Pope's butler leaked papers to shock 'corrupt' Church, prosecutor says

By Richard Allen Greene and Hada Messia, CNN

Pope Benedict XVI's butler will be tried on an aggravated theft charge over the leaking of hundreds of secret papers from the pope's personal apartment to an Italian journalist, a Vatican spokesman said Monday.

The butler, Paolo Gabriele, acted out of a desire to combat "evil and corruption everywhere in the Church," according to a prosecutor in the case.

"I was certain that a shock ... would have been healthy to bring the church back onto the right track," the prosecutor, Nicola Piccardi, wrote in a report released Monday by the Vatican.

A second man, Vatican IT expert Claudio Sciarpelletti, will be charged with aiding Gabriele, according to the Rev. Federico Lombardi, a Vatican spokesman.

Sciarpelletti is not suspected of conspiring with Gabriele, merely assisting him, and is not under arrest, Lombardi said.

The investigation is continuing, said Lombardi, raising the possibility of more arrests.

The trials are not expected to start before September 20, Lombardi said.

Gabriele, one of the pope's closest personal assistants, was arrested in May on suspicion of passing the papers to an Italian journalist. He faces the possibility of one to six years behind bars, Lombardi said.

The scandal has rocked the Catholic Church hierarchy and could even affect who becomes the next pope.

CNN’s Belief Blog: The faith angles behind the biggest stories

It could be an effort to unseat Benedict's secretary of state, Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, who will run the conclave to choose the next pope if he is in office when Benedict dies, according to the Rev. Thomas Reese, author of "Inside the Vatican."

Gabriele was held in a special Vatican cell for about a month and a half before being released to house arrest in July.

The Vatican said Gabriele cooperated with investigators and admits leaking the papers, which consisted of faxes, letters and memos, including some from a high-ranking church official expressing concerns about corruption within the Vatican.

The arrest followed a top-level Vatican investigation into how the private documents appeared in the best-selling book "Sua Santita" ("His Holiness") by Italian journalist Gianluigi Nuzzi.

The Vatican called the publication of his book "criminal" when it was released in Italian.

Copies of some documents used in the book were found in the butler's apartment, according to the judge's report released Monday.

Follow the CNN Belief Blog on Twitter

Gabriele was not paid for handing over the papers, according to the judge, Piero Antonio Bonnet.

Cardinal Julian Herranz got a "pontifical mandate" in April to uncover the source of hundreds of personal letters and confidential documents that made their way to Nuzzi.

Nuzzi would not confirm the identity of his sources, but he told CNN that his primary source - whom he referred to as "Maria" in his book - "risked life and limb" if ever found out.

The source worked inside the Vatican, according to Nuzzi, who refused to give other details such as the source's gender, age and if he or she was clergy.

Nuzzi's book highlights an internal power struggle within the Vatican through numerous documents, including faxes, personal letters and inter-Vatican memos. He told CNN that he received the documents during a year of private meetings in secret locations.

The Vatican has not denied the authenticity of the documents but instead says the breach of privacy is a criminal act.

–Journalist Barbie Nadeau in Rome contributed to this report.

Immigration nabs 52 illegals

Fatal flaw in the RM180 million allocation to Indians

By Jeyaseelen Anthony

Recently our Prime Minister had announced an allocation of RM180 million to uplift the economic standing of the Indian community.

It was indeed a major announcement and a big step forward on the part of the government to help the Indian community. However in practice whether this allocation will help Indians in the long run is doubtful.

Malaysia is still plagued by discriminatory policies which favour the majority bumiputera races. Announcing an allocation is rather easy but making the money usable for business or social purposes is another.

Take for example a real incident highlighted by Senator Dr S Ramakrishnan recently and I quote:

"One of my cousins wanted to import goats from Myanmar sometime in 2006. When he went to the Customs and Agriculture department for permits to import, he was told that he can only import under a bumiputera name.

"My cousin then went looking for a trusted bumiputra partner to import goats or at least lend his name for that purpose and he managed to find one. He imported goats and sold them in Malaysia.

"After the first import the bumiputera partner went to Myanmar and started importing himself. My cousin lost a reliable source of supply and income.

"This is how many small time Indian businessmen incur losses and face difficulty in doing business in Malaysia. My cousin was so frustrated that he brought many friends to the Hindraf rally on 25th November 2007.

"He also has buses transporting workers. He has to get a bumiputera to get a permit and pay a monthly fee to him for doing nothing. No other country in the world has this kind of cunning and malicious restrictions on its own citizens to do business."

Article 153: Intent, spirit and unfair implementation

Many non -bumiputeras face this problem. All this is done in the name of Article 153 of the Federal Constitution which provides for preferential treatment in favour of the bumiputera. Let's take a look at what Article 153 is all about.

It is implicit in Article 153(1) that "It shall be the responsibility of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong (YDPA) to safeguard the special position of the Malays and the natives of Sabah and Sarawak and the legitimate interest of other communities".

To set the record straight, the phrase ‘legitimate interest of other communities' means that it does not allow simply any kind of preferential treatment in favour of the ‘bumiputera'.

It is not a ‘blank cheque' but it merely confers limited powers on the government and Parliament, pursuant to Article 153, to derogate from the principle of equality and equal protection of the law.

The implementation of Article 153 has often been the bone of contention as many have argued that its implementation has been at expense of the other races in Malaysia.

For example, although Article 153 provides for quotas only for the issuance permits and licenses to the bumiputera, however, even government commercial contracts have been awarded solely to bumiputera companies, which is clearly not sanctioned under the Federal Constitution.

Even government linked companies (GLCs) and statutory bodies assign their work solely to bumiputera companies and some major banks assign their legal work only to bumiputera legal firms.

GLCs and local authority procurement and infrastructure building contracts are mostly given to bumiputera companies.

For example, local authority contracts for infrastructure building are solely given to Class F (not to forget the other types licenses like Class A etc under the purview of the Finance Ministry) licensed contractors, which is a type of license only given to bumiputera contractors although nothing in Article 153 of the Federal Constitution permits Parliament to restrict business and trade solely to bumiputeras for the purpose of reservation of quotas.

The issuance of vehicle AP's solely to the bumiputera is another example of a policy and system that is unconstitutional as it is against Article 153.

I now question how is the RM180 million allocation useful to the Indian community in view of these restrictions?

Allow me to digress here: The majority of employees at the GLCs and some major banks are Malay bumiputeras although the Federal Constitution only provides for reservation of quotas in the public service.

Ethnic quotas are imposed on private companies by government agencies and licensing is used as a way to get private companies to observe bumiputera quotas, a policy which is clearly against the Federal Constitution as Article 153 only provides for reservation of quotas in the public service.

Although Article 136 of the Federal Constitution provides for impartiality in the public sector, there have been complaints by the non-bumiputeras in the various government departments that they have been deprived from getting promotions or have been sidelined in favour of bumiputera candidates.

This explains why the non-bumiputeras shy away from seeking employment in the government sector and unfortunately it also explains the current brain drain that is currently plaguing our country.

These are several examples where the implementation of affirmative action policies has clearly gone beyond the limits of Article 153 of the Federal Constitution and has gone wrong.

The problem that is quite apparent here is that although the Yang Dipertuan Agong, after acting on advice of the Cabinet, is bound to give binding directions to the relevant authorities to ensure the reservation of quotas in the public sector, scholarships and permits or licenses in favour of the bumiputera, no one knows for certain what the percentage of the quotas are.

Is it 50%, 70% or 95% in favour of the bumiputera?

It is surprising to note that the Prime Minister had announced this RM180 million allocation without even looking at the realities on the ground.

I believe that the weaknesses of the government's policies must be repaired first before announcing any allocations to uplift any community.

With the type of restrictions and limitations pervading the non-bumiputera communities under the guise of Article 153 of the Federal Constitution, it would not be difficult to realize that the allocation given to the Indian community for business purposes will be futile.

Deterioration in race relations: What is the cause?

It cannot be denied that the improper and arbitrary application of affirmative action policies as provided under Article 153 has contributed significantly to the deteriorating race relations in Malaysia.

The deprivation of equal opportunities has caused racial tensions to run high in recent years. Therefore in order to improve race relations between the bumiputera and the non-bumiputera in Malaysia there should be legislative intervention.

The number of quotas and restrictions and qualifications in favour of the bumiputera are not well defined or specified under the Federal Constitution.

This loophole has led to the unfair, unbalanced and unreasonable implementation of Article 153. A race relations law must be introduced in Malaysia in order to remedy the imbalances and unfairness that has led to discrimination.

The intention and purpose of Article 153(1) when read as whole clearly provide for a balance between two competing interests, namely the protection of the special position of the bumiputera and at the same time safeguarding the legitimate interest of other communities as well.

However ambiguity arises when one realizes that the scope and meaning of the words "legitimate interest of the other communities" are not defined in the Federal Constitution.

Even the courts have not decided on this issue as the scope and ambit of provisions like Article 153 has not been litigated before in Malaysia, in the way it has been done in the USA and India. This lacuna in the Federal Constitution poses a problem to good race relations in Malaysia.

This is where I believe that an effective and well drafted Race Relations Act is needed.

Reasons for enacting race relations law

A comprehensive race relations law will provide the balance that the original drafters of the Federal Constitution had intended when they inserted the words "legitimate interest of the other communities" into Article 153 of the Federal Constitution.

A law on race relations would help prevent discrimination and promote equality in all spheres of life which affect Malaysians from all the different races.

There are two sides of the coin in support of this argument. On the one side, the bumiputera are protected from discrimination and at the same time their special position under the Federal Constitution is also preserved.

On the other, the non-bumiputera are also protected against discrimination in the spirit of protecting the legitimate interest of other communities as provided under Article 153.

A race relations law will not affect the special position of the bumiputera as widely believed by many i.e. a reasonable reservation of quotas can still be maintained in the areas specified under the Federal Constitution but if there are areas where a particular racial group is under represented in a particular trade or work area then the governing authority on race relations or the minister tasked to manage and regulate race relations under a race relations legislation will be empowered take remedial actions to solve the problem.

The Race Relations Act 1976 and the Race Relations Amendment Act 2000 (now replaced by the Equality Act 2010) in the UK, for example provides for such measures.

A Race Relations Commission can be created under the Act to implement the provisions of the Act and ensure the enforcement of the Act.

In fact the Yang Di-Pertuan Agong under Article 153 is bound to act on the advice of the Cabinet or a Minister acting under the authority of the Cabinet.

As such if the cabinet or the minister finds that there is indeed under representation of a particular racial group in a particular vocation or trade or sector and decides to take remedial actions, the Yang Di-Pertuan Agong is bound to act on that advice.

The current system clearly shows that the bumiputeras are over represented in many areas of employment in the public sector, in the government and the local authorities, in government and local authority procurement and in the public universities, etc.

This over representation has created a perception that the government is imposing exorbitant and unreasonable reservation of quotas in the areas mentioned in the Federal Constitution.

Surely, this is not what the Reid Commission had intended. In fact it is clear from the wordings of Article 153(1) that the drafters of the Federal Constitution did not envisage a system where reverse discrimination would be the order of the day.

The time has indeed arrived to see whether implementing quotas under affirmative action provisions are the way to go in light of the fact that globalisation has created a more competitive world where meritocracy is the order of the day, as compared to the time when the Federal Constitution was drafted in 1957 in particular Article 153.

Affirmative action should not be cause for economic stagnation. In fact the Reid Commission had intended that the communal-based policies would be eventually eradicated from the country's political and economic spheres.

Malaysia aspires to become a high income nation and to achieve this status we need to do away with raced-based policies that are currently plaguing our system.

The only way to create a conducive and market friendly business environment and to get the private sector to be the catalyst for the creation of a high income nation is to ultimately eliminate race based policies in all sectors of business and society.
_________________________________________________________________________________
Jeyaseelen Anthony is an advocate and solicitor (non-practicing) and was also a member of the Bar Council Law Reform Committee. This article first appeared in Centre for Policy Initiatives( CPI).

No cop hurt during Bersih rally, Suhakam inquiry told

KUALA LUMPUR, Aug 13 — No policeman was injured in the chaotic April 28 rally for free elections here, contrary to reports that officers were wounded by demonstrators and which were allegedly used to encourage reprisals by the force, the Human Rights Commission (Suhakam) inquiry heard today.

Insp Norazmee Mohamed, from the Dang Wangi police station here, said he was not aware of any police officer being injured in clashes that had sprouted in several spots leading to Dataran Merdeka and the venue of the rally organised by electoral reform group Bersih.

“I was not informed of any injuries sustained by my officers,” he told a three-man panel led by Suhakam vice-chairman Datuk Dr Khaw Lake Tee (picture).

“If indeed an officer was injured, it is the standard operating procedure (SOP) to inform me but I did not receive any information,” he said.

Norazmee was the second person called to testify today, after another police officer, ASP Ahamad Jais Ujang.

Norazmee said he had been briefed earlier in the day on April 28 by Ahamad, who was his superior, and told to form a human barricade around Dataran Merdeka.

“I was there to monitor 300 officers under my control. We received orders to form a human barricade outside Dataran Merdeka.

“We were told to stand and guard the barricade,” he said.

Norazmee told the panel the crowd began dismantling the barbed wire barricade at 1pm, forcing policemen to retreat and take cover behind a Federal Reserve Unit (FRU) truck.

“The crowd marched in and threw stones and bottles at us. They also uttered profanities.

“I ordered my men to retreat, fearing for their safety,” he added.

The inspector said he did not make any arrests that day.

When questioned by Bar Council lawyers, he said the situation at Dataran Merdeka would have been more chaotic if the FRU did not fire tear gas.

“That was the only thing we had to make the crowd disperse,” he said.

Ahamad, who was in charge of keeping demonstrators from entering the blocked-off Dataran Merdeka, testified earlier that he had been informed that two officers had been injured by demonstrators.

“My OCPD told me in a briefing that a PEMANDU officer and a traffic policeman were also injured when the police made arrests during the rally,” said Ahamad.

He did not disclose the identities of the injured or offer further information on the PEMANDU official, but was likely referring to a representative from the government’s Performance and Delivery Unit, the efficiency agency under the Prime Minister’s Department.

Ahamad, who heads the police’s religious and counselling unit, said he was only informed of the incident from his superior officer after he went back to the Police Training Centre (Pulapol) in Jalan Semarak.

Ahamad also told the inquiry that he directed the policemen under his charge against being violent or reacting emotionally towards the crowd and to stay calm, even if they were provoked.

“My orders were clear. I told all my 1,000 officers not to react in any unruly manner.

“I also told them not to make any arrests, if possible,” he said.

Despite his orders, Ahamad said a few officers had arrested several people after the crowd broke through a barbed-wire barricade and entered Dataran Merdeka. He noted that the time then was about 3pm.

“I saw an officer arresting a man wearing a yellow T-shirt. I asked him who gave him orders to make arrests but my officer kept mum,” he said.

“The arrests may have happened when my officers felt things were getting out of control and felt they should make arrests,” he said.

He added that he then took those detained to Pulapol for further action.

Ahamad said he saw many of the detainees were injured and bleeding.

“My officers should not have used violence on the crowd. They were ordered to use minimal violence to control them,” he said.

Ahamad did not submit any reports or videos of his operations that day as he was unsure if it was needed.

“I was merely looking out for the well-being of my officers. I did not see anything wrong happen that day, except for incidents where my officers injured a few detainees.

“Arresting people was not my job, so I did not submit any reports to the OCPD,” he said.

However, Ahamad said he believed the perpetrators who tore down the barricade outside Dataran Merdeka had been arrested.

He also added he has no knowledge of any journalist being arrested that day.

The inquiry continues on August 15.

Anwar gives proof of Umno’s hand in Utusan

In his RM50 million defamation suit against Utusan, PKR leader Anwar Ibrahim provides the court with Utusan's 2010 annual report.

KUALA LUMPUR: PKR de facto leader Anwar Ibrahim revealed today that Umno owned 49.77 % of Utusan Malaysia’s shares, adding that this proved that the newspaper was owned by the party.

Anwar told the High Court that based on Utusan’s 2010 annual report, Umno owned some RM55 million worth of shares and therefore had a say in the newspaper’s direction.

“All parties that have an interest in a company control more than 33% of its shares. The names of the Utusan directors were all determined by Umno.

“All of this is enough to prove that Umno has full control over Utusan,” he said.

In January, Anwar had filed a RM50 million suit against Utusan and its editor-in-chief Abdul Aziz Ishak for allegedly implying that he wanted to legalise homosexuality.

The Utusan front page article, published on Jan 15, referred to a BBC report and alleged that Anwar had said the laws on homosexuality in Malaysia were “archaic” and “not relevant”.

The articles were titled “Tolak Anwar-Hassan” (Reject Anwar-Hassan) and “Parasit ancam PAS, Anwar mesti ditolak” (PAS threatened by parasites, Anwar must be rejected).

Anwar had said the defendants had falsely and maliciously printed words defamatory of him, and claimed that this was due to the fact that the broadsheet was Umno-owned.

He was then asked to furnish proof of this by Utusan’s legal counsel, Firoz Hussein.

