Azmi Sharom: We let this happen to Malaysia

No sorry, I will not bow to Umno, says kangkung flash mob organiser

  

Lee speaking to The Malaysian Insider at his service centre in Alma, Penang. - 

The Malaysian Insider pic by Hasnoor Hussain, January 21, 2014.

(TMI) While thanking DAP for its concern and support, Machang Bubuk assemblyman Lee Khai Loon fell short of taking Lim Kit Siang's advice that he should consider an apology for his controversial "I love kangkung" flash mob which has angered some Malay groups in Penang.

The Parti Keadilan Rakyat rep is standing his ground, reiterating that he will not bow to "Umno's racial and bullying tactics".

Lee said the most important thing to do now was to tackle the price hike issue and to pressure Putrajaya to listen to the people.

"I want to stress that the most crucial matter now is to continue the people's movement to protest against the price hikes and Putrajaya's plan to implement the goods and services tax (GST) next year.

"I am grateful to (DAP adviser) Lim Kit Siang for his suggestion (that I apologise) and concern. I also thank my colleagues in the state PR backbenchers committee, non-governmental organisations and my voters for their support.

"As a Pakatan Rakyat elected rep, I am angry and worried that the racial sentiments played up by Umno and its supporters will divert our focus from the real issue," he said in a statement this evening.

Lee was responding to Lim, who had suggested that he should consider apologising for holding the flash mob to prevent extremists from using the incident to incite more racial hatred.

Lim had said that Lee should "consider an apology" as there are certain quarters, including him, who see the latter's actions as "excessive, offensive and insensitive".

"An even more important consideration is not to allow irresponsible quarters to look for excuses to distort and manipulate incidents to escalate racial and religious hatred to create another May 13 in the country," Lim had said in a statement earlier today.

Lee had sparked controversy when he and others 'fed' kangkung to an effigy of Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak in the flash mob in Alma last Wednesday.

He has since been accused of insulting Najib and the Malays.

Two protests against Lee were held last weekend in Seberang Jaya and Alma. The two events also saw local Umno leaders making fiery speeches with the crowd shouting racial taunts. Some carried banners warning of another May 13-like racial riots.

Lee said the public was unhappy with what Umno did at the protests.

"This means the racial card, often played, is no longer effective and Malaysian politics is becoming more progressive and mature."

On his flash mob, Lee said it was meant to be a symbolic gesture to get Najib to be more aware of the people's feelings as a result of the price hikes.

He said there was no intention to insult anyone.

"The flash mob was merely a response to the price hike issue that affects everyone, regardless of race," he said.

He added that PAS deputy president Mohamad Sabu had said that, as a Malay, he did not feel offended by the flash mob.

"Therefore, I will not bow to Umno. The party is the one that started what happened (at the rallies)," he said. - January 21, 2014.

Ramasamy to speak on genocide in Sri Lanka

Penang's deputy chief minister vows to keep fighting for Tamil self-determination

PETALING JAYA: Penang deputy chief minister P Ramasamy will take his fight for Sri Lankan Tamils to Britain at the end of this month with a paper he will present at a conference organised by the British Tamils Forum (BTF).

He told FMT he would speak on “structural genocide” in Sri Lanka as his contribution to the international conference, which will focus on the allegation that the government in Colombo is engaged in grabbing land owned by Tamils.

He said the act of uprooting a community from its traditional lands was a form of genocide.

He affirmed that the issue of Tamil rights in Sri Lanka was close to his heart and vowed that he would continue to speak out on it on the international platform.

He said the Malaysian government could not be depended on to champion the rights of displaced Tamils in Sri Lanka because “it is run by a bunch of cowards.”

Ramasamy sits in the six-member Constitutional Affairs Committee of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE). It was this committee that produced the blueprint of LTTE’s proposal for an interim self-governing authority in the northeastern part of Sri Lanka. It was submitted to the Sri Lankan government in 2003, when the civil war in that country was still raging.

The war, which began in 1983, came to an end in May 2009 with the defeat of the LTTE.

“Since then,” Ramasamy said, “the Sri Lankan government has not committed itself to reconciliation.”

Referring to the theme of this month’s conference, he said it was unfortunate that the issue of land grabs in Sri Lanka had not received the press coverage it deserved.

