It’s time to storm the Bastille

I call upon all Malaysians who wish to uphold the kedaulatan of the Federal Constitution of Malaysia to converge onto Ipoh on 7 May 2009 as a show of support to Nizar Jamaluddin and the Pakatan Rakyat government of Perak.

THE CORRIDORS OF POWER

Raja Petra Kamarudin

Kenyataan Media YB V.Sivakumar, Yang Dipertua Dewan Negeri Perak

7 Mei 2009 telah ditetapkan sebagai tarikh Persidangan Dewan Negeri Perak. Perkara ini tidak dirunding dengan saya terlebih dahulu. Saya tidak mengetahui tentang tarikh itu sehingga saya diberitahu oleh ADUN-ADUN yang lain. Notis dikeluarkan oleh Setiausaha Dewan En. Abddullah Antong. Saya telah mengantung tugasnya sebagai setiausaha Dewan Negeri sebelum persidangan 'bawah pokok' yang dibuat pada 3 Mac 2009.

Notis yang sama juga telah diberikan kepada saya oleh Setiausaha Dewan. Siapakah yang memberi arahan kepada Setiausaha Dewan untuk mengeluarakan Notis. Arahan itu sepatutnya datang daripada pejabat Speaker. Tetapi, Speaker sendiri tidak tahu tentang tarikh persidangan tersebut. Mungkin sayalah yang terakhir dimaklumkan tentang tarikh persidangan. Bukankah ini satu tindakan yang aneh. Speaker dihina sekali lagi.

Pada protokolnya, Spaeker yang harus memberi arahan kepada Setiausaha Dewan untuk mengeluarkan notis. Tetapi, di sini, speaker pula menerima notis yang sama seperti ADUN-ADUN yang lain.

Adakah ini merupakan usaha-usaha untuk memperkecilkan atau memperbodohkan institusi Speaker? Pada pandangan saya, ini merupakan satu lagi tindakan untuk menghina Speaker Dewan Negeri.

Sanggupkah Pandekar Amin, Speaker Dewan Rakyat berdiam diri jika Setiausaha Dewannya mengeluarkan notis memanggil Dewan Rakyat bersidang tanpa berunding dengannya? Bukankah hak Speaker untuk mengetahui terlebih dahulu segala apa yang berkaitan dengan Dewan. Apa gunanya institusi Speaker apabila semua keputusan dibuat oleh Pihak yang lain. Ini merupakan campurtangan eksekutif yang nyata. Sekali lagi doktrin pengasingan kuasa dicabuli.

Saya akan menulis surat kepada Istana untuk mendapatkan kepastian tentang tarikh persidangan yang ditetapkan. Saya tidak ditunjukkan apa-apa bukti tentang penetapan tarikh persidangan oleh Istana. Oleh yang demikian, tarikh persidangan itu mungkin perlu ditangguhkan sehingga saya mendapat kepastian tentang tarikh tersebut.

Saya juga mengantung tugas En Abdullah Antong sebagai Setiausaha Dewan. Beliau akan digantikan dengan Tuan Haji Misbah sehingga suatu tarikh yang akan diberitahu kelak.

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

Saya sedar ramai yang ingin tahu kesan keputusan Mahkamah Persekutuan pada 16 April lalu yang memutuskan bahawa keputusan V.Sivakumar, Speaker Perak menggantung dan melarang Zambry dan enam Exconya hadir di Dun Perak selama 18 bulan dan 12 bulan adalah terbatal dan tak sah.

Ramai yang bertanya saya adakah keputusan tersebut bermakna Zambry dan enam exconya kini boleh menghadiri sidang Dun Perak?

Jika kita melihat kenyataan peguam Umno dan laporan akhbar pro-Umno seperti Utusan Malaysia (17.4.2009) mereka dengan tidak bertanggungjawab menyatakan bahawa Zambry dan enam exconya kini dibenarkan menghadiri sidang Dun Perak yang mungkin akan diadakan dalam masa terdekat.

Sebagai salah seorang peguam yang terlibat dalam kes tersebut, saya menasihati rakyat agar tidak terkeliru dengan kenyataan peguam Umno dan laporan akhbar Umno tersebut. Banyak yang mereka sembunyikan dan tidak jelaskan tentang apa yang sebenarnya berlaku di Mahkamah Persekutuan pada tarikh tersebut.

Marilah kita mulakan dengan melihat apakah perintah-perintah yang dipohon oleh Zambry dan enam exconya di dalam saman yang mereka kemukakan ke atas Sivakumar di Mahkamah Tinggi dan kemudiannya didengar di Mahkamah Persekutuan.

Sebenarnya Zambry telah memohon sepuluh (10) perintah Mahkamah dan dari sepuluh perintah tersebut Mahkamah hanya membenarkan dua (2) perintah sahaja. Dua perintah yang dibenarkan oleh Mahkamah adalah seperti berikut:

Pertama, perintah membatalkan keputusan V. Sivakumar yang menggantung dan melarang Zambry hadir di Dun Perak selama 18 bulan.

Kedua, perintah membatalkan keputusan V. Sivakumar yang menggantung dan melarang enam exco Zambry untuk hadir di Dun Perak selama 12 bulan adalah terbatal dan tak sah.

Itu sahaja dua perintah yang Mahkamah Persekutuan benarkan pada 16 April lalu. Memandangkan Mahkamah Persekutuan hanya membenarkan dua perintah di atas, adalah jelas Mahkamah tidak membenarkan lapan (8) perintah lain yang juga dipohon oleh Umno dan dihujahkan oleh para peguam Zambry dan pasukan peguam Sivakumar.

Mohamed Hanipa Maidin

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

The judges of the Federal Court have failed the people and the government of this country when they chose to ignore the law of the Constitution of Malaysia. In other words the judges have refused to do justice according to law.

This is a perverse judgement of the Federal Court. It is perverse because it is a decision that was made in blatant defiance of Article 72 (1) of the Federal Constitution, which says: ”The validity of any proceedings in the Legislative Assembly of any State shall not be questioned in any court”. The judges of the Federal Court have failed the people and the government of this country when they chose to ignore the law of the Constitution of Malaysia. In other words the judges have refused to do justice according to law.

Don’t these judges realise that they have actually done a disservice to the Government of the day? Perhaps they have never heard of the Taff Vale case. I think the message of the Taff Vale case to our judges of the Federal Court should be clear enough. The electorate may decide, just as the voters did in 1906 England to the Conservative Government, to use the power of their vote to unseat the BN government in the next by-election or general election because they do not trust the judges.

Suppose the Speaker Sivakumar were to ignore the declarative decree of the Federal Court, what then? Clause (2) of Article 72 of the Federal Constitution says that: “No person shall be liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything said or any vote given by him when taking part in proceedings of the Legislative Assembly of any State or of any committee thereof”.

The Federal Court can say anything they like but the Speaker is not liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything said or any vote given by him when taking part in proceedings of the Legislative Assembly. The order of the Federal Court seems to me to be a brutum fulmen which in Latin means “ineffectual thunderbolt: (action which is) loud but ineffective”.

By NH Chan

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

Article 72 of the Federal Constitution of Malaysia

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

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

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

72 (4) Clause (2) shall not apply to any person charged with an offence under the law passed by Parliament under Clause (4) of Article 10 or with an offence under the Sedition Act 1948 as amended by the Emergency (Essential Powers) Ordinance No. 45, 1970.

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

So there you have it -- the press statement by the Speaker of the Perak State Assembly and the legal opinions of NH Chan and Mohamed Hanipa Maidin. You really do not need to go to law school to comprehend the issues. The power to decide rests with the Speaker and under Article 72 of the Federal Constitution of Malaysia the courts may not interfere in the decision of the Speaker. The court just does not have the power to do so.

So where do we go from here? Umno has overridden the Speaker by calling for a State Assembly meeting on 7 May 2009. They are doing this because, if the State Assembly does not meet by 13 May 2009, then the State Assembly is automatically dissolved and a new state election has got to be called. That is why Umno is pushing for a State Assembly meeting, legally or otherwise, to avoid the dissolution of the State Assembly whereby a new state election must be held within 60 days from 13 May 2009.

On 11 March 2009, the Perak Menteri Besar, Nizar Jamaluddin, requested an audience with His Highness the Sultan of Perak. The Palace, however, ignored that request and did not respond. At 3.40pm yesterday, Nizar sent a second letter requesting an audience. It is not known yet whether His Highness will, again, ignore this letter or probably reply in the negative. Most likely this second request will be ignored as well.

Umno and the Palace are playing with fire. There is only so much the people will tolerate. Winning the 8 March 2008 general election through fraud is one thing. In spite of the rampant cheating, Barisan Nasional is still seen as winning through a democratic process although everyone knows they won with a mere 51% of the popular votes -- which would have been less than 50% if they had not padded the ballot boxes and manipulated the elections through gerrymandering and postal votes. On a level playing field, today, Pakatan Rakyat would be the federal government instead of Barisan Nasional.

