I'd be Tun Anwar if I 'repent', says PKR chief

Dogs are bad, but liquor labelling contracts ok, chides Anwar

Jerusalem Terrorist's Mother: "Praise Allah He's a Martyr"

Virtual Jerusalem

The mother of Abdelrahman Shaludi, the Hamas terrorist who last Wednesday murdered three-month-old Chaya Zisel Braun hy''d and 22-year-old Karen Mosquera hy''d with his car in Jerusalem, is a "martyr" according to his mother.

Shaludi's family raised a ruckus after police limited the number of attendees at the terrorist's Sunday night funeral at the feet of the Temple Mount to 20, and had the burial be held late at night.

The steps were taken to avoid violent Arab rioting, which occurred before the funeral in any case, as Arab residents of the Shiloach (Silwan in Arabic) neighborhood where Shaludi hails from clashed with police outside the dead terrorist's home, as the family then refused to begin the funeral.

In the end, the family and the police agreed to let the funeral take place with a reduced number of participants, and the funeral of the Hamas terrorist was held in the Israeli capital without additional attacks on law enforcement forces.

During the funeral, Shaludi's mother said she was proud of her son who gave honor to the family when he became a "shahid" (martyr), adding repeatedly "praise to Allah."

The praise and lionization of the terrorist echoes statements by Palestinian Authority (PA) Chairman Mahmoud Abbas's Fatah faction, which pledged "loyalty" to Shaludi, and PA chief negotiator Saeb Erekat who justified the murders Shaludi committed. Likewise, a senior aid to Abbas was quick to praise the terrorist murder of the three-month-old, calling the terrorist a "hero."

The Almagor terror victims' organization had protested returