: Sri Lanka’s final offensive against Tamil Tigers

More than 20,000 Tamil civilians were killed in the final throes of the Sri Lankan civil war, most as a result of government shelling, an investigation by The Times has revealed.

The number of casualties is three times the official figure.

The Sri Lankan authorities have insisted that their forces stopped using heavy weapons on April 27 and observed the no-fire zone where 100,000 Tamil men, women and children were sheltering. They have blamed all civilian casualties on Tamil Tiger rebels concealed among the civilians.

Aerial photographs, official documents, witness accounts and expert testimony tell a different story. With the world’s media and aid organisations kept well away from the fighting, the army launched a fierce barrage that began at the end of April and lasted about three weeks. The offensive ended Sri Lanka’s 26-year civil war with the Tamil Tigers, but innocent civilians paid the price.

Confidential United Nations documents acquired by The Times record nearly 7,000 civilian deaths in the no-fire zone up to the end of April. UN sources said that the toll then surged, with an average of 1,000 civilians killed each day until May 19, the day after Velupillai Prabhakaran, the leader of the Tamil Tigers, was killed. That figure concurs with the estimate made to The Times by Father Amalraj, a Roman Catholic priest who fled the no-fire zone on May 16 and is now interned with 200,000 other survivors in Manik Farm refugee camp. It would take the final toll above 20,000. “Higher,” a UN source told The Times. “Keep going.”

Some of the victims can be seen in the photograph above, which shows the destruction of the flimsy refugee camp. In the bottom right-hand corner, sand mounds show makeshift burial grounds. Other pictures show a more orderly military cemetery, believed to be for hundreds of rebel fighters. One photograph shows rebel gun emplacements next to the refugee camp.

Independent defence experts who analysed dozens of aerial photographs taken by The Times said that the arrangement of the army and rebel firing positions and the narrowness of the no-fire zone made it unlikely that Tiger mortar fire or artillery caused a significant number of deaths. “It looks more likely that the firing position has been located by the Sri Lankan Army and it has then been targeted with air-burst and ground-impact mortars,” said Charles Heyman, editor of the magazine Armed Forces of the UK.

On Wednesday, Sri Lanka was cleared of any wrongdoing by the UN Human Rights Council after winning the backing of countries including China, Egypt, India and Cuba.

A spokesman for the Sri Lankan High Commission in London said: “We reject all these allegations. Civilians have not been killed by government shelling at all. If civilians have been killed, then that is because of the actions of the LTTE [rebels] who were shooting and killing people when they tried to escape.”

Air of gloom as Church orders villagers to vacate land

“Please help us”: Some of the villagers who are not sure what to do next - Photo by Anil Netto

Villagers in a dozen households next to the St Francis Xavier’s Church face uncertainty after receiving three letters over the last year from lawyers acting on behalf of the Catholic Church in Penang.

The residents had been ordered to vacate their premises by 31 May 2009 (which happens to be Pentecost Sunday, marking the coming of the Holy Spirit). In the latest letter of 19 May 2009, they have been granted a one-year extension until 31 May 2010 on “humanitarian grounds”, provided they agree in writing to compensation of RM10,000. If not, they have to vacate their homes by this Sunday.

The lawyer’s letter states the church can afford to provide only RM10,000 as it is a “non-profit religious institution”. Lay Catholics, however, are not in a position to judge whether the church can afford to pay more as its diocesan accounts are not made public to them as a matter of course.

Allow me to introduce you to some of the villagers the church wants to evict (see photo above, from left):

Augustin Martin, 82, raised at the nearby orphanage in the early 1930s. He was a church organist during World War II and worked as a driver for the Kee Huat company in his younger days. Occupant of house no. 52-E.

Arokiasamy Dass, 84, born here in 1925, former JKR tractor driver. His father arrived here around 1920 just before getting married. Occupant of house no. 52-H.

Olga Fernandez, 71, arrived here before the war. Her family originally settled in the area in the late 1920s. Occupant of house no. 52-G.

Bellimin Rajah, 70, worked as a Cold Storage clerk. He remembers crouching in his house when George Town was being bombed by the Japanese during World War II: “A big stone dropped on my sister’s back,” he recalls. Occupant of house no. 52-C.

Manimathu, 74, widow of the late Mr Selva. She has lived here since 1949. Occupant of house no. 52-F.

Jayamary is Bellimin’s wife. She arrived here in 1967, after getting married.

Anthony Muthu, 79, a former ludlow (headline layout) operator for the now defunct Straits Echo. He has lived here since 1937. Occupant of house no. 52-Q. His father, Sinnasamy Appasamy, arrived here after his marriage.

Theresa Savari, 60, is Anthony’s wife. She arrived here after their marriage.

Among those not in the photo above:

Santhanam Sinasamy, 82. Occupant of house no. 52-P.

Lourdesamy s/o Ponnudurai, 60. Occupant of house no. 52-I.

One of the villagers remembers a Japanese officer looking for a base in the area for his troops during World War II. “When he came over and saw us and the other children, he decided not to disturb or evict us. Instead, they used the Chinese school behind, next door. Imagine, even the Japanese occupying forces didn’t ask us to leave.”

“(French priest) Fr Louis Riboud really sayang Augustin (the organist) and he told our families we could live on the land,” recalls another villager.

The parish originally catered to Tamil Catholics in George Town, many of them poor and from the working class.

Now, the lawyers’ letter states that the church wants the villagers to vacate their land so that it can be used for “charitable and social purposes”. The Bishop maintains there are no plans to sell the land.

But it is not clear why the church wants the villagers to move out of this prime land now and what exactly it intends to do with the land.

The old buildings of St Joseph’s orphanage next door have already been demolished and the site presently is walled up and has been lying idle for years. The Lighthouse drop-in centre next door has no immediate expansion plans.

“Whatever happened to the parable of the Good Samaritan?” asks Anthony Muthu, one of the villagers. “Is it only meant to be preached during Sunday sermons? Why is no one putting it into practice and helping us? Where do we go, at this age, looking for low-cost housing with RM10,000 in compensation? Which bank will give us housing loans at our age?”

The church hierarchy points out that some of the residents have not paid their rents for a few years.

But the residents say they have spent a few thousand ringgit of their own money for roof repairs and collapsed walls. They thought that the church would overlook their rent over the last couple of years as the villagers had taken care of the repairs at their own expense.

“In any case, if the church felt that we had defaulted on rent, shouldn’t it first issue lawyer’s letters demanding payment like landlords usually do instead of keeping quiet and then all of a sudden, asking us to vacate the premises?” asked Anthony. “By their silence, we felt that church leaders understood our predicament and our need to carry out repairs.”

What hurts the villagers most is that all dealings are now through the church’s lawyers, without any avenue for face-to-face consultation with church leaders. The villagers are at a disadvantage as they cannot afford lawyers. “What happened to all the Catholic lawyers?” wonders one of them.

“They claim we are outsiders,” observes another. “But we have lived here much longer than those who accuse us of being outsiders. It is the bishop and his priests who are the newcomers here.”

I guess it’s a lot easier to evict faceless, nameless people, strangers whom we do not know. But imagine if these people were our own family members, our parents or grandparents….

Andrew Aeria, a Catholic, has a suggestion: “If the church really needs land for social, cultural and religious use, it could use the spacious premises at No. 1 Bell Road for this purpose.” Andrew suspects that the church hierarchy has a long-term plan to dispose of the land for commercial gain, though the Bishop says accusations that the Church plans to sell the land are “nonsense”.

Meanwhile, the despairing residents say they are praying that the Holy Spirit will guide and touch those who are trying to help them.