“Putting a Buddhist temple on a Hindu temple, even though not physically but culturally and geographically, is part of structural genocide,” he said.

He maintained that the only way to resolve the Sri Lanka issue was to grant the Tamils the right to govern themselves in a state separate from the Singhalese-majority country.

“The Tamils should have an independent state,” he said. “ It’s impossible for the two races to stay together.”

Human rights in M’sia: ‘A tale of two Najibs’

Malaysia in 2013 was marked by Najib promising legal reforms before the GE and restoring repressive laws after it.

KUALA LUMPUR: The Malaysian government backtracked significantly on human rights after the May 2013 general election returned the ruling coalition to power with a significantly smaller majority, Human Rights Watch said today in its World Report 2014.

The passage of new repressive laws, arrests of opposition activists, and greater repression of political speech marked the apparent end to Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak’s proclaimed reform agenda.

“Malaysia in 2013 was marked by a ‘tale of two Najibs’ – promising legal reforms before the election and restoring repressive laws after it,” said Phil Robertson, deputy Asia director at Human Rights Watch.

“Since May the government has cracked down on basic rights, curtailed free speech, and charged activists for organizing peaceful protests.”

In the 667-page world report, its 24th edition, Human Rights Watch reviews human rights practices in more than 90 countries.

Syria’s widespread killings of civilians elicited horror but few steps by world leaders to stop it, Human Rights Watch said.

A reinvigorated doctrine of “responsibility to protect” seems to have prevented some mass atrocities in Africa.

Majorities in power in Egypt and other countries have suppressed dissent and minority rights. And Edward Snowden’s revelations about US surveillance programs reverberated around the globe.

In Malaysia, previous progress on human rights was reversed by the passage of repressive new legislation, Human Rights Watch said.

The amended Prevention of Crime Act, enacted in October, allows administrative detention without trial and limited grounds for appeal, restoring some of the abusive practices that had been in the recently abolished Internal Security Act and Emergency Ordinance.

Malaysia’s government continued to bring dubious criminal charges against its political opponents, Human Rights Watch said.

The authorities pursued an appeal, extending the politically motivated prosecution of Opposition Leader Anwar Ibrahim on trumped-up “sodomy” charges.

Prominent opposition and civil society activists are now awaiting trial for violating the Sedition Act, an abusive law that Najib had previously said would be revoked.

At least 43 people await charges on violating notice provisions of the Peaceful Assembly Act connected to opposition Black 505’s post-election rallies, ensuring trials will continue through much of 2014.

Suaram and other human rights groups faced hostile investigations and unsubstantiated accusations by the government-controlled media.

Despite government claims about rising crime rates, public confidence in the police was shaken by at least 12 high-profile cases of deaths in police custody.

The government strongly resisted calls to create an independent oversight body, such as the Independent Police Complaints and Reform Commission first recommended by a royal commission in 2005.

In 2013, statements by senior government officials publicly condemning lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people, heightened discrimination by the public.

Malaysia did not use its membership in the United Nations Human Rights Council from 2010 to 2013 to improve its commitment to international human rights treaties and processes. Malaysia has only ratified four international human rights conventions to date – among the lowest in the region.

“The Malaysian government responded to its electoral setback by curtailing rights rather than respecting them,” Robertson said.

“In the coming year Malaysia’s leaders need to urgently reverse that trend, and recognise that promoting and protecting the rights of the people – including political opponents and outspoken activists – is their clear obligation.”

Demolition of illegal food stalls in Teluk Bahang turned ugly

(The Sun) - An operation to clear illegal food stalls in Teluk Bahang was forced to stop after workers

and an enforcement team were roughed up by locals and members of several non-governmental organisations today.

In the 10.15am incident, some 50 officers and workers from the Southwest District Office, Land and Mines Office, Works Department and the Penang Island Municipal Council were surrounded by a mob protesting the operation.

Spotted in the crowd were members of Perkasa, Persatuan MukaBuku, Pekida and Al-Ehsan, who had come in support of the traders.

Southwest district police chief Supt Mohd Hatta Mohd Zin said the situation turned unruly when talks between the traders, led by Teluk Bahang Hawkers Action Group chief Mohd Rizal Zainal Abidin, and district office staff broke down.

