Saturday, 25 October 2014
Radical Islamic cleric declares BRITISH law is invalid...in BRITAIN
RADICAL cleric Anjem Choudary sparked fury today by declaring he 'doesn't accept' that British law is valid in the UK.
By: Jason Taylor
The 46-year-old hate preacher made the extraordinary statement when asked if jihadist fighters returning from Syria should have their passports confiscated and be charged under anti-terror laws.
Choudary blasted: "I don't accept British law. If you have a law, you need to apply it universally. These laws are only being applied against Muslims.
"This [anti-terror legislation] is purely being hyped-up to support the bombing campaign that is taking place in Iraq and Syria.
" He also spoke of his support for Islamic State (ISIS) and claimed a ban on jihadists returning to Britain would 'alienate' the Muslim community.
He added: "If these guys have actually not committed any crime in England, then why are we stopping them returning?
"I think it's a very ill thought-out policy, I don't think it will work.
"I think it will disenfranchise the Muslim community here, I think it would be a cause of further radicalisation in this country."
Choudary has always denied that he has incited or glorified acts of terrorism.
His comments, which were immediately condemned as 'dangerous' by anti-extremist organisations, came in an Express Debate with Douglas Murray, Associate Director at the Henry Jackson Society.
A visibly angry Mr Murray, who has profiled Mr Choudary for this website: "Don't pose as the defender of citizens in Syria and Iraq when the thing you would wish to impose on those people is the most barbaric and authoritarian form of government the world has ever have seen.
"The bombing campaign is taking place to try and stop people in those countries being dictated to by Mr Choudary's friends in ISIS.
"The first victims, in both of these countries, are Muslims.
"They're Muslims of the kind that these people, in this 'perfect Islamic State' think can legitimately be killed. But they are Muslims."
By: Jason Taylor
Choudary blasted: "I don't accept British law. If you have a law, you need to apply it universally. These laws are only being applied against Muslims.
"This [anti-terror legislation] is purely being hyped-up to support the bombing campaign that is taking place in Iraq and Syria.
" He also spoke of his support for Islamic State (ISIS) and claimed a ban on jihadists returning to Britain would 'alienate' the Muslim community.
He added: "If these guys have actually not committed any crime in England, then why are we stopping them returning?
"I think it's a very ill thought-out policy, I don't think it will work.
"I think it will disenfranchise the Muslim community here, I think it would be a cause of further radicalisation in this country."
Choudary has always denied that he has incited or glorified acts of terrorism.
His comments, which were immediately condemned as 'dangerous' by anti-extremist organisations, came in an Express Debate with Douglas Murray, Associate Director at the Henry Jackson Society.
A visibly angry Mr Murray, who has profiled Mr Choudary for this website: "Don't pose as the defender of citizens in Syria and Iraq when the thing you would wish to impose on those people is the most barbaric and authoritarian form of government the world has ever have seen.
"The bombing campaign is taking place to try and stop people in those countries being dictated to by Mr Choudary's friends in ISIS.
"The first victims, in both of these countries, are Muslims.
"They're Muslims of the kind that these people, in this 'perfect Islamic State' think can legitimately be killed. But they are Muslims."
Taking up arms for God is fine, claims hardline Islamist group
KUALA LUMPUR, Oct 24 — Muslims can take up arms if they are fighting for their God, hardline Islamist group Hizbut Tahrir’s Malaysian chapter said today.
Hizbut Tahrir accused the West of wrongly giving negative connotations to the word “militant” and associating it with terrorists.
The radical Islamist group, which works openly in Malaysia, insisted that militant activities for jihad are acceptable and required in Islam.
“Anyone — whether an individual, group or army — that battles to fight infidels in the framework of raising up Allah, then this is jihad and they are mujahideens,” it said on its website today, adding death on duty would make the fighters “martyrs”.
Hizbut Tahrir said armed militants cannot be labelled as jihadists if they illegitimately kill the public or fight against other Muslims.
“If their intention and activity is to kill and fight among Muslim groups, then this is wrong and forbidden.
“If they fight and kill the public and leaders without rights, whether those killed are Muslims or non-Muslims, this will also be wrong and forbidden and all this is not categorised as jihad,” it said.
Yesterday, Minister Datuk Seri Jamil Khir Baharom said the National Fatwa Council had decided that those who die while fighting under the Islamic State (IS) banner in Syria would not be considered martyrs.
On October 15, Home Minister Datuk Seri Ahmad Zahid Hamidi told Parliament that authorities have identified 39 Malaysians as having links with militant groups, including IS.
Putrajaya has previously designated the IS, formerly known as Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant, as a terrorist group.
ISIS Massacred Every Man And Boy Over 15 In Muslim Town
Daily Caller
The Islamic State in Iraq and Syria’s (ISIS) single bloodiest operation to date — the execution of over 700 Shaitat tribesman over a three day period in August — received little to no coverage from western media outlets, The Washington Post reports.
The massacre targeted all men and boys older than 15, and was in response to an uprising.
After years of rejecting the central Syrian government, the Shaitat tribe was forced to sign a July truce with ISIS after jihadist forces captured the massive supply of U.S. munitions stockpiled in the Iraqi city of Mosul.
When ISIS descended upon the Syrian town of Abu Hamam, “we realized we had no hope. We were surrounded. We wanted to save our people,” said one Shaitat fighter.
