Wednesday, 1 August 2012
Long-haired man mistaken for a woman in Makkah
A photograph of a man with a long hair showing part of his upper body during Umrah (mini pilgrimage) in Saudi Arabia was mistaken for a woman in social networks,…A photograph of a man with a long hair showing part of his upper body during Umrah (mini pilgrimage) in Saudi Arabia was mistaken for a woman in social networks, which poured abuse and sarcasm at her.The picture, taken in the first week of the fasting month of Ramadan, was published in many social websites and one user commented :”It seems this woman misunderstands Umrah and its rules.”
But newspapers in the Gulf kingdom insisted the picture is for an African man not a woman despite the long hair spreading over his shoulders.
“Any sane person will not believe what is published in Facebook, Twitter and other websites…...how can a woman dressed in such a way enter the Grand Mosque without being stopped by the guards,” Alsaudi daily said.
“Even if she manages to get in, thousands of worshippers inside the Mosque will draw her attention to her dress and prevent her from performing Umrah.”
Male beggar in hijab arrested in Dubai
The number of beggars have gone up significantly during the holy month of Ramadan, according to top police officials in Dubai.
The authorities running the anti-begging campaign arrested 37 people last week alone. On Monday a teenage boy in hijab was also caught begging.
The youngster was moving around with a group of women, said Col Salem Khalifa Al Rumaithi, Deputy CID Director, Search and Investigation, Dubai Police.
The 15-year-old boy told investigating officers that he was tempted to beg because of the acitivities of the group he belonged to.
Rumaithi urged public to co-operate with police to report beggars. Children was victims of begging. Adults exploit them for their greed and spoil their future, he added.
About 65 beggars have been arrested so far this year. Between July 17 and 24 police arrested 28 beggars including four women.
‘Waytha’s return rejuvenates Hindraf’
'Hindraf’s detractors want Hindraf to split and implode; it makes life a lot easier for all of them to help themselves to the Indians votes'
INTERVIEW
PETALING JAYA: After spending…
More ►
More ▼
INTERVIEW
PETALING JAYA: After spending…
'Hindraf’s detractors want Hindraf to split and implode; it makes life a lot easier for all of them to help themselves to the Indians votes'
INTERVIEW
PETALING JAYA: After spending almost five years in exile in London, Hindraf chairperson P Waythamoorthy is scheduled to return home to Malaysia on Wednesday.
He is now in Singapore, having arrived from London late Sunday. He has been issued a Malaysian passport by the Malaysian High Commission in Singapore, facilitating his return to his home nation without any glithces.
While Waythamoorthy himself believes that the authorities could arrest him upon him stepping into the country, his mere presence back home after the long absence has reignited a strong belief among Hindraf supporters.
Most of them believe that the timing of Waythamoorthy’s return was perfect, just as the nation was gearing up for a general election, a time when the Indian community’s plight could once again be raised at the national level.
Speaking to FMT in an interview recently, Hindraf adviser N Ganesan said Waythamoorthy’s return will herald the emergence of a strong and determined leader to lead the Indian community towards a better future.
“There is unfortunately a serious vacuum in this space today,” he said.
“His presence back in the country will rejuvenate the core Hindraf activist group,” he added.
Ganesan said that Waythamoorthy, who left the country on Nov 28, 2007, three days after the movement organised a mammoth rally in the streets of Kuala Lumpur, would be able to “tell a convincing story on the current sordid state of the marginalised Indians”, especially to the marginalised Indians throughout the country.
“His return will be above partisan politics and will have great appeal to the people and has significant opportunity to unite the Indian Malaysians,” he said.
In the interview, Ganesan also dismissed talk of frictions within the Hindraf ranks. He also explained the relationship between Hindraf and Human Rights Party, helmed by Waythamoorthy’s brother Uthayakumar.
Below is the excerpt of FMT’s interview with Ganesan:
What will be the impact of P Waythamoorthy’s return on Aug 1? What has he achieved during his period in exile?
To start with, the exile is not self-imposed. It was imposed on him. He has only used the exile period to Hindraf’s great advantage and now sees a logical point in his sojourn to return home and test the will of the government to continue to keep him in exile.
Waythamoorthy’s return will herald the emergence of a new strong, determined, independent, proud, brilliant leader of high integrity to lead the Indian community towards a better future. There is unfortunately a serious vacuum in this space today.
Waythamoorthy is a brimming personality for all those who know him. His presence back in the country will rejuvenate the core Hindraf activist group. The logistics of formulating and executing plans will be greatly facilitated. His depth of knowledge about the antecedents leading up to the current sordid state of the marginalised Indians will enable Hindraf to tell a convincing story, especially to the marginalised Indians throughout the country. It will be above partisan politics and will have great appeal to the people and has significant opportunity to unite the Indian Malaysians.
Notice the dead silence on the part of Barisan Nasional and Pakatan Rakyat on news of Hindraf’s registering of the case against the UK government and his announcement to return to Malaysia. It is not that they are not interested. They are very interested. In the recent candle-light vigil on July 20, 2012, across the country demanding the government issue a passport to Waythamoorthy to return to Malaysia, there was a very significant number of Special Branch plainclothes policemen in attendance at all the vigils. What was the need?
What is the role of Hindraf chairman P Waythamoorthy and that of Hindraf de facto leader P Uthayakumar?
Uthayakumar has always only been the legal adviser to Hindraf. Uthayakumar has been named the de facto leader by the local media in the absence of Waythamoorthy from the local scene. Uthayakumar remains the legal adviser to Hindraf and the pro-tem secretary-general of the Human Rights Party and Waythamoorthy is the chairperson of Hindraf, who leads and directs all activities of Hindraf.
Is there a split within the Hindraf ranks?
The answer is clearly, no, there is no split within the Hindraf ranks. Hindraf has its share of differences like any other and the media has a field day with all of that.
Look at (DAP chairman) Karpal (Singh)’s ‘over my dead body comment’ on the Islamic state issue and look at all the senior Chinese DAP leaders’ ongoing dead silence on the matter – do they have a split in their ranks?