This is a report from the latest Herald, from the Penang Bishop’s perspective:

No plans to sell church land, Bishop Selva

PENANG: Bishop Antony Selvanayagam has refuted claims that the diocese is planning to sell a portion of its land to the Cititel Hotel for development.

“That is absolute nonsense,” said Bishop Selva.

“The land on the grounds of the St Francis Xavier Church off Jalan Penang has been earmarked for religious, charitable and cultural purposes.”

St Joseph’s Home, the Lighthouse, the learning centre and a century-old village are situated within the property.

The Church wants the villagers to vacate their rented houses for redevelopment according to religious, charitable and cultural purposes.

These villagers have not been paying their rent for the past 34 months.

Bishop Selva said that ample notice had been given to the residents to relocate.

The residents were initially asked to vacate the premises by Nov 30 last year. They were later given an extension until May 31 this year.

It is understood the residents are being offered ex-gratia payment of RM10,000 each, with rental arrears deducted from the amount.

Bishop Selva explained that “so far two persons have accepted the payment and have left while another 12 remain.”

Another issue, which cropped up during this standoff has been the contention that the village is situated in the Unesco heritage zone. But Bishop Selva clarified that the village is situated outside the heritage zone but within the buffer zone.

“This means that we cannot demolish the houses but we can redesign the interior to suit the different needs of the organisation or group which will be using the houses.”

Umno gets tough with tainted office bearers

By Deborah Loh
thenutgraph.com

Umno to toughen stance against corruption

KUALA LUMPUR, 29 May 2009: Umno office bearers who are charged in court will be suspended from their party positions until proven innocent, the party's supreme council (MT) agreed in principle today.

Toughening its stance against corruption and negative public perception about the party, the MT decided that it would adopt this principle on such cases from now on. This is a departure from the present practice of office bearers who have been charged with corrupt practices retaining their posts until proven guilty.

Prime Minister and Umno president Datuk Seri Najib Razak said the matter had been discussed by the party's disciplinary board appeals panel.

"Anyone charged in court will have to be suspended from his [or her] position. He [or she] will only get [the] position back if he [or she] succeeds in being cleared by the court," Najib said at a press conference after an Umno MT meeting today.

Najib also announced that former senior police officers and retired Anti-Corruption Agency officers would be among those recruited into the disciplinary board's tribunal and investigating committee.

The purpose is to inject more professional expertise in stemming the practice of money politics in the party.

Amending party constitution

Najib also said Umno would hold its annual general meeting (AGM) for 2009 from 14 to 16 Oct. The main agenda would be amendments to the party constitution, likely with regards to the party's election process.

A special assembly will be held just before the AGM to debate the constitutional amendments before they are adopted at the AGM.

Najib said the draft of the amendments was almost ready and would be circulated among the Umno state liaison committees for feedback.

Manik Urai by-election

The supreme council today also appointed Kelantan Umno liaison chief Datuk Mustapa Mohamad as the party's Manik Urai by-election director.

(Stock pic)

Deputy Prime Minister and Umno deputy president Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin is to supervise the overall by-election campaign but leave the operations on the ground to Mustapa.

Najib said the MT would wait for Kelantan Umno to submit a list of possible candidates before deciding who to field. "There is still time," he said. Nomination for the by-election is on 6 July and polling is on 14 July.

On the re-admission of former prime minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad to Umno, Najib said the supreme council today formally approved his application, and that of his wife Tun Dr Siti Hasmah Mohd Ali, and their son Datuk Mokhzani Mahathir.

Mahathir left Umno on 19 May 2008 to express his disappointment with BN's losses in the general election and over the leadership of then prime minister Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi. He rejoined the party on 4 April 2009.

Solidarity gathering to express concern over the Sri Lankan humanitarian crisis

Contributed by Aston Philip Paiva, with photos by Seira Sacha Abu Bakar

Batu Caves, Sunday, 24 May 2009: Under the shade of the great Batu Caves, more than a thousand people gathered carrying placards, posters and banners. The gathering was organised to protest the actions of the Sri Lankan government against the ethnic Tamils and to remember the Tamils who have suffered, and even perished, in the 26 year-long period of violence.

Masses of people began gathering at 10.a.m. and there was a continuous flow of people for the next hour. While the majority of the crowd comprised Tamils, it was heartening to note that there were nonetheless those of other ethnic origins who attended the event to voice their grievances against the hostility perpetrated by the Sri Lankan Government. Also in attendance were various local NGOs and human rights activists.

A stage was erected with a small altar as people stood peacefully while the sun began rising above the ancient caves. At 10.15 a.m., politicians from both MIC and Pakatan Rakyat took to the stage and, with great solemnity, lit oil lamps on the altar honouring the Tamils who have lost their lives fighting for an independent Tamil state. People raised their banners and placards in series and a small sea of men and women were now visible. Individuals and groups from all social classes were present, standing together and exercising their constitutional right to express their concerns and to call for peace, solidarity and justice. Notably, there was almost no police presence.



Many held up posters of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) and their deceased leader Vellupillai Prabhakaran; considered an insurgent group and not terrorists, the people cheered when these names were mentioned.

A string of speeches by Tamil activists and politicians then followed, calling for a boycott of Sri Lankan goods and for Sri Lankan government officials to be brought to trial for war crimes. A memorandum detailing these views had also been put together and was to be handed over to the Sri Lankan embassy.

Droves of people also gathered around the erected tents to sign their names to endorse the memorandum, thus expressing their disapproval of the recent atrocities in Sri Lanka and calling for greater support between both Barisan Nasional and Pakatan Rakyat leaders in raising awareness among the public of the issues faced by the Tamils of Sri Lanka.

At around 11 a.m., a number of European tourists were seen wandering through the Batu Caves compound and making enquiries as to what the event was all about.



A number of politicians attended the event, including M. Kulasegaran (MP, Ipoh Barat), Charles Santiago (MP, Klang), Sivarasa Rasiah (MP, Subang), John Fernandez (MP, Seremban) and Datuk M. Saravanan (MIC).

Bar Council Human Rights Committee members Siti Zabedah Kasim, Allison Ong, Seira Sacha, Aston Paiva, Yohendra Nadarajan and Rachel Suppiah were present to monitor the event. Also present was Sumitha Shaanthinni from the Bar Council secretariat.

Dana Awam Dibelanjakan Secara Culas, Pakej Ransangan Ekonomi Lesap Entah Ke Mana.

— PRESS STATEMENT FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE —

May 29th, 2009

The administration’s lackadaisical approach to governance and accountability is deeply disturbing. At a time when Malaysian’s are forced to cut costs and worry if their hard earned money will cover the next month’s bills, our government continues to pour billions in taxpayer money down the drain.

The government’s neither-here-nor-there approach to the PKFZ scandal is a clear sign of UMNOs unwillingness to sacrifice its own delinquent members for the sake of the national good. The handling of the PKFZ affair amplifies the hypocrisy which was manifest in the investigations into money politics within UMNO and the selective persecution of foes of the new Najib administration.

The government has bragged that billions have been disbursed from the two fiscal stimulus packages. Yet there is virtually no information available to the public about the process of awarding tenders. We are left to assume that it is business as usual and have little confidence that the economy will benefit from the misappropriation of these funds that are being channeled to the same coterie of crony companies.

Inefficiency and largesse remain the prevailing traits of our bloated bureaucracy. Government monopolies preclude any significant change in the economic landscape of the nation and promises of liberalisation ring hollow when it comes to the lack of political will to implement change.

To date there is no plan in sight to resuscitate the economy and transform it as the Prime Minister has promised. We hear from him incoherent statements predicting a recovery by the end of the year while at the same time admitting that our economy is beholden to that of the US and Europe, which by their own account will remain weak into 2010.

