UN resolution on war crimes: India to vote against Sri Lanka

Abduction cases, forced conversions frighten Hindus

Around 50 families reported to have migrated from Quetta. 

DESIGN: JAHANZAIB HAQUE

QUETTA: Forced conversions to Islam and increasing incidents of kidnapping have instilled a deep sense of insecurity among the Hindu community in Balochistan, said Minister for Human Rights and Minority Affairs Basant Lal Gulshan.

As many as four girls and three boys of the Hindu community forcibly converted to Islam in 2011. “At least 50 Hindu families have migrated from Quetta alone,” Gulshan told The Express Tribune. “The families migrated to rural Balochistan and Sindh because their rights were not safeguarded in Quetta.”

The minister claimed that investigations have not begun in the conversion cases reported in Loralai, Chaman and Sibi.

He criticised the Balochistan government for its lack of interest on minority rights and said: “I took up the issue with Chief Minister Aslam Raisani and also discussed it on the provincial assembly floor, but they are not serious in addressing the grievances of minorities.”

He added that at least 25 people of his community have been kidnapped for ransom this year. “There were 55 cases last year and we are witnessing a sharp rise this year.”

Dr Rajesh Kumar, a pharmacist, was kidnapped in broad daylight from outside the Bolan Medical College Complex in Quetta approximately one and half month ago. His whereabouts are still unknown.

According to a rough estimate, around 200,000 Hindus reside in different parts of Balochistan and most of them are either businessmen or traders. “Criminals consider Hindus an easy target for earning money.”

Gulshan assured that as a member of the provincial cabinet, he will continue to raise his voice for his community, regardless of his reservations being ignored. “My colleagues in the cabinet often say that this is not happening only with Hindus and that Muslims are being kidnapped as well. In some way, they justify the abductions.”

In a statement, the Human Rights Organisation of Pakistan (Balochistan chapter) expressed strong concern over the kidnapping of Hindus and urged the government to curb this menace. The kidnapped pharmacist was also a member of the HRCP. They organisation has blamed influential people for the kidnappings.

Published in The Express Tribune, March 19th, 2012.

War crimes: BN accused of hypocrisy

When it comes to atrocities committed in war, all the government seems to care about is Palestine, ignoring other places like Sri Lanka, alleges Pakatan Rakyat.

KUALA LUMPUR: If there’s a war crime taking place in the world today, and if it’s not happening in Palestine, don’t expect Malaysia to take a stand against it.

This is what Pakatan Rakyat MPs are saying today after the Speaker of Parliament rejected an emergency motion to debate Malaysia’s stand on the United Nations resolution calling for investigations into human rights violations during the final months of the 26-year Sri Lanka civil war.

According to Subang MP R Sivarasa (PKR), Putrajaya does not seem to understand the universality of human rights.

“It should not matter if you’re Tamil, Singhalese, Muslim, Christian or Buddhist,” he told reporters at Parliament House.

“If war crimes have been committed against you, it doesn’t matter whether you’re Palestinian attacked by Israeli tanks or whether you’re Sri Lankan attacked by Sri Lankan tanks. It doesn’t make a difference.”

“By remaining silent or supporting the Sri Lankan government on this issue, it shows that our human rights position is completely hypocritical.”

The resolution on Sri Lanka, moved by the United States, is due for a vote this Friday at a meeting of the UN Human Rights Council. Malaysia is one of the 47 members of the council. The resolution calls on the government in Colombo to probe alleged atrocities caused by both government troops and Tamil rebels.

As many as 40,000 people are estimated to have been killed in the last months of the conflict, which ended in May 2009 with the defeat of the Tamil Tigers. The resolution does not sit well with Colombo, which denies that government troops committed war crimes.

Affecting ties with Sri Lanka

The motion rejected in the Malaysian Parliament was submitted last week by DAP’s M Manogaran, the MP for Teluk Intan.

Speaker Pandikar Amin Mulia, who made his decision in chambers this morning, said discussing the matter would affect Malaysia’s “good relationship” with Sri Lanka.

Manogaran tried to raise the matter when the Dewan Rakyat was in session, but Deputy Speaker Ronald Kiandee said his motion had already been rejected.

“I’m not raising a question on Sri Lanka,” Manogaran told reporters afterwards. “I’m just giving a notice to move the house to be adjourned to debate on the resolution given by the US. I don’t agree that it has to do with internal affairs. If we can’t debate it here, where can we debate it?”

Sungai Petani MP Johari Abdul (PKR), who visited Sri Lanka a few months ago, said the case of the South Asian nation was no different from that of Palestine.

He deduced, however, that the Barisan Nasional government was less concerned with Sri Lanka because most Malays were oblivious of the sufferings of people there “even though a lot of them are Muslim”.

As far as the government was concerned, he said, the Sri Lankans held no political mileage.

Klang MP Charles Santiago (DAP) accused Malaysia of being opportunistic when it came to human rights.

“We all support the Palestinian cause because we believe in the sovereignty of the nation, the people,” he said. “That same foreign policy must be extended to be people of Sri Lanka. But when it comes to Sri Lanka, it’s really opportunistic foreign policy making.”

Manogaran urged MIC to state its official stand on the resolution.

He said Malaysian Indians would want the MIC ministers to raise the issue in the next cabinet meeting, which is this Friday, the same day of the UN vote.

MIC Secretary General S Murugessan said that his party would state its official stand in two days’ time.

“We will conduct a meeting this evening to discuss the matter,” he told FMT.

Double standards

Manogaran, pointing to the Malaysian support for Muslim insurgents in southern Thailand and the southern Philippines, said: “It is clear that the BN government practises double standards in foreign policy.”

He also said Indians in Malaysia would be embarrassed if Malaysia were to vote against the UN resolution.

A political analysist sharing Pakatan’s view warned the BN government of a possible backlash if it failed to support the resolution.

A Thiruvengadam, who writes a political column for Tamil dailies, said the coming general election might turn out to be “another political tsunami” brought on by the Sri Lanka issue.

Bring Justice To Sri Lanka

UN Secretary General’s Panel of Experts (PoE) report in 2010  found credible allegations of serious violations of international humanitarian human rights law were committed both by the Government of Sri Lanka and the LTTE during the last phase of the war in 2009, some of which would amount to war crimes and crimes against humanity.

“Amnesty International believes that given Sri Lanka’s long history of impunity, lack of apparent political will to address ongoing violations and enormous backlog of unresolved cases of violations, effective investigation and prosecution of all wrongdoers (including commanding officers) is very unlikely without the active support of the international community.”

Yes! You can bring justice to the victims of war in Sri Lanka by urging/demanding our Malaysian Government to vote in favour of a resolution at the current 19^th Session of the UN Human Rights Council Meeting in Geneva:-

a) To establish an independent international mechanism to investigate war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide in Sri Lanka;

b) To address accountability for the violations of international human rights and humanitarian law committed by all sides in the final phases of the war in Sri Lanka in 2009.

c) To discuss and implement both Sri Lankan Government’s  Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC) report and the UN Secretary General’s Panel of Experts (PoE) report in 2010 in order to bring lasting peace, justice and reconciliation to the people of Sri Lanka.

Hard evidence on war crimes and crimes against humanity committed during the last phase of the war can be seen on videos of UK’s Channel 4 network at

http://www.channel4.com/news/sri-lanka-civil-war

Nalla attacks Anwar’s sexual orientation

Speaking at the Perkasa office, the opposition leader’s former confidante dares him to sue over the allegation.

KUALA LUMPUR: Senator KS Nallakaruppan, a former confidante and now political opponent of Anwar Ibrahim, claimed today that he had evidence that the opposition leader was bisexual.
“Anwar is a bisexual,” he said. “Sue me in court if you are man enough.”

Speaking at a press conference held at the Jalan Pahang office of the Malay rights group Perkasa, he said he would reveal the “names of people’s wives and boys who slept with him” if Anwar took him to court.

He asked Anwar to explain why he had not sued SH Alattas, the author of Tuhan, Politik dan Seks, the cover of which features the opposition leader wearing lipstick.