Look at the recent statement by PAS spiritual leader Nik Abdul Aziz Nik Mat who congratulated Umno on its assemblyperson’s proposal to implement hudud law in Johor for all races. Not long after, Dr Siti Mariah Mahmud, the Kota Raja PAS MP, in a comment stated that Pakatan would also fight for Hindraf’s cause, although not on a racial platform.
One of Hindraf’s key causes is the elimination of state-sponsored religious supremacist policies, something which runs clear in the face of what the PAS spiritual leader had just said about implementing hudud for all races. So, is there a split within PAS’ ranks?
On the same topic, MCA president Dr Chua Soi Lek has hit out at Umno’s Kemelah assemblyperson Ayub Rahmat for proposing that the Islamic hudud law be implemented for all – both Muslims and non-Muslims – in Johor. Is there a split in BN ranks?
Then there are persistent rumours that Muhyiddin Yassin and Najib Tun Razak are on different song sheets on many issues in Umno – so is there a split in Umno, or even an imminent one?
Why this question arises for Hindraf is, Hindraf’s detractors want Hindraf to split and implode; it makes life a lot easier for all of them to help themselves to the Indians votes without first having to settle their dues properly. Hindraf is not about to let anything like that happen, so this is just wishful thinking on their part.
What is the relationship between Hindraf, Hindraf Makkal Sakthi and Human Rights Party, if any?
Hindraf was the original name; Hindraf Makkal Sakthi was the name adopted after the ban by the government. There is no difference between the two, just like Umno and Umno Baru.
Hindraf is the overarching mother organisation headed by Waythamoorthy. The Human Rights Party is the political wing of Hindraf headed by Uthayakumar. Hindraf has taken a decision to run along somewhat independent lines now, as a short-term measure to resolve tactical differences that have emerged recently. Hindraf believes that time will show the effectiveness or lack of it of the different tactical approaches. In fact, Hindraf will emerge stronger, much stronger after Waythamoorthy’s return.
Read more: http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/nation/2012/07/31/waythas-return-rejuvenates-hindraf/#ixzz22DrG6bIa
▲
INTERVIEW
PETALING JAYA: After spending almost five years in exile in London, Hindraf chairperson P Waythamoorthy is scheduled to return home to Malaysia on Wednesday.He is now in Singapore, having arrived from London late Sunday. He has been issued a Malaysian passport by the Malaysian High Commission in Singapore, facilitating his return to his home nation without any glithces.
While Waythamoorthy himself believes that the authorities could arrest him upon him stepping into the country, his mere presence back home after the long absence has reignited a strong belief among Hindraf supporters.
Most of them believe that the timing of Waythamoorthy’s return was perfect, just as the nation was gearing up for a general election, a time when the Indian community’s plight could once again be raised at the national level.
Speaking to FMT in an interview recently, Hindraf adviser N Ganesan said Waythamoorthy’s return will herald the emergence of a strong and determined leader to lead the Indian community towards a better future.
“There is unfortunately a serious vacuum in this space today,” he said.
“His presence back in the country will rejuvenate the core Hindraf activist group,” he added.
Ganesan said that Waythamoorthy, who left the country on Nov 28, 2007, three days after the movement organised a mammoth rally in the streets of Kuala Lumpur, would be able to “tell a convincing story on the current sordid state of the marginalised Indians”, especially to the marginalised Indians throughout the country.
“His return will be above partisan politics and will have great appeal to the people and has significant opportunity to unite the Indian Malaysians,” he said.
In the interview, Ganesan also dismissed talk of frictions within the Hindraf ranks. He also explained the relationship between Hindraf and Human Rights Party, helmed by Waythamoorthy’s brother Uthayakumar.
Below is the excerpt of FMT’s interview with Ganesan:
What will be the impact of P Waythamoorthy’s return on Aug 1? What has he achieved during his period in exile?
To start with, the exile is not self-imposed. It was imposed on him. He has only used the exile period to Hindraf’s great advantage and now sees a logical point in his sojourn to return home and test the will of the government to continue to keep him in exile.
Waythamoorthy’s return will herald the emergence of a new strong, determined, independent, proud, brilliant leader of high integrity to lead the Indian community towards a better future. There is unfortunately a serious vacuum in this space today.
Waythamoorthy is a brimming personality for all those who know him. His presence back in the country will rejuvenate the core Hindraf activist group. The logistics of formulating and executing plans will be greatly facilitated. His depth of knowledge about the antecedents leading up to the current sordid state of the marginalised Indians will enable Hindraf to tell a convincing story, especially to the marginalised Indians throughout the country. It will be above partisan politics and will have great appeal to the people and has significant opportunity to unite the Indian Malaysians.
Notice the dead silence on the part of Barisan Nasional and Pakatan Rakyat on news of Hindraf’s registering of the case against the UK government and his announcement to return to Malaysia. It is not that they are not interested. They are very interested. In the recent candle-light vigil on July 20, 2012, across the country demanding the government issue a passport to Waythamoorthy to return to Malaysia, there was a very significant number of Special Branch plainclothes policemen in attendance at all the vigils. What was the need?
What is the role of Hindraf chairman P Waythamoorthy and that of Hindraf de facto leader P Uthayakumar?
Uthayakumar has always only been the legal adviser to Hindraf. Uthayakumar has been named the de facto leader by the local media in the absence of Waythamoorthy from the local scene. Uthayakumar remains the legal adviser to Hindraf and the pro-tem secretary-general of the Human Rights Party and Waythamoorthy is the chairperson of Hindraf, who leads and directs all activities of Hindraf.
Is there a split within the Hindraf ranks?
The answer is clearly, no, there is no split within the Hindraf ranks. Hindraf has its share of differences like any other and the media has a field day with all of that.
Look at (DAP chairman) Karpal (Singh)’s ‘over my dead body comment’ on the Islamic state issue and look at all the senior Chinese DAP leaders’ ongoing dead silence on the matter – do they have a split in their ranks?