Today, Firoz challenged Anwar by pointing out that at 49.77%, Umno did not own the majority of Utusan’s shares and was not the owner of the daily.

“If the lawyer is asking that, this means he does not understand that ownership of a company means having the control to guide the company,” Anwar responded.

“Utusan is a public-listed company, so not all shareholders must be Umno members. But there is one major controller, which is Umno,” he added.

Anwar also claimed that many of the other shareholders in the annual report were linked to Umno, citing Hussein Nordin Sdn Bhd as proof.

However, he did not bring any evidence to back up his claim, pointing out that he had only been requested to bring proof of Umno’s links to Utusan.

“Umno owns Utusan, and this is the first time in history someone has denied it,” Anwar joked.

‘PM’s rep on Utusan’s board’

Anwar also told the court that Tengku Sariffuddin Tengku Ahmad, who is on Utusan’s board of directors, was a representative of Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak.

“He is the prime minister’s media and press official. He has been given important responsibilities such as signing the Malaysian government’s agreement with APCO Washington,” he told the court.

“Usually such a task is the responsibility of the Finance Ministry. Yet Sariffuddin was the one to sign it, and he sits on Utusan’s board of directors,” said Anwar.

Anwar was represented by N Surendran, Latheefa Koya and Murnie Hidayah Anuar. Utusan was also represented by Hafarizam Harun and Wan Azmir Wan Majid.

High Court judge VT Singham presided over the case.

‘Wrong to spy on wrongdoers’

Anwar also defended his statement to BBC that current laws were “archaic” and needed to be reviewed.

Citing three texts by Islamic scholars Dr Yusuf Qardawi and Al Mawardi, Anwar said that it was wrong for public officers to interfere in people’s private domain.

“With regard to acts that are haram [forbidden], the public officer cannot try to spy [on the people] or expose the people’s wrongdoings,” he said.

However, he agreed with Firoz that the texts stated there were exceptions to this ruling if an “honest eyewitness” reported the acts of transgression to the public officer.

Also read:

Female workers refused leave to appeal

The court rules that the issue of gender has been addressed.

PUTRAJAYA: The Federal Court here today refused an application of leave to appeal by eight former female workers who claimed gender discrimination on their retirement age.

Noting that the government had addressed the issue of gender in view of the recently passed Bill on the minimum retirement age for the private sector, Court of Appeal president Md Raus Shariff, who chaired a five-member panel, said, “As far as we are concerned, the government has taken steps and the issue of gender has been addressed.”

He also noted that the applicants, who were former employees of Guppy Plastic Industries Sdn Bhd, had failed to meet the requirements under Section 96 of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964.

The panel, which also comprised Chief Judge of Malaya Zulkefli Ahmad Makinudin, Federal Court judge Suriyadi Halim Omar, Ahmad Ma’arop and Jeffrey Tan Kok Wha unanimously dismissed the group’s application.

The eight – Gan Soh Eng, 61, M.Janama, 64, I Iyyamah, 65, V Pereyarka, 64, S Danalachumy, 63, S Tolasiamah, 63, P Marri, 65, and S Letchmi, 62 – had sought leave to appeal a March 21 Court of Appeal decision which did not favour them.

The Court of Appeal had upheld a High Court decision allowing Guppy Plastic Industries a judicial review to quash an Industrial Court’s decision that the women were dismissed without just cause or excuse.

The eight women, who were employed as production operators, cleaners and general workers by Guppy Plastic Industries, claimed they were forced to retire in June 2001 after the company enforced a rule stipulating 50 and 55 as the retirement ages for female and male employees respectively.

The women were represented by lawyer Ragunath Kesavan, who had earlier contended that there were two legal issues concerning Article 8 of the Federal Constitution and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), which required the determination of the Federal Court.

Counsel Wong Keat Ching, who appeared for the company, however, submitted that the legal questions posed were academic in view of the Bill passed by Parliament in June this year, stating that the retirement age was 60 years for all private sector employees.

She added that at the material time, there was no law or ministerial guideline to set the retirement age and her client had adopted the policy used by other plastic companies.

Wong said with the newly passed Bill, the collective agreements of the company would now change.

Bernama

PTPTN loans: RM70.2m allocated to students

The government committed in providing education funding to all Malaysians, says the corporation

TEMERLOH: The National Higher Education Fund Corporation (PTPTN) has allocated RM70.2 million in Sponsorship Advanced Payment (WPP) to 46,824 students for the September intake into public and private higher learning institutions, said its chairman, Ismail Mohamad Said.

He said the WPP of RM1,500 per student would allow them to make various payments, thus reducing their burden, adding that up till July 31, PTPTN had distributed RM856.9 million in WPP to 583,634 students.

“Up till July, PTPTN had given out loans totalling more than RM44 billion to 1.94 million students to further their studies locally and abroad,” he told reporters at the breaking of fast gathering in Kampung Peragap Kerdau, here yesterday.

He said the allocation increased every year following the large number of students who managed to get places for further studies.

According to him, the allocation proved that the government was committed in providing education funding to all Malaysians regardless of race or political affiliation.

Bernama

Uthayakumar’s bail forfeited

For failing to turn up in court on time, the Hindraf leader had to cough up a new RM15,000 bail today after the sessions court hearing his sedition trial forfeited RM7,000 from his previous bail amount

PETALING JAYA: The Kuala Lumpur Sessions Court which is hearing the sedition trial of P Uthayakumar today forfeited RM7,000 of the Hindraf leader’s RM10,000 bail for failing to turn up at a previous hearing.

Judge Ahmad Zamzani Mohd Zain today also imposed a new bail of RM15,000 upon Uthayakumar, who had to be detained until he could pay up the bail amount.

Complaining about this new turn of events to FMT, Uthayakumar said that this was “unprecedented” move by the court that “does not show that justice is being done”.