He also criticised PAS spiritual leader Nik Aziz Nik Mat for not issuing an edict to disallow bisexuals from being opposition leader.

He said he had briefed three PAS leaders on Anwar’s activities. “I have explained to them but I don’t want to name them.”

Nallakaruppan, who leads the Malaysian Indian United Party, also claimed to have witnessed Anwar having illicit sex at Tivolli Villa.

“I was the one who brought him there,” he said.
Asked to explain his motive for making the accusation, he said he wanted to save the country from Anwar.

“In 1998, he told me that he would destroy the country if he could not be prime minister,” he claimed.

Nallakaruppan in 1998 faced the death sentence for arms possession. Many believe his arrest was an excuse to hold him in custody so that he could be pressured to defame Anwar.

“I safeguarded a friend then,” he said. “Now I am safeguarding the country.”

M’sia must ratify UN convention on discrimination

Malaysia is only one of 16 countries not to have ratified the UN Convention on the elimination of all forms of racial discrimination.
COMMENT

By Denison Jayasooria

On March 21, the global community celebrates the International Day for the elimination of all forms of racial discrimination set apart by the United Nations.

On that day in 1960, police opened fire and killed 69 people at a peaceful demonstration in Sharpeville, South Africa, against the apartheid “pass laws”.

The General Assembly which proclaimed the Day in 1966, called on the international community to redouble its efforts to eliminate all forms of racial discrimination. It is also important to note that the UN has built an international framework namely the UN Convention on the elimination of all forms of racial discrimination.

175 countries of the world are parties to this convention. There are only 16 countries which have not signed or ratified the convention. Malaysia is one alongside Angola, North Korea, Myanmar & Singapore.

Why has Malaysia not ratified the convention? Why is Malaysia not among the major Asean or Asian countries or not among the OIC countries or Muslim majority countries?

All the major OIC countries are party to this convention. For example Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, Turkey, Kuwait & United Arab Emirates.

Therefore this convention being inconsistent with Islam cannot really hold water as these leading Islamic countries are already party to this convention

In the case of Asean countries – Philippines, Thailand, Indonesia, even Cambodia and Laos are parties to it.

At the Asian level, India and China are parties to this convention. Many countries which have ratified have specific reservations and the UN system allows for this provision too.

Special measures

Could the issue of affirmative action policies of Malaysia of article 153 of the federal constitution be a hurdle for Malaysia? This however is a missunderstanding as the UN Convention makes specific provision in article 4 for ‘special measures’.

The UN went further to issue a General Recommendation No 32 (August 2009) to explain “the meaning and scope of special measures”.

India which is a party to the convention has constitutional provisions of affirmative action to schedule caste and tribal groups. In a similar way the United States have special affirmative action policies for the blacks.

Therefore there is no logical reason why Malaysia has not ratified the convention. Malaysia has now reached a status in the global community as member of the Human Rights Council and therefore we must be a shining example by not only ratifying the convention but role modelling as a progressive moderate nation.

Being a party to the UN Convention is a clear indication of our seriousness of the 1Malaysia slogan.

Failure to do so or any further delay indicates our non-committal approach for structural transformation is fostering a truly Malaysian nation

By way of a concrete action on March 21, please email the PM a short message urging him to ratify the UN Convention for the elimination of all forms of Racial discrimination on March 21- email: press@1malaysia.com.my and admin@1malaysia.com.my

Dr Denison Jayasooria is a Principal Research Fellow at the Institute of Ethnic Studies, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia and Exco member of Proham, a human rights advocacy group established by former Suhakam members.

What type of a PM says this: “Malaysia is at war” - with its own citizens?

If what has been reported is true, then Malaysians have everything to fear. Hopefully we get some immediate clarification from the PM himself.

The Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib when addressing close to 700 former senior civil servants is reported to have said that the government (meaning the BN political party - without doubt), “we are at war, the mother of all battles.”

That is most damaging a statement to make – especially coming from the top leader of a nation. The PM has affirmed that the country is heading for disaster.

In the first place, why does the PM allude to the coming general elections as if a country has to go to war? He even went on to state that there has to be a chain of command.