Look at the recent statement by PAS spiritual leader Nik Abdul Aziz Nik Mat who congratulated Umno on its assemblyperson’s proposal to implement hudud law in Johor for all races. Not long after, Dr Siti Mariah Mahmud, the Kota Raja PAS MP, in a comment stated that Pakatan would also fight for Hindraf’s cause, although not on a racial platform.
One of Hindraf’s key causes is the elimination of state-sponsored religious supremacist policies, something which runs clear in the face of what the PAS spiritual leader had just said about implementing hudud for all races. So, is there a split within PAS’ ranks?
On the same topic, MCA president Dr Chua Soi Lek has hit out at Umno’s Kemelah assemblyperson Ayub Rahmat for proposing that the Islamic hudud law be implemented for all – both Muslims and non-Muslims – in Johor. Is there a split in BN ranks?
Then there are persistent rumours that Muhyiddin Yassin and Najib Tun Razak are on different song sheets on many issues in Umno – so is there a split in Umno, or even an imminent one?
Why this question arises for Hindraf is, Hindraf’s detractors want Hindraf to split and implode; it makes life a lot easier for all of them to help themselves to the Indians votes without first having to settle their dues properly. Hindraf is not about to let anything like that happen, so this is just wishful thinking on their part.
What is the relationship between Hindraf, Hindraf Makkal Sakthi and Human Rights Party, if any?
Hindraf was the original name; Hindraf Makkal Sakthi was the name adopted after the ban by the government. There is no difference between the two, just like Umno and Umno Baru.
Hindraf is the overarching mother organisation headed by Waythamoorthy. The Human Rights Party is the political wing of Hindraf headed by Uthayakumar. Hindraf has taken a decision to run along somewhat independent lines now, as a short-term measure to resolve tactical differences that have emerged recently. Hindraf believes that time will show the effectiveness or lack of it of the different tactical approaches. In fact, Hindraf will emerge stronger, much stronger after Waythamoorthy’s return.
Read more: http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/nation/2012/07/31/waythas-return-rejuvenates-hindraf/#ixzz22DrG6bIa
Lajim stripped of his Cabinet post
The Prime Minister's Department announced that Sabah MP Lajim Ukin is no longer a deputy minister.
KUALA LUMPUR: The Yang di-Pertuan Agong, Tuanku Abdul Halim Mu’adzam Shah, has consented to…
More ►
More ▼
KUALA LUMPUR: The Yang di-Pertuan Agong, Tuanku Abdul Halim Mu’adzam Shah, has consented to…
The Prime Minister's Department announced that Sabah MP Lajim Ukin is no longer a deputy minister.
KUALA LUMPUR: The Yang di-Pertuan Agong, Tuanku Abdul Halim Mu’adzam Shah, has consented to revoking the appointment of Beaufort MP Lajim Ukim as Deputy Housing and Local Government Minister with immediate effect.
In a statement issued today, the Prime Minister’s Office said the decision was in accordance with clause (3) Article 43A, which was read together with clause (5) Article 43 of the Federal Constitution.
The decision is effective immediately.
Lajim had on Sunday announced his decision to resign his positions in the Umno supreme council and from his Beaufort divison.
But he said he “will remain as Umno member and deputy minister”.
Explaining his decision, he said: “I am disappointed with Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak who promised to make changes to the Sabah Barisan Nasional leadership but has not done anything until now.
“I can no longer be a Yes Man in BN. I am firm with my stand to pressure the state and the federal governments to develop Sabah.”
Lajim also said that he would leave it to the Umno supreme council and Najib to decide on his membership in the party and his position as deputy minister.
It was reported today that Umno had issued Lajim a showcase letter over his decision.
Umno secretary-general Tengku Adnan Tengku Mansor said Lajim had 14 days to reply to the letter after which Umno would consider action against him as provided for under the party’s constitution.
Lajim and Tuaran MP Wilfred Bumburing had both declared their support for Pakatan Rakyat defacto leader Anwar Ibrahim during their respective functions on last Sunday.
Anwar was present at both functions.
Read more: http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/nation/2012/07/31/king-revokes-lajims-ministership/#ixzz22DqrEIRT
▲
KUALA LUMPUR: The Yang di-Pertuan Agong, Tuanku Abdul Halim Mu’adzam Shah, has consented to revoking the appointment of Beaufort MP Lajim Ukim as Deputy Housing and Local Government Minister with immediate effect.In a statement issued today, the Prime Minister’s Office said the decision was in accordance with clause (3) Article 43A, which was read together with clause (5) Article 43 of the Federal Constitution.
The decision is effective immediately.
Lajim had on Sunday announced his decision to resign his positions in the Umno supreme council and from his Beaufort divison.
But he said he “will remain as Umno member and deputy minister”.
Explaining his decision, he said: “I am disappointed with Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak who promised to make changes to the Sabah Barisan Nasional leadership but has not done anything until now.
“I can no longer be a Yes Man in BN. I am firm with my stand to pressure the state and the federal governments to develop Sabah.”
Lajim also said that he would leave it to the Umno supreme council and Najib to decide on his membership in the party and his position as deputy minister.
It was reported today that Umno had issued Lajim a showcase letter over his decision.
Umno secretary-general Tengku Adnan Tengku Mansor said Lajim had 14 days to reply to the letter after which Umno would consider action against him as provided for under the party’s constitution.
Lajim and Tuaran MP Wilfred Bumburing had both declared their support for Pakatan Rakyat defacto leader Anwar Ibrahim during their respective functions on last Sunday.
Anwar was present at both functions.
Read more: http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/nation/2012/07/31/king-revokes-lajims-ministership/#ixzz22DqrEIRT
Racism requires two hands to clap
Yes,
in 2008 we agree to support Pakatan Rakyat. But the support came with
certain conditions attached. You are, of course, free to renegotiate
these terms and conditions if you…Yes,
in 2008 we agree to support Pakatan Rakyat. But the support came with
certain conditions attached. You are, of course, free to renegotiate
these terms and conditions if you want to and rescind what has been
agreed. In a democracy this is allowed. But then, in a democracy, we are
also free to look at these new terms and conditions of our relationship
and decide whether we want to accept them or not.