Uthayakumar said that on the July 27 hearing, in which he turned up one hour and 10 minutes late, the court had even issued a warrant of arrest against him (it was subsequently cancelled).

“I turned up late because I was waiting for a High Court judge to obtain an interim stay on the proceedings that day. This was unheard of; normally when you are held up by a higher court, the lower court should wait for you,” he said.

According to Uthayakumar, he made four applications today in his attempt to defend himself against the sedition charge.

“First, I submitted that there is double jeopardy in this case as I was already detained two days later under the Internal Security Act [ISA] when I was charged with sedition in 2007. I have already been punished for 17 months. It overlapped,” he said.

Uthayakumar said that he also made applications to say that the charge against him was “groundless” as there are elements, such as the existence of the website where he allegedly wrote the seditious article, that cannot be proven.

He had also submitted that the charge against him was a “politically motivated charge” and a “malicious prosecution”.

The judge, according to Uthayakumar, had dismissed all four applications. He he said that he will be appealing to the High Court.

‘Withdraw the charge’

Uthayakumar, whose case is still ongoing today and will be heard again on Sept 18, is represented by lawyer M Manoharan while deputy public prosecutor Noorin Badaruddin prosecuted.

The 49-year-old former ISA detainee was charged in the Kuala Lumpur Sessions Court on Dec 11, 2007, with publishing a seditious letter on the “Police Watch Malaysia” website, dated Nov 15, 2007, addressed to then prime minister of Britain, Gordon Brown.

Meanwhile, Uthayakumar is also seeking a review of the ruling of the Federal Court which had validated his sedition charge, in view of the recent announcement made by Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak to repeal the Sedition Act 1948.

In his notice of motion filed last week, Uthayakumar had argued that there were special circumstances for the Federal Court to review the June 25 decision to dismiss Uthayakumar’s appeal and rule that the Sedition Act was a valid Act.

Previously, the Kuala Lumpur High Court rejected Uthayakumar’s application to declare the Sedition Act unconstitutional. He also lost both his appeals at the Court of Appeal and the Federal Court.

Uthayakumar said today: “If the government is announcing the abolishing of the death penalty, you can’t be sending people to the gallows. Similarly, in the spirit of Najib’s recent announcement, the charge against me ought to be withdrawn,” he said.

What are the Islamic authorities up to?

IN 2011, Islamic authorities raided a church suspected of proselytising to Muslims. In 2012, it was Borders and ZI Publications (ZIP), over Irshad Manji’s book Allah, Liberty and Love. These institutions are non-Muslim entities. Yet, because Islam or Muslims were somehow involved, this seemed to give licence to religious authorities to enter non-Muslim premises, conduct searches, confiscate items, carry out interviews and charge individuals.
It would seem that over the past years, the powers of the Islamic religious authorities have inexorably expanded. At the same time, non-Muslims and non-Muslim organisations, including the civil court, are often told they cannot intervene in matters pertaining to Islam.
But does the law give Islamic authorities an automatic say the moment Islam or Muslims are involved? Does only the syariah court have jurisdiction over Islamic matters?
Islam and syariah courts
To answer this question, let’s look at the Federal Constitution, the supreme law of the land, and judgements by the Federal Court, the highest court of the land.
The constitution tells us that not all matters relating to Islam fall under the syariah court’s jurisdiction. The constitution gives states the power to make laws on Islamic law, and personal and family law of persons professing the religion of Islam. The constitution’s ninth schedule spells out what this means by listing out matters such as succession, marriage, divorce and zakat. States also have the power to set up syariah courts to adjudicate on these laws.
But the constitution doesn’t give syariah courts exclusive jurisdiction over all Islamic matters. It only gives syariah courts powers to determine those matters spelt out in the ninth schedule, which states have legislated upon.
This was made clear in the 2007 Federal Court decision of Abdul Kahar Ahmad v Kerajaan Negeri Selangor. The Federal Court was petitioned to declare several state enactments pertaining to Islamic law invalid for being unconstitutional. The Majlis Agama Islam Selangor objected, stating this was a question for the Syariah Court, not the Federal Court.
Tun Abdul Hamid Mohamad, who was Chief Justice then, firmly rejected this. He said that nowhere in the constitution did it state that interpreting the constitution was something within the syariah courts’ jurisdiction. Conversely, the constitution does give the Federal Court exclusive power to determine whether any law is invalid, including laws pertaining to Islam.
The Majlis Agama had cited Article 121(1A), which states that civil courts will not have jurisdiction over matters within the syariah court’s jurisdiction. The Chief Justice said yes, that was correct. But if the syariah court didn’t have jurisdiction in the first place, as was the case in Abdul Kahar Ahmad v Kerajaan Negeri Selangor, then that article could not apply. Article 121(1A) was never meant to oust the civil court’s jurisdiction in existing areas in favour of the syariah court.

The next point to consider is that just because something is deemed un-Islamic doesn’t automatically make it illegal. The constitution stipulates that the state needs to make a law calling something an offence against Islamic precepts before it can be deemed illegal. And that offence needs to be within the state’s powers under the ninth schedule.
Hence, the state, for example, cannot make laws that stipulate that stealing or murder is an offence under Islamic precepts. Undoubtedly, stealing and murder are sinful in Islam and other major religions. But under our constitution, such crimes are for Parliament to legislate, not the states. This is why both Barisan Nasional and Pakatan Rakyat politicians keep insisting that implementing hudud law would be unconstitutional.
Similarly, even though a Sisters in Islam-published book infringed Jabatan Kemajuan Islam Malaysia (Jakim) guidelines, that didn’t make it illegal. And that also didn’t mean the Home Ministry could ban the book, Muslim Women and the Challenges of Islamic Extremism, for being prejudicial to public order. Indeed, this was the High Court’s decision on 25 Jan 2010, which was upheld by the Court of Appeal on 27 July 2012.
The High Court lifted the ban despite Jakim’s view that the book should be prohibited because it would “confuse” Muslims, particularly Muslim women. Jakim is, of course, entitled to its view and perfectly entitled to discourage Muslims from reading the book. But our constitution doesn’t require the government to follow Jakim’s lead and make the book illegal. If the government wants to declare something illegal, it still needs to base it on established laws and procedures, not solely on the fact that it is deemed “confusing” or un-Islamic by one body.
Syariah offences and non-Muslims
Even if religious authorities deem that a syariah enactment has been broken, they cannot act against non-Muslims. The Federal Constitution couldn’t be clearer on this. States may enact laws to set up syariah courts

which shall have jurisdiction only over persons professing the religion of Islam.