But the uneasy cease-fire between the Sunnis and ISIS’s extreme jihadist faction quickly decayed into violence.
When ISIS militants publicly beheaded a Shaitat man who had fired on one of their patrols, local residents overpowered the small garrison of terrorist fighters and forced them from the town, only to see them return with reinforcements and artillery from Mosul.
After shelling Abu Hamam for days, ISIS forces once again captured the town and began systematically executing every Shaitat male over the age of 15.
“A photo essay on an Islamic State blog boasted of the different ways tribesmen were killed, including beheadings, mass shootings and a crucifixion,” the Post reports. “A video shows how the militants lined up scores of captives on a road, their hands bound, then set about clumsily decapitating them, one by one.”
Female cop caught with drugs and ammo – Bernama
Two women, including a policewoman, were arrested for possession of drugs and 10 bullets in a
house at the Karak griculture Separtment quarters, near Bentong, yesterday.A police team from the Karak station which conducted the raid at 1.21pm seized 0.38 type bullets and drugs found in a bag belonging to a lance corporal.
The drugs seized include three pills suspected to be eramine 5 weighing 0.88 grams, two yellow colour pills and pills which were half-blue in colour suspected to be ecstasy pills with a gross weight of 23.1 grams, and two injection needles.
In the same bag, police also found an authorisation card and police security pass in the name of the suspect, and two mobile phones.
On further searching the house, police found a tin containing a transparent plastic sachet filled with crystalline powder and lumps of crystals suspected to be syabu weighing 0.51 grams and a needle at the foot of the bed in a room in the house.
Following the discovery, the policewoman whose postal address is Jalan AU/1, Ampang, Hulu Kelang and her friend, an Indonesian from Jakarta, both in their 30s, were detained for further investigation.
According to the initial investigation, the policewoman admitted the drug was obtained from a Chinese man in Bukit Bintang, Kuala Lumpur.
The investigation also showed the policewoman and her partner did not have any record of past offences.
However, on screening their urine, they both tested positive for methamphetamine and amphetamine.
Pahang police chief Datuk Seri Sharifuddin Ab Ghani, when contacted, confirmed the arrests.
The two suspects were remanded at the Bentong district police headquarters lock-up for further investigation. – Bernama, October 24, 2014.
- See more at: http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/malaysia/article/female-cop-caught-with-drugs-and-ammo-bernama#sthash.N5SxPse5.dpuf
Anwar: What right has UM to ban me?
And this is despite his alma mater claiming that it will never allow the programme to go on.
In an interview with Malaysiakini today, Anwar said he had not been told by the university that he was banned from delivering his speech on Monday.
“I will still go (even if I am banned). What right do they have to ban me? I was invited by the highest student body in UM. By 9pm, I’ll be at UM.”
Asked whether he was going to “gate crash” the university, Anwar simply said that he is “very familiar with the terrain”.
UM yesterday issued a show-cause letter to Universiti Malaya Students' Association (PMUM) president and the event organiser, Fahmi Zainol.
The university’s student affairs deputy vice-chancellor Rohana Yusof said Fahmi could be suspended for one or two semesters as well as fined RM200 if he goes ahead with his plan.
The Oct 27 event, titled 'Anwar Ibrahim: 40 years from UM to jail', is scheduled to take place at 9pm at the Dewan Tunku Canselor square in the campus in Kuala Lumpur.
He is also expected to hold a rally the same night at the MPSJ stadium in Subang Jaya.
The gathering is one of several scheduled rallies since Wednesday by Anwar in a nationwide blitz to mobilise support ahead of his sodomy appeal on Tuesday.
Flashmobs to continue
Meanwhile at a major intersection just outside the campus today, a handful of PKR supporters, led by its youth wing Angkatan Muda Keadilan (AMK), organised a flashmob in the run-up to Anwar's appeal.
"This
flashmob is to raise awareness on grassroots issues, on oppression –
whether in the form of rising fuel prices, rising price of goods – and
the Sedition Act cases that have been slapped on so many politicians,
academics, members of Parliament and reporter," said AMK vice-chief
Fahmi Fadzil.Fahmi, who is also the PKR communications director, said the flashmobs will continue until Anwar's hearing date at the Federal Court on Oct 28.
At the flashmob, about 25 persons chanted "Reduce fuel prices" while holding placards calling for lower fuel prices, an independent judiciary, and abolition of the National Higher Education Fund (PTPTN).
Many motorists passing the group outside the Universiti LRT station greeted them with honks, and the group replied with cries of "reformasi". Traffic remained smooth throughout the event.
Additional reporting by Anne Muhammad
Rudeness Should Not be a Crime
Sin Chew Daily
There is a stereotype about Malaysians that says we are a very polite people. I am not sure how true this is. Maybe once upon a time this was a reality, but nowadays I don’t see much politeness in my day to day life here in the capital city. Perhaps it is because I live in a big city that I feel this way. Maybe in the smaller towns, people are still polite to one another and treat one another with civility and friendliness.
Having said that neither are we especially rude. It happens of course, but quite rarely, to the point that when it does occur it feels rather jarring. Generally speaking we don’t see people shouting at each other. Of course on the internet people can be very rude. Also you get examples of extremely rude people in political settings, like at the anti-sedition protest in Penang recently which was broken up by a bunch of extremely uncouth thugs.