Nevertheless, there was still an election and the people can accept the decision, fraud or no fraud. But to topple the Perak state government in violation of the Federal and State Constitutions would be extremely unpalatable and something the people will not allow to happen without a fight.

The mood on the ground is not good. The people are restless. They want Perak back in the hands of the lawful government, not transferred illegally to Barisan Nasional in violation of the Constitution.

Today, the people have the law on their side. They are standing on the side of right, not might. And if enough people stand united in opposition of might, then right wins in the end. Beware the 7th of May. The storming of the Bastille occurred on 14 July 1789. Will we be seeing the second storming of the Bastille on 7 May 2009? I would not be the least bit surprised if there is.

Maybe this is what Umno wants. They want chaos to erupt on 7 May 2009 so that they can declare an emergency on that day and suspend the Perak State Assembly for six months or more, like they did in Kelantan 30 years ago. Then, too, in Kelantan 30 years ago, they brought the PAS government down by engineering riots on the streets of Kota Bharu and then declared an emergency and suspended the state assembly.

It took PAS 12 years to get back Kelantan and since 1990 Kelantan has remained an opposition stronghold. It would now take forever for Umno to win back the state but the people of Kelantan had to endure 12 years of Umno rule and rampant corruption and mismanagement before PAS managed to kick Umno out again.

There appears to be a hidden agenda here. Umno knows that the courts cannot overturn the Speaker of the Perak State Assembly’s decision. So why are they doing this? And the mainstream media is spinning propaganda that the court has ruled in favour of Umno whereas the court only ruled in two out of ten points -- and even then, in the first place, the court should have rejected Umno’s application on grounds that it has no jurisdiction over the matter.

The police are looking for me. My friends have been summoned to the police headquarters for interrogation, police cars are parked outside their house, and police personnel are loitering outside their residence to monitor whoever comes and goes. My ISA case, which the government is appealing, has suddenly been dropped and for almost two months the case has gone cold after the Federal Court appeared to be in a hurry and would not even allow us 24 hours to file the necessary papers.

This seems very strange. Initially, the court wanted everything done yesterday and even the following morning was considered too late. Why the sudden change in urgency? Does the government now feel that I should not be sent back to Kamunting since Najib Tun Razak is now the Prime Minister?

Not likely. The reason they are no longer in a hurry on the ISA appeal is because they have issued a new detention order. So they no longer need to hurry with the appeal hearing. They can just detain me under a fresh detention order and send me back to Kamunting. And that is why they are loitering outside my friends’ houses and have called them in for interrogation. They are looking for me.

The police know of my clash with the palace and about my self-imposed exile from Selangor. So, I am not in Selangor. So where am I? That is what the police want to know. And why are the police so concerned about where I am? Because they want to detain me under the Internal Security Act using the new detention order that has been issued.

Well, never mind, they want me back in Kamunting under ISA for what the government alleges is my treasonous act which makes me a threat to national security. Then let us give them a good reason to send me back to Kamunting. Let me really be a threat to national security.

I call upon all Malaysians who wish to uphold the kedaulatan of the Federal Constitution of Malaysia to converge onto Ipoh on 7 May 2009 as a show of support to Nizar Jamaluddin and the Pakatan Rakyat government of Perak. Let us not allow Umno and Barisan Nasional to take the Perak government by force and through foul means. Let us, Rakyat Malaysia, storm the Bastille.

There, now you have a valid reason to detain me under ISA.

KDN Menolak Pemohonan 7 Ahli Parlimen Melawat P.UthayaKumar

Surat Penolakan Yang DiTandatangani oleh Menteri Dalam Negeri

Manikavasagam menunjukkan Surat Penolakan di Pejabat Beliau. Anehnya Wakil Rakyat perlu memohon kebenaran Menteri Dalam Negeri sebelum melawat Tahanan ISA. Kenapa?

Surat Permohonan Manikavasagam bagi pihak YB Ahli Parlimen- Ahli Parlimen untuk melawat P Uthayakumar yang didakwa tidak menerima rawatan perubatan sewajarnya.

Pakatan to fight BN all the way for Perak

By Baradan Kuppusamy- The Malaysian Insider

KUALA LUMPUR, April 18 — The move to suspend Perak state assembly secretary Abdullah Antong Sabri today is a signal that neither the Speaker V. Sivakumar nor the Pakatan Rakyat is going to concede control of the legislature to the Barisan Nasional without a fight.

The issue was debated long and hard by top PR leaders in Penang today and the decision is to fight BN every inch of the way.

A number of PR leaders feel that since they consider the upcoming assembly “illegal,” their attendance may legitimise it.

But after heated debate the decision was taken to attend the assembly or otherwise it was felt BN would have a free hand to do what it liked.

A senior PR leader who attended the three-hour meeting said they would fight BN every step of the way.

“We have Plans A, B and C,” the leader said, promising a “climatic” outcome to the May 7 face-off between PR and BN.

The suspension of Abdullah by Sivakumar today is the first move by PR in what has become a game of wits.

Sivakumar first suspended Abdullah on March 3 for failing to take his instruction and he suspended him again today for sending out notices to all representatives for the assembly to convene on May 7.

“I am the Speaker and I am acting in accordance with all the rules and regulations of the Perak constitution,” Sivakumar said when contacted.

He declined further comment, citing possible legal complications.

Earlier, he told reporters in Ipoh that he had appointed Mohd Misbahul Munir Marduki as secretary of the state assembly.

He said the “purported sitting” on May 7 should not proceed pending further clarification.

Meanwhile, Ipoh Barat MP M. Kulasegaran said Sivakumar was neither informed nor consulted on the May 7 sitting.

“This act of calling an assembly sitting over the head of the Speaker is not only blatant but a direct usurpation of the powers of the Speaker by the mentri besar,” he told The Malaysian Insider.

“This is a coup… no less. This is against democracy,” he said.

He also said the courts had no business ruling on issues involving the legislature as the constitution clearly bars any interference by the judiciary.

“We are surprise and shocked by recent court decisions,” he said.

On Thursday, the Federal Court lifted Sivakumar's suspension of the MB and his six executive councillors from the state legislature.

The ruling has sparked controversy because it appears to ignore the principle of separation of powers and constitutional provisions which say proceedings of the legislature cannot be questioned in a court of law.

Although Sivakumar has suspended Abdullah and appointed another secretary who is presumably favourable to him, it remains unclear if the suspension will stop BN from convening the assembly sitting.

It is learned that the first matter on the agenda is the removal of Sivakumar as Speaker because being hostile to the BN, he can — theoretically — use the powers of his office to ruin any moves by BN to claim legitimacy in its power grab.

When the assembly first convened after the March 8 general election last year the first matter in the order of business was the election of a Speaker.

That part of the assembly was chaired by Abdullah and Sivakumar was elected Speaker.

Sources said that since the first matter is the election of a new Speaker, either Abdullah or even the Deputy Speaker, the former DAP assemblywoman Hee Yit Fong, could chair proceedings.

They said a separate lawsuit to determine whether BN's Datuk Zambry Abdul Kadir or PR's Datuk Seri Nizar Jamaluddin is the legitimate MB could be brought forward to the end of this month.

If the court holds that Zambry is the lawful mentri besar, it would remove the final legal hurdle for BN.

Soon, a Hindraf political party

By Baradan Kuppusamy- The Malaysian Insider

KUALA LUMPUR, April 18 — Major changes are under way in the Hindraf and Makkal Sakthi movement.

The changes could possibly see the return of Hindraf founding chairman P. Waythamoorthy from self-imposed exile in London, the setting up of a new Indian political party and an affiliate mass-based NGO, and the release of the three remaining Hindraf leaders in ISA detention including P. Uthayakumar.

These are among changes seen by Hindraf leaders as necessary to get the movement out of the rut it is in — splintered and without a coherent agenda and vision.

These changes, if they pan out, would have a significant impact on all Indian-based political parties like the MIC, PPP and the splintered IPF, all of which claim to represent the Tamil working class.

A new Hindraf/Makkal Sakthi-based political party, possibly called the Makkal Sakthi Congress, according to a national Hindraf co-coordinator, would significantly erode Indian support for the traditional Indian-based political parties.

The worst to be affected would be the MIC which claims 750,000 members, more than half the Indian population, but which lost massively in the March 8, 2008 general election.

Opposition political parties like PKR and the DAP that rode the Hindraf wave and benefited hugely would also suffer if a new Hindraf/Makkal Sakthi political party is set up.