The Syariah Criminal Offences (Federal Territories) Act 1997, enacted under the ninth schedule, is equally clear. Article 1(2) states that the act shall

apply only … to persons professing the religion of Islam.

Other state enactments establishing syariah criminal offences have similar provisions.
Yet, we now see Islamic authorities questioning non-Muslims and even summoning them to their offices for further interrogation. This is what the Selangor Islamic Religious Department (Jais) did over the Manji book ban.
According to publisher ZI Publications (ZIP), after the raid on ZIP’s office, between 20 and 30 Jais officers raided its printing company, which is predominantly run by non-Muslims. Jais officers asked to go through the printers’ office documents and demanded that a senior staff, a non-Muslim, go to the Jais office for questioning. In early August, Jais continued to harass non-Muslims by summoning two non-Muslim ZIP employees for questioning at the Jais office.
Merdeka
Then there are articles 5 to 12 of the constitution, which protect citizens’ fundamental liberties. They protect, among others, citizens’ right to life, right to a fair trial and the right to be treated equally before the law regardless of religion, race or gender. Nothing in the constitution says that syariah criminal offences enacted by the states may depart from these fundamental liberties.
So, when legislating syariah offences, state assemblies should bear in mind that the offences must abide by these constitutional provisions, which were put in place at independence, to ensure that Muslim citizens’ fundamental liberties are respected.
Clearly, Malaysia is not as Islamic as we could be, according to some. If it were, there wouldn’t be so much to debate about on the Islamic state aspirations of PAS or Umno. But our founding leaders conceived of a Malaya and Malaysia that was secular, in which Islam is acknowledged as the federation’s religion, but with clear demarcations of what can be legislated and when exactly citizens can be affected by Islamic laws.
Increasingly, it seems that those in power want a state where religious authorities and syariah courts can intervene the moment an Islamic matter or a Muslim is involved. But that’s not the state our Muslim and non-Muslim founding leaders agreed to, as the constitution reveals.
And unless our constitution is changed, religious authorities have no business unilaterally expanding their scope of powers.

PLUS Introduces Hari Raya Travel Schedule

PETALING JAYA, Aug 13 (Bernama) -- PLUS Expressways Bhd (PLUS) uneviled its time travel advisory (TTA) to ensure smooth traffic flow on its expressways in conjunction with the upcoming Aidilfitri and Merdeka Day celebrations.

PLUS Chief Operating Officer Mohammad Fuad Khusairi said the move was to help its road users plan their travel throughout this coming festive season. "PLUS expects traffic on the North-South Highways to increase by 30 per cent to 1.4 million vehicles a day compared to 1.1 million vehicles on normal days," he told a media conference, here Monday.

Mohammad Fuad said PLUS was retaining the previous travel schedule for this year by dividing vehicles with registration plate numbers ending with odd or even numbers on the Johore Causeway, Second Link Expressway and the Penang Bridge.

"For vehicles with odd plate numbers, motorists are advised to use those bridges at odd hours, such as 9 am, 1 pm and 7 pm. For vehicles with even plate numbers, the suggested travel time is even hours, such as 10 am, 2 pm and 8 pm during this festive season," he said.

Those from Klang Valley heading north on Friday (Aug 17) and Saturday (Aug 18) or on Aug 30 and 31 are advised to start their journey as follows:

* Before noon for Perlis, Kedah and Penang;

* Between noon and 3 pm for Taiping, Kuala Kangsar and Changkat Jering;

* Between 3 pm and 6 pm for Ipoh, Simpang Pulai and Gopeng;

* After 6 pm for Tapah, Bidor, Sungkai, Slim River and Tanjung Malim.

The TTA for those head south, the proposed schedule for Johor is as follows:

* Before noon for Johor (via Skudai, North Senai, Ayer Hitam, Yong Peng and Tangkak); * Between noon and 3 pm for Melaka via Ayer Keroh; * Between 3 pm and 6 pm for Tampin and Alor Gajah via Simpang Ampat;

* After 6 pm for Senawang, Port Dickson and Seremban.

Mohammad Fuad said PLUS was also introducing a return travel schedule after the Aidilfitri celebration, beginning Aug 21 to 26 and Sept 1 and 2.

"From the North and South Highway, Klang Valley users are advised to enter expressways before noon or after 6 pm. For others, who do not travel through the Klang Valley, it is between noon and 6 pm," he said.

"About 3,000 PLUS staff and 432 members of the police, the Civil Defence Department, St John Ambulance and Red Crescent Society will be placed at 12 strategic locations along the expressways, while 153 PLUSRonda team personnel will be on patrol 24 hours, besides more than 1,500 toll counters opened to facilitate payment of toll," he said.

The public can obtain the latest traffic information from PLUS through the toll-free PLUSLine at 1800-88-0000 and Twitter site, www.twitter.com/plustrafik.

Besides the TTA, PLUS is also providing a 30 per cent toll rebate on Aug 15, 16, 22, 23 and 31 to encourage road users to start their journey at off-peak hours and switch to electronic payment systems (Touch n Go, Plus Miles).