Rudeness is unpleasant of course, but the question I want to ask here is should it be illegal? I am speaking specifically about Wong Hoi Cheng and M Krishnan, who both have incurred the wrath of the authorities as a result of their “rude” actions.
Wong had likened the Inspector General of Police to a Nazi military commander and Krishnan had posed for a photo holding his slipper against a picture of the Prime Minister. Both actions were done apparently as an angry action to the police arresting scores of Penang Voluntary Patrol Unit and the rising cost of living respectively.
Krishnan was arrested and detained for a few days but as yet has not been charged. Wong has been charged under section 504 of the Penal Code. It is possible that Krishnan may be charged with the same section. If we look at section 504 it says:
“Whoever intentionally insults, and thereby gives provocation to any person, intending or knowing it to be likely that such provocation will cause him to break the public peace, or to commit any other offence, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.”
Looking at this section, insulting someone can be a crime but it seems that the insult has to fulfil two components for it to be an offence. First is the insult itself and secondly that the insult will result in some sort of breach of peace or any other offence.
On the face of it, I don’t see how Wong’s statement can fulfil the second component. But of course ultimately that is for the court to decide. The question remains however as to why the police have decided to use their resources to charge him. Seriously, was what he said going to cause a breach in public order or result in other crimes?
I think the law was designed for situations where a person insults another person to the point that a fight ensues. I am not sure it is meant to protect public figures from rude comments from people who are angry at how you do your duty.
Now perhaps the IGP and the PM were very upset by the acts of these two men. Perhaps they are sensitive people and it hurt them badly. Perhaps, I don’t know, but being the object of anger and the occasional rudeness is the price one pays when holding high public office. Sure it is not nice and sure it is probably not in line with our culture, so sure these men can be scolded and told off by their own fellow Malaysians, but it is not correct for the law to be used to punish them.
This would mean that the law is used in a manner to protect the powerful from criticism. And criticism comes in many forms, including insults. It’s not nice, but then if you are not tough enough to take it, perhaps you shouldn’t be in public office.
Anyway, since the police are so keen on criminalising insults, perhaps they should investigate all those people who have been insulting Syed Azmi Alhabsi. Syed Azmi recently organised an event where people, including Muslims are encouraged to touch dogs in order to get over their prejudices against the animals. Quite a sweet thing to do I think, but not everyone shares this view.
Syed Azmi has been insulted vehemently by some angry Muslims and these insults have also been followed by calls of inflicting violence, even death on the poor chap. Surely this clearly falls under section 504 of the Penal Code. It would be interesting to see what the cops do.
Who will lead Pakatan after Anwar?
The Federal Court will hear the appeal of Anwar Ibrahim’s sodomy case next week. Political analysts are of the opinion that PKR and Pakatan Rakyat need to map out new strategies for post-Anwar era.
Sin Chew Daily reported political analyst Tan Ah Chai saying that if Anwar were to go to jail, PKR’s deputy president cum Selangor MB Azmin Ali would likely become the successor.
He told Sin Chew Daily if Azmin made good use of the power in his hands, he would be the most likely person to lead PKR and Pakatan.
He said, as a matter of fact, there have been talks within the party for a successor to take over Anwar’s place in case the verdict is unfavorable to Anwar.
“If Anwar were to go to jail and lose his leadership power, who will coordinate the conflicts and strategies among Pakatan parties?
“PKR and Pakatan are unwilling to talk about this seriously because they do not want to instill a bad impression before a verdict is passed down.
“But if they don’t do so now, the existing support might become shaky.”
Tan said party president Wan Azizah has all this while served only as the spiritual leader of PKR, while Anwar is the de facto leader, adding that Wan Azizah’s competency in handling the Selangor MB issue had been anything but desirable.
Collective leadership
In addition to Azmin Ali, Tan said DAP parliamentary leader Lim Kit Siang and secretary-general Lim Guan Eng, and PAS’ deputy president Mat Sabu, are also potential future leaders of Pakatan.
However, given the country’s political reality that Pakatan’s chief leader must be a Malay, the probability of Azmin taking over Anwar’s place is the highest.
“If Anwar really goes to jail, Pakatan should adopt collective leadership during the transitional phase whereby key leaders from each component party should form a committee to map out the pact’s directions and strategies.
“During such a transitional phase, leaders from all parties have the opportunity to display their leaderships. In the past Anwar was too strong that the other leaders’ style and their strengths were largely obscured.”
He said Pakatan could not exist without a leader. Indeed it needs several leaders to take over the role of Anwar Ibrahim to coordinate the conflicts and contradictions among the component parties.
Kit Siang, Hadi not suitable to lead Pakatan
Tan pointed out that although Lim Kit Siang and Hadi Awang are leaders of their respective parties, they are not suitable to lead Pakatan due to their personal ideologies, characters and styles.
According to him, Lim is highly sensitive to existing political situations and is quick to respond to changes. However, he has never acted as a coordinator.
“Moreover, to a large extent he has started to bow out and let his son take over party and Pakatan affairs.”
As for Hadi Awang, Tan believe PAS would definitely fight for Pakatan leadership in the absence of Anwar. Nevertheless, Hadi is overzealous and conservative in religious matters without substantial policies for issues pertaining to national economy. He is unlikely to be accepted by PKR and DAP as the common leader of Pakatan Rakyat.