Bank Negara has this week confirmed what most Malaysians have known already for eight months, save the Minister of Finance. The country is headed for recession. Thousands of jobs have already been lost and in the coming months we know that more factories will be shuttered and more will be laid off – by some estimates up to a half-million people. 2009 growth figures have been slashed to -5%, the worst economic scenario Malaysia has faced since the Financial Crisis.

These challenges require visionary leadership and the courage to act decisively against corruption and cronyism. Sadly both qualities are lacking in the current administration.

ANWAR IBRAHIM

— KENYATAAN MEDIA UNTUK EDARAN SEGERA —

29 Mei 2009

Sikap Kerajaan Malaysia yang mengabaikan prinsip tadbir urus dan pertanggungjawaban amatlah membimbangkan. Pada ketika rakyat Malaysia terpaksa berjimat cermat dan resah samada pendapatan mereka mampu menanggung sara hidup, kerajaan kita pula terus menerus mencurahkan ribuan juta dana awam secara culas.

Pendirian sambil lewa umno di dalam menangani skandal Zon Bebas Pelabuhan Klang memperlihatkan sikap sebenar mereka yang sanggup menggadaikan kepentingan negara terutama apabila kecurangan itu membabitkan ahli parti tersebut. Kaedah kes itu ditangani mendedahkan sikap hipokrit mereka yang bertanggungjawab menyiasat skandal tersebut dan juga kes politik wang yang berlaku dalam umno. Kita melihat wujudnya pendakwaan terpilih terhadap mereka yang dianggap sebagai musuh pentadbiran Dato’ Sri Najib Razak.

Kerajaan mendabik dada kononnya sudah ribuan juta diagihkan dari kantung dua Pakej Ransangan Ekonomi tersebut. Namun tidak ada maklumat yang disediakan buat tatapan serta penelitian umum berhubung proses pemberian tender kerajaan. Ini membuatkan rakyat beranggapan pakej tersebut tidak memberi kesan kepada mereka dan menimbulkan rasa sangsi kepada kita bagaimana ekonomi akan pulih sekiranya dana yang ada hanya untuk kepentingan syarikat milik kroni pemerintah.

Ketidakcekapan dan pembaziran merupakan ciri utama birokrasi kewangan kita. Monopoli pastinya menghambat sebarang hasrat untuk memulihkan kedudukan ekonomi Malaysia dan program liberalisasi akan hanya terbantut kerana tidak ada iltizam untuk melaksanakan perubahan.

Sehingga kini tidak ada sebarang perancangan jelas untuk melaksanakan perubahan serta memulihkan ekonomi negara sepertimana yang dijanjikan. Kenyataan oleh Perdana Menteri bahawa negara kita akan pulih menjelang akhir tahun menimbulkan persoalan dan tanda tanya. Ini adalah kerana Perdana Menteri pada ketika yang lain, menyatakan bahawa ekonomi negara kita bergantung kepada Amerika Syarikat dan Eropah; yang mengakui ekonomi mereka hanya akan pulih menjelang tahun 2010.

Minggu ini Bank Negara mengesahkan apa yang perkatakan oleh rakyat Malaysia-kecuali menteri kewangan- selama lapan bulan ini. Negara ini diambang kemelesetan. Kadar pengangguran akan mendadak naik dan kilang akan lebih banyak ditutup. Berkemungkinan setengah juta orang akan kehilangan kerja. Pertumbuhan untuk tahun 2009 diunjurkan kepada negatif 5%(-5%), kedudukan eknomi terburuk sejak krisis kewangan terbaru.

Cabaran yang mendatang memerlukan pemimpin yang mampu menangani krisis ini dengan berani dan bertindak menentang rasuah dan kronisme. Sayangnya kualiti tersebut tidak ada pada pentadbiran yang baru ini.

ANWAR IBRAHIM

Umno Members Charged In Court To Be Suspended From Posts

KUALA LUMPUR, May 29 (Bernama) -- Umno members who have been charged in court will be suspended from their posts until the disposal of their case, Umno president Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak said.

The prime minister said the decision was made at the Umno Supreme Council meeting Friday.

"We agreed in principle to the recommendation by the Umno management committee that party members who have been charged in court will be suspended from their posts.

"If they succeeded in the court process, they will be reinstated to their posts," Najib told a news conference after chairing the Umno Supreme Council meeting here Friday.

Among Umno members currently facing charges are Kuala Lumpur Federal Territory Umno Youth chief Datuk Mohamad Norza Zakaria, Pandan Umno chief Abdul Ghani Ismail and former Labuan Umno chief Datuk Suhaili Abdul Rahman, who was recently dropped from the post following the court charges against him. Norza was charged with giving bribes to two individuals in January, Abdul Ghani Ismail with nine charges of accepting bribes while Suhaili was charged with making false statements.

They have pleaded not guilty to their respective charges.

Meanwhile, Najib said the supreme council also agreed to increase the membership of the Umno Disciplinary Board including those for the investigation, tribunal and appeals panels.

The new members are former parliamentary secretary to the Youth and Sports Ministry Datuk Ismail Said, lawyer Datuk Zuraidah Atan, former Anti-Corruption Agency senior assistant superintendent Wahab Wahid, retired policeman with the rank of inspector, Nordin Saidin, and retired policeman with the rank of superintendent, Mohd Zain Ismail.

Najib said today's supreme council meeting also endorsed and officially accepted the applications by former Prime Minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad and wife Tun Dr Siti Hasmah Mohd Ali and their son Datuk Mokhzani to rejoin Umno.

Mahathir left Umno on May 19 last year and rejoined the party on April 4, a day after Najib was sworn in as the prime minister.

“Najib’s Corner” kononnya - more like the corner of a lockup filled with peaceful activists instead of real criminals

by Nathaniel Tan

MK:

Soon after becoming prime minister, Najib Abdul Razak had dropped by a popular Indian eatery in Brickfields for teh tarik and thosai.

Accompanied by a large entourage, including Federal Territories Deputy Minister M Saravanan, and a bevy of police vehicles, the premier brought traffic to a standstill when he decided to have a quick bite at the restaurant.

In order to commemorate the memorable event, the owner of Restaurant Kottumalai has decided to name a portion of the premises as ‘Najib’s Corner’.

I think the most appropriate “Najib’s corner” is in some police lockup, given how many arrests there have been since he took power. It’d be ok if those arrests were all of real, hardcore criminals and not candleholders and those fasting.

Najib’s rule seems to be characterised instead by diverting police resources to clampdown hard on birthday parties, hunger strikes, and fashion statements - what a brilliant way to ‘combat crime’ and ‘keep our streets safe.’

So, while I’m happy for the restaurant owner and his business, I think we can see clearly now that the Public Relations adventure that begun with these walkabouts and 1Malaysia, are ending in 1 Malaysia walking into crime, injustice and darkness.

Kayveas not eligible to hold position, say PPP members

PUTRAJAYA, May 29— People’s Progressive Party (PPP) President Senator Datuk M Kayveas had been fined RM5,000 in 2005 and as such, he is not eligible to hold the post, said a group of party members who lodged a complaint with the Registrar of Societies (ROS) today.

The group’s spokesman, Dr N.A. Shanmuganathan said according to the March/April edition of the Bar Council’s official magazine, Infoline, Kayveas had been fined by the Bar Council on March 17, 2005 for an offence under Section 10D of the Legal Profession Act 1976.

He said that under Section 9A(1)(b) of the Registrar of Societies Act 1966, anyone who had been convicted and fined not less than RM2,000 or jailed not less than one year under any Malaysian law, then the person concerned was not eligible to hold any post in any registered organisation.

Shanmuganathan said that this meant Kayveas was not eligible to hold any post after March 17, 2005.