“It is time we set up a new political platform to unite, consolidate and fight for Indian rights,” said Hindraf national co-coordinator R.S. Thanenthiran.

“We have to move up the value chain and the next logical step is our own political vehicle,” he told The Malaysian Insider. “Our own political vehicle would enhance out struggle.”

He said currently Makkal Sakthi is heavily splintered and exploited by various political parties for their own ends.

“We want to end this situation and take off boldly on our own.”

It is also learned that the government has sent out feelers to Hindraf leaders here and abroad and that negotiations have started with the aim of finding a new formula under which all sides can be accommodated.

However, Hindraf founders Waythamoorthy and his brother Uthayakumar remain ambiguous about the role for the Makkal Sakthi movement that was sparked by the Nov 25, 2007 demonstration in the federal capital.

They alternate between wanting a political vehicle of their own and remaining non-political.

Earlier this week Waythamoorthy announced that he had dissolved all coordinator positions in the movement and had formed new coordinating committees to enhance their position.

One of those dropped is Thanenthiran who however told The Malaysian Insider that the move is misunderstood.

“We are just clearing the deck ahead of forming a new political organisation,” he said, adding they hope to consolidate and take off in the next three months.

A meeting would be held in Chennai, India next month to work out the form and shape of the new political organisation and the political role it wants to play.

A major issue is which side of the divide the new party would be on.

The choices are Pakatan Rakyat, Barisan Nasional or to be independent — a difficult choice to make considering Indian grassroots sentiments remain with the PR as the recent Bukit Selambau by-election results indicate.

Indian voters are willing, despite initial fears of “creeping Islam”, to even vote for PAS in overwhelming numbers.

“They feel comfortable with the Pakatan for now and over time that support will become institutionalised and become a permanent trend unless the MIC and the BN make over urgently,” political scientist Dr Denison Jayasooriya told The Malaysian Insider.

“It is a now or never situation for the MIC and the BN,” he said, adding the political landscape is constantly changing as the old rules are discarded and new players enter the fray.

HINDRAF RESS STATEMENT 18.04.2009

RE : GOVERNMENT SHOULD IMMEDIATELY STOP THE NONSENSE OF FORCED AND UNLAWFUL CONVERSION.

LATEST RELIGIOUS FIASCO – 3 CHILDREN AGED 12 , 11 AND 1 FORCEFULLY CONVERTED TO ISLAM

HINDRAF expresses its shock and utter disgust at the conduct of JAIS in allowing a forceful and unlawful conversion of three children who were born and brought up as Hindus.

The father of those children has every right to convert to whatever religion he chooses but he does not have any right to forcibly convert his children who are minors to the Islamic faith unilaterally without the consent of his estranged wife.

The Federal constitution was drafted for everyone in a civil society that consist of a multi racial society but today Syariah laws practiced by fanatical JAIS with assistance from the government and sanction from the Federal Court (which has abdicated its powers) is infringing the basic right of a Malaysian citizen as it seems to supersede the desire of the multi racial society and the true spirit of the constitution.

We are totally sickened with the conduct and manner in which JAIS officers seem to have been colluding with K.Pathmanathan (now Mohd Ridzuan Abdullah) in serving “a syariah court order” on the Hindu wife. Every time a religious controversy arises it is the relevant Islamic religious bodies which colludes and protects the converting party without any regards to the civil society.

JAIS continues to strain the social fabric of a multi racial nation with their “CULTURE OF ARROGANCE IN CONVERSION”.

The provisions of the Federal Constitution with regards to religious freedom are crystal clear. It is time the converting party and the Islamic authorities follow the correct logical procedure ie obtaining the necessary court order in a civil court first before attempting to convert the children. What they are doing is definitely a “backdoor method through Syariah law” to conversion and an attempt to bully the mother of those children and non muslims into submission to a syariah court order.

Malaysia is a multi racial country with a Federal constitution and religious zealots cannot usurp its function. There should be respect for universal principles of human rights and religious freedom.

HINDRAF urges all democratic minded citizens, NGO’s and lawmakers to condemn this appalling act by the father, Mohd Ridzuan Abdullah and the Islamic authorities in converting the children.

Hindu Sangam which claims to represent the Malaysian Hindu community should act proactively to mount the pressure rather than putting their “faith” and “pray” on promises of setting up committees and “we will look into it” answers given by UMNO government.

Many committees have come and gone but there has never been a solution to this pertinent controversial issue relating to conversion as the government continues to defy the very concept of the Federal constitution.

The 2007, Federal court judgment, that the consent of one parent is sufficient to convert a child in the case of R.Subashini is gravely flawed as it always favours the party converting to the Islamic faith rather than upholding the spirit of the constitution.

What if the other non Muslim parent then initiates a civil action and provides consent to reconvert the child to its original faith-would that be sufficient consent then and will the Federal court then sanction it or the Syariah court would then declare that the minor could face criminal prosecution for apostasy.

This is a deadlock that the government and the Federal Court need to address for the well being of the multi racial society rather than being intimidated by religious zealots.

Hindraf maintains the Federal Court judgment in Subhashini’s case is gravely flawed and the Federal Court should not abdicate its duties and independence to protect every litigant equally and in fairness without fear or favour.

P.Waytha Moorthy

HINDRAF

CHAIRMAN

Genocide of The Sri Lankan Tamils Memorandum to USA President

Protesters want US to intervene in Sri Lankan war
Hafiz Yatim | Apr 17, 09 11:59am

A small group of protesters today gathered at the American Embassy at Jalan Tun Razak in Kuala Lumpur to urge Washington to intervene to stop the civil war in Sri Lanka.

Led by the KL-based Global Peace Initiative, the 20-odd protesters wanted US president Barack Obama to urge the Sri Lankan government to stop targeting and victimising innocent Tamil civilians in their fight against rebels LTTE.

Global Peace Initiative coordinator S Pasupathi also submitted a memorandum to US embassy representative Eugene Axe.

Also present in the protest were Pakatan legislators R Sivarasa, M Manogaran, Charles Santiago and S Manikavasagam.

sri lanka protest us embassy 170409 01The 25-year-old conflict between the Sri Lankan government and the LTTE reached a high in recent days when the government troops managed to corner the rebels into a 17 square kilometre strip of northeastern coastline.

The problem however is that tens of thousands of civilians too have been forced to stay with the remaining LTTE soldiers in the tiny area.

According observers, the Sri Lankan government’s continuous attacks onto the enclosure were causing high civilian casualties.

The United Nation has also swung into action to protect the civilians by sending the secretary-general’s chief of staff to Sri Lanka to arrange for the trapped civilians to escape.

UN officials also said that they have been pushing the Sri Lankan government to stop shelling areas where civilians are concentrated.

Pasupathi: Force a ceasefire

Pasupathi said the fear was that many innocent people, including women and children, in grave danger of being massacred.

“There are 190,000 civilians entrapped within a small area of safety zone… they are facing danger everyday,” he said.

Sri Lanka two-day ceasefire in war against Tamil Tigers”We want the US government, being a superpower, to intervene and order the Sri Lankan government to have an immediate ceasefire to stop the genocide,” he said

The memorandum submitted today also highlighted the Sri Lankan government’s intention to “wipe out” every Tamil from the island-state.

It said that the government troops have “killed more than 77,000 Tamil civilians, including children”.

“During the last three month, more than 4.100 Tamils have been killed and more than 8,000 wounded by the government armed forces.”

The memorandum also quoted Sri Lankan defence secretary Kottabaya Rajapakse as saying: “From now on, let the women captured in Mullaitivu be the feast of our soldiers. Let the blood of the men captured there redden the Indian ocean”.

Besides wanting the US intervention, the Global Peace Initiative also hoped Obama will request the meeting of the United Nation’s security council at once and order a permanent ceasefire there.

It also wanted the UN to deploy peace keeping forces to the war zone.

Charles: Asean should also intervene

Klang MP Charles Santiago also called on Asean, of which Malaysia is a founding member, to help stop the conflict.

sri lanka violence 110309 03″The number of casualties among civilians is staggering and efforts have to be made to stop the genocide,” he said.

Santiago said the international community should also pressure Sri Lanka to stop the escalating conflict there to prevent further civilian deaths.

He said the Sri Lanka Tamils were in dire need of international intervention and hoped that the US government would take some action.

Meanwhile R Sivarasa, who is also Subang MP, said they had handed over similar memorandum to Sri Lanka and the United Nations to pile up the pressure to stop the killings.

Sivarasa said they will also hand a memorandum to the Indian High Commissioner next Tuesday to seek their support to stop the killings

With Najib in, Hadi withdraws unity government offer

By Adib Zalkapli- The Malaysian Insider

MARANG, April 18 — PAS president Datuk Seri Abdul Hadi Awang has withdrawn his offer to form a unity government now that the country has a new prime minister, admitting the idea had been strongly opposed within the Islamist party.