“PAS secretary-general Datuk Ali, meanwhile, is an interest-minded veteran politician with unpredictable stands.”
Tan also mentioned the likelihood of PAS deputy president Mat Sabu leading Pakatan Rakyat, instead of Hadi Awang, because of his good relationship with other Pakatan leaders.
However, he asserted that due to the deepening conflicts between the liberals and conservatives within the party, the statement of any leader would only represent half of the party.
Although Mat Sabu is the party’s deputy president, he doesn’t hold the real power. He held very different views from Hadi Awang over the Selangor MB crisis, and it remains to be seen whether he can be accepted by the conservatives within the party.
Premature to discuss heir now
DAP’s organizing secretary Anthony Loke said Pakatan had yet to meet and discuss the successor of Anwar, although he believed Pakatan would not split just because Anwar has to go to jail.
He said PKR’s leadership should be decided by PKR and other component parties should not interfere.
He said although Anwar has served as Pakatan’s supreme leader thus far, Pakatan has been operating in a collective leadership mode, and all the major decisions by Pakatan must be agreed by all the three parties.
“DAP hopes Anwar will be a free man again in next week’s appeal, and it is premature now to talk about Anwar’s successor.”
He added that Pakatan’s common leader needs not come from PKR.
DAP dares IGP to propose revival of IPCMC
Kit Siang said eyebrows were raised when Khalid said police never objected to the commission being established.
FMT
KUALA LUMPUR: DAP Parliamentary Leader Lim Kit Siang has challenged the Inspector-General of Police to propose to the Cabinet to revive the IPCMC Bill with an amendment to allow appeal against conviction.
Reacting to yesterday’s statement by IGB Khalid Abu Bakar that police had never objected to the establishment of the IPCMC (Independent Police Complaints and Misconduct Commission), Lim said the “eyebrows of all Malaysians would have been raised” by the remark.
News reports yesterday quoted Khalid as saying that police objected only to certain terms in the IPCMC recommendation because they did not leave the police with any rights.
According to earlier reports, there was no clause in the recommendation that would allow police to appeal against conviction.
In his press statement today, Lim asked: “Is Khalid now saying that the police will support the IPCMC proposal if the police is given the right to appeal against any conviction?
“Is Khalid prepared to take the initiative to propose to the Home Minister, the Prime Minister and the Cabinet that the IPCMC Bill, giving the police the right to appeal against conviction, should be presented to Parliament for passage?”
He said it was “imperative” that the IPCMC be established and gave the following reasons:
One of the main objectives of IPCMC was to end deaths in police custody but police custodial deaths have not ended and have continued to be a national scandal despite the three-year operation of the Enforcement Agency Integrity Commission (EAIC).
The establishment of a special committee headed by the Inspector-General of Police in June last year failed to curb police custodial deaths.
The Court of Appeal in the A Kugan case in August called for “zero tolerance” of police custodial deaths and recommended that independent public inquiries be held for all such cases.
Lim recalled that the Court of Appeal censured Khalid, who was the Selangor police chief at the time, for acting both as “judge and jury” and committing “an affront to fair play and transparency” when he negotiated with the Attorney-General for investigations in their probe into Kugan’s death to be confined to Section 330 of the Penal Code for “voluntarily causing hurt”.
KUALA LUMPUR: DAP Parliamentary Leader Lim Kit Siang has challenged the Inspector-General of Police to propose to the Cabinet to revive the IPCMC Bill with an amendment to allow appeal against conviction.
Reacting to yesterday’s statement by IGB Khalid Abu Bakar that police had never objected to the establishment of the IPCMC (Independent Police Complaints and Misconduct Commission), Lim said the “eyebrows of all Malaysians would have been raised” by the remark.
News reports yesterday quoted Khalid as saying that police objected only to certain terms in the IPCMC recommendation because they did not leave the police with any rights.
According to earlier reports, there was no clause in the recommendation that would allow police to appeal against conviction.
In his press statement today, Lim asked: “Is Khalid now saying that the police will support the IPCMC proposal if the police is given the right to appeal against any conviction?
“Is Khalid prepared to take the initiative to propose to the Home Minister, the Prime Minister and the Cabinet that the IPCMC Bill, giving the police the right to appeal against conviction, should be presented to Parliament for passage?”
He said it was “imperative” that the IPCMC be established and gave the following reasons:
One of the main objectives of IPCMC was to end deaths in police custody but police custodial deaths have not ended and have continued to be a national scandal despite the three-year operation of the Enforcement Agency Integrity Commission (EAIC).
The establishment of a special committee headed by the Inspector-General of Police in June last year failed to curb police custodial deaths.
The Court of Appeal in the A Kugan case in August called for “zero tolerance” of police custodial deaths and recommended that independent public inquiries be held for all such cases.
Lim recalled that the Court of Appeal censured Khalid, who was the Selangor police chief at the time, for acting both as “judge and jury” and committing “an affront to fair play and transparency” when he negotiated with the Attorney-General for investigations in their probe into Kugan’s death to be confined to Section 330 of the Penal Code for “voluntarily causing hurt”.
Fatwa Council says touching dogs not Islamic
Islamic religious authorities say that Muslims must adhere to the stipulated Islamic code practised in Malaysia.