“But, Datuk Kayveas had participated in the party election in that year and had won the post of party president unopposed. He did so despite knowing that he had been fined by the Bar Council, thus disqualifying him from holding the post,” he said.

Meanwhile in Kota Baru, Kayveas claimed that the group who lodged a report with the Registrar of Societies that he was not eligible to hold any position in the party wanted to topple him.

He said that the complaint made by the group about his case with the Bar Council had nothing to do with the Registrar of Societies.

“The case with the Bar Council and the RM5,000 fine had yet to be finalised because he had filed an appeal and those who made the report did not know what was the case really about,” he told reporters after opening the Kelantan PPP Convention. – Bernama

Zaid attacks racial overtones in anti-Chin Peng campaign

KUALA LUMPUR, May 29 — Former communist leader Chin Peng laid down arms 20 years ago, and on April 30, he lost his final bid in the Federal Court to return to Malaysia, but in recent weeks Umno leaders and media controlled by the party have turned him once again into the country’s “Public Enemy No. 1”.

Datuk Zaid Ibrahim, a former Umno Cabinet minister, expressed concern today over the racial overtones of the campaign to prevent Chin Peng from coming home.

“According to Rais Yatim and Ahmad Zahid Hamidi there is a new enemy — the group that wants to revive communism. The ministers may have come to this conclusion because there are a few Chinese who want Chin Peng to be allowed home,” the former de facto law minister wrote on his blog today.

Rais, the information minister, and Ahmad Zahid, the defence minister, both claimed this week there were moves to revive communism.

Utusan Malaysia and Berita Harian have also been running anti-Chin Peng stories on a daily basis in what appears to be a campaign to whip up a sense of nationalism among readers.

Former security forces veterans are also being interviewed to rail against the “evils of communism”.

Rais also said this week that RTM would start airing documentaries on the “cruelty” of the communists.

Writing in his weekly column in Berita Harian, Datuk Abdul Rahman Sulaiman, a former MP and a media advisor in the Najib administration, claimed that the principles of freedom of speech and democracy were fronts to revive communism.

He added that the tendency of the opposition to speak of a class struggle by using specific terms such as "ruling elite", "Umno elite", "Umnoputras" and "marginalised groups" reflected the same pattern.

The anti-communist campaign so far suggests an attempt to paint a picture of the Chinese community as sympathisers.

It also appears to include the portrayal of Malay Pakatan Rakyat (PR) leaders such as ousted Perak Mentri Besar Datuk Seri Nizar Jamaluddin as a communist sympathiser because of his close ties with the Chinese-dominated DAP.

Zaid, who was sacked from Umno and who is expected to join a PR party, defended those who have pleaded for Chin Peng to return to Malaysia.

“Many are sympathetic to Chin Peng’s aspiration to return home and die. This does not mean they want to revive communism.”

He pointed out also that even the Chinese in China were now practising free market capitalism as are the Chinese community in Malaysia.

“So what is the motive of Umno in making a big issue of communism? Don’t cause friction among the people by creating a new enemy.

“I wonder if Chin Peng were a Malay, would our stand and emotions be the same?”

Zaid noted that Utusan Malaysia was campaigning aggressively against Chin Peng, and while he agreed that the former communist leader was “cruel,” he pointed out the “cruel” communists included former fighters such as Rashid Maidin and Shamsiah Fakeh who were allowed to return home to Malaysia.

Jeff Ooi says it's 1 Black Malaysia ...

Unprincipled, shameless, "Orwellian" UN resolution ever - Prof. Boyle

"This is one of the most unprincipled and shameless resolutions ever adopted by any body of the United Nations in the history of that now benighted Organization. It would be as if the U.N. Human Rights Council had congratulated the Nazi government for the "liberation" of the Jews in Poland after its illegal and genocidal invasion of that country in 1939," said Francis Boyle, professor of International Law at the University of Illinois College of Law, referring to the resolution passed at the United Nations Human Rights Council on the Sri Lanka war.

• UN Adopted Resolution on Sri Lanka

"This Resolution simultaneously gives the imprimatur of the U.N. Human Rights Council to the ethnic cleansing, genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes that the Government of Sri Lanka has already inflicted upon the Tamils in the past , as well as the Council's proverbial "green light" for the GOSL to perpetrate and escalate more of the same international crimes against the Tamils in the future," Boyle said.

Prof Francis Boyle, University of Illinois College of Law

"The U.N. Human Rights Council and those member States that voted in favor of this Resolution have thereby become ACCESSORIES AFTER THE FACT to the GoSL's genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and ethnic cleansing against the Tamils in the past, as well as AIDERS AND ABETTORS to future acts of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and ethnic cleansing that the GOSL will undoubtedly inflict upon the Tamils thanks to this Resolution-all in violation of the Genocide Convention, the Four Geneva Conventions of 1949 and their Two Additional Protocols of 1977 as well as the Rome Statute for the International Criminal Court.

• Swiss Resolution on Sri Lanka

• Text of Sri Lanka Resolution

"Sri Lanka, together with these other Council States, are contracting parties to some or all of these International Criminal Law Conventions and therefore must be held accountable for their violation and international crimes against the Tamils," Boyle added.

"History shall so judge them all!

"Orwell stands vindicated by the U.N. Human Rights Council: WAR IS PEACE, FREEDOM IS SLAVERY, IGNORANCE IS FREEDOM, THE U.N. HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL LOVES BIG BROTHER," Boyle said, indicating he is deeply disturbed by the U.N. action.

20,000 Tamil civilians massacred by Sri Lanka – The Times

Evidence gathered by The Times newspaper has revealed that at least 20,000 Tamil people were killed on the Mullaitivu beach by Sri Lanka Army shelling. Aerial photographs, official documents, witness accounts and expert testimony collected by the newspaper “present clear evidence of an atrocity that comes close to matching Srebrenica, Darfur and other massacres of civilians,” the paper’s editorial says. Confidential UN documents acquired by The Times record nearly 7,000 civilian deaths in the ‘no-fire’ zone up to the end of April. UN sources said that the toll then surged, with an average of 1,000 civilians killed each day until May 19.

Times photo gallery of Tamil slaughter

“These figures are not even complete yet,” the UN source told the paper. “It’s going to end up way more.”

Three independent defence analysts who examined photographs of Sri lanka Army and LTTE firing positions taken over the no-fire zone confirmed that the range of the LTTE weaponry and the narrowness of the zone make it unlikely that LTTE munitions caused significant civilian casualties.

Times video of Tamil slaughter

The Times reported acquisition of the evidence of the “hidden massacre” of Tamil civilians by Sri Lanka’s Army in a set of articles Friday.

The paper also slammed the UN Human Rights Council’s resolution Wednesday congratulating Sri Lanka’s conduct of the war.

The full text of The Times editorial, titled ‘Slaughter in Sri Lanka’, follows

“Deeply disappointing” was how a human rights group yesterday described the vote in the United Nations Human Rights Council hailing the victory of the Sri Lankan Government. This is a breathtaking understatement. It was an utter disgrace. The 47-member body, set up in 2006 to replace the previous corrupt and ineffectual UN Commission on Human Rights, has abjectly failed one of its first and most important tests.

It was asked by its European members to investigate widespread reports of atrocities and war crimes committed by both government troops and the Tamil Tigers in the final weeks of the conflict. The council chose instead to debate a one-sided, mendacious and self-serving motion put forward by the Sri Lankans. This welcomed the “liberation” of tens of thousands of the island's citizens, condemned the defeated Tigers, made no mention of the shelling of civilians and kept silent on the desperate need to allow the Red Cross and other humanitarian groups into the camps where some 270,000 Tamil civilians have been interned.