The proposal, made last month, was publicly opposed by the party’s spiritual advisor Datuk Nik Abdul Aziz Nik Mat, who wanted the matter to be referred to the PAS annual general assembly in June.

Hadi said with the change of leadership from Tun Abdullah Ahmad Badawi to Datuk Seri Najib Razak, the idea was no longer tenable.

“I made the suggestion to Abdullah because we see him as a leader with the least problems, but I don’t see any such Umno leader now,” Hadi told The Malaysian Insider yesterday.

Speaking at his private home near here, Hadi said opposition to his idea was the result of a lack of understanding on the concept of a unity government.

“It is because they do not know what a unity government is, perhaps if they understand the form of a unity government they would agree. Because many do not know so I decided to withdraw my proposal until our people can really understand the concept,” he added.

Hadi explained that a unity government must not be confused with a coalition government which was formed after the party joined the Alliance after the 1969 general election, saying that it failed to bring about changes.

“Some PAS members assume that a unity government means rejoining Barisan Nasional, but it actually involves all political parties; there will be no opposition. And every party would maintain its identity, will enjoy the right to disagree,” he explained.

“We are trying to break away from Umno’s tradition. At the same time this unity government must be able to institute reforms including reforming the Election Commission, the judiciary,” added Hadi, citing the reform process carried out in Indonesia in the post-Suharto era.

“Like in Indonesia, the reforms allowed the judiciary to bring Suharto to court. We want to clean up the nation,” he said.

Hadi however dismissed speculation that his proposal was rejected by the party’s central committee, saying that the matter was thoroughly discussed in various dialogue sessions with party leaders.

“Many agreed with me and finally we reached a consensus. Including Khalid Samad, if you read his blog, he agreed with the suggestion,” said the former opposition leader, referring to the Shah Alam MP who was one of the strongest critics of political cooperation with Umno, which some PAS leaders attempted to work on after the general election last year.

“We discussed every aspect of it, Barisan Nasional, coalition government, unity government and also tabling of a vote of no confidence proposed when Abdullah was the Prime Minister was also supported by PKR and DAP,” he said.

But Hadi has not given up on the idea.

“I am confident that one day my idea will be accepted, they will think about my proposal when the time comes,” he said.

He advised party members who wish to debate on his proposal at the party assembly not to display their ignorance.

“I hope if they don’t understand, don’t talk about it. People will think we are stupid; those who want to talk must fully understand the concept,” he said.

Teach Us a Different Malaysian History

Let us teach our children that they too can become the next Prime Minister. Teach our teachers how to creatively teach Civics and History and to acquire the art and science of Revisionist Civics, Counter-factual History, and Radical and Transformational Leadership.

By Azly Rahman
http://azlyrahman-illuminations.blogspot.com/

We are reading too much on Malaysian political dynasties.

Political dynasties pose intellectual dangers to the well-being of our emerging political consciousness. They create political-economic elites that continue to expand power, structure hegemony, and indoctrinate the masses. It has been a phenomena the world over. We are seeing this unfolding right before our eyes.

In coffee-stalls, warongs or kedai kopis, bars, country clubs, etc. the conversations revolve around which son/daughter or son-in-law or daughter-in-law will become the next Prime Minister and how this or that gang is plotting against the other. It becomes interesting ‘Sherlock Holmes-style” of conversation but does not add value to the kind of democracy we are trying to achieve.

The space for democracy will be limited if our dialogues revolve merely around politics of speculation and sinisterism. The makers of history continue to be those who own the means of controlling the production of consciousness well as those who own the money to buy votes. They build institutions of control that produce technologies and ideologies of mind control.

We need to excavate the meaning of people’s history and not the history of glorified individuals. Idolatry of any form constitutes mental subjugation that limits the creative and critical ability of a nation to construct ethical civilizations.

An inroad to the reconstruction of how to renew our historical consciousness must lie in the way we teach History/Civics/Citizenship to our children.

"Questioning History"

History is that field of study/enterprise so powerful a mental glue that can integrate or disintegrate a nation. It becomes crucial what perspective of history we use in crafting its ancillary called Citizenship Studies/Kenegaraan. We must begin to reconceptualize the way we approach teaching it.

Consider the following questions we may begin to ask ourselves concerning history:

Whose history is of most supreme?
What kind of history is most meaningful to the individual?
Who writes history?
From what point of view is history written?
When does history textbooks get revised?
How does history contribute to lethal ethnocentrism?
Under what circumstances do historians lie?
Is there such a thing as ‘historical facts’ when historical accounts themselves are biases reconstructed based on selective memory and written by those who owns the pen?
Who gets marginalized in the process of historicizing?
When will “history” become “her-story”?
What images of women, immigrants, minorities, natives are presented in history textbooks?
In a multiracial and pluralistic society, how is a national history textbook written?
Must history continue to glorify individuals, despots, autocrats, dictators, symbols of slavery and oppression, buildings, etc.?
How do we teach children to write their own histories so that they may become makers of history instead of being fed with other people’s history?
How do we make history lessons come alive?

"Questioning our History lessons"

Via a personal narrative, let me illustrate why we ought to provide new questions in history.

In my history classes in primary school, I had always daydreamed of being transported to lands far away – to Greece of the Olympian gods, Rome of Caesar, Majapahit, and the kingdom of Ashoka.

My question has oftentimes been this: why are the kings/sultans/rajahs ruthless and why did people have to worship them?

What magical powers such as the ‘daulat’ that these kings possess and why aren’t; the slaves given theirs too? What led people to believe that these rulers posses these powers – did the sultan’s propagandists write all these?

As a child -- I had these questions because I thought it would also be nice to have the power to have a bridge in my kampong in Johor Bahru collapse just by saying

“Hoooi, runtuh lah jembatan ni…aku perintah kau runtuh .. jadi.. maka jadi lah.. kun faya kun”

[ “Hoooi… collapse ye’ little bridge.. I command ye to collapse.. be .. and let it be… let it be]

I wanted such powers for myself – if (the Japanese hero) Ultra Man can have it, then why can’t I?

In teaching American and World History, in the United States, I continue to ponder how best to make my students daydream of constructing their understanding of history from the people’s point of view – from the history of real people who did the real job of constructing reality that is called a nation.

This means asking my students to explore slave narratives, voices of early immigrants, stories of those who fought tooth and nail against injustices, how kings are overthrown, and how revolutions are crafted. This means asking my students to understand the concept of the modern daulat – hegemony.

In my classes in Foundations of Western Civilization, I would have my students construct group manifestos of new civilizations based on a synthesis of work of major thinkers of the Western World they are studying. Their manifestos reflect a problem-based understanding of the issues of modern times, using ideas of the past. I wanted to have them look at history differently and become part of the ongoing conversation of what it takes to be a social thinker.

I wanted to push the limits of their imagination in order for them to produce challenging questions on issues of how democracy looks like and what it takes to build a thinking nation. I would continue to push the limits of their individual as well as group thinking in deconstructing and reconstructing history so that the lessons will bring them closer to the people and not to kings, despots, dictators, and monuments.

I was, at the same time, teaching them to analyze ideology and deconstruct hegemony. I only asked questions. I seldom give them answers. As Socrates would say, the answers are within themselves.

"Civics lessons and a healthy democracy"

Those who think that we cannot question historical facts, have not learned the philosophy of history nor been introduced to more exciting strategies of creative and critical thinking.

Teachers and university educators who preach ‘official histories’ need to be introduced to the varieties of teaching strategies of teaching History as well as the spectrum of views on what history, from the perspective of history and class consciousness, can be.

A skilled teacher/university educator will humbly entertain any question on history. The more we question ‘historical facts’ the sharper our thinking will become. The more we question the origin of things, the better we will play our role as creators of history as well as masters of our own destiny. The more we delve into the most challenging questions in history, the healthier our sense of well-beingness of own democracy will be.

A healthy democracy is one that teaches each and every child what ‘politics’ mean. In our History class, it teaches the meaning of justice and fairness and of the use and abuse of power. It teaches the process and possibilities of democracy and not of democracy as a product created by the elite few that come from dynasties. It teaches them how to become active and reflective citizens.

A good History lesson do not teach children to memorize facts that are suspect, or historical facts that are oxymoronic, or of dead people and dead places and who controls this or that territory, or which kingdom gets overthrown by this or that usurping prince. It teaches them to question those facts and to put those individuals on trial. It puts Christopher Columbus on trial for murdering thousands of Arawak Indians in the process of being canonized as the “founder” of America.

A good History lesson does not teach the idea that Parameswara, who fled his kingdom in an unsuccessful coup attempt in Palembang, and next killed Temagi in the then Singapura, and next hunted down by the Thais, and next landed under a Melaka tree -- is a hero. It teaches children to be vigilant against rulers who are murderers and plunderers and slave-owners.