SJK (T) Sungai Bakap memerlukan tanah dan bangunan baru

By Satish Kumar
SJK(T) Sungai Bakap telah ditubuhkan pada tahun 1946 diatas tanah seluas 0.5 ekar milik Kee Toh Euah.
Sekolah yang berusia 66 tahun ini masih lagi sedang beroperasi sebagai sekolah bantuan modal dengan kemudahan-kemudahan yang tidak menepati standard Kementerian Pelajaran Malaysia.
Tambahan pula, isu keselamatan warga SJK(T) Sg Bakap terancam kerana lokasinya di penjuru selekoh yang tajam yang menjadi laluan utama bagi kenderaan-kenderaan berat seperti lori dan traktor yang melombong pasir di tempat berhampiran.
Sejak beberapa tahun kebelakangan ini masalah anai-anai menyebabkan bumbung sekolah hampir runtuh dan situasi ini membimbangkan seluruh warga sekolah dan ibu-bapa.
Dalam satu sidang media baru-baru ini, Pengerusi PIBG SJK(T) Sg Bakap Mohan Sinniah, menegaskan bahawa perhatian yang serius harus diberi oleh pihah kerajaan persekutuan dan negeri serta Kementerian Pelajaran Malaysia untuk menangani masalah yang dihadapi oleh sekolah ini dengan serta merta.
Menurut beliau masa depan murid-murid tidak terjamin dan PIBG tidak lagi boleh berkompromi dengan janji-janji manis yang diberikan oleh ahli-ahli politik.
“Ramai ibu-bapa dari masyarakat India mula menghantar anak-anak mereka ke sekolah kebangsaan kerana kekurangan kemudahan asas di sekolah Tamil dan ini merupakan satu situasi yang menyedihkan kami.
Apa yang kami harapkan adalah penyelesaian yang mutlak dan bukannya yang sementara” tegas beliau.

Pengerusi LPS Dr Shanker Kumar mengeluh dengan sikap Jabatan Pelajaran Negeri yang tidak membimbing pihak sekolah dengan cara profesional untuk memohon tanah baru untuk sekolah. Jabatan-jabatan kerajaan menuding jari pihak lain dan kami tidak mengetahui prosedur yang lengkap untuk memohon tanah dan bangunan baru untuk sekolah kami.
“Prestasi sekolah tentunya akan bertambah baik jika kemudahan sekolah diperbaiki” tegas beliau.
Beliau meminta agar satu rombongan khas dari Kementerian Pelajaran Malaysia melawat sekolah mereka dalam masa yang terdekat untuk melihat sendiri keadaan sekolah dan mengambil tindakan yang sewajarnya.
Menurut beliau Pihak LPS sentiasa bersedia untuk bekerjasama dengan pihak kementerian untuk memastikan masa depan anak-anak murid terjamin.
Selain daripada itu, SJKT Sg Bakap tidak mempunyai kemudahan-kemudahan asas seperti kantin, tapak perhimpunan, pejabat dan bilik guru yang kondusif, bilik darjah yang luas dan padang yang sesuai.
Masalah tangki najis yang melimpah seringkali membawa masalah kesihatan kepada murid-murid. Semak-samun yang berhimpun di kawasan sekeliling sekolah seringkali mengundang binatang-binatang liar seperti ular dan serangga-serangga beracun memasuki bilik-bilik darjah.
Semak samun ini juga menjadi sarang penagih dadah dan pencuri yang seringkali memecah masuk ke dalam kawasan sekolah untuk mencuri barang-barang milik sekolah.
Pihak PIBG dan LPS SJK (T) Sg Bakap mengharapkan bahawa tanah alternatif yang dikenalpasti di kawasan Sungai Bakap yang milik kerajaan persekutuan diperuntukkan kepada sekolah mereka, agar bangunan baru dengan kemudahan-kemudahan asas mampu menjana modal insan yang cemerlang pada masa depan.
Mampukah rungutan warga SJK(T) Sungai Bakap didengar dan diberi penyelesaian yang mutlak oleh kerajaan? Kita tunggu dan lihat!

Ladang Bukit Jalil workers waiting for the final score

COMMENT It is exactly one month since the Ladang Bukit Jalil committee met the prime minister. Many people who saw the news of the committee finally having a date with the PM would have concluded that the issue of Ladang Bukit Jalil estate workers is over and done with. There was also the feeling that if the PM met them, definitely it would not be to disappoint them.

Now exactly one month later, the issue of Ladang Bukit Jalil is still not resolved. The PM asked for some time to study the issue. When the office of the powerful PM himself asks for more time to study the issue, it seems the problem in hand is a complex one.

The meeting with the PM did not just come so easily. The Bukit Jalil workers camped outside the PM’s office until they got an appointment. After spending 30 hours, they finally got news that the PM will give an appointment to meet them. It was a climax of their long struggle.

Not taking away credit from Najib, the PM did actually meet them (janji ditepati) though there was initially the speculation that he will only promise but not meet them. A meeting was held at the estate on the eve of the PM’s meeting. The feedback from the people at the meeting was that they were all very hopeful that the issue will be finally resolved.

Politically, the Bukit Jalil issue is torn in the flesh issue for the MIC and it is one of the major national issue confronting them as the plight of the Bukit Jalil ex-plantation workers is a national concern. The issue received lots of coverage in the Tamil dailies as well as sympathy from most Malaysian Indians. For the PM, it is important for him to portray that he is accessible and is listening to the voices of the people.

Now one month after the PM’s meeting, some fear has crept in. There is now a feeling  that the PM’s meeting was just a drama and once the election is over and if the BN come to power, then they will use all their might to demolish the houses. There is many instances in history when urban poor houses being demolished just after elections. Therefore any solution to the Bukit Jalil estate workers has to be done now.