FMT
KUALA NERUS: The National Fatwa Council Muzakarah has decided that touching and holding dogs is against mainstream Islamic doctrines in this country which follows the Imam Shafie school of thought.
Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Jamil Khir Baharom said Islam revered all animals including dogs. However, Muslims must adhere to the stipulated Islamic code with regards to touching dogs.
He said this to reporters after closing the National Fatwa Committee Conference 2014, which was also attended by Malaysia Islamic Development Department (Jakim) director-general Othman Mustapha and National Fatwa Council chairman Abdul Shukor Husin.
Jamil Khir said Jakim would call on the organisers of the recent “I Want To Touch A Dog” event to get a clearer picture.
The event which was held at Central Park in Bandar Utama, Petaling Jaya attracted over 800 people from all faiths and was aimed at encouraging human compassion towards dogs.
However, it drew flak from the Islamic religious authorities after some Muslim visitors to the event including children were pictured touching and petting the dogs there.
On another note, Jamil Khir said among the major issues discussed at the conference were the Islamic State (IS), particularly on Malaysian extremists fighting in Syria, Goods and Services Tax (GST) and surrogacy.
In regards to IS, he said the National Fatwa Council found that Muslims were still confused about the context of jihad, martyrdom and religious rulings on these, not just held by Muslims in Malaysia but also throughout the world.
Jamil Khir said that Malaysians who were recruited were willing to fight in Syria in the name of IS, which was against true Islamic teachings.
Regarding the GST which will be implemented next April, Jamil Khir said the National Fatwa Council was of the view that Islam allowed a ruling government to collect tax but it must be within the Islamic legal framework.
On surrogacy, the minister said the National Fatwa Council decided that it was not encouraged except in mitigating circumstances.
He said the details of the decisions or edicts made by the council at its meeting would be released soon by the secretariat of the Malaysia National Fatwa Committee. – BERNAMA
KUALA NERUS: The National Fatwa Council Muzakarah has decided that touching and holding dogs is against mainstream Islamic doctrines in this country which follows the Imam Shafie school of thought.
Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Jamil Khir Baharom said Islam revered all animals including dogs. However, Muslims must adhere to the stipulated Islamic code with regards to touching dogs.
He said this to reporters after closing the National Fatwa Committee Conference 2014, which was also attended by Malaysia Islamic Development Department (Jakim) director-general Othman Mustapha and National Fatwa Council chairman Abdul Shukor Husin.
Jamil Khir said Jakim would call on the organisers of the recent “I Want To Touch A Dog” event to get a clearer picture.
The event which was held at Central Park in Bandar Utama, Petaling Jaya attracted over 800 people from all faiths and was aimed at encouraging human compassion towards dogs.
However, it drew flak from the Islamic religious authorities after some Muslim visitors to the event including children were pictured touching and petting the dogs there.
On another note, Jamil Khir said among the major issues discussed at the conference were the Islamic State (IS), particularly on Malaysian extremists fighting in Syria, Goods and Services Tax (GST) and surrogacy.
In regards to IS, he said the National Fatwa Council found that Muslims were still confused about the context of jihad, martyrdom and religious rulings on these, not just held by Muslims in Malaysia but also throughout the world.
Jamil Khir said that Malaysians who were recruited were willing to fight in Syria in the name of IS, which was against true Islamic teachings.
Regarding the GST which will be implemented next April, Jamil Khir said the National Fatwa Council was of the view that Islam allowed a ruling government to collect tax but it must be within the Islamic legal framework.
On surrogacy, the minister said the National Fatwa Council decided that it was not encouraged except in mitigating circumstances.
He said the details of the decisions or edicts made by the council at its meeting would be released soon by the secretariat of the Malaysia National Fatwa Committee. – BERNAMA
The thinking Malay is dangerous
The ulamas, like the political leaders, are obsessed with power and want Muslims to be at their mercy.
FMT - Mariam Mokhtar
The most dangerous threat to the Malaysian government is not an invading army, a contagious disease, or a nuclear threat. It is the thinking Malay.
When young pharmacist Syed Azmi Alhabshi decided to organise the “I Want to Touch a Dog” event at Bandar Utama on October 19, he didn’t expect such a huge response. More than 1,000 people –Muslims and non-Muslims – turned up.
Whilst man and beast were having lots of fun, in other parts of the country temperatures were raised. Syed Azmi was perceived as a threat.
Syed Azmi may have united Malaysians but he was alienating some conservative Muslims in Malaysia. His innocent “dog touching event” is a defining moment in 21st Century Malaysian history.
The Internet was awash with photos of tudung-clad girls smiling with their favourite dogs, Malay toddlers chasing German Shepherds, elderly Muslim couples stroking contented looking Labradors and Malay teenagers playing with Cocker Spaniels.
Malays and non-Malays were getting to know one another, through another of God’s creatures. The people learnt to bond – not just dog with humans, but Muslims and non-Muslims.
Any Malaysian, including the political leaders, should have been pleased to see harmony in action. People forgot their inhibitions. They did not see themselves as people of different faiths or races. They got on with one another, with help from the dogs.
Society’s party pooper, Jakim, waded in to spoil all the fun. Its director-general, Othman Mustapha, was furious, and said that the programme should not have taken place to begin with. He barked that Jakim would investigate the matter immediately.