The story of a glorified Parameswara as a founder is a bad history lesson – how can we still glorify a ‘historical fact’ of an usurper and a murderer as a founder of Melaka? It is like glorifying the history of Manhattan island, New York City – worth 24 dollars in real estate value and became a haven for smugglers, pirates, and bootleggers.

A good history lesson makes history that come alive by allowing children to play the role of makers of their own history. It allows children to put Parameswara on trial for murder and revolt. It teaches children to question the founding of Melaka and the intention of the author/court-propagandist Tun Sri Lanang who wrote it.

A good History class is one that teaches children to revise, debunk, and deconstruct history as a tool of mass deception. It challenges students to look at history in radically different ways to make history come alive, subjective, and ever revisionist.

A good History class teaches children the people’s history of the land – of those who died building monuments, istanas, factories, bridges, tunnels, or in wars between the greedy Sultans of the region. These are the unsung heroes of history that our children ought to be taught to honor.

A good History lesson teaches children not other people’s history but of their own – beginning with one’s personal history, next to one’s family, and one’s people – all within the framework of history that does not alienate and marginalize human beings.

The way we still teach History and Social Studies reflects why we Malaysians cannot yet evolve from the consciousness of ‘waiting for the messiahs/saviors/matrieya/al-Mahdi/ Perdana Menteri’ to the consciousness of understanding the Self as the true ruler of the Kingdom within.

Already our land is littered with names after names of individuals who wield dynastic power since modern time immemorial – names of those deserving or not. These names are inscribed on roadsigns, billboards, lorongs in kampongs, landmark buildings, corporate towers, stadiums, schools, higher education institutions, and deep in the consciousness of the people through media control of the human mind.

We become colonized by these names, signs, and symbols. The mind becomes paralyzed being colonized by these concepts, signs, and symbolism that govern the daily economic, social, and political existence of the people that are being made objects of other people’s history.

Let us teach our children that they too can become the next Prime Minister. Teach our teachers how to creatively teach Civics and History and to acquire the art and science of Revisionist Civics, Counter-factual History, and Radical and Transformational Leadership.

Our political conversations will then be more meaningful and our road to democracy will be more enjoyable.

Man makes history, said the great historian E.H. Carr. It is the “people’s history” as American historian Howard Zinn would say, that ought to be honored.

OUR USUAL REMINDER, FOLKS:
While the opinion in the article is mine,
the comments are yours;
present them rationally and ethically.
AND -- SET ALL I.S.A. DETAINEES FREE]

PERAK STATE ASSEMBLY TO MEET ON 7 MAY 2009

It has been revealed that the 'thief BN Mentri Besar' Datuk Dr Zambry Abdul Kadir has instructed suspended indefinately Dewan Secretary Abdullah Antong Sabri to issue an official notice that the State Assembly will be convened on 7 May 2009, just six days before the compulsory six-month deadline to hold the Dewan sitting expires.

Dewan sittings are usually called by the Dewan Speaker and this current twist of events have created another political turmoil in the already problematic situation since the newly appointed Dewan Secretary Mohd Misbahul Munir Masduki was not contacted. The Federal Court had yesterday declared that Dewan Speaker V Sivakumar has no authority to suspend Datuk Dr Zambry and his 6 BN Exco members, although its clear that the decision of the Dewan Speaker cannot be challenge in any court of law. The Federal Court had created a 'dangerous' precidents and had 'raped' the State and Federal Constitution in order to please their 'masters' BN Federal government who had through the back-door taken control of Perak State using the Sultan of Perak when the existing Pakatan Rakyat Mentri Besar and his Exco members had not tendered their resignation. According to the Perak Constitution, the Sultan has no powers to demand a resignation of the Mentri Besar but its is only customary to 'obey' the wishes of the Sultan.

The only solution for this crisis would be to dissolve the State Assembly and call for fresh State elections but Barisan Nasional fears that it would be a tsunami for them to face a election in Perak as all their candidates are likely to lose all their seats.

Did Najib direct or approve ban on private TV station reporting of Altantuya C4 murder case?

The Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak, should explain whether he had directed or approved the ban on four private television stations when reporting the Mongolian Altantuya Shaariibuu C4 murder case.

Malaysiakini has reported that the four private TV stations, TV3, ntv7, 8TV and tv9, have been directed by their owner, Media Prima Berhad, closely linked to Umno, to observe four “don’ts” involving news reports relating to the murder case, including:

• No naming of political analyst Abdul Razak Baginda and to ignore all news background related to him.

• No visuals showing Razak Baginda in previous trials and after his release .

• No reporting that Najib and his wife, Rosmah Mansor were linked to the case.

• No reporting of statements from those accusing Najib and Rosmah of being involved in the case.

Is such a ban the first fruit of Najib’s “new way forward” for the “new media”, a subject he addressed at the MPI-Petronas Malaysian Journalism Awards ceremony three days after he was sworn in as Prime Minister?

Najib had called on Malaysians to establish a “new national discourse” on the principles of transparency and accountability; service to all, not just a few; and respect and fairness in the public dialogue.

Is the sweeping under the carpet swirling questions about the actual circumstances of the C4 murder of Altantuya a contribution to a “new national discourse on the principles of transparency and accountability” or the very opposite?

During the Bukit Gantang and Bukit Selambau by-elections, the very name of “Altantuya Shaariibuu” was even banned by the police at the ceramahs?

What was the justification – and even more pertinent, wasn’t such a ban short-sighted and counterproductive?

Or are we moving towards a country where the term “Altantuya Shaariibuu” is to be banned from the public domain, even in Parliament, with the ban enforced by all the instruments of repression within the command of the powers-that-be?

Najib should realize that this is the most obtuse way to deal with the swirling questions about the actual circumstances of the C4 murder of Altantuya, including his involvement if any in the murder case.

These questions will not go away just by an official ban of the term or censorship in the mainstream media.

Najib has said that he is innocent of any wrongdoing in the Altantuya C4-murder case. He should not delay any further and move boldly to establish a Royal Commission of Inquiry so that all the swirling allegations about the actual circumstances of the C4 murder of Altantuya could be fully investigated and the baseless ones dispelled once and for all.

Pakatan leadership to deliberate on Penanti

Anwar in Penanti last night, flanked by Penang PKR chief Zahrain Mohamed Hashim (left) and Penang Pas commissioner Mohd Salleh Man - Photo by Kevin

Anwar is to meet Pakatan leaders today to discuss Fairus’ resignation and the choice of candidate for Penanti.

He said this at a meet-the-people’s session in Penanti last night.- Anil Netto

Adapting To The Times

Adapting To The Times

Proponents of the Internal Security Act justify their viewpoint by reference to the need for law to enable the authorities to deal with threats to national security. In principle, there is nothing objectionable with that position. As I explain below, the Federal Constitution allows for the enacting of laws to that end.

The shape these laws take, however, depends on the nature of the threat that is sort to be addressed and the measures needed for that purpose. These features inform any discussion concerning the relevance, if at all, of laws that allow for detention without trial under our constitutional framework.

There is no general power in Parliament to validly enact laws that contravene the fundamental liberties guaranteed under the Constitution. That is why the Criminal Procedure Code has crystallized in the form it has, obliging the police to produce an arrested person before a magistrate within twenty-four hours of arrest. If the police want to keep that person in custody without charging him or her for a further period of time to allow for further investigation, they have to convince a magistrate of the need for this extension.

Where the offence being investigated is punishable by death or with imprisonment of more than fourteen years, the magistrate can order a further detention of up to seven days with it being open to the police to seek a further seven days thereafter. Where the offence is punishable with imprisonment of less than fourteen years, the maximum period of further detention is seven days, in stages of four and three days respectively.

The rationale is that the individual being investigated should be charged as soon as possible or be let go, the thinking being that if after that many days as is permitted the police have got no basis to charge, then continued detention is not justifiable. The individual can be rearrested subsequently if more evidence surfaces and then charged, but unless and until that occurs, he is entitled to liberty. If charged, the accused then has the benefit of all the safeguards of the criminal justice system the most important of which is a trial.

That is what the guarantee against the denial of life and liberty “save in accordance with law” means.

There is however a constitutionally entrenched exception to this general rule. Parliament can enact laws that circumvent the guarantees of liberty and associated guarantees to deal with the threat of action by a substantial body of persons that aims to destabilize the nation or undermine democracy.

The ISA was enacted using this exceptional power. The “substantial body of persons” concerned was the communist insurgent army whose actions had led to concerns about the security of the nation and its way of life. That is what made its enacting valid; it was a necessary means to disenfranchising the insurgents and preventing them from regrouping. The criminal justice system might have impeded efforts to deal with the insurgents effectively.