NO HOLDS BARRED
Raja Petra Kamarudin
“Dear RPK, I find your articles actually getting
more and more racist. What is this about?” asked one reader by the name
of ‘Nanda K’. Well, violence begets violence, as the
saying goes, and racism begets racism. Racism requires two hands to clap
and is the opposition any lesser racist than, say, Perkasa?
Have a look at this newspaper cutting:
Why
must the Opposition Leader, Anwar Ibrahim say ‘Melayu masuk DAP PR lagi
kuat’? Is DAP a non-Melayu party, meaning a Chinese party? Is that why
if Melayu join DAP then PR would become stronger -- because the Malays
would dilute the Chinese in DAP? What if the Malays do not join DAP?
Would DAP then remain a Chinese party and hence PR would become weak?
The
statement ‘Melayu masuk DAP PR lagi kuat’ is itself a racist statement.
It shows that even Pakatan Rakyat plays the racial politics game just
like Barisan Nasional. Can’t you all get this through your thick head?
So
who is the racist here? I or the Pakatan Rakyat leaders who talk about
Malays, Chinese, Indians, etc? When you talk about it that is okay. When
I talk about it I am a racist. If you stop talking about Malays,
Chinese, Indians, natives, and so on then I can also stop talking about
it. But if you continue talking then I have every right to also keep
talking.
That is called democracy.
Sure,
my articles of late have been about Hudud. But I am writing about Hudud
only because the Pakatan Rakyat leaders are arguing about Hudud. If
they can argue about Hudud, if this is their democratic right to agree
to disagree, then in what way have I lost my democratic right to also
talk about Hudud?
Isn’t this what democracy is all about, to respond to what people say?
Look at the Bernama
news item regarding Karpal Singh below. PAS said that Karpal opposes
Hudud because he is a non-believer. This appears to have upset Karpal a
bit and he stressed that he is a believer.
What
is a non-believer? Is a non-believer someone who does not believe in
God? Then he would be called an Atheist, not a non-believer. An Atheist
does believe. He believes that God does not exist. Hence he is a
believer, a believer in the fallacy of the existence of God.
Or
is a non-believer someone who subscribes to a different religion to
yours? Such people do believe in God. They go to church or a temple to
pray. They believe that God exists. The only thing is they follow a
different path to yours. But they are a believer who does believe in the
existence of God. Hence should these people be labelled as
non-believers?
In the run-up to the March 2008 General Election, we launched The People’s Declaration, which
was endorsed by six non-Barisan Nasional political parties, the three
Pakatan Rakyat parties included. And this is what it said regarding the
plan to Promote National Unity:
We
will initiate measures to build and foster unity among the various
ethnic and religious groups, having as our aim the evolution of a people
with the common aspiration of justice and equality for all. To that
end, we will:
• immediately dismantle
any and all remaining practices of “divide and rule” in public
administration from the days of the BN administration;
• cause to be established a Ministry in charge of Non-Islamic Religious Affairs;
•
put in place an affirmative action programme at Federal and all State
levels to eradicate poverty and marginalization from amongst the weak
and backward groups irrespective of race, social background and
religion;
• pay special attention to
the Orang Asli in the Peninsula and all the indigenous groups in Sabah
and Sarawak, and amend various laws and regulations pertaining to them
so that justice is served, including establishing a Commission to
protect Native Customary Rights (NCR) land and to resolve disputes
relating to such lands while respecting their traditions and customs;
• strengthen national integration by restoring the rights and privileges that were promised to the people of Sabah and Sarawak;
•
establish an independent Ethnic Relations Council, reporting directly
to Parliament to help in building a united Bangsa Malaysia;
• establish a Commission for Shari’ah Law at the Federal level;
• reduce the influence of party politics in the respective State Religious Councils, mosques and other religious institutions;
• allocate land for graves and places of worship for all faiths without any discrimination;
• increase inter-cultural and inter-religious dialogues to strengthen mutual understanding among the people; and
•
encourage the development of a Malaysian culture based on common moral
values and ideals. This requires an open attitude towards the diversity
of cultures of the various ethnic and sub-ethnic groups in the country,
taking account of the country’s history and evolution.
I
am very clear on what my agenda is. And my agenda is in writing. And we
asked Pakatan Rakyat to endorse this agenda, which they did.
More
than two years later, in 2010, we launched the Malaysian Civil
Liberties Movement (MCLM) and in a talk in London with Anwar Ibrahim,
Tian Chua and Tunku Aziz Ibrahim, we raised the issue of The People’s Declaration and emphasised that we were not happy with what we viewed as Pakatan Rakyat sidestepping this matter.
That
public chastisement of Pakatan Rakyat was not well received and
thereafter MCLM was boycotted. It appears that what we proposed above,
amongst many others, and which we thought had already been agreed upon
prior to the March 2008 General Election, was no longer the game plan.
That
is okay with me. Malaysia is, after all, a democratic country and no
one can be forced to agree to something they do not believe in. Well, a
democracy works both ways. Just as you are under no obligation to agree
to what you do not believe in, I too am under no obligation to agree to
what I do not believe in.
However, while you
are free to accept or reject whatever you want, I do not appear to have
that same freedom to do what you do. In the run-up to the March 2008
General Election, we made it very clear that we will support Pakatan
Rakyat subject to certain conditions. And one of these many conditions
included an end to racial politics and a separation of politics and
religion.
Yes, in 2008 we agree to support
Pakatan Rakyat. But the support came with certain conditions attached.
You are, of course, free to renegotiate these terms and conditions if
you want to and rescind what has been agreed. In a democracy this is
allowed. But then, in a democracy, we are also free to look at these new
terms and conditions of our relationship and decide whether we want to
accept them or not.