Support for this deeply flawed resolution came from the usual suspects - China, Russia, India, Pakistan and a clutch of Asian and Islamic nations determined to prevent the council ever investigating human rights violations in their own or any country. It was sad to see Israel, for obvious political motives, joining in this charade, claiming that massacres, violence, repression and internment are an “internal affair”.

To her credit, Navi Pillay, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, insisted that there needed still to be an inquiry into “very serious abuses”. Those abuses, it now emerges, are far, far worse than the outside world imagined. The UN estimated that 7,000 people were killed in the first four months of this year; the figure now appears to be at least 20,000. Thousands of these victims died as a result of the shelling by the Sri Lankan Army of the strip of coastline where the final remnants of Tiger resistance were trapped, along with at least 100,000 civilians.

Photographs taken by The Times present clear evidence of an atrocity that comes close to matching Srebrenica, Darfur and other massacres of civilians. In the sandy so-called no-fire zone where the trapped Tamil civilians were told to go to escape the brutal army bombardment, there are hundreds of fresh graves as well as craters and debris where tents once stood. This was no safe zone. This was where terrified civilians buried their dead as the shells landed - after the Government had declared an end to the use of heavy weapons on April 27.

Some civilians were probably killed by the Tigers, whose brutality and ruthlessness over the past 28 years has fully justified their depiction as terrorists. Finding out what happened, however, is impossible: the army has barred entry to all outsiders. Food is short, sanitation appalling; wounded and traumatised civilians are in desperate need of help. That much is clear from those who have been able to escape. More sinister reports are now circulating of systematic “disappearances”, of families separ- ated and young men taken away. But until the Government allows in aid workers, the presumption must be that it wants nothing to be heard or seen of what is going on.

This tactic was used in the final push to beat the Tigers. The army wanted no witness to the onslaught, no journalists to alert the world to human rights violations, no photographers to record the suffering. Sri Lanka, now basking in its victory, may set the pattern for other nations battling against insurgencies. For them, victory is all that matters. Most of Sri Lanka may rejoice at the end of a bloody civil war. But the UN has no right to collude in suppressing the appalling evidence of the cost. The truth must be told.

Ex-cop implicates Abdul Gani, Musa in Anwar black-eye case, clears Dr M

By Leslie Lau - The Malaysia Insider

Consultant Editor

KUALA LUMPUR, May 29 — Datuk Mat Zain Ibrahim, the police officer who investigated Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim’s black-eye beating in 1998, has accused the country's top lawyer and police chief of fabricating evidence in the assault but cleared Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad of any wrong-doing.

He claimed he was told by the then prime minister to ensure there was no cover-up in the investigations, according to a statement of claim made by him in a suit filed against the opposition leader.

Musa (left) and Gani have been implicated in the black eye incident.

But the former investigator now implicates Attorney-General Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail and Inspector-General of Police Tan Sri Musa Hassan in what he claims was an attempt to introduce a medical report which he found suspicious.

According to his statement of claims which was obtained by The Malaysian Insider, the medical report prepared by a Dr Abdul Rahman Yusof from Hospital Kuala Lumpur had suggested Anwar’s injuries were self-inflicted.

Instead, Mat Zain asserts in his statement of claim that he had taken all possible steps to prevent the medical report prepared by Dr Abdul Rahman from being included in his investigation papers.

Mat Zain filed a RM30 million defamation suit against Anwar last year after the Pakatan Rakyat leader claimed that Abdul Gani, who was a senior deputy public prosecutor then, and Musa, who was an investigating officer, had fabricated evidence against him in the black-eye assault.

Tan Sri Rahim Noor, the Inspector-General of Police in 1998, later admitted he had assaulted Anwar following a Royal Commission of Inquiry probe in 1999.

Besides Mat Zain, Musa has also filed a defamation suit against Anwar.

The statements of claim made by both Musa and Mat Zain have been admitted as part of an affidavit filed by Anwar for his Sodomy II trial which starts in July.

Anwar had claimed trial last August to sodomising his former aide Mohd Saiful Bukhari Azlan, his second sodomy case in a decade.

Mat Zain, who declined comment on the details of his lawsuit, told The Malaysian Insider however that he had decided to sue Anwar to clear his name because unlike Abdul Gani and Musa he had not been officially cleared of the allegations of abuse of power.

Yesterday, Mat Zain, who retired as the Kuala Lumpur CID chief, claimed there was a high-level plot using a bankruptcy notice to destroy his credibility ahead of several cases including Anwar’s sodomy trial.

State news agency Bernama had on Wednesday reported that Mat Zain was declared a bankrupt on April 21 for failing to settle a RM250,000 loan and was served with the notice on May 26. The news was carried by several Malaysian publications including The Malaysian Insider which subscribes to the Bernama service.

The picture of Anwar with the infamous black eye.

“I say with certainty that there are very powerful hidden hands that wanted it so. Their reasons are to destroy my credibility and/or to paralyse my capabilities and prevent me from giving evidence against Attorney-General Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail and IGP Tan Sri Musa Hassan for fabricating evidence in the ‘black-eye’ case of 1998 involving Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim,” said Mat Zain in a statement.

Mat Zain claimed the bankruptcy notice is related to his appeal to the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) advisory board to clear his name after the anti-graft agency cleared only Gani and Musa from charges of fabrication lodged by Anwar.

“I have reasons to believe that the prosecution team anticipated that Anwar will certainly raise at certain points of his trial the issue of fabrication of evidence in the black-eye case. My evidence would be vital at this stage. Their only option is to destroy my credibility.”

In his statement of claim, Mat Zain points out that he had been instructed by Rahim, the IGP then, to head an investigation into Anwar’s allegation on Sept 27, 1998 that he had been assaulted while in police lock-up.

Anwar had been detained by police on Sept 20,1998, just 18 days after he had been sacked by Dr Mahathir as deputy prime minister. The widespread public protests and his subsequent sodomy trial led to the birth of the Reformasi movement.

In his suit against Anwar filed last August, Mat Zain states that he had accompanied two forensic specialists — Dr Halim Mansar and Dr Zahari Noor — to conduct a medical examination on Anwar on the day he started his probe.

He met Rahim later that night and was instructed by his boss “to leave no stone unturned” to protect the integrity of the police.

On Oct 16, Mat Zain claims he was told by the Attorney-General then to liaise with Abdul Gani on all matters related to the probe.

Ten days later he met with Abdul Gani at the latter’s office and was then introduced to Dr Abdul Rahman. The medical expert then signed a medical report and handed it over to Mat Zain.

Mat Zain then claims that he had objected to Dr Abdul Rahman’s report because it also contained personal attacks against Dr Halim, one of the original medical experts in the case.

He claimed further that on further enquiries, he had discovered that Dr Halim had previously lodged a police report against Dr Abdul Rahman for “criminal intimidation.”

On Oct 28, 1998, Mat Zain said he had come to the conclusion that Dr Abdul Rahman had never examined Anwar. He also claimed to have discovered that Abdul Gani had been present on the 30th floor of Bukit Aman on the night that Rahim assaulted Anwar.

Two days later, Mat Zain claimed that he submitted to Abdul Gani his investigation papers which asserted among other matters that Anwar’s injuries were consistent with an assault and that they were not self-inflicted. Mat Zain also asserted that he believed Rahim was the person who had assaulted Anwar.

The two men — Mat Zain and Abdul Gani — had a heated argument over the findings of the probe, according to the statement of claim.

Later that year on Dec 12, Musa, who is now the IGP, had asked Mat Zain to attend a meeting at Bukit Aman with Abdul Gani and Dr Abdul Rahman. At the meeting he was asked to accompany Dr Abdul Rahman for a visit to the lock-up in which Anwar had been held.