We tend to overlook the obvious truth that solutions must be crafted to suit the problems they are intended to solve. The ISA was designed to a particular end. It was never intended to define the upper limits of executive action where national security was concerned. It was never meant to be the yardstick.

There is no difficulty with invoking the criminal justice system to deal with individuals who are not affiliated to a larger body of persons, be they terrorists or the organizers of demonstrations or socio-political bloggers, no matter how convenient preventive detention may be.

This is not a matter of preference; it is the law.

If a crime has been committed, let the accused be tried. If no crime has been committed, then there is no basis for circumventing constitutional freedoms unless the nation itself is threatened.

For those who fear the uncertain, an anti-terror legislation will allow us to deal with actual national security concerns effectively. This law could be of a hybrid nature, applying general principles of criminal law for those acts of terrorism that do not fall within the constitutional exception but at the same time allowing for exceptional steps to be taken where the terrorism concerned does. The aim of these exceptional steps should be to deal with a clear and present danger and not to substitute criminal due process with executive whimsy. Detention periods should as such be of very limited duration, if a crime has been committed there should be a trial, and be made subject to strict judicial scrutiny. This would encourage less sloppy policing and lead to greater security.

Do we really need the ISA? With the range of more effective options available to us in this day and age, I do not think so.

(Malay Mail; 17th April 2007)

Malik Imtiaz Sarwar

A better leader for Penanti & Penang / Najib just hates elections? (give walkoverlah, then)

By Nathaniel Tan

Because he simply can’t win any?

His response today:

Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak today lashed out at PKR for playing political games at the time when the nation should be united in focusing on solving the global economic crisis.

“The resignation is politically motivated and a political game just for their own purposes and self-interests,” he told reporters in Klang.

“The people generally do not like by-elections that are held deliberately,” he added.

He said that by-elections should not be called for wantonly but only held if “the state representative had passed away”.

“There is so much time, energy and money being spent on by-elections that we do not even need.

“There is so much politicking in the country when we should have instead focused on fixing the economy, prioritising the people’s benefits. We should move forward (beyond this),” he said.

Ok, I’ll be fair and start with the self-crit.

It’s not ideal that PKR has to face the situation we’re in. In an ideal world, Fairus would have been a great DCM, and all would be well.

But Fairus, by the sounds of it, probably was not. We have to admit the shortcomings of our more limited and resource-strapped past, and contrary to the BN spirit, acknowledge our present weaknesses.

If Fairus is, for argument’s sake, truly dishonest or inept, what should we do? Let him stay on? Subject the rakyat to a second rate leader?

Or do we practice a spirit of constant improvement, and seek to provide ever better service to the people? Unlike BN, we remove people who aren’t perceived to be fully clean.

Yes, by-elections are a costly two weeks (the cost to Najib being that he actually has to *give back* some of that money he stole from the people of Penanti *to* the people of Penanti), and yes, we’ve all got by-election fatigue.

But let’s not lose sight of what’s important - providing the best available leadership to the people of Penanti, Penang and Malaysia.

Two weeks of hassle for up to four years of better quality. I think that’s a fair deal.

I’ll admit that once again, Najib is playing some smart cards - trying to take a middle ground, people centric angle.

(Elsewhere, his 1Malaysia rhetoric fails to jive with his Umno-owned Utusan headlines of “Bangkitlah Melayu,” and use of NGO proxies to placate his party faithful while trying to be Obama/Anwar No. 2)

People judge on actions though, not just words.

What about his colleague Khir Toyo, who demanded Eli’s resignation? Wouldn’t that have necessitated a by-election?

And we all know that Najib is allergic to elections anyway. It appears more his style to take power by initiating corruption investigations, and then using carrots and sticks to entice the weaker Pakatan representatives to his fold.

It’s a bit more credible to knock elections when a) you’ve been winning them, and b) you’ve demonstrated a commitment to having elections when really necessary (say for instance, oh, taking over a state government).

Failing which, your own sincerity in defending the welfare of the people is mildly suspect.

Instead of all this nyeh-nyoh whining and merajuk, win Penanti in a fair fightlah, then you can talk all you want about how BN loves the people more than Pakatan.

Better yet!! Practice what you preach! If you don’t want a by-election then give a walkoverLAH!

Either way, as long as you don’t try and pull some Perak style bullshit with Fairus, we’ll have our candidate for Penanti, ready to take on all comers :)

Zambry dan enam Adun BN tidak boleh hadiri sidang Dun Perak

(HRKH) Saya sedar ramai yang ingin tahu kesan keputusan Mahkamah Persekutuan pada 16 April lalu yang memutuskan bahawa keputusan V.Sivakumar, Speaker Perak menggantung dan melarang Zambry dan enam Exconya hadir di Dun Perak selama 18 bulan dan 12 bulan adalah terbatal dan tak sah.

Ramai yang bertanya saya adakah keputusan tersebut bermakna Zambry dan enam exconya kini boleh menghadiri sidang Dun Perak?

Jika kita melihat kenyataan peguam Umno dan laporan akhbar pro-Umno seperti Utusan Malaysia (17.4.2009) mereka dengan tidak bertanggungjawab menyatakan bahawa Zambry dan enam exconya kini dibenarkan menghadiri sidang Dun Perak yang mungkin akan diadakan dalam masa terdekat.

Sebagai salah seorang peguam yang terlibat dalam kes tersebut, saya menasihati rakyat agar tidak terkeliru dengan kenyataan peguam Umno dan laporan akhbar Umno tersebut. Banyak yang mereka sembunyikan dan tidak jelaskan tentang apa yang sebenarnya berlaku di Mahkamah Persekutuan pada tarikh tersebut.

Marilah kita mulakan dengan melihat apakah perintah-perintah yang dipohon oleh Zambry dan enam exconya di dalam saman yang mereka kemukakan ke atas Sivakumar di Mahkamah Tinggi dan kemudiannya didengar di Mahkamah Persekutuan.

Sebenarnya Zambry telah memohon sepuluh (10) perintah Mahkamah dan dari sepuluh perintah tersebut Mahkamah hanya membenarkan dua (2) perintah sahaja. Dua perintah yang dibenarkan oleh Mahkamah adalah seperti berikut:

Pertama, perintah membatalkan keputusan V. Sivakumar yang menggantung dan melarang Zambry hadir di Dun Perak selama 18 bulan.

Kedua, perintah membatalkan keputusan V. Sivakumar yang menggantung dan melarang enam exco Zambry untuk hadir di Dun Perak selama 12 bulan adalah terbatal dan tak sah.

lapan permohonan Zambry tidak dilulus Mahkamah

Itu sahaja dua perintah yang Mahkamah Persekutuan benarkan pada 16 April lalu. Tidak lebih dari itu. Apa sahaja kenyataan dari peguam Umno selain dari dua perintah tersebut bukanlah perintah Mahkamah sebaliknya adalah kenyataan mereka yang tidak berasas.

Memandangkan Mahkamah Persekutuan hanya membenarkan dua perintah di atas, adalah jelas Mahkamah tidak membenarkan lapan (8) perintah lain yang juga dipohon oleh Umno dan dihujahkan oleh para peguam Zambry dan pasukan peguam Sivakumar.

Apakah perintah-perintah yang dipohon oleh Zambry dan enam exconya tetapi tidak dibenarkan oleh Mahkamah Persekutuan? Mari sama-sama kita saksikan lapan perintah yang TIDAK DIBENARKAN tersebut.

Meskipun peguam Umno berhempas pulas dan bermati-matian berhujah, Mahkamah Persekutuan TIDAK MEMBENARKAN perintah-perintah berikut:

1. Perintah untuk Mahkamah mengisytiharkan bahawa keputusan Sivakumar (defendan pertama di dalam kes tersebut) menggantung dan melarang Plaintif Pertama (Zambry) menghadiri pada sidang Dun selama 18 bulan adalah ultra vires (bertentangan) dengan Undang-Undang Tubuh Negeri Perak, Perintah-Perintah Tetap Dewan Perhimpunan Undang Negeri Perak (standing orders) dan Enakmen Dewan Perhimpunan Undangan (Keistimewaan) 1959 dan/atau undang-undang yang berkaitan dan oleh itu adalah terbatal dan tak sah.

2. Perintah untuk Mahkamah mengisytiharkan bahawa perbuatan Sivakumar menggantung dan melarang Zambry menghadiri sidang DUN selama 18 bulan adalah menyalahi undang-undang.