He was followed by a Kelantan ulama who cried “Repent. Repent. Repent.” Other conservative Muslims claimed that the ulamas were being insulted. If anyone needs their heads examined, it is these people.
This is not a political issue; so why were the ulamas angry? They were furious because they saw their power being eroded. The 3Rs – race, religion and royalty – keep us in check, and safely divided.
For years, Muslims have been told what to do by the ulamas. The political leaders, together with their cronies and religious authorities carve up Malaysia for themselves.
One political cynic said, “To keep them in power, the leaders manipulate laws. To control dissent, they bully us with draconian laws. We are threatened with sedition. We are told that women leaders will lead us to hell. We are told that God approves of the GST. We are told that voting for Umno-Baru is a one-way ticket to heaven. The sad thing is that many Malays believe this.”
His colleague said, “After last Sunday’s dog touching event, more Malays are finally seeing the light. The Malay mind is being freed from its mental slavery. That explains why the authorities and the conservative ulamas are working at breakneck speed to find Syed Azmi guilty, but he has done nothing wrong.”
Fear of being irrelevant
Syed Azmi only wanted Malaysians to be compassionate towards animals and overcome their fear of dogs. He was not insulting the ulamas. The ulamas did not even bother to ask him why he organised the event.
The ulamas and conservative Muslims see their power base eroding. They are afraid that they will no longer be of relevance in a modern world which does not believe in the 3Rs.
Many Muslims nationwide observed the event on the Internet and saw no issue with dog touching. The ulamas are afraid that the thinking Malay will start to ask questions about their other edicts, handed down, in the past, to control Muslim behaviour.
The ulamas, like the political leaders, are obsessed with power. The rakyat is at their mercy. However, a thinking Malay can see past their warped thinking.
Touching dogs is not going to lead to touching pigs or eating non-halal food. It will not lead to free sex. It is the ulamas and their obsession with sex which makes the thinking Malay question why the ulama are stupid and shallow. The ulamas use sex as a crowd puller.
The ulamas must realise that in Saudi Arabia, the Bedouin tribesmen hunt with dogs (the Salukis), as in Afghanistan (the Afghan hounds). Dogs are used in search and rescue, for drug detection, hunting, and to assist the blind, the deaf and those with epilepsy. The dog is man’s best friend.
The thinking Malays wonder why things like chocolates, dogs, the word “Allah” and beer take prominence in the national debate. They wonder why the ulamas keep silent about the rising cost of living, petrol price hikes, the collapsing infrastructure, corruption, the abuse of power by the leaders, incest, drug taking by Malays and the high crime rate.
Today, the ulamas are against us touching dogs. Knowing how their minds work, it won’t be long before Muslims will be banned from eating hot-dogs, and using English idioms like “dog in the manger” or complaining that a book is “dog eared”, or that Malaysia has “gone to the dogs”.
Mariam Mokhtar is an FMT columnist
The most dangerous threat to the Malaysian government is not an invading army, a contagious disease, or a nuclear threat. It is the thinking Malay.
When young pharmacist Syed Azmi Alhabshi decided to organise the “I Want to Touch a Dog” event at Bandar Utama on October 19, he didn’t expect such a huge response. More than 1,000 people –Muslims and non-Muslims – turned up.
Whilst man and beast were having lots of fun, in other parts of the country temperatures were raised. Syed Azmi was perceived as a threat.
Syed Azmi may have united Malaysians but he was alienating some conservative Muslims in Malaysia. His innocent “dog touching event” is a defining moment in 21st Century Malaysian history.
The Internet was awash with photos of tudung-clad girls smiling with their favourite dogs, Malay toddlers chasing German Shepherds, elderly Muslim couples stroking contented looking Labradors and Malay teenagers playing with Cocker Spaniels.
Malays and non-Malays were getting to know one another, through another of God’s creatures. The people learnt to bond – not just dog with humans, but Muslims and non-Muslims.
Any Malaysian, including the political leaders, should have been pleased to see harmony in action. People forgot their inhibitions. They did not see themselves as people of different faiths or races. They got on with one another, with help from the dogs.
Society’s party pooper, Jakim, waded in to spoil all the fun. Its director-general, Othman Mustapha, was furious, and said that the programme should not have taken place to begin with. He barked that Jakim would investigate the matter immediately.
He was followed by a Kelantan ulama who cried “Repent. Repent. Repent.” Other conservative Muslims claimed that the ulamas were being insulted. If anyone needs their heads examined, it is these people.
This is not a political issue; so why were the ulamas angry? They were furious because they saw their power being eroded. The 3Rs – race, religion and royalty – keep us in check, and safely divided.
For years, Muslims have been told what to do by the ulamas. The political leaders, together with their cronies and religious authorities carve up Malaysia for themselves.
One political cynic said, “To keep them in power, the leaders manipulate laws. To control dissent, they bully us with draconian laws. We are threatened with sedition. We are told that women leaders will lead us to hell. We are told that God approves of the GST. We are told that voting for Umno-Baru is a one-way ticket to heaven. The sad thing is that many Malays believe this.”
His colleague said, “After last Sunday’s dog touching event, more Malays are finally seeing the light. The Malay mind is being freed from its mental slavery. That explains why the authorities and the conservative ulamas are working at breakneck speed to find Syed Azmi guilty, but he has done nothing wrong.”