He said the traders and locals there started acting aggressively towards the enforcement team when the order was given to proceed with demolition of the stalls.

“Police managed to break up the scuffle while the demolition was forced to stop,” he said in a text statement when contacted by the media.

Mohd Hatta said a police report was later lodged and investigations will be done under Section 186 of the Penal Code for obstructing public servants in discharging their duties.

It is learned the district office had issued notices to 16 stall owners to vacate the 40 stalls along the road in Dec 23 last year.

Second Open Letter to Najib and Cabinet – Are BN leaders prepared to work with PR leaders to ensure that there could not be another repetition of May 13 riots in Malaysia?

For the second time this year, I am taking full advantage of the Age of Information Technology which enables the instant communication of information with information travelling at the speed of light to pen this Second Open Letter this year to the Prime Minister and all Cabinet Ministers just before their third Cabinet meeting of the New Year of 2014.

Members of the Cabinet who have not read or not informed of this Second Open Letter before the Ministers meet for their third Cabinet meeting later this morning clearly belong to the dinosaur epoch and are not fit to be in the Cabinet – and the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak would have a very strong reason to get rid of these dead-wood and half-past six Ministers in a Cabinet reshuffle.

In my first Open Letter to the Prime Minister and the Cabinet before their first Cabinet meeting on 8th January 2014, I urged the first Cabinet meeting to send our a clear and unmistakable message to end the national drift and loss of leadership and direction to create an united, harmonious, just, and competitive and great Malaysian nation.

I zeroed in on the nation’s quintuplet of crisis which warranted priority and immediate attention by the Cabinet, viz:

• Firstly, the crisis of nation-building and national unity because of the worst racial and religious polarization in the nation’s history – making a mockery of Bangsa Malaysia in Vision 2020 as well as Najib’s signature policy of 1Malaysia;

• Secondly, the deepening economic crisis caused by avalanche of price hikes culminating in the introduction of the GST at six per cent in April 2015;

• Thirdly, the crisis on the corruption front with no signs that there will be a serious campaign to fight “grand corruption” and end the colossal waste, extravagance and misuse of public funds.

• Fourthly, the crisis of deteriorating national educational standards to the extent that both the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister have studiously avoided talking about Malaysia’s poor performance in 2011 TIMSS and 2012 PISA; and
• Fifthly, the crisis of security and safety of citizens, investors and tourists as the police has not yet understood the meaning of “democratic policing” and is still guided by the colonial mentality with “regime-protection” as the top police priority, when it should be to keep citizens, investors and tourists free and safe.

Two weeks have elapsed since my first Open Letter to the Prime Minister and Cabinet.

Unfortunately, the leaderless, headless, clueless and rudderless drift of the Najib government had continued in its aimless direction in the past two weeks, with no resolution in sight for the quintuplet of five crisis.

In many aspects, the national situation has got worse in the past fortnight.

For instance, the Cabinet has yet to reaffirm the 10-Point solution endorsed by the Cabinet in April 2011 to resolve the Bible controversy, with the Cabinet divided on the 10-Point Solution as the Deputy Prime Minister and other Cabinet Ministers seem to have broken ranks from the 10-Point Solution.

And for the last 10 days, Najib and the Cabinet had been devastated by the “kangkung tsunami” reducing their authority and credibility to smithereens, being the butt of “kangkung” jokes, videos, satire, comedies, sketches, spawning products like Kangkung Fried Chicken, Burger Kangkung, McKangkung and even crossing international boundaries to become embarrassing “kangkung-rate” international news in BBC, Channel New Asia, Singapore Straits Times, Jakarta Post, etc.

The “kangkung” craze has also gone viral on the Internet, with three videos attracting over 1.2 million hits on YouTube alone: the “kangkung remix feat, Najib” by Yuri Wong crossing 735,000 hits, the “Ucapan Najib ‘kangkung’ hangat di alam maya” video in second place with over 410,000 hits while the Effing Show #99 “Let Them Eat Kangkung” seems set to be the hottest item of the “popteevee” series, with over 125,000 hits in five days.