3. Perintah untuk Mahkamah mengisytiharkan bahawa keputusan Sivakumar menggantung dan melarang Plaintif ke-2 hingga Plaintif ke-7 (enam Exco) menghadiri sidang Dun selama 12 bulan adalah ultra vires (bertentangan) dengan Undang-Undang Tubuh Negeri Perak, Perintah-Perintah Tetap Dewan Perhimpunan Undang Negeri Perak (standing orders) dan Enakmen Dewan Perhimpunan Undangan (Keistimewaan) 1959 dan/atau undang-undang yang berkaitan dan oleh itu adalah terbatal dan tak sah.

4. Perintah untuk Mahkamah mengisytiharkan bahawa perbuatan Sivakumar menggantung dan melarang enam Exco menghadiri sidang Dun selama 12 bulan adalah menyalahi undang-undang.

5. Perintah untuk Mahkamah mengisytiharkan bahawa Zambry dan enam Exconya adalah berhak menghadiri dan mengambil bahagian dalam semua sidang Dun dan menjalankan segala fungsi dan kewajipan mereka di dalamnya.

6. Perintah untuk Mahkamah mengisytiharkan bahawa Dun Perak adalah tidak terikat dengan keputusan Sivakumar menggantung dan melarang Zambry dan enam Exconya menghadiri sidang Dun Perak.

7. Perintah untuk mengisytiharkan bahawa Dun Perak adalah tidak terikat dengan apa-apa arahan, perintah dan/atau petunjuk Sivakumar yang berbangkit daripada atau berhubung dengan keputusan Sivakumar yang bertarikh 18.2.2009.

8. Perintah-perintah, perisytiharan dan/atau relif lain yang difikir suaimanfaat oleh Mahkamah.

Sekali lagi saya ingin tegaskan di sini bahawa lapan perintah di atas yang Zambry dan enam exconya pohon TIDAK DIBENARKAN oleh Mahkamah Persekutuan.

Atas dasar itu jika peguam Umno atau akhbar pro-Umno mengatakan bahawa Zambry dan enam exconya boleh menghadiri sidang Dun Perak, jelas kenyataan itu bukan datang dari mana-mana perintah Mahkamah sebaliknya ianya hanya kenyataan tidak berasas dari peguam Umno dan akhbar mereka.

Kenyataan tersebut tidak mempunyai apa-apa nilai di sisi undang-undang. Rakyat tidak perlu melayan kata-kata mereka yang dibuai khayalan tersebut.

Bagaimanakah Umno boleh mengatakan keputusan tersebut bermakna Zambry dan enam Exconya boleh menghadiri sidang Dun Perak sedangkan Mahkamah dengan secara jelas tidak membenarkan perintah yang mereka pohon iaitu perintah bahawa Zambry dan enam exconya adalah berhak menghadiri dan mengambil bahagian dalam semua sidang Dun dan menjalankan segala fungsi dan kewajipan mereka dalamnya.

Kalau perintah tersebut dibenarkan oleh Mahkamah Persekutuan barulah mereka boleh mengatakan Zambry dan enam exconya boleh ke sidang Dun Perak.

Saya harap penjelasan di atas sedikit sebanyak dapat menjelaskan bahawa apa yang Umno kata di media massa adalah tidak menggambarkan apa yang sebenarnya berlaku.

Sivakumar masih Speaker dan beliau masih berbisa. Jika Umno terus mengeluarkan kenyataan mengelirukan tidak mustahil mereka mungkin akan dipatuk oleh Sivakumar dan saya percaya patukan selepas ini akan membuat Umno menderita lebih panjang.

Saya juga ingin tegaskan di sini apabila Zambry dan enam exconya membawa kes mereka di Mahkamah dengan mencabar keputusan Sivakumar sebagai Speaker yang sah, mereka mungkin tidak sedar bahawa mereka sedang melakukan satu kesalahan kerana mendedahkan dokumen-dokumen rasmi Dun Perak tanpa mendapat kebenaran terlebih dahulu dari Sivakumar sebagai Speaker.

Marilah kita sama-sama tunggu dan lihat apakah yang berlaku selepas ini.

Nota: Penulis ialah Pengerusi Lajnah Undang-undang dan hak Asasi Manusia PAS Pusat.- tajdid_

Sidang Dun Perak 7 mei ? apa muslihatnya...?

By Chegu Bard

Di maklumkan satu notis telah dikeluarkan oleh Antong Sabri yang menyatakan 7 Mei merupakan tarikh persidangan DUN Perak. Antong Sabri ialah Setiausaha DUN yang lama, Setiausaha DUN kini ialah Ust. Misbah Munir Masduki. Lantikan Setiausaha DUN ialah hak mutlak Speaker Dewan.

Notis pelik ini dikeluarkan tanpa pengetahuan Speaker DUN Perak.

Mengikut undang - undang tubuh perlembagaan Negeri Perak, Dewan Undangan Negeri akan secara automatik terbatal dan terbubar jika tidak bersidang lebih dari 6 bulan.

7 Mei ialah 6 hari dari genap 6 bulan persiadangan terakhir.

Nasihat che'GuBard ialah supaya semua di Perak berhati - hati, di Kelantan pernah jadi ketika Bn dibawah bapa Najib, speaker diculik dan akhirnya kerajaan PAS Kelantan digulingkan.

Conversion row: Hindu Sangam turns to new cabinet

Malaysia Hindu Sangam president A Vaithilingam has approached the newly sworn-in cabinet regarding the forced conversion of three young children in Ipoh.

MCPX

"After bringing this issue up to Deputy Prime Minister Muhyiddin Yassin and Koh Tsu Koon (minister in the Prime Minister's Department) and Dr S Subramaniam (human resources minister), (it was) viewed with great concern," he said in a statement.

According to him, Muhyiddin has set up a committee comprising Koh, Subramaniam and Minister in the Prime Minister's Department in charge of Islamic matters Jamil Khir Baharom to look into the case.

"In the meantime, Hindu Sangam appeals to all those concerned to be calm and assist in finding a just solution to this issue. Let’s pray for common sense and justice," he added

The three children, aged one to 12, were converted by their 40-year-old father Mohd Ridzuan Abdullah on April 12 using only their birth certificates. He has also filed for custody with the Syariah Court.

Their mother, M Indira Ghandi, 35, is appealing for her children to be allowed to practice their original faith.

Currently, the couple's youngest daughter Prasana Diksa is with Mohd Ridzuan whereas the other two - Tevi Darsiny, 12 and Karan Dinesh, 11 - are with Indira.

The kindergarten teacher is seeking refuge with a relative, fearing that Islamic officials would take her kids away.

What can the committee do?

Meanwhile, Indira's lawyer A Sivanesan said they will be filing for the custody of the children next week and handle the other issues relating to their conversion later.

"Justice should not only be done, but must be manifestly seen to be done... but in this kind of scenario there is no justice.

"I have worked with so many of them and I have seen their agony, especially the non-Muslims," he told Malaysiakini.

Sivanesan also expressed little faith in the new cabinet committee.

"What is the new committee going to do? By forming a three-man council, how is it going to solve her problem?" he asked.

He said changes should be done simply by making it a mandatory requirement for all those attempting to convert to produce evidence that the person has settled everything in relation to their civil marriage when registering with the Islamic Department.

"If both parties convert, there is no problem, however, if one party converts and the other does not wish to do so, both parents must allow their children to turn 18 and let them decide for themselves,"
he added.

Controversial issue

Conversion of non-Muslims who are married through civil laws with one partner refusing to follow suit has always stirred controversy in the country as legal remedies are ambiguous and more often than not seen beneficial only to the Muslim partner.

In 2006, a similar custody battle made headlines involving Hindu wife R Subashini and T Saravanan, who had converted to Islam and assumed the name Muhammad Shafi.

Muhammad Shafi had sought for divorce and applied for custody of the couple's two children through the syariah courts.

Subsequently, Subashini filed for an injunction against her estranged husband’s actions at the Syariah Court but this was rejected at every level up to the Federal Court.

In 2007, the highest court of the land ruled that according to Article 12(4) Federal Constitution, the consent of one parent is sufficient in the conversion of a child.

However, the court did not make clear on the issue pertaining to the custody of the two children as it ruled that both husband and wife can initiate custody proceedings in their respective jurisdictions.

The government, although the issue has been raised on many occasions, has remained mum on the uncertainties involved.

Anguished mom knocks on PM's door - Malaysiakini

Her three young children were forcefully converted to Islam by her estranged husband. And M Indira Ghandi is taking her plight straight to the doorstep of the Prime Minister's Office.

MCPX

Calling on newly-minted Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak to explain the matter, the 35-year-old kindergarten teacher said: "He talks about an united Malaysia. But what does this mean when only the Muslims have rights."

"I am not anti-Islam and I am not saying that they (Muslims) are doing wrong things but why do non-Muslims have to suffer like this?" she asked as tears welled up in her eyes.

Indira's marriage is now is a limbo after her husband, K Patmanathan, 40, converted without her knowledge on March 11.