The next day, Mat Zain claims he took Dr Abdul Rahman to the lock-up, but points out that he left the doctor on his own in the room.

On Dec 31, 1998, Mat Zain claims that his investigation papers were returned to him. The papers included a second undated medical report by Dr Abdul Rahman.

In the second medical report, Mat Zain claims it was stated he had accompanied Dr Abdul Rahman and aided in a reconstruction of events, which he says was not true.

The initial police investigations prompted Dr Mahathir to suggest Anwar's black-eye could have been self-inflicted, an allegation that was later found to be untrue.

Mat Zain claims that he investigated the black-eye incident without fear or favour and had his statement recorded five times by the precursor to MACC, the Anti-Corruption Agency (ACA) when Anwar lodged a report on July 1, 2008 that Abdul Gani, Musa, Mat Zain and Dr Abdul Rahman had falsified a medical report on the assault case.

But MACC chief commissioner Datuk Seri Ahmad Said Hamdan announced on March 3 that a three-member independent panel led by the Solicitor-General had scrutinised the investigation papers and cleared Abdul Gani and Musa of criminal wrongdoing, prompting Mat Zain to later appeal the findings.

Bawa balik Balasubramaniam, siasat semula akuan bersumpah

(Hrkh) - Angkatan Muda KeADILan Selangor menggesa agar pihak kerajaan dan Polis Diraja Malaysia (PDRM) membawa segera penyiasat persendirian Balasubramaniam a/l Perumal yang masih berada di luar negara.

Gesaan ini adalah untuk membantu siasatan berkenaan kes pembunuhan Altantuya Shaaribuu melalui Akuan Bersumpah bertarikh 1hb Julai 2008.

Ketuanya Khairul Anuar Ahmad Zainuddin mempertikaikan tindakan pantas pihak kerajaan yang begitu cepat meminta bantuan Interpol untuk mengesan dan membawa pulang Raja Petra Kamaruddin yang berada di luar negara sebaliknya dalam isu akuan bersumpah Balasubramaniam seolah-olah tiada berita dan perkembangan terkini.

"Kita juga membidas pihak-pihak tertentu yang mempolitikkan isu mengenai kembalinya ancaman Parti Komunis Malaya (PKM) berkaitan membawa pulang bekas Ketua PKM ke Malaysia.

"Isu ini ditimbulkan hanya strategi politik 'desperado' sesetengah pihak Umno/BN yang berusaha membakar hati dan perasaan bekas anggota keselamatan,keluarga dan rakyat Malaysia untuk menyokong kembali Umno/BN yang semakin hilang sokongan dan dokongan rakyat Malaysia, " katanya dalam satu kenyataannya.

Beliau berharap penyiasat persendirian Balasubramaniam perlu dibawa pulang segera oleh kerajaan kerana akuan bersumpah yang pernah dibuatnya melibatkan individu yang sangat penting negara ini.

"Semakin melambatkan tindakan untuk membawa pulang selama itu juga nama baik individu yang sangat berprofil tinggi itu terus tercemar di peringkat nasional dan antarabangsa.

Katanya AMK Selangor berharap isu membawa pulang bekas ketua PKM ini tidak menjadi satu lagi isu sensasi politik pihak-pihak tertentu yang semakin hilang dari sokongan rakyat.

"Amat jelas isu ini sudah lama selesai dan tidak perlu ditimbulkan semula lagi. Kini rakyat Malaysia lebih bijak dan pintar dalam menganalisis sesuatu isu melalui perkembangan semasa revolusi maklumat global," katanya.

A prelude to Anwar Ibrahim’s ‘Sodomy II’ trial

Now, the day after Saiful met Najib, he met Rodwan in room 619 of the Kuala Lumpur Concorde. Najib did not know this of course. Prior to that meeting, Rodwan and Saiful spoke over the phone at least eight times.

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

On 11 August 2008, in an article called ‘The real dalang behind the Anwar sodomy allegation’, Malaysia Today wrote: Shafee was supposed to have led the prosecution against Anwar. A provision in the law called FIAT allows the Attorney-General to appoint an outsider to conduct the prosecution. If Shafee does well then he would most likely be appointed the next Attorney-General.

Since the publishing of article almost a year ago, Shafee has sued me and in his summons in chambers he applied to strike off my defence on grounds that my allegation did not have any particulars. Well, if it’s particulars he wants then it is particulars he shall get.

In the meantime, read what Malaysia Today wrote on 11 August 2008:

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

Sodomy II: Who stands to gain the most?

In the court of the rakyat, Anwar Ibrahim is not guilty of Sodomy II, and neither was he guilty of Sodomy I. He was initially found guilty of Sodomy I (that ‘judgment’ later reversed) in the most convoluted and illogical judicial process facilitated and engineered by top policemen, prosecutors and judges who were anything but the respected and responsible public servants for law and order and justice in a democratic country.

Today, we are on the verge of witnessing a repeat of that most shameful process in Malaysia's history. The question is why would anyone want to do this? Surely, Saiful (aged 13 during Sodomy I) knows the gravity, implications and consequences of his allegations against Anwar.

Assuming that Saiful has actually been sodomised, what does he gain by lodging a report? He says that he been sodomised eight times by Anwar, in which case he should have lodged a police report immediately after the first incident if he were the innocent law-abiding citizen that he (or rather various powerful interested parties are trying to portray on his behalf) is trying to portray.

On the basis of his own report and confession, Saiful now faces the possibility of being jailed for willingly engaging in sodomy (as Anwar's adopted brother was found guilty of and jailed for six months in Sodomy I) if his allegations against Anwar are ‘proven’. Furthermore, Saiful will now be the target of ridicule and harassment about his manhood and sexual preference. No young man will be able to live normally with such shame and accompanying torment and ridicule.

In fact, it is a well-known fact that genuine rape victims in general do not report the crime, and male victims in particular are more inclined not to report sodomy because of the greater shame and implications regarding their manhood. Furthermore, Saiful's allegations against Anwar are so flimsy that unless the Sodomy I process is repeated, Anwar will not be found guilty.

Given these facts, Saiful could be getting a huge reward for alleging that Anwar had sodomised him, a reward which adequately compensates for the stigma and guilt associated with being a partner willing or unwilling in several acts of sodomy The question is who is offering such a handsome reward? Who is so rich and powerful to be able to make an offer which Saiful cannot refuse? Or, more correctly, who stands to gain most from Sodomy II?

The popular arguments on the Net and in the coffee-shops point to Najib. Najib met Saiful on the day after the alleged sodomy. Saiful has access to Najib's aide. The allegation against Anwar has diverted the attention of the public from the revelations made by Private Investigator P Balasubramaniam about Najib in his first statutory declaration. Saiful's allegation has also put Anwar on the defensive and thwarted his plans to challenge the BN government for power by September.

All these suggest that Najib has much to gain from Sodomy II. The reality is that Najib is also a victim of Sodomy II. In the eyes of the public, Najib is not only involved in the Altanuya case but is also masterminding a conspiracy against Anwar. These perceptions will have serious consequences and will most surely weaken Najib's case to be the next PM. The way that Najib has responded to the sodomy allegation against Anwar suggests an individual who is blundering - not a mastermind who has crafted the whole thing, from positioning Saiful in PKR to getting him to accuse Anwar of sodomy. In conclusion, Najib does not stand to gain from Sodomy II.

As for Abdullah Ahamd Badawi, the people punished him on March 8 for his poor performance as PM. His popularity is at an all time low - the high petrol/diesel prices, high food prices, inflation, crime, etc. Sodomy II has added a major political crisis which Abdullah is ill-equipped to handle, even if he is inclined to do so at this time. Either way he will be a loser.