What is most deplorable is the “May 13” threat coming out of the closet during this period seeking to incite and racialise an issue which has nothing to do with race but is about the unhappiness of all Malaysians, whether Malays, Chinese, Indians, Kadazans or Ibans about the government’s arrogance and indifference to the people’s sufferings as a result of the price hikes.

An example of this irresponsible and dangerous incitement of racial and religious hatred, tension and conflict are the Penang UMNO demos on Saturday and Sunday over the earlier “kangkung” flash mob by PKR Assemblyman for Machang Bubuk Lee Khai Loon where kangkung was stuffed into the mouth of a cardboard cutout of the Prime Minister.

Penang UMNO and their allies distorted the “kangkung flash mob” protest against the Prime Minister as an attack on the Malay Prime Minister by the Chinese – which is a perversion of the truth.

As the PAS Deputy President, Mohamad Sabu has said: “I’m a Malay and I don’t feel insulated.”

It is the height of irresponsibility and even criminality in plural Malaysia to distort an issue about price hikes which affect all Malaysians into a racial issue of the Chinese disrespecting the Malays.

There are however Malaysians who feel that certain boundaries should not be crossed in any protests, like the offices of the Prime Minister, the Parliamentary Opposition Leader, the Chief Minister or Mentri Besar which should continue to receive due and proper respect if political discourse and disputation are to kept within civilized bounds – a view held by Malaysians regardless of race or religion.

When I suggested that Lee should consider apologizing for the “flash mob” incident for disrespect to the office of Prime Minister, I never for one moment suggested apology to samseng (thugs) as I fully agree that no one should bow down to threats or any form of violence.

I have been asked whether those who showed disrespect to the former Bersih co-ordinator Ambiga Sreenivasan for the disgusting “butt dance” or to the Penang Chief Minister for the equally abominable shit cake and funeral incidents. Yes they should, but it is not for me to say so publicly but for those responsible for these deplorable unMalaysian actions.

As Lee has decided on his course of action, let us move on.

What the Cabinet this morning should be concerned about is the systematic campaign by a group of irresponsible and reckless elements to incite racial and religious hatred, conflict and tension to create another May 13 situation to destabilize the country, as happened over the past weekend.

Is the Cabinet today prepared to take a firm stand to put a stop to the continued incitement of racial and religious hatred, conflict and tension as well as to all the saber-rattling to create another May 13 situation?

Or to be specific, are Barisan Nasional leaders prepared to work with Pakatan Rakyat leaders by having a Leaders’ Summit to ensure that there could not be another May 13 incident in Malaysia as well as to reach a consensus on the quintuplet of national crisis facing the country to restore national and international confidence in the country?

(Third 2014 Cabinet Meeting “Open Letter” to the Prime Minister and Cabinet Ministers in Kuala Lumpur Wednesday, 22nd January 2014 at 2 am)

Noorfadilla case: Triumph and Tribulations

LoyarBurok 
by Wei Meng Lim-Kabaa

As published in LoyarBurok on 20 Jan 2014.

A critical analysis of the case of the pregnant teacher who sued the government for gender discrimination, and what Malaysia must still do to ensure it meets its international obligations

The decision of the High Court (Shah Alam) in the case of 

​​

Noorfadilla bt Ahmad Saikin v Chayed bin Basirun & Ors [2012] 1 MLJ 832, HC gave a boost to women’s rights in Malaysia, and injected a  much needed breath of fresh air, more broadly, to human rights in the country. [LB: An appeal by the Government against the decision was subsequently withdrawn.]

The decision situates women’s rights squarely in the domain of human rights. Further, in opining that it is the Courts’ role to “promote the observance of human rights”, the decision helps further strengthen the role of the judiciary as the ultimate safeguard to individuals’ fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution. Significantly, notwithstanding the absence of an enabling  statute incorporating the 1979 

​

Convention on the Discrimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW)  into domestic law,  the Court had no hesitation to apply the relevant law in the Constitution on the basis that the Constitutional amendment incorporating the word “gender” in Art. 8(2) was made in order to comply with Malaysia’s obligation under the treaty.