It is reported that he said “if the general says attack, you must attack at the same time.” Now that is a most intimidating statement would you not agree?

The rakyat are certain to put two and two together and you cannot condemn them for thinking even the worst of the BN coalition, can you?

An election is not a war to be won at all costs

Elections as enshrined within the sanctified principles of democracy, and as practiced in the civilized world over by good governments is not about “attacks”, “war” and “winning at all costs”. On the contrary it is about your ability to not only safeguard but to also do all that it takes to deliver humanity from the claws of tyranny, abuse of civil liberties and to provide every citizen a right to life and let live.

So why is the PM going around canvassing for battle-ready support and killing-machine build-ups? Is this the politics that can transform Malaysia?

It is about time that his advisers told the top most leader of the nation – the PM, to speak and encourage the citizens more like a leader for all and not as a battle-hardened commander out on a killing spree to finish-off any opposition to his or his political party’s agendas.

If he wants to canvas and recruit militant-like followers who will “attack when the general says attack”, then he better step down as the PM of a nation and wear only the hat of leader of his political party. The people will have no qualms even if he screams for blood as political party President.

Malaysia Chronicle

Seksualiti Merdeka: Threat to national security?

The Nut Graph

As published in The Nut Graph on 12 Mar 2012

Holding Court by Ding Jo-Ann

ON 1 March 2012, the High Court dismissed Seksualiti Merdeka‘s leave application to judicially review a police ban on their annual festival. The November 2011 festival was banned under section 27A(1)(c) of the Police Act. The section (since superseded by the Peaceful Assembly Act) allowed the police to stop any activity on private premises “likely to be prejudicial to the interest of the security of Malaysia or any part thereof or to excite a disturbance of peace”.

High Court judge Rohana Yusof said the police were clearly empowered under this section to stop the festival. She said they were acting within their powers to investigate the matter and that the investigation process was not open to review.

But can a festival about sexuality rights be a threat to Malaysia’s security and public order? And in the light of the constitutional guarantee to freedom of assembly, shouldn’t a court require strong evidence from the police about how an event is likely to jeopardise national security?

Defining national security

The interest of the security of Malaysia or “national security” and public order are important terms in this country. Article 10(1)(b) of our Federal Constitution guarantees the right of citizens to assemble peacefully and without arms. But this freedom can be restricted on the basis of national security and public order. Restrictions on this basis can also be imposed on the constitutional guarantees to freedom of expression and association.

So what exactly do national security and public order mean?

Conventionally, threatening national security would constitute jeopardising the existence of the state. One example might be a plot to assassinate the country’s leaders. Or, simultaneous bomb attacks on the transport system, like in London on 7 July 2005. Or, planning to violently take over Parliament, kidnap the prime minister and hold him hostage, like in Fiji in 2000. These are all good examples of real threats to national security.

What about disturbance of peace, or threat to public order? In modern times, this usually refers to threats to life and property. The UK Public Order Act, for example, prohibits unlawful violence, rioting and threatening behaviour that would cause people of reasonable firmness to fear for their personal safety.

So, under the Malaysian constitution, citizens are free to meet as long as they are peaceful and don’t bear arms. But if they engage in activities such as plotting to blow up Parliament or threatening to cause physical harm to others, then they can be restricted from engaging in such activities. And the authorities, like the police, can enforce laws that prohibit and restrict such gatherings.

Security and sexuality

Which brings us to the question — just how does Seksualiti Merdeka constitute a threat to national security and public order?

As far as I know, the festival organisers were not planning a violent coup d’etat nor were they hatching a devious plot that could threaten the state’s existence. I also did not hear of festival attendees rioting or damaging property or threatening anyone’s personal safety.

Sure, there are many in our community who disagree with openly discussing one’s sexual orientation. Seksualiti Merdeka is a festival on sexuality and the right of everyone to be free from discrimination, harassment and violence due to their sexual orientation. This includes talking about being lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender. Some religious groups believe that being in a same sex relationship is a sin. Others may feel that culturally, we shouldn’t be talking about such topics in public. Some others may not have liked it that Bersih 2.0 chairperson Datuk Ambiga Sreenevasan was scheduled to officiate the event.