Fear of being irrelevant
Syed Azmi only wanted Malaysians to be compassionate towards animals and overcome their fear of dogs. He was not insulting the ulamas. The ulamas did not even bother to ask him why he organised the event.
The ulamas and conservative Muslims see their power base eroding. They are afraid that they will no longer be of relevance in a modern world which does not believe in the 3Rs.
Many Muslims nationwide observed the event on the Internet and saw no issue with dog touching. The ulamas are afraid that the thinking Malay will start to ask questions about their other edicts, handed down, in the past, to control Muslim behaviour.
The ulamas, like the political leaders, are obsessed with power. The rakyat is at their mercy. However, a thinking Malay can see past their warped thinking.
Touching dogs is not going to lead to touching pigs or eating non-halal food. It will not lead to free sex. It is the ulamas and their obsession with sex which makes the thinking Malay question why the ulama are stupid and shallow. The ulamas use sex as a crowd puller.
The ulamas must realise that in Saudi Arabia, the Bedouin tribesmen hunt with dogs (the Salukis), as in Afghanistan (the Afghan hounds). Dogs are used in search and rescue, for drug detection, hunting, and to assist the blind, the deaf and those with epilepsy. The dog is man’s best friend.
The thinking Malays wonder why things like chocolates, dogs, the word “Allah” and beer take prominence in the national debate. They wonder why the ulamas keep silent about the rising cost of living, petrol price hikes, the collapsing infrastructure, corruption, the abuse of power by the leaders, incest, drug taking by Malays and the high crime rate.
Today, the ulamas are against us touching dogs. Knowing how their minds work, it won’t be long before Muslims will be banned from eating hot-dogs, and using English idioms like “dog in the manger” or complaining that a book is “dog eared”, or that Malaysia has “gone to the dogs”.
Mariam Mokhtar is an FMT columnist
Doubts in administration of justice
The Star
by K.C. VOHRAH
by K.C. VOHRAH
THE recent
episode in Parliament when Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department
Nancy Shukri gave a written reply to a parliamentary question in
relation to the Malay Bible burning threat by Datuk Ibrahim Ali raises a
number of concerns.
The minister in a written reply stated, inter alia,
that Ibrahim was not charged under the Sedition Act because the police
concluded that he was merely defending the sanctity of Islam and had not
intended to create chaos with this statement.
The
written statement was from the Attorney-General’s Chambers where the
Attorney-General (A-G) is the adviser to the Government on legal matters
under Article 145(2) of the Constitution.
The
first concern is the reliance by the A-G Chambers on the finding that
Ibrahim was not intending to create chaos, to exculpate him from a
charge under the Sedition Act.
However,
section 3(3) of the Act clearly states that “(for) the purpose of
proving the commission of any offence under this Act the intention of
the person charged... shall be deemed irrelevant if in fact the words...
had a seditious tendency”.
Again
in relation to Ibrahim’s statement in the context of the words used, is
there not a “seditious tendency” under the section 3 (1)(d) where
“seditious tendency is defined as being a tendency” to promote feelings
of ill-will and hostility between different races or classes of the
population of Malaysia...”, an offence under section 4 of the Act?
The
second concern is that it would appear that the police had concluded
that there was no intention to create chaos. How the police came to that
conclusion shows that the provisions of the Sedition Act had not been
understood or studied by the officers who compiled the investigation
papers (collectively called the IP) before they concluded that no action
should be taken against the man.
The
third concern is that under Article 145(2) it is the duty of the A-G to
advise, among others, any minister on legal matters. The A-G is the
ultimate legal adviser to the Government and he cannot afford to be
wrong.
The
A-G Chambers will answer a parliamentary question in the form of an
opinion. An opinion will comprise a statement of facts and the
application of the law on the facts.
In
our context the A-G Chambers relied on the police for the facts of the
case. On the issue of law and its interpretation the A-G Chambers
appeared to rely on the opinion of the police in the IP, as well, that
no offence had been made out under the Sedition Act. That clearly is
wrong.
I
had been with the A-G Chambers for 16 years in the 70s and early 80s
and the protocol for dealing with parliamentary questions was strict. An
answer had to go through many layers of scrutiny and approval before
being sanctioned by the A-G for release. What has happened to the strict
procedure in the A-G Chambers?
Admittedly
the A-G Chambers in my days was, and more so now is, never idle as the
volume of problems that come to the chambers for legal opinion is
enormous.
But
in matters relating to parliamentary questions, truthful and accurate
statements of law are expected in the august body of Parliament as the
A-G is the ultimate adviser of the government in legal matters.
There
needs to be a re-think probably of the protocol relating to answers to
parliamentary questions especially in criminal law matters, and the
decision on the law should be for the A-G Chambers and nobody else,
except for the courts.
There
are other concerns but perhaps I should deal with the biggest concern.
It is with regard to the perception of the role of the A-G (as Public
Prosecutor) in the legal administration of the country.
The
A-G under Article 145(2) has the power, exercisable at his discretion,
to institute, conduct or discontinue any proceedings for an offence.
The power is an awesome power which has to be exercised bona fide
and with great professionalism and care. And any perception that the
A-G when exercising such powers, is biased, selective or acts under
ministerial pressure or pressure from any group will bring disrepute to
the office of the A-G and cause grave misgivings as to the fair
administration of the legal system. And when mistrust arises in regard
to the exercise of such powers it would be to the discredit of the
Government.