The Court went to some length on this point, referring even to Parliament’s Hansard. This may well be the first time a Malaysian court applied international law to interpret a provision in the Constitution in such a direct manner, as opposed to a subordinate legislation. In wielding the authority of the Court to use an international binding treaty for the interpretation of the relevant provision in the Constitution, the Court reached a protective outcome for an individual, as well as help Malaysia fulfil its obligations under international law. In this way, the Court has put the rule of law, national and international, and supremacy of the Constitution on ever firmer footing.

The Court’s innovative approach is praise-worthy, particularly in view of a number of fairly negative earlier court decisions on the issue of pregnancy as a form of gender discrimination against women. There are significant arguments which could have defeated the plaintiff’s claim of gender discrimination. Firstly, on the face of it, the authorities’ refusal to hire the plaintiff was not on the basis of the plaintiff being a woman; rather it was due to her pregnancy, which per se, is not a protected characteristic. Secondly, the concept of “reasonable classification” or “intelligible differentia” continues to lurk and was in fact raised by the defendant.  Putting the two together, it might have been argued that there was no discrimination against the plaintiff in relation to other women who are also pregnant, as all pregnant women would not have been hired.

However, this is clearly against the underlying rationale for women’s right to non-discrimination.  The Court used Art.1 in CEDAW to interpret the meaning of “gender” in Art. 8(2) of the Constitution. This clarified in no uncertain terms that the conceptual dimensions of this Constitutional term concern the non-discrimination of women against men, so as to enable women’s rights to be recognized and enjoyed or exercised “on the basis of equality of men and women”. Since this is the rationale, then, clearly “gender” in relation to Art.8 (2) is not susceptible to the concept of “reasonable classification”.

There are indeed, and rightly so, Court decisions to the effect that broadly, Art. 8(2) is not subject to the concept of “reasonable classification” as opposed to Art. 8(1) relating to equality before the law. These decisions were cited by the High Court in this case. Drawing from the High Court’s decision, and pending legislation to provide a definition of “gender discrimination”, it may be argued that all claims by women based on “gender discrimination” should be understood as set forth in Art. 1 of CEDAW. It is only fair that women be not disadvantaged against men because of women’s biological traits. In particular, as regards pregnancy, husbands, families and communities also benefit from child bearing.  Employers will be put to pains, but as in this case, on a balance between institutional convenience and individual fairness, fairness should come out ahead.

The decision has been lauded by a broad spectrum of civil society. Clearly the judiciary has a key role to play in defending women’s rights in the country.  Yet, it is important to highlight the part played by the Executive arm of government, without which the advancement of women’s rights in the country could be an overwhelmingly daunting task. It may be noted from the decision that not only did the Court refer to CEDAW, but also to international meetings attended by the Government as demonstrative of the latter’s “commitment” to CEDAW.

Indeed, as early as the mid 1970’s, coinciding with the time when CEDAW was on the way to being adopted by the United Nations, but well before acceding to it, focus was already given by the Executive to women’s role in development, and a number of government entities were established for this purpose, such as the National Advisory Council on the Integration of Women in Development, and the Women’s Affairs Secretariat. The discourse on equal rights of women as a social group, evolved subsequently as a logical development.  The various efforts culminated in the creation of the Ministry of Women, Family and Community Development in 2001, which then played a lead role to effect  the amendment to Art.8(2) of the Constitution.

Encouragingly, recent statements of Malaysian delegates to the United Nations General Assembly as well as to the Commission on Status of Women reiterated the Government’s continued commitment to improving the status of women in the country. Equally important is the role played by NGOs and other advocacy groups which serve as the grass roots champions particularly with their expertise and knowledge. Their role is acknowledged and highlighted in various official statements of the Government which expressed appreciation for the support provided by these groups. What this illustrates is that ensuring the effective implementation of women’s rights is a national effort;  the Executive and Civil Society need to work together while the Judiciary will serve as the ultimate defender.

Still, the Court’s decision did leave some unanswered questions. In its ruling, the Court appears to indicate that it would not have been able to intervene had there been a “policy” on not employing a pregnant woman. The Court found, as a matter of fact, that there was no such a policy and went on to rule that the act of the authorities in refusing to employ the plaintiff is in violation of Art.8 (2) of the Constitution. The question is: what if there were such a policy? Would not the Court have declared such a policy unlawful under the Constitution as much as the actual act of refusing to employ the plaintiff was?