But none of these are lawful reasons to ban the event. Our constitution did not say that if lots of people disagree with what a group is doing, then that group’s activities can be banned. It says that if the group’s activities are a threat to national security and public order, then, and only then, can it be restricted. And our constitution is the supreme law of the land.

What our constitution does allow for those who disagree with Seksualiti Merdeka is to speak up about it. They can dialogue with the organisers on why they disagree. They can organise campaigns about morality, if they so wish, and on not speaking about sexuality openly. They can protest, if they must, against the event, but peacefully and without resorting to any threatening or abusive behaviour and language.

In banning the event, Deputy Inspector-General of Police Datuk Seri Khalid Abu Bakar said: “Let us not look into the interest of minority groups and end up infuriating the majority.”

Forgive me, but that’s just tyranny. The constitutional guarantee on freedom of assembly is there precisely to protect the minority against the majority. So that even if a whole lot of people disagree with what you’re doing, you are still protected as long as you do it peacefully and without threat to others’ life and safety.

Who is the court protecting?

So should the court have decided differently? Well, there are always legal arguments to justify a decision and in this case, the judge held that reviewing a criminal investigation was not within the court’s purview. She also upheld the Attorney-General Chamber’s objection that as the event was in the past, the application was academic and need not be heard.

Despite these legal justifications, in my view,  I am uncomfortable with how easily it was accepted that it was “clearly” within the police’s power to ban the event on the grounds that they did. The police said 28 police reports and complaints from religious groups were lodged against Seksualiti Merdeka. But I still don’t see how that makes Seksualiti Merdeka a likely threat to national security and public order. If anything, it’s some of the groups that had threatened Seksualiti Merdeka which were themselves threats to public order, not the other way around.

In restricting fundamental freedoms in the name of national security, courts must perform a balancing act — to impinge as little as possible upon the guaranteed freedom while achieving the aim of protecting the state. In this case, it is firstly unclear why the state needed to be protected from Seksualiti Merdeka. And secondly, from what can be gathered from news reports, it does not appear that the constitutional guarantee of freedom of assembly was even weighed in the balance.

Protecting us all

This has serious implications for all of us. The courts are meant to protect us from the arbitrary use of power by the authorities. Surely it cannot be left entirely to the police to decide when something is a threat to national security and public order. What if they get it wrong? As is often cited, “Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?” Or, who will guard the guards? If the courts won’t intervene to call the police to account for their actions and decisions, then who will?

Adakah Zahid akan senasib Sharizat ?

Mahkamah Rayuan hari ini menolak dengan kos permohonan Menteri Pertahanan Datuk Seri Ahmad Zahid Hamidi bagi membatalkan saman yang dibawa oleh seorang ahli perniagaan, yang didakwa mempunyai hubungan sulit dengan anak perempuan menteri itu.

Panel tiga hakim yang diketuai oleh Datin Paduka Zaleha Zahari sebulat suara mengekalkan keputusan Mahkamah Tinggi Shah Alam, dan mengarahkan menteri itu untuk membayar RM5,000 sebagai kos.

Ahli-ahli panel yang lain ialah Hakim Datuk Clement Allan Skinner dan Datuk Aziah Ali.

Ahli perniagaan Amir Bazli Abdullah, 40, memfailkan saman itu pada 4 Julai 2007, mendakwa bahawa beliau telah dipukul dan ditumbuk pada mukanya oleh Ahmad Zahid pada 16 Januari, 2006.

Keputusan itu dicapai selepas mahkamah mendengar penghujahan peguam Shamsul Bahari Ibrahim yang mewakili Ahmad Zahid, dan memutuskan bahawa ia tidak perlu bagi peguam, Amir Bazli, Karpal Singh, untuk membuat penghujahan.

APA SEBENARNYA BERLAKU

Ini adalah percintaan antara Amir Bazli Abdullah, seorang duda dengan anak kepada Datuk Ahmad Zahid Hamidi, Nurul Hidayah seorang janda. Percintaan ini tidak direstui oleh Datuk Ahmad Zahid Hamidi.