Legally Kuala Lumpur City Hall (DBKL) has won the case. Only political pressure seems to have stop them from carrying out an eviction.

But again DBKL got the eviction order by stating that the ex-plantation workers were just squatters and they used the draconian Emergency clearance of squatter ordinance on these workers. But today, this law has been lifted after Najib announced the lifting of the four emergencies. It would look very bad for DBKL to demolish the homes using the Emergency ruling today.

Stumbling block

Having said that, what is then keeping the prime minister for giving the former workers 4 acres of land out of the 26 acres of land which is currently available. There seems to be several factors which seem to be the stumbling block.

I raise three pertinent questions.

1. Not wanting to set a precedent

One of the main reasons given for not supporting the Bukit Jalil worker’s  demand  is that they don’t want to set a precedent. The DBKL and MIC think that it would be a bad precedent. DBKL has a history of not giving plantation workers landed property and they claim that many other kampong and some estates will ask for landed property if they were to give in.

Here once again capitalist interest becomes the deciding factor. Though when the Government acquired Ladang Bukit Jalil (LBJ) in 1980, there were 1,800 acres. The government upon acquiring the land, sold the land piece by piece to private developers such as Berjaya group, Talam and Ho Hup.

The LBJ land was used to develop luxury houses, tolled highways and golf courses among others. Never did it cross their mind that they must resolve first the housing needs of the community where they are developing the land.

Now after all the prime land being sold for profits, there remain today 26 acres of land which they plan to make it into a burial ground. What about those living?

What the Ladang Bukit Jalil ex workers are asking is only 4 acres of the last remaining 26 acres.  Why is there a problem in giving in to these people? Why cannot the people who have been the longest on the land be allocated land in the same place?

As we are well aware, this country was built on the toil and sacrifice of,  amongst others, hundreds of thousands of  estate workers. Up to 1980s, the income from rubber and oil palm played a major role in financing the development of our country.

Our country prospered, and plantation companies reaped fabulous profits, but plantation workers lived in abject poverty and deprivation generated by below poverty line wages and the most backward of wage structures. Four acres of land as a social wage to compensate for their contribution towards the nation is surely not too much to ask for.

Why is then that such a fair and noble idea of giving land to the poor and the most deserving being seen as bad precedent? Bad precedent in whose eyes? It seems that for the elite classes, these are bad precedents when prime land is given to poor people. And sadly BN and MIC share this vision.

It is time to set good precedent. Will the ruling party have the political will to do it?

2. The internal MIC power play

It is no secret that MIC’s Deputy FT Minister M Saravanan is strongly against the ex-workers getting the land. Saravanan was instrumental in getting a huge group of people to accept the relocation to the flats. Here once again, politicians internal interest in helping supporters and building bases override the question of justice.

The Minister, Raja Nong Chik Raja Zainal Abidin, himself acknowledged in an official statement that of the 71 who have moved to the flats, only 10 are former plantation workers while the others are ’squatters’. Whereas he stated that the remaining 39 who are still living on the estate are all former plantation workers.

These problems are not new. In many cases, politician interfere in helping their chosen people to get benefits, manoeuvre official census, help cronies etc. In this case, Saravanan’s support base is in those who have moved to the flats. On the other hand, MIC Youth leader T Mohan has supported the four acres of land asked by the Bukit Jalil workers.

Now the question being asked for those opposing the 4acres demand is - if we give land to the 41 families, what about those who have already left to the flats? This issue is used to divide and rule the people. Even now, those who have left the estates are promised another bulk of compensation but with condition that only if the remaining 41 also accepted the flats offer.

It is time MIC come out in the open and state if they support Bukit Jalil workers getting four acres of land or not? In the Buah Pala incident, MIC fought so hard that the people there should be given a landed property in a private land. Here we are talking about government land. Why can’t MIC put forward the same argument here?

MIC president G Palanivel also had suggested that urban hardship is worse than plantation hardship and suggested those facing these problems go back to the estates. Therefore it would only make sense that they go back to a piece of land or home which belongs to them in a community system. Giving Bukit Jalil plantation workers that 4 acres will preserve their community life.

Now the time is right for MIC to put the record straight. But it seems between Saravanan, Mohan and Subramaniam, they seems to have differing views and differing interest. It is time the MIC state their position clearly.

3. Najib a neo-liberal unlike his dad who was a social democrat?

During the meeting with the PM, Najib smiled when he was reminded about the Abdul Razak Hussein plantation workers house ownership scheme.

Razak then introduced one of the most remarkable solutions for plantation poverty -  the estate workers house ownership scheme. If this had been implemented in 1973, today most plantation workers will be staying in a landed property like the Malay traditional villagers, Felda scheme participants and  Chinese new villages.

But sadly 90 percent of all plantations and all the major plantation companies in which the Government had major shares did not want to implement this scheme.

Razak lived in the cold war era when he had to give in to many people orientated demands like land reforms, felda scheme, introduce  Socso, etc. The political left was much stronger then. Today Najib lives in a world who believes in TINA – there is no alternatives. Najib is a powerful supporter of new liberal capitalism.  He promotes privatisation, cuts down subsidies and supports FTAs.

Therefore ideologically Najib will not support the Bukit Jalil demand for four acres. He has to weigh it very carefully and any consensus will be only in the context of his political survival. That is why he would need much time to study it before agreeing.

The final score?

Has the Bukit Jalil ex-estate workers solution put the PM and the BN in a dilemma? It is a question of whose interests are they going to protect. Is it the people or profits? It would have been a foregone conclusion if BN was strong politically. Today they are forced to consider the demands of the Ladang Bukit Jalil workers simply for their own survival.

It is going to be a difficult decision. The ex-workers have decided to remind the prime minister on every 10th day of the month that they are waiting for the final score.

---

S ARUTCHELVAN is a social activist and founder member of the Plantation Workers Support Committee, and secretary-general of PSM.