Another issue which may warrant further clarification concerns the specification in the government circular that there is no entitlement to maternity leave. The Court used that specification to additionally support its reasoning that there is no policy bar on employing pregnant women, as otherwise, a specification on maternity leave would not be in the circular. Yet, the Court did not deal with the issue that non-entitlement to maternity leave could be a form of unlawful discrimination against women employees: Art. 11(2) (b) and Art. 5 of CEDAW would have provided support for this point. One is now left wondering how the plaintiff is going to take off from work for the delivery. Considering that maternity is not sickness, and women at work should not be disadvantaged against men to have to avail of sick leave for delivering children, the issue of entitlement to maternity leave could have been clarified, even if as “obiter”.

The inclusion of ‘gender’ as a protected characteristic in the non-discriminatory provision of  Art.8(2) of the Constitution, a provision fundamentally concerning ‘equality before the law’, has put women’s rights on sound legal footing, and sent a strong political message in support of women’s rights . However, Art. 8(2) itself is limited in ambit with the proscription on gender discrimination covering only “appointment to any office or employment under a public authority”, and the “administration of law” in certain economic related sectors. There are many more areas which require legal coverage, including gender discrimination in employment in the private sector. There is no good reason why private employers should not be held to account for discriminatory practices against women which undermine the right to equal employment opportunities and equal treatment of women in the work place. Art. 11 of CEDAW, so copiously referred to by the Court, does not make any distinction between public and private employment.

Additionally, other provisions in the Constitution would also require amendments. These include notably:

Art.12 in relation to education where the provision on non-discrimination in the field of education, should include “gender” as a ground, in line with Art.10 of CEDAW;

Art. 13, in relation to property rights, which could benefit from a clear specification on equal rights of men and women over all matters concerning  administration of property, in line with Art.15(2) of CEDAW.

Equally important are provisions in the Constitution relating to citizenship where the scheme of right to pass on citizenship remains heavily male biased. If Art. 9 (1) of CEDAW were to be fully implemented, Malaysian women should  be able to pass on their nationality to foreign husbands, in the same way Malaysian men could pass on their nationality to their foreign wives.

Apart from the above, many other areas need to be advanced, as already called for by the Bar Council and advocacy groups. Key among these is the enactment of a subordinate statute to adopt CEDAW into Malaysia’s legal system. Such a law could  provide a definition of gender discrimination as stipulated  in CEDAW,  and set out a framework, based on CEDAW’s, where further legislative processes and other implementation action is needed.  The concerned fields are vast covering legal status; political and public life; economic, civil, and social sectors, as well as marriage and family life.

Significant progress has already been made over the years. Just to name a few:-

The conferring of equal rights of parents over guardianship of infants under the Guardianship of Infants Act 1961;

Equal rights in the area of social security under the Employees’ Social Security Act 1969;  and

Equal rights of married couples in income taxes.

Legislative advancement needs to continue.  More daunting challenges lie in the implementation of CEDAW at the practical level. A comprehensive review is provided in the 

​​

Malaysian NGOs’ 2012 Alternative Report on CEDAW which makes important reading.

In as much as there is unfinished business at the national level, there is also unfinished business at the international level. Consideration should be given to lifting the remaining reservations on the specific provisions in CEDAW. In regard to Art. 9(2) of CEDAW relating to equal rights of women to pass their nationality to their children, there are no obvious reasons for not enabling Malaysian women to pass on their nationality to their children in the same way as Malaysian men could. The final frontier remains women’s rights in the area of marriage and family relations falling primarily under Art.16 of CEDAW in regard to which Malaysia has retained a number of reservations.

Admittedly, Malaysia is a country with communities steeped in religion and culture, and advancement of women’s rights in the area of family life needs to be undertaken bearing in mind sensitivities. Yet, if women’s’ equal rights with men are to be truly meaningful, the Executive arm of Government needs to make bold moves in sync with a changing environment to modernize, and ensure that women’s potential is maximized in family life just as in all other areas, for it is in the area of family relations that women are most vulnerable to subjugation and inferior treatment.