Clearly,
the A-G Chambers has to be circumspect in regard to police IPs when
dealing with the issues of fact and, especially when dealing
particularly with parliamentary questions.
The
A-G Chambers must also be solely responsible for the interpretation of
the law in accordance with the tenor of the legislation and the relevant
court-decided cases on that law; and the A-G cannot abdicate that duty
to any other body, though the courts will have the last say on it.
With
these concerns in mind, in relation to the Sedition Act, the A-G should
review the cases where persons have already been charged in court
bearing in mind that:
(1)
The Sedition Act is an oppressive law and that many jurists and
scholars consider sedition (based on common law seditious libel) as
obsolete. Seditious libel came during a period when the divine right of
rulers was not only accepted but believed to be necessary; rulers who
dispensed laws were above questions and criticism of rulers was
considered sinful as well as unlawful.
Lord Denning in Landmarks in the Law (1984) stated at p 295:
The
offence of seditious libel is now obsolescent. It used to be defined as
words intended to stir up violence, that is, disorder, by promoting
feelings, of ill-will or hostility between different classes of His
Majesty’s subjects.
But
this definition was found to be too wide. It would restrict too much
the full free discussion of public affairs... So it has fallen into
disuse for nearly 150 years. The only case in this century was R. v.
Caunt... when a local paper published an article stirring up hatred
against Jews. The jury found the editor Not Guilty.
In the Canadian Supreme Court decision of Boucher v The King [1951] SCR 265 at 285-286, Mr Justice Rand held:
Up
to the end of the 18th century it (crime of seditious libel) was, in
essence, a contempt in words of political authority or the actions of
authority.
If
we conceive of the governors of society as superior beings, exercising a
divine mandate, by whom laws, institutions and administrations are
given to men to be obeyed, who are, in short, beyond criticism,
reflection or censure upon them or what they do implies either an
equality with them or an accountability by them, both equally offensive.
(2)
That once a person is charged for an offence under the Act, looking at
the state of case law in Malaysia, there is no defence that can normally
be taken for offences, say, under the Penal Code or other acts creating
offences. So it appears there can be no defence even of truth, lack of
intention, presence of an innocent or honourable intention, absence of
consequent harm, or even a lack of possibility or potential for
consequent harm. Prove the utterance of words as “seditious” (defined
circularly and widely) and there is no defence to the utterance. Very
oppressive in the 21st century. And to think this is the law in
Malaysia, a democratic country.
(3)
That the A-G before exercising his discretion whether to charge a
person for sedition must ignore pressure from any quarter, political or
otherwise, the noisy and the cantankerous, and the well-meaning and
well-intentioned groups (who have not seen the oppressive implications
of the law), and focus on whether it is reasonable to charge such a
person in the context of all relevant circumstances in an age of
“disagreement in ideas and belief on every conceivable subject” which
are the essence of our life in modern Malaysia pushing on for developed
status in 2020.
Let
us hope that the A-G, who had indicated he would review the cases of
those charged for sedition, will do so with a group of officers who have
researched the history of sedition law, its very rare use in other
common law countries including Australia, Canada, India, Ireland, New
Zealand, South Africa, United Kingdom and the United States and the
reasons why that is so.
Using
such reasons and in the context of reasonableness it is hoped the
charges against a slew of persons including academics will be withdrawn.
It boggles the mind that even intellectual discourse can be considered
seditious.
K.C. VOHRAH
Kuala Lumpur
'Suhakam, probe Uthaya's prison horror stories'
"Proham recognises that the Suhakam Act empowers the Human Rights Commission not only to visit detention centres but also undertake public inquiries.
"We therefore urge Suhakam to undertake a comprehensive review so as to ensure the treatment of prisoners and prison conditions are in accordance with basic United Nations standards," Proham chairperson Kuthubul Zaman Bukhari said in a statement today.
Kuthubul
also called on the home minister and the director-general of prisons to
engage with Suhakam for a review of current standard operating
procedures (SOP) on treatment of prisoners and conditions in Malaysian
prisonsKuthubul reminded that with its recent acceptance as a UN Security Council member, Malaysia should adhere to the basic principles for the treatment of prisoners as adopted by the UN general assembly.
In a series of interviews with Malaysiakini this week, the Hindraf leader related his ordeal during his two years in Kajang Prison, after being convicted for sedition.
Prisoners have rights too
Meanwhile, Kuthubul urged for implementation of the basic principles for the treatment of prisoners which were adopted and proclaimed by the UN General Assembly resolution 45/111 in 1990.
The resolution states that all prisoners must be treated with respect as human beings and should not be discriminated on any grounds.
“Except for those limitations that are demonstrably necessitated by the fact of incarceration, all prisoners shall retain the human rights and fundamental freedoms set out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
“All prisoners shall have the right to take part in cultural activities and education aimed at the full development of the human personality,” Kuthubul said.
He also pointed out that there should be efforts to address the abolition of solitary confinement as a punishment.
“(Also), prisoners shall have access to health services available in the country without discrimination on the grounds of their legal situation.
“Favourable conditions shall be created for the reintegration of the ex-prisoner into society under the best possible conditions,” he added.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)