As far as I am
concerned, we entered into a marriage contract. And this marriage
contract was very specific. If you wish to terminate this marriage
contract then I am at liberty to reassess the marriage and decide
whether to continue with the marriage or end it.
Which part of this concept do you not understand?
Today,
Pakatan Rakyat is still allowing race and religion to interfere with
the plan to reform the country after promising back in 2008 that all
this nonsense will end. In that case, since you have done a U-turn on
what we agreed upon, does that not also allow me the right to do a
U-turn as well?
Agreements that were
bilaterally agreed cannot be unilaterally changed. That is the long and
short of it all. And if those of you reading this piece are too stupid
to understand this concept then you deserve another 50 years of
Umno-Barisan Nasional rule.
**********************************************
Karpal reminds PAS of welfare state goal
(Bernama)
- Any attempt by PAS to espouse hudud law in the country now would
reflect poorly of the decisions made during the last PAS Muktamar, DAP
chairman Karpal Singh said today.
He said
PAS president Datuk Seri Abdul Hadi Awang had, during the party’s 57th
Muktamar last June, publicly stated there was no mention of Islamic
state in the al-Quran but there was mention of welfare state.
He said this communicated that PAS had given up its aim to set up an Islamic state and opted for a welfare state.
In a statement here today, he said hudud was not included in the Pakatan Rakyat’s common policy framework Buku Jingga.
“Likewise, it will not be included in the common manifesto of Pakatan Rakyat, it cannot be,” added Karpal.
He
was commenting on a statement by PAS Youth chief Nasrudin Hassan
Tantawi that Karpal was a non-believer based on his (Karpal’s)
consistent stand in rejecting the hudud.
Karpal
said: “No one, no party, no organisation can claim to have monopoly of
God. I must state, with all the force at my command, that I believe in
God.”
Labels:
No Holds No Barred
MALAYSIA AND THE WORLD
2. The world is certainly going through…
2. The world is certainly going through terrible times. Greece is bankrupt and Spain, Portugal and Italy are doing badly in their finances. Britain is also going through a depressed economy with scandals plaguing their most respected banks.
3. Everywhere in Europe there are demonstrations by unemployed people. A lot of blame is directed at the capitalist system and the income gap between rich and poor. The latest trend is to “occupy” the main centers of capitalistic activities such as Wall Street in New York and HSBC bank in Hong Kong. This also happened in Australia.
4. America claims it has turned around and its economy is doing well. I do not believe this is the truth. There is a great deal of unemployment and real business is not coming back. Certainly we don’t see American products in the market. Much of the money is created by their Central banks (Federal Reserve Banks) which are privately owned. When they lose money they decide to regain it through “quantitative easing” i.e to print money. More correctly they only wrote cheques or transfer the money electronically into the books of the commercial banks and other institutions. Or they use this quantitative easing to bail out companies and banks.
5. It is obvious that Europe and America are not going to be able to restore their financial and economic health any time soon.
6. The rest of the world is affected in one way or another by the collapse of the economies of Europe and America. Even China is feeling the effect. Europe and America are big markets for the products of the world.
7. Electricity supply was also cut in many parts of America, Europe and Asia leaving millions in darkness and stopping work in industrial plants.
8. In the Arab countries the people have risen against the Government. There is civil war in Syria. The Rohingyas in Myanmar are being attacked and killed. The people in Iraq and Afghanistan are being killed by suicide bombers. In America a gunman sprayed bullets on a cinema audience killing 9 people and many others. In Norway a gunman went on a shooting spree in a youth camp killing 70 people.
9. Then there are the natural disasters. Floods swept through parts of Kyushu Islands in Japan recently leaving more than a score of people dead. Not long ago a tsunami and a massive earthquake hit Fukushima in northern Japan. This was followed by damage to a nuclear power plant exposing a great part of the area to radiation. Then there followed a severe flood.
10. Elsewhere in the world volcanic eruptions, earthquakes devastated towns and cities. Floods hit New York City and Bangkok and many parts of China again destroying buildings and cutting off water and electricity supplies. Whirlwinds hit the US repeatedly. In Africa people are starving to death.
11. Winter came early, was very severe and lasted longer, disrupting work and killing old people. And heat waves raised temperatures to above 40ºC, again killing the old and the weak. Global warming has resulted in the ice in the Arctic and Antarctic melting, threatening to raise sea levels and inundate low lying land. Some island nations may disappear into the sea.
12. In the face of all these disasters Malaysians can consider themselves fortunate. We do have mild floods, slightly raised temperatures and haze, but they are nothing compared to the disasters affecting so many parts of the world.
13. Crime rate has increased somewhat.
14. Even financially and economically we are not too badly off. The cost of living has gone up a little but people are not starving the way the Africans and some Asians are starving. A generous Government is ever ready to extend help.
15. Business is good even though we think it can be better. Our exports are high and still growing. Unemployment rate is low. Economic growth is still possible. At 4 – 5% it may not be as good as in Indonesia and the Philippines but it is far better than Europe or America or the countries of West Asia and North Africa.
16. Admittedly the cost of living has gone up. For the poor this is a burden. Of course on this issue, comparing ourself with most of the rest of the world where inflation is even higher will not be acceptable. But the fact is that in many countries not only is the inflation higher but there are food shortages also. In addition they have to accept reduced income amidst widespread unemployment we are living in troubled times. Like it or not we will feel the effects and we have to endure.
17. There will be people who would like us to ignore the fact that we are much better off than most people in the world. They would like to exploit every little misfortune that we may experience. They would even promise that they can bring about sudden prosperity, give free education, and all kinds of goodies. But observe the contradictions.
18. They promise the oil-producing states to increase the royalty from 5% to 20%. Obviously this will result in the Federal Government losing 15% of revenue from oil; and that is a big sum. The states gets their royalty based on gross income.
19. They will do away with road tolls, increase subsidies on fuel and reduce rates and taxes.
20. Their proposals will reduce Government revenue and at the same time increase Government expenditure. This is exactly what the Greek Government did, and the whole country went bankrupt.