If Anwar is found ‘guilty’ of Sodomy II, the people will hold Abdullah responsible for victimising Anwar, and Abdullah may have to exit well before the declared 2010 deadline. If Anwar were found innocent, that would strengthen Anwar, enabling him to challenge BN and hasten Abdullah's exit. If Sodomy II drags on, there will be serious public unrest and this would also pose a major challenge for Abdullah. Thus, Abdullah is also a victim of Sodomy II.

It looks like that Anwar, Najib and Abdullah are all victims of Sodomy II in one way or another. So who is behind Sodomy II? Who will benefit from Sodomy II? Someone who will lose most if Anwar comes into power. Someone who will go to any extent to prevent Anwar's rise. Someone who no longer accepts Najib as a potential PM. Someone who wants instability in Malaysia. Someone who wants to topple Abdullah.

Someone who cannot accept the rise of the opposition. Someone who does not agree with the new direction that Malaysia is taking in matters such as the judiciary and law and order. Someone whose buddies (cronies) are badly affected by government actions such as termination of mega-projects. Someone who wants to prevent probe and investigation into government misdeeds and mal-practices of the past. Someone who wants to continue the legacy of the past.

Someone who is fully schooled in sodomy matters from Sodomy I. Someone who has strong allies in the government, especially the home ministry, police and AG chambers. Someone who is unscrupulous. Someone who will go any extent to get what he wants. Someone who is extremely rich and powerful. Someone who has finally readied an heir. So, who is behind Sodomy II? A Machiavellian par excellence.

Who is it?

Ken, Malaysiakini

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

That was what Ken wrote in Malaysiakini on 22 July 2008. I do not, however, agree with his prognosis. Without a doubt he is exonerating Deputy Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak and Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi from the crime of trying to frame Anwar Ibrahim and has painted them, plus Anwar, as the three victims in this attempted frame-up. And in that same breath Ken is insinuating that Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad is the real dalang behind the whole thing.

I do not quite agree with this assumption. Yes, Mahathir has no love for Anwar, and vice versa, but the Grand Old Man of Malaysian politics is not behind this latest move to frame Anwar on sodomy charges. And I say this because the behind-the-scenes goings-on prior to the sodomy issue exploding onto the Malaysian scene seem to point to Abdullah’s office, or at least to those within his inner circle.

Firstly, Saiful met Najib before the so-called sodomy took place. No doubt, at first, Najib denied meeting him and then later admitted meeting him but explained that it was for purposes of career guidance and to help the young man obtain a scholarship. Later on, Najib confessed he met Saiful to discuss the sodomy allegation against Anwar. This flip-flopping and inconsistency -- denial and then confessing only when it appeared like he could no longer deny it -- makes Najib appear like he is lying and therefore is trying to cover up an evil deed.

Najib’s responses certainly make him look like a liar and therefore he must have something to hide if he is lying. A lying man is certainly the mark of a guilty man, which makes it look like he is behind the conspiracy, or at least involved in the conspiracy to frame Anwar. But this is what they are trying to make us believe. Why this effort to make it appear like Najib is the culprit if not to deflect all attention from whoever is the real culprit?

Now, the day after Saiful met Najib, he met Rodwan in room 619 of the Kuala Lumpur Concorde. Najib did not know this of course. Prior to that meeting, Rodwan and Saiful spoke over the phone at least eight times. We can only assume that part of this conversation involved asking Saiful to go meet Najib and to make sure that everyone knows about it so that the conspiracy points to Najib. The fact that Saiful brought a friend along only reinforces this assumption, especialy when this friend is aligned to Anwar Ibrahim.

The man who is the real mastermind behind this latest conspiracy to frame Anwar is Shafee Abdullah. Just days before the sodomy allegation exploded, and even before Saiful’s meeting with Rodwan on 25 June 2008, Shafee was in Najib’s house to attend a gathering. And in front of scores of witnesses he asked to be excused early because he ‘had a very big fish to catch’. Shafee conveniently made it known that he is behind the move to catch the ‘big fish’ and he wanted all those in Najib’s house to be aware that Najib was in the know. Actually, Najib did not know what he was talking about and assumed that the ‘big fish’ meant Raja Petra Kamarudin and was with regards to the Statutory Declaration that he had signed just days earlier on 18 June 2008.

Shafee was supposed to have led the prosecution against Anwar. A provision in the law called FIAT allows the Attorney-General to appoint an outsider to conduct the prosecution. If Shafee does well then he would most likely be appointed the next Attorney-General. When word got out that he is heading the special police operations centre, which was located in his office, they had to abandon the whole idea.

Shafee’s hands are behind the whole thing. And this can only happen with Abdullah’s blessing. No, it is not Mahathir who is behind this. And it is not Abdullah, Najib and Anwar who are the three victims. The victims are Mahathir, Najib and Anwar. Abdullah is the hidden hand and Shafee is the henchman who was tasked with the job of implementing the evil deed. Politics is not what it always appears to be in Malaysia. That is how Malay politics is played out.

One man’s extremist is another man’s freedom fighter

How will history judge Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad after he has long died? Well, at what point of time in history are we supposed to judge him? At different points of time he was either great or despicable depending on whether you support or oppose him. So whose yardstick are we going to use in judging him?

NO HOLDS BARRED

Raja Petra Kamarudin

THE EXTREMISTS
By Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamad, May 27, 2009

1. We are all held to ransom by extremists. We want to be rational and we all want to do what is best for ourselves and our country. We all want the best for our children and their future. But we cannot do all these because if we do we will be accused of being traitors, not supporting our own community or our own religion. We will be demonised, etc, etc.

2. So willy-nilly we become the instruments of these extremists and their narrow jingoism, to our own detriment.

3. In Malaysia we are constantly being asked to confront each other on racial issues. Disputes cannot be resolved by rigidity in our stand. But we have to be rigid if we do not want to be vilified.

4. It is a miracle that this multi-racial country has remained stable and peaceful for so long. If the extremists can have their way we would all be at each other’s throats. We would be demonstrating in the streets and at the airports. If we do not accede to the wishes of the extremists then we cannot even make a living, there will be no investments and no jobs for the workers.

5. Today we are grappling with the problem of education. We have three streams and woe betide anyone who suggests that we should not have them. We talk of liberal society, of free speech, but if you express some commonsensical views you would be labelled racist.

6. Then there is the controversy over the teaching of science and mathematics in English. We curse the person who had proposed this, calling him a betrayer of his mother tongue, of the national language. Then there are those who want to carry out a nationwide strike if the policy is not changed.

7. I am ready to surrender to the extremists, to pay the ransom demanded. What does it matter if the country goes up in flames, if the extremists win the day? What does it matter if the life of our children and their children is blighted? Anything for a quiet life. I want to be a member of the silent majority and just acquiesce. However the habit of a lifetime just refuse to go.

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

3,500 years or so ago, Moses was considered an extremist, at least as far as the Pharaoh was concerned. And because of that the Pharaoh wanted the full might of the Egyptian government to come down hard on Moses and his rag-tag gang of dissidents. Today, of course, Moses is a revered Prophet in the eyes of the Jews, Christians and Muslims.

2,000 years or so ago, Jesus Christ was considered an extremist, at least as far as the Jewish authorities of that time were concerned. Today, of course, there are some who believe Jesus is the Son of God.

1,400 years or so ago, Muhammad was considered an extremist, at least as far as the Mekah authorities of that time were concerned. Today, of course, Muslims who view Muhammad as a Prophet would get very upset and would probably lob of your head if you were to call him an extremist.

70 years or so ago, Chin Peng was considered an extremist, at least as far as the Japanese Imperial Army cum the government of Malaya at the time was concerned. The British, however, considered him a patriot and freedom fighter and even brought him to England at the end of the WWII to ‘decorate’ him for his services to the Queen. Today, he is, again, considered an extremist.