Bukti percintaan ini bukan susah untuk pihak polis temui dan mungkin amat mudah untuk pihak polis menerbitkan motif serangan terhadap Amir Bazli Abdullah.
Percintaan ini berlaku pada awal tahun 2005. Kronologi bermulanya perkenalan antara Amir Bazli Abdullah dan Nurulhidayah Ahmad Zahid Hamidi telah diterangkan dalam Afidavit guaman Sivil No MT1-22-1151 Tahun 2007 setelah dinasihatkan oleh peguam agar tuntutan sivil di buat memandangkan sehingga ke waktu ini, Polis gagal bertindak terhadap laporan jenayah terhadap Dato Ahmad Zahid Hamidi.

Kronologi pertemuan antara Amir Bazli Abdullah dan Nurulhidayah Ahmad Zahid Hamidi.

1. Saya telah menyertai konvoi “Big Biker” pada sekitar bulan Ogos 2005 dengan menaiki sebuah motosikal kepunyaan adik saya;


2. Pada masa tersebut, saya tidak mengenali anak defendan bernama Nurul Hidayah tersebut ataupun anak kecilnya;

3. Saya hanya mula mengenali Nurulhidayah pada sekitar bulan September 2005 dan beliau telah pun memaklumkan kepada saya bahawa beliau telah pun bercerai dengan suaminya di sebuah cafe bermana “saloma” di Kuala Lumpur.

4. Selepas itu saya dengan NurulHidayah telah menjalinkan satu perhubungan di mana Nurulhidayah telah pun memaklumkan bahawa beliau telah pun jatuh cinta dengan saya;

5. Nurulhidayah telah pun dengan sendiri bercadang ke Kota Bharu dengan saya secara rela pada bulan Disember 2005 bersama anak kecilnya tersebut;

6. Justeru itu, Nurulhidayah juga telah pun bercadang agar saya menyewa sebuah rumah pangsa di Kajang seperti yang dinayatakn di dalam perenggan 5 Afidavit tersebut dan saya telah pun berbuat demikian pada bulan November 2005 di mana Nurulhidayah dengan sendirinya telah menandatangani Perjanjian Sewa yang berkenaan tersebut sebagai seorang saksi yang dilampirkan bersama di sini sebagai aksibit “AB-1”

7. Saya juga menyatakan bahawa selepas saya menyewa rumah pangsa di Kajang tersebut, Nurulhidayah dengan sendirinya telah pun secara rela datang tinggal di sana dengan anaknya dan juga pembantu-pembantu rumahnya;

Lampiran keseluruhan writ saman, afidavit pertama Dato’ Zahid Hamidi dan Afidavit jawapan Amir Bazli Abdullah disertakan. Perlu diingat ini adalah tuntutan sivil Amir Bazli Abdullah atas nasihat peguam “Karpal Singh and Company” kerana kes laporan polis terhadap jenayah Datuk Ahmad Zahid Hamidimasih belum diselesaikan oleh polis.

Tuntutan dalam writ saman Amir Bazli Abdullah ada menyatakan dengan jelas apa yang sebenarnya berlaku pada 16.01.2006. Berikut kami dedahkan writ saman Amir Bazli Abdullah dalam melihat apa sebenarnya berlaku. Berikut adalah kronologi insiden pemukulan Amir Bazli Ahmad dan pembabitanDatuk Ahmad Zahid Hamidi.

APA YANG BERRLAKU PADA 16.01.2006

1. Pada 16.01.2006, jam lebih kurang 10 malam, apabila plaintif (Amir Bazli Abdullah) sedang mengisi petrol ke dalam keretanya di Stesen Petrol sebelah UNITEN, Bangsi, agen-agen Defendan (Datuk Ahmad Zahid Hamidi) telahmengugut dan membawa plaintif dengan paksaan, ke sebuah kelab rekreasi di kawasan kediaman Country Heights, Kajang.