21. Promises are deep. Barrack Obama promise “change”. Four years into his term, not a single change has been made.
22. To be in power for 56 years is a long time. But look at the progress. No other developing country has made such progress.
23. Change is not always for the better. Change can make things worse.
Beware of Greeks bearing gifts.
Beware of politicians who make promises.
Labels:
Tun.Mahathir
Pakatan says to channel more funds towards fighting crime
KUALA LUMPUR, July 31 —The federal opposition Pakatan Rakyat (PR) today said that it would redeploy more resources to the police for criminal investigation to cut the crime rate if…
More ►
More ▼
KUALA LUMPUR, July 31 —The federal opposition Pakatan Rakyat (PR) today said that it would redeploy more resources to the police for criminal investigation to cut the crime rate if it takes power at the next general election.
PR leaders said today the coalition’s proposals would be contained in its alternative Budget 2013 proposals.
We have decided the current need of Malaysians is crime investigation and crime prevention,” said PKR
vice-president Nurul Izzah Anwar (picture) at a press conference after PR’s weekly meeting.
PR plans to redeploy police officers from “non-priority” departments to the police’s Criminal Investigation Department (CID).
PR also pointed out that the police’s budget allocated for criminal investigation saw an overall increase of 42.27 per cent from 2010 to 2012.
The opposition pact compared it to the spending for internal security and public order which had an overall increase of 72.45 per cent in the same period of time, the highest spike in the police’s budget.
DAP’s Liew Chin Tong had earlier this month said police were given an allocation of RM4.5 billion in 2010, RM5.8 billion in 2011 and RM6.3 billion in 2012 respectively.
He had called on the authorities to review police budgetary arrangements, pointing out that police were given RM1.68 billion to tackle internal security and public order compared to RM504 million set aside for them to investigate crime this year.
Malaysians have been increasingly concerned about their safety after a spate of high-profile crime cases.
But the authorities have defended their statistics, which they say show the crime rate is on the decline, making Malaysia one of the top 20 most peaceful countries in the world based on the latest Global Peace Index (GPI).
Home Minister Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Hussein had also this month accused opposition parties of taking advantage of issues, which were of concern to Malaysians, especially the crime rate, for political mileage with the 13th general election due soon.
▲
PR leaders said today the coalition’s proposals would be contained in its alternative Budget 2013 proposals.
We have decided the current need of Malaysians is crime investigation and crime prevention,” said PKR
vice-president Nurul Izzah Anwar (picture) at a press conference after PR’s weekly meeting.PR plans to redeploy police officers from “non-priority” departments to the police’s Criminal Investigation Department (CID).
PR also pointed out that the police’s budget allocated for criminal investigation saw an overall increase of 42.27 per cent from 2010 to 2012.
The opposition pact compared it to the spending for internal security and public order which had an overall increase of 72.45 per cent in the same period of time, the highest spike in the police’s budget.
DAP’s Liew Chin Tong had earlier this month said police were given an allocation of RM4.5 billion in 2010, RM5.8 billion in 2011 and RM6.3 billion in 2012 respectively.
He had called on the authorities to review police budgetary arrangements, pointing out that police were given RM1.68 billion to tackle internal security and public order compared to RM504 million set aside for them to investigate crime this year.
Malaysians have been increasingly concerned about their safety after a spate of high-profile crime cases.
But the authorities have defended their statistics, which they say show the crime rate is on the decline, making Malaysia one of the top 20 most peaceful countries in the world based on the latest Global Peace Index (GPI).
Home Minister Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Hussein had also this month accused opposition parties of taking advantage of issues, which were of concern to Malaysians, especially the crime rate, for political mileage with the 13th general election due soon.
Labels:
PR
M'sian constitution: Supreme law of the land?
The
federal constitution, hereinafter FC, is a Janus-faced political
compact with the ramifications of an adhesion contract since the time of
its birth till today.
Some basic rights for the…
Some basic rights for the…
The
federal constitution, hereinafter FC, is a Janus-faced political
compact with the ramifications of an adhesion contract since the time of
its birth till today.
Some basic rights for the people are mentioned, but the major provisions in it are written to justify the existence of the three organs of state in the Lockean mindset with a Benthamite twist.
The record shows that no Malayan participated in the Reid Commission which was set up at the behest of the British Empire with five jurists from India, Pakistan, England and Australia charged with the task of crafting, drafting and producing a written supreme law for Malaya.
England, it seems, never had a written constitution. But it wanted one for Malaya. Mind you, the British had not even solved their own Irish problems, but they were trying to manage the Malayan affairs of state.
While reading law, we were taught that England has no written constitution, per se. Most of us did not argue as we concentrated in wanting to pass examinations.
But the Magna Carta of 1215 was a written contract between the King of England and his subjects. Our law textbooks made no mention of it.
I remember fielding the question, but I was told politely that we had to get on with the tutorial, and that there was another time and place for that question. I have never quit asking and answering that question all these years.
In America today, for example, the US constitution, is seldom invoked except when it suits a political master. One sitting US Supreme Court judge constantly reminds the lawyers who argue before the high court that the US Constitution is not a "parchment guarantee". He is in the minority.
A written constitution is a concrete document aimed at assuring the citizenry that there is a guaranteed irrevocable standard. It is not just a parchment guarantee.
In Malaysia, the constitution is what the attorney-general, or the presiding judge of a case, says it is provided it has been cleared by the Putrajaya puppeteers. In all fairness to my brethren at the Bench, there have been some exceptional judges in Malaysia.
There are still some actively serving the Bench who hold the reins of the FC with a sure grip quite unfazed by the Putrajaya punters.
Maybe the time has come for the Malaysian law fraternity to brief and argue cases not only based solely upon the facts of the instant case, the applicable statute, and the decisions of past judgments (the doctrine of stare decisis), but with the fortitude, certainty, consistency, clarity, and power of the FC, together with the applicable principles and philosophy of law, maxims, doctrines, and other principles of jurisprudence.