She claimed that her husband, who has since assumed the name Mohd Ridzuan Abdullah, had also converted their three children - aged one to 12 - on April 12 without their presence and using only their birth certificates.

"He took my baby (their youngest child) from me and ran away... I have not seen her ever since and I don't know how she's doing," lamented Indira.

As for her marriage, the teacher, who also claimed to have been physically abused, said the couple were married for 16 years and had been facing problems for a long time.

"It started so many years back that I can no longer keep track of when it started.

"Recently he asked for a divorce and I thought to myself that since that was what he wanted, I consented but he did not want to start the process and demanded that I do so.

"So I went to a marriage tribunal and filed for counselling in Ipoh but he never attended any of the counselling sessions," she said.

Indira claimed that after one particular explosive argument, which also involved her mother and sisters, her husband fled with their youngest daughter, Prasana Diksa.

"When we went to the police station and lodged a report, no immediate action was taken although my baby was still very young and needed to be breast-fed," she said.

Since that incident, Indira has filed six police reports, with one alleging that she feared for her life because her husband had threatened her.

Indira said the police managed to locate her husband later but only to discover that he had converted the children.

'I don't know what to do'

The couple's two other children - Tevi Darsiny, 12 and Karan Dinesh, 11 - are currently living with Indira, but both have sought refuge with a relative fearing that Islamic officials would take them away.

"I was neither told nor asked about it (the conversion)... I don't know what to do," she lamented.

According to Indira, her husband had called her last Wednesday and promised to return her youngest child.

"He asked me to come to the Islamic Department (Jais) in Ipoh and collect my baby because he could not care for her. But he didn't show up.

"Instead, there was a man waiting there to serve me papers from the Syariah Court granting custody of my other children to him," she said.

However, she refused to accept the papers as she believed that syariah laws had no jurisdiction over her [See video l 2 min]

As for her husband's conversion, Indira said he had spoken about his interest in Islam but she claimed this was related to monetary gains.

"I have no idea what his intentions are... but he mentioned once before that we will get RM5,000 each if we 'nikah' (marry according to Islamic rights) and money would also be given on a monthly basis to each of our children for education purposes.

"Over the past couple of days, he kept calling me and asked me to convert to Islam. He told me that I should convert first and then we, as in the whole family, can opt out later and go back to Hinduism," she said, adding that she wanted to remain a Hindu.

'I love my wife very much'

Contacted later, her husband dismissed Indira's allegations as absurd, saying he converted because he was passionate about Islam which he had discovered during his business trips.

Denying that he had physically abused her, Mohd Ridzuan said: "I don't want to say anything but I love my wife very much... right now, I only want her back."

Asked why he had converted the children without informing his wife, he replied: "You see, all the children must follow the father's religion no matter whether he is a Hindu, Christian or Muslim.

"This is not a political issue, this is my family matter and I don't want to shame my wife," said the businessman, who has filed for custody of the children with the Syariah Court.

Meanwhile, Indira has sought the help of several legal advisers, non-Muslim organisations and the public.

"This is not only my case, many people are suffering because of this. We are filing for the custody of my children because they don't want to go to their father, and they (the other party) are rejecting this.

"But the question is even if I can get back my children, will they be Hindu again? Why does it only take a day to convert my children but it is so difficult to return to their old religion?" she asked.

"Don't I have say in it, when I was the one who carried them for nine months... aren't they my children too? What exactly is my right and my children's rights?

"The government say this is a country where it is free to practice your own religion but what is the right of a non-Muslim in this situation?" she asked.

Tiga ditahan ISA, terbaru 1 April

Pekerja Ladang Dapat Rumah Setelah 18 Tahun

Selepas 18 tahun masalah Ladang Bukit Rajah telah mendapat satu keputusan yang baik dengan persetujuan bekas pekerja ladang tersebut sedia berpindah dari sana.

Satu perjumpaan telah diadakan di Pejabat Sime UEP di Bandar Bukit Rajah pada hari Khamis pukul 10.00 pagi. Sebanyak 12 buah keluaga bekas pekerja ladang yang enggan keluar dari ladang tersebut telah menghadirkan diri ke perjumpaan ini dan bersetuju untuk berpindah dari ladang tersebut.

Mereka telah mendapat penyelesaian bagi masalah mereka dengan menerima rumah teres yang ditawarkan oleh pemaju.

Penduduk ladang tersebut juga telah menghadapi kerugian sewaktu banjir dan pemaju telah bersetuju untuk memberi
sedikit pampasan bagi keluarga tersebut. Pemaju juga bersetuju untuk memberi pampasan kehilangan kerja selepas
keluarga tersebut berpindah dari ladang tersebut.

Setiausaha Politik Ahli Parlimen Kapar, M.Shanmugam telah memberitahu bahawa sehingga projek rumah teres berhampiran ladang selesai, pemaju bersetuju untuk memberi duit sewa sebanyak RM 5,000.00 bagi tahun pertama bagi keluarga tersebut. Ia termasuk perbelanjaan pengangkutan.

Ahli Parlimen Kapar S. Manikavasagam dan juga wakil-wakil kemajuan ladang telah menghadirkan diri ke perjumpaan ini.

En.Shanmugam juga memberitahu bahawa sebanyak 6 buah kuil yang terdapat di Main Division, NE Division dan Oil Mill Division telah mendapat RM 32,000.00 bagi setiap buah kuil.

Rumah teres yang berharga RM 196,000.00 akan diberi kepada bekas pekerja ladang dengan harga RM 70,000.00. Dalam pada itu Ahli Parlimen Kapar S Manikavasagam telah memberitahu bahawa penyelesaian bagi masalah ladang Bukit Rajah ini adalah atas usaha pimpinan Parti Keadilan Rakyat termasuk peguam penduduk Sivarasa (Ahli Parlimen Subang) dan bukannya kerana ahli MIC K.P.Samy seperti yang di tuntut oleh setelah pihak.

dipeti dari Makkal Osai 17/4/2009.

Perak state assembly sitting called for May 7

By Lee Wei Lian- The Malaysian Insider

KUALA LUMPUR, April 17 — The Barisan Nasional today moved closer to consolidating its control over Perak when it called for a sitting of the state assembly on May 7, just six days before a six-month deadline to do so expires.

According to Perak DAP secretary Nga Kor Ming, the clerk of the House, Abdullah Antong Sabri, issued the notice of the sitting to the Perak DAP office today.

Nga said the notice was sent without the knowledge and consent of the speaker, V. Sivakumar.

If the sitting is held, BN can rectify the flaw in its plan to take over the state by calling for a vote of confidence in its administration and in Perak Mentri Besar Datuk Zambry Abdul Kadir.

Such a motion is almost certain to succeed as while BN and the Pakatan Rakyat have the same number of state legislators in the House, the former has the support of three independents who switched camps in February.

The Sultan of Perak had sworn in Zambry as the new mentri besar on Feb 6 but it was done without a confidence vote in the state assembly to show that he enjoys the confidence of the majority of Perak lawmakers.

The absence of a confidence vote in the House is a point used by critics of the power grab to say that the BN state government lacks legitimacy.

It also gave rise to the question of whether Zambry or Datuk Seri Nizar Jamaluddin is the rightful mentri besar, a matter that is still pending in the Kuala Lumpur High Court with a decision expected on May 5.

Nga has criticised the May 7 date, saying that by calling a sitting so close to the court decision, it arouses suspicion that the courts are under the influence of the BN.

"Is the BN so confident of winning the case that they are calling for a sitting right after the High Court's decision?" asked Nga, saying that he sees it as a sign of disrespect for the judiciary.

He also said that the BN was practising double standards as it had earlier accused the PR of subjudice when the speaker suspended Zambry and his six executive councillors from the House while the court case over the legality of their appointments was still pending.

"I call on the BN to be accountable and explain whether or not they are the unseen hand behind the judiciary. Otherwise, the independence of the judiciary is at stake."

When contacted, DAP strongman Lim Kit Siang raised concerns over yesterday's Federal Court decision to overturn the suspension of Zambry and his executive councillors from the House by the speaker.

"The decision undermined the doctrine of separation of powers between the judiciary and the legislature and brings the whole system of parliamentary democracy based on doctrine of separation of powers into disrepute," says Lim.

If the suspension was upheld, the BN would find itself at a numerically inferior position in the House even if the assembly was convened.

BN has no choice but to call for a sitting before May 13, which is when the six-month deadline to convene the assembly expires. Otherwise, the state assembly will be automatically dissolved and a state election will be held, something that it will want to avoid given the recent by-election loss it suffered in the Perak parliamentary constituency of Bukit Gantang.

It also has to notify state lawmakers at least two weeks in advance of any sitting.

Nga says that the PR will meet and discuss the next course of action.