2. Apabila dibawa ke kelab rekreasi tersebut, plaintif (Amir Bazli Abdullah) telah melihat Defendan (Datuk Ahmad Zahid Hamidi) bersama suami anaknya,Hisham dan seorang anaknya yang dikenali sebagai KK di sana. Bersama-sama mereka juga terdapat beberapa orang yang merupakan agen dan pekerja Defendan (Dato Ahmad Zahid Hamidi).

3. Plaintif plid (maklum) bahawa apabila beliau menghulurkan tangan untuk bersalam dengan Defendan (Datuk Ahmad Zahid Hamidi), Defendan (Datuk Ahmad Zahid Hamidi) telahmenumbuk plaintiff dengan kuat di mukanya menyebabkan tulang hidungnya patah.

4. Plaintif juga plid (maklum) bahawa akibat daripada tumbukan daripada Defendan (Datuk Ahmad Zahid Hamidi) tersebut, mata kiri plaintif (Amir Bazli Abdullah) telah menjadi bengkak sehingga beliau tidak lagi dapat membuka mata kirinya.

5. Setelah menerima tumbukan pertama daripada Defendan (Datuk Ahmad Zahid Hamidi), agen-agen defendan (Datuk Ahmad Zahid Hamidi) yang berada di sana telah mula memukul plaintif bersama-sama dengan Defendan (Datuk Ahmad Zahid Hamidi)

6. Plaintif memplid (maklum) bahawa Defendan (Datuk Ahmad Zahid Hamidi) dan/atau agen-agen Defendan (Datuk Ahmad Zahid Hamidi) telah mendatangkan kecederaan teruk kepada bahagian muka plaintif (Amir Bazli Abdullah) dengan sebuah objek keras.

7. Defendan (Datuk Ahmad Zahid Hamidi) telah mengugut untuk membunuh plaintif (Amir Bazli Abdullah) berulang kali apabila berkata kepada plaintif (Amir Basli Abdullah)“kau akan ditanam”

8. Agen Defendan (Datuk Ahmad Zahid Hamidi) bernama Hisham di bawah arahan Defendan (Datuk Ahmad Zahid Hamidi) telah mengugut untuk membunuh plaintif (Amir Bazli Abdullah) apabila berkata “aku dah ingatkan kau, aku sanggup mandi darah dengan kau”
9. Defendan (Datuk Ahmad Zahid Hamidi) dan atau agen-agen defendan (Datuk Ahmad Zahid Hamidi) telah mengurung plaintif (Amir Bazli Abdullah) secara tidak sah di kediaman defendan (Datuk Ahmad Zahid Hamidi) di 389, Jalan Bayu Nyaman, Country Height, 43000 Kajang, Selangor sehingga jam 2 pagi hari berikutannya iaitu 17.1.2006.

Inilah sebenarnya berlaku. Malang sehingga ke hari ini masih tidak terdapat tanda-tanda bahawa Amir Bazli Abdullah akan mendapat pembelaan yang setimpal dan paling malang adalah anggapan yang boleh kita lihat mengenai sistem kepolisan kita yang nampak gagal berfungsi dengan sewajarnya.

Sebelum kita pergi lebih lanjut untuk membuktikan bahawa semua urusan untuk mendapatkan pembelaan bagi Amir Bazli Abdullah gagal maka kita perlu melihat bentuk kecederaan yang dialami dan laporan Hospital yang membuktikan kesahihan kecacatan dan keadaan yang menimpa Amir Bazli Abdullahakibat di pukul.

Berikut adalah kecederaan yang ditimpa oleh Amir Bazli Abdullah atas perbuatan Dato Ahmad Zahid Hamidi.
Dalam writ saman Amir Bazli Abdullah, berikut adalah kecederaan yang di alami oleh beliau:

1. Plaintif telah mengalami DEPRESSED FACIAL BONE FRACTURE dan NASAL BONE FRACTURE dengan DEVIATED NASAL SEPTUM

2. Plaintif telah mengalami MULTIPLE FACIAL BONE FRACTURES WITH LEFT SUPERIOR OBLIQUE AND SUPERIOR RECTUS MUSCLE INVOLVEMENT