A totally holistic jurisprudential argument, oral and written, will make the judges aware that the law is a changing growth and not a formless code.
It will beget a superior Bar and an equally superior Bench. The Malaysian judiciary must start believing that it is a co-equal branch of government in a Westminster system of shared powers between itself, the legislature and the executive under the provisions of the FC.
The ‘Kempen PerlembagaanKu' was launched by the Bar Council's Constitutional Law Committee in 2009 to spread an awareness of what the FC means and what it is all about.
The aftermath of GE12 in 2008 may have inspired this campaign, nevertheless, the citizenry has a right to know what their constitution, as the supreme law of the land, assures and guarantees them free from an overreaching and unlimited government.
I believe the Bar Council had a serious plan to show and tell the people of Malaysia how the government of Malaysia is violating their rights on a daily basis. Maybe the courageous laudable lady of lasting legible law, Ambiga Sreenivasan, was the midwife when this baby was born.
There are some erudite epigones in Malaysia who believe that the FC is in theory the supreme law of the land. That is an appalling view to adopt. They probably believe it is not a pragmatic document. Maybe they feel there is no need to offend their sensitive political masters.
According to Article 4, the FC is the supreme law of Malaysia. Interestingly, Article 4(1) stipulates that "any law passed after Merdeka Day which is inconsistent with this constitution shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be void."
I call this the Inconsistency Clause. Keep in mind that no Malayan was involved when the FC was undergoing its very own peculiar birth pangs and pain.
It is obvious and evident that the Reid Commission's five jurists did not address the occasion when a pre-Merdeka law may be repealed, or amended, by a future legislature to the sway and swing of political winds generated by a powerful executive.
Our judges should gravitate toward this constitutional solution to any politically motivated constitutional amendment, and declare that act of Parliament as a violation of Article 4(4).
Why have a written supreme law with a supreme legislature threatening a head-on collision with its own power to make or unmake any law? But the Inconsistency Clause of Article 4 (1) is supposed to shackle a supreme legislature.
Interestingly Article 4(4) gives a Federal Court judge the power of judicial review in tandem with Article 162(6). But do our judges use this authority, if not their right, to exercise a judicial power vested in them by an implied reading of Article 121? That judicial power was the sine qua non of the Malaysian judiciary prior to the 1988 judicial juggling and jousting when the judges' jugulars were exposed and threatened.
Our FC stands in mute testimony to the vagaries and uncertainties of parliamentary enactments, coupled with a good measure of mockery by the political masters. Instead of being revered, respected, and regarded as the supreme law of the land, the FC is generally unused, or wantonly abused, if not recklessly misused depending on who is standing in the dock.
Constitutional amendments over the years since Merdeka have not etched any advantage or benefit for the rakyat although it has fattened the hopes and aspirations of the occupants of Putrajaya.
I can only hope that the Agong takes the FC's Article 39 seriously as the safe haven and abode of executive authority because the prime minister, in whom all unconstitutional executive powers are vested, stands on shaky ground under Article 43(4) if he is unable to command the confidence of the majority of the members of the Dewan Rakyat.
Perhaps GE13 will change all that.
Some basic rights for the people are mentioned, but the major provisions in it are written to justify the existence of the three organs of state in the Lockean mindset with a Benthamite twist.
The record shows that no Malayan participated in the Reid Commission which was set up at the behest of the British Empire with five jurists from India, Pakistan, England and Australia charged with the task of crafting, drafting and producing a written supreme law for Malaya.
England, it seems, never had a written constitution. But it wanted one for Malaya. Mind you, the British had not even solved their own Irish problems, but they were trying to manage the Malayan affairs of state.
While reading law, we were taught that England has no written constitution, per se. Most of us did not argue as we concentrated in wanting to pass examinations.
But the Magna Carta of 1215 was a written contract between the King of England and his subjects. Our law textbooks made no mention of it.
I remember fielding the question, but I was told politely that we had to get on with the tutorial, and that there was another time and place for that question. I have never quit asking and answering that question all these years.
In America today, for example, the US constitution, is seldom invoked except when it suits a political master. One sitting US Supreme Court judge constantly reminds the lawyers who argue before the high court that the US Constitution is not a "parchment guarantee". He is in the minority.
A written constitution is a concrete document aimed at assuring the citizenry that there is a guaranteed irrevocable standard. It is not just a parchment guarantee.
In Malaysia, the constitution is what the attorney-general, or the presiding judge of a case, says it is provided it has been cleared by the Putrajaya puppeteers. In all fairness to my brethren at the Bench, there have been some exceptional judges in Malaysia.
There are still some actively serving the Bench who hold the reins of the FC with a sure grip quite unfazed by the Putrajaya punters.
Maybe the time has come for the Malaysian law fraternity to brief and argue cases not only based solely upon the facts of the instant case, the applicable statute, and the decisions of past judgments (the doctrine of stare decisis), but with the fortitude, certainty, consistency, clarity, and power of the FC, together with the applicable principles and philosophy of law, maxims, doctrines, and other principles of jurisprudence.
A totally holistic jurisprudential argument, oral and written, will make the judges aware that the law is a changing growth and not a formless code.
It will beget a superior Bar and an equally superior Bench. The Malaysian judiciary must start believing that it is a co-equal branch of government in a Westminster system of shared powers between itself, the legislature and the executive under the provisions of the FC.
The ‘Kempen PerlembagaanKu' was launched by the Bar Council's Constitutional Law Committee in 2009 to spread an awareness of what the FC means and what it is all about.
The aftermath of GE12 in 2008 may have inspired this campaign, nevertheless, the citizenry has a right to know what their constitution, as the supreme law of the land, assures and guarantees them free from an overreaching and unlimited government.
I believe the Bar Council had a serious plan to show and tell the people of Malaysia how the government of Malaysia is violating their rights on a daily basis. Maybe the courageous laudable lady of lasting legible law, Ambiga Sreenivasan, was the midwife when this baby was born.