40 years or so ago, Dr Mahathir was considered an extremist, at least as far as Umno at that time was concerned. And they said so in a press statement to the mainstream media when they made the decision to sack him from Umno. Later, he went on to become the Fourth Prime Minister of Malaysia and stayed on for 22 long years and was hailed as the best leader Malaysia ever gave birth to. After he retired as Prime Minister he was, again, considered an extremist.

And the list goes on, whether we are talking about Sir Francis Drake, Sir Walter Raleigh, Joan of Arc, Robespierre, Mandela, Jose Rizal, Gandhi, Soekarno, Idi Amin, Khomeini, Muammar Gaddafi, Osama Bin Ladin, and who-have-you. Are all these people extremists or are they freedom fighters? It all depends on who is evaluating them and at what point of time they are being evaluated.

In fact, the American Revolutionary War (1775–1783), as far as the British are concerned, is also known as the American War of Independence, as far as the Americans are concerned. And both ‘Patriots’ (positive) as well as ‘Rebels’ (negative) are used to describe the American leaders of the Rebellion or Independence War, depending on who is giving the view.

How will history judge Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad after he has long died? Well, at what point of time in history are we supposed to judge him? At different points of time he was either great or despicable depending on whether you support or oppose him. So whose yardstick are we going to use in judging him?

Yes, that is certainly food for thought and not something you can comment on without your prejudices coming into play. Everyone has prejudices. No one can honestly declare that he or she makes an evaluation unclouded by certain prejudices. This is just humanly impossible.

So I will let history be that judge because I know that history will also judge me one day if by chance I am still remembered long after I have left the scene. And history may also not be kind to me as we have seen happen when heroes of one era become villains of another, and vice versa.

The terror of government silence

By Jacqueline Ann Surin
thenutgraph.com

Penan child (© Robin Hanbury-Tenison/Survival, pic courtesy of Survival International)

DATUK Seri Shahrizat Abdul Jalil was the perfect picture of concern and care on the front page of The Star newspaper on 28 May 2009. The newly re-appointed women, family and community development minister was photographed at the Serdang Hospital with a five-year-old child who looked like he had suffered serious and constant abuse at home.

"It is so awful and very sad. Obviously the abuse must have been going on for some time," Shahrizat was quoted as saying after she struggled to compose herself.

Shahrizat, who is also Wanita Umno chief, has rightfully demonstrated shock at such abuse. However, she has yet to illustrate the same kind of alarm and urgency towards the plight of Penan girls and women in the interiors of Sarawak who were reportedly sexually violated and abused.

Indeed, since the report first emerged in mid-September 2008 about the sexual violence towards the Penans by logging company employees, eight months have gone by. A government-led task force into the Baram district completed its investigation in mid-November and yet six months later, Malaysians remain clueless about the plight of the Penan girls and women.

Some logging company employees in Baram (pic courtesy of WhatRainforest.com)

Despite public funds spent on setting up the task force, the affected communities themselves remain uncertain about the concrete measures that the government aims to undertake, if at all, to prevent further violations.

In the meantime, Shahrizat continues to pussyfoot around questions about the report's contents and evades questions about its status.

Why the silence?

One has to wonder, what's stopping Shahrizat as the minister in charge, and the Barisan Nasional (BN) cabinet as the government in charge, from treating the rape and sexual harassment of Penans girls and women with more urgency?

Penan woman and child (© Andy Rain/Nick Rain/Survival, pic courtesy of Survival International)

Is it because the Penans don't factor as a constituency? Or because there aren't photo opportunities for the relevant minister to be seen demonstrating her care and concern? Or because the BN just doesn't care and will only respond if there is public outrage and pressure?

To be fair, former minister Datuk Seri Dr Ng Yen Yen was quick to respond with a concrete measure against a backdrop of public outrage over the Penans being violated. It was she who set up a task force that included representatives from different government agencies, two women's rights groups and the indigenous community.

Ng Yen YenAnd it wasn't as if the task force didn't work as quickly as it could. Additionally, The Nut Graph is told that the report isn't about pointing fingers. It contains comprehensive measures that attempt to address, as holistically as possible, all the circumstances that make the Penans vulnerable to abuse.

However, even Ng seemed unable to commit to making the report fully public. In early February 2009, when I met her at the MCA's Chinese New Year dinner for the media, she would not answer questions about when the task force report would be made public and why it hadn't yet been made public.

For a government that created a women, family and community development ministry to show how much it cares about these constituencies, Ng's and Shahrizat's responses are, at the very least, strange. At the very worst, it reflects a government that actually doesn't care about a marginalised community which doesn't have the influence and capacity to pressure or shame those in power.

Attempts to reach Shahrizat for confirmation
on the report's status were futile

The PKFZ report

Compare, for example, Shahrizat's response after she ignored requests by The Nut Graph for a month for an interview about when the government would make the task force report public.

When she was finally met at the press conference of an event she was launching, she first said the report would be tabled in cabinet "as soon as possible" (but perhaps not soon enough for the affected Penans). Then instead of committing to full public disclosure of the report, she said interested parties could go to her ministry to discuss the report. That's at least one hurdle for public scrutiny that the minister is definitely trying to put in place.

Additionally, it was only later when she was pressed again that she said the report would be submitted to cabinet on 27 May. However, attempts to reach her after that to confirm that the report was tabled were futile. The Nut Graph was told she was at the Serdang Hospital as The Star report and photos bear testimony to the following day. And since then, still no word from either her or the cabinet about the report's status.

Compare this with the release of the report on the controversial Port Klang Free Zone (PKFZ) project on 28 May 2009. Indeed, the report is available online until 10 June.

Penan woman (© Survival, pic courtesy of Survival International)

In his blog, Transport Minister Datuk Seri Ong Tee Keat boasted that the government had to "disappoint" the Opposition by "proving to the public that the new administration under our prime minister has nothing to hide and is prepared to reveal the truth as well as to take the appropriate action should there be any wrongdoing."

Now, if we could only have the women, family and community development minister say exactly the same thing for the Penan task force report. Then, maybe the BN government would have more credibility with regard to being "transparent" and taking "appropriate action" against any wrongdoing.

Penan people in a longhouse in Long Lutin (pic courtesy of WhatRainforest.com)

The question though is why did the cabinet feel pressured to reveal the PKFZ report but doesn't see the need to do so for the Penan task force report? Truth is, apart from the Women's Aid Organisation and the Women's Centre for Change, no other public interest groups are raising their voices for the task force report to be made public.

The traditional media have also lost interest. Two of the largest English dailies in the country — The Star and the New Straits Times — didn't even bother reporting what Shahrizat said about tabling the report in cabinet and making it partially available. So is it any wonder that the government feels no need to be accountable? Hence, it looks to me that as far as Shahrizat is concerned, the public may just forget about the Penan's plight if she keeps silent long enough about it.

Penan person standing in front of the Rukunegara scrawled
on the wall of a longhouse
(© Survival, pic courtesy of Survival International)

Tackling terror

What was even more ironic is that on 28 May, the New Straits Times highlighted on its front page the headline Zero tolerance for terror — old and new. The report lent support to Datuk Seri Najib Razak's actions in denying the request by former Communist Party of Malaya leader Chin Peng to come back into the country, and in incarcerating suspected terrorist Mas Selamat Kastari under the Internal Security Act.

But what about the terror of a Penan girl or woman living in the Sarawak interiors who faces the real and frequent possibility of rape and harassment?

Want to know what I find even more terrifying than that? It is knowing, as I am sure the Penans do by now, that even after a crime is committed against me, the Malaysian government can remain indefinitely silent for months about what it will do to ensure justice and prevent future violations.