3. Plaintif telah mengalami TRAUMATIC SUBCONJUNCTIONAL HEMORRHAGE di sebelah kiri mukanya dan DEPRESSED FRONTAL BONE FRACTURE

4. Plaintif telah mengalami kecederaan yang tetap di mana keadaan mukanya kini adalah dengan jelas cacat.

Berikut adalah laporan perubatan Hospital Universiti Sains Malaysia. Laporan ini diterima setelah mangsa berkali-kali memohon laporan tersebut untuk diserahkan kepada mangsa. Amir Bazli Abdullah telah meminta peguamnya Karpal Singh and Co untuk memohon laporan dan akhirnya laporan itu telah diterima.

Laporan itu kami lampirkan untuk menunjukkan kecederaan Amir Bazli Abdullah dan kenapa dengan kecederaan sebegitu hebat tidak ada pembelaan terhadap mangsa.



Perbuatan jenayah Datuk Ahmad Zahid Hamidi ini telah memberi kesan seumur hidup terhadapAmir Basli Abdullah. Beliau bukan sahaja mengalami kecacatan fizikal tetapi telah mengalami trauma akibat insiden tersebut.

Datuk Ahmad Zahid Hamidi sepatutnya bertanggungjawab dan sepatutnya dibawa ke muka pengadilan. Kita kita mahu ada “double standard” dalam sistem perundangan ini dan kita mahu orang seperti Amir Bazli Abdullah ini mendapat pembelaan yang sewajarnya.

Lihatlah apa yang terjadi pada muka Amir Bazli Abdullah:




Dengan kecederaan yang begini, apa yang mengharukan adalah ketidakprihatinan pihak polismengenai kecederaan Amir Bazli Abdullah sungguhpun Amir Bazli Abdullah telah memaklumkan kepada pihak hospital bahawa beliau adalah mangsa yang dipukul.

Laporan Hospital Universiti Sains Malaysia (HUKM 12) menunjukkan bahawa Amir Bazli Abdullahtelah memaklumkan kepada pihak hospital bahawa beliau telah dipukul.

Anda nak tahu cerita lanjut tentang Zahid Hamidi? anda layari di sini.

Thick-skinned, confused politicians

There are some thick-skinned, confused politicians who are turning the concept of parliamentary democracy on its head.
The terminology that politicians use can sometimes be scary especially when it reflects their warped mentality. And the picture we get isn’t usually pretty.
There’s James Masing, who came up with this outrageous statement in the Borneo Post expressing the belief common among some elected reps that they are the masters or bosses of the rakyat:

The confusion, it appears, is concerning the role of the legislature – which are the elected representatives or YBs. All YBs are elected by the people/ voters. During polling day, the rakyat (people) who have been registered as voters are the ‘boss’. The power is invested on rakyat, by the legislature, to elect who should be the Administrator/ Boss of their lives for the next five years.
Once they have elected their YBs or the administrators, the role changes. The elected representatives become the administrators/ boss of the rakyat, while the rakyat plays a subservient role seeking assistance from the YBs from time to time.

Masing said there was no need for him to apologise for his ‘Jangan Lawan Tauke’ remark. “Apologise for what?”
It is James Masing who is utterly confused or ignorant about the nature of elected reps. Someone should tell him that elected reps are there to serve the people and not to lord it over them as bosses or taukeh. Typical feudal mentality!
It’s government of the people, by the people and for the people. Get it?
Then there’s PM Najib, who likens a general election to going to war, indeed “the mother of all battles”. Where once he was talking about defending Putrajaya at all costs even it means “crushed bodies and lost lives”, now he is talking of generals issuing orders to “attack”. This latest statement of his was reported in the Malaysian Insider:

Najib added that the concept of fielding only “winnable candidates” is the final hurdle in BN’s election plans and said all supporters should accept choices made by the coalition’s leaders.
“The choice must be supported by every one of us because we are at war, the mother of all battles. And if we speak of the mother of all battles, we must make preparations…,” he said.
“And there must be a chain of command. If the general says attack, you must all attack at the same time. We cannot win unless we move as a team. And when we are committed, God willing, Selangor will be returned to us.”