There are some erudite epigones in Malaysia who believe that the FC is in theory the supreme law of the land. That is an appalling view to adopt. They probably believe it is not a pragmatic document. Maybe they feel there is no need to offend their sensitive political masters.
According to Article 4, the FC is the supreme law of Malaysia. Interestingly, Article 4(1) stipulates that "any law passed after Merdeka Day which is inconsistent with this constitution shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be void."
I call this the Inconsistency Clause. Keep in mind that no Malayan was involved when the FC was undergoing its very own peculiar birth pangs and pain.
It is obvious and evident that the Reid Commission's five jurists did not address the occasion when a pre-Merdeka law may be repealed, or amended, by a future legislature to the sway and swing of political winds generated by a powerful executive.
Our judges should gravitate toward this constitutional solution to any politically motivated constitutional amendment, and declare that act of Parliament as a violation of Article 4(4).
Why have a written supreme law with a supreme legislature threatening a head-on collision with its own power to make or unmake any law? But the Inconsistency Clause of Article 4 (1) is supposed to shackle a supreme legislature.
Interestingly Article 4(4) gives a Federal Court judge the power of judicial review in tandem with Article 162(6). But do our judges use this authority, if not their right, to exercise a judicial power vested in them by an implied reading of Article 121? That judicial power was the sine qua non of the Malaysian judiciary prior to the 1988 judicial juggling and jousting when the judges' jugulars were exposed and threatened.
Our FC stands in mute testimony to the vagaries and uncertainties of parliamentary enactments, coupled with a good measure of mockery by the political masters. Instead of being revered, respected, and regarded as the supreme law of the land, the FC is generally unused, or wantonly abused, if not recklessly misused depending on who is standing in the dock.
Constitutional amendments over the years since Merdeka have not etched any advantage or benefit for the rakyat although it has fattened the hopes and aspirations of the occupants of Putrajaya.
I can only hope that the Agong takes the FC's Article 39 seriously as the safe haven and abode of executive authority because the prime minister, in whom all unconstitutional executive powers are vested, stands on shaky ground under Article 43(4) if he is unable to command the confidence of the majority of the members of the Dewan Rakyat.
Perhaps GE13 will change all that.
Labels:
Federal Cons
Panel on rally to seek foreign experts' views
The New Straits Times
by ALANG BENDAHARA
More ►
More ▼
by ALANG BENDAHARA
ROUND-TABLE TALKS: Aim is to get them to assist police on how to handle crowds, says Hanif
PUTRAJAYA:
THE six-member independent advisory panel,…
The New Straits Times
by ALANG BENDAHARA
▲
by ALANG BENDAHARA
ROUND-TABLE TALKS: Aim is to get them to assist police on how to handle crowds, says Hanif
PUTRAJAYA:
THE six-member independent advisory panel, which has been tasked to
gather details of riots during the April 28 Bersih 3.0 rally in Kuala
Lumpur, has invited foreign experts to share their experience.
The experts have handled rallies and demonstrations in the United Kingdom, the United States, Canada and Pakistan.
Panel chairman Tun Hanif Omar met with representatives at the panel's 9th meeting here yesterday.
"The
aim is to get them to assist us on how to handle such situations. We
want to know what the laws are which they used to manage the crowds.
"And
to what extent of the United Nations' protocol on the use of force,
protection of media and basic SOPs (standard operating procedures) they
adopted to control and manage crowds.
"The idea is to have a round table conference, so that our police and the experts can exchange ideas."
Hanif hoped the round-table talks would be convened in a month's time.
"The panel decided on the four countries as their local authorities recently handled situations similar to Bersih," he added.
Hanif said the panel was also planning to rope in experts from London's metropolitan police.
At
yesterday's session, Hanif met with Prasarana Rail Division group
director Khairani Mohamed, Prasarana Bus Division group director Zohari
Sulaiman, AlHijrah Media Corporation cameraman Mohd Azri Mohd Salleh,
Makkal Osai newspaper photographer P. Malayanadi, two policemen and four
Kuala Lumpur City Hall officers.
Two Bombs Rock Pattani
By Jamaluddin Muhammad
BANGKOK, July 31 (Bernama) -- Two bombs rocked Pattani Tuesday night including a hotel which was bombed for the second time within four years.
A Pattani police…
More ►
More ▼
BANGKOK, July 31 (Bernama) -- Two bombs rocked Pattani Tuesday night including a hotel which was bombed for the second time within four years.
A Pattani police…
By Jamaluddin Muhammad
BANGKOK, July 31 (Bernama) -- Two bombs rocked Pattani Tuesday night including a hotel which was bombed for the second time within four years.
A Pattani police spokesman said a car bomb exploded behind the CS Hotel at 7.15pm (Malaysian time: 8.15pm) causing the hotel to catch fire right up to the seventh floor.
All guests were immediately evacuated from the hotel and only one person sustained minor injury. Initial police investigations showed that a 10-kg homemade bomb was hidden in the car which was parked near the hotel's kitchen.
"I could feel the impact of the bomb as my house is situated just about 100 metres from the hotel," said a local journalist who declined to be identified. The second bomb exploded at the Paknam area, a few minutes after the first bomb was detonated.
The eight-storey CS Hotel was first bombed in 2008 which resulted in three deaths and 10 injuries.
▲
BANGKOK, July 31 (Bernama) -- Two bombs rocked Pattani Tuesday night including a hotel which was bombed for the second time within four years.
A Pattani police spokesman said a car bomb exploded behind the CS Hotel at 7.15pm (Malaysian time: 8.15pm) causing the hotel to catch fire right up to the seventh floor.
All guests were immediately evacuated from the hotel and only one person sustained minor injury. Initial police investigations showed that a 10-kg homemade bomb was hidden in the car which was parked near the hotel's kitchen.
"I could feel the impact of the bomb as my house is situated just about 100 metres from the hotel," said a local journalist who declined to be identified. The second bomb exploded at the Paknam area, a few minutes after the first bomb was detonated.
The eight-storey CS Hotel was first bombed in 2008 which resulted in three deaths and 10 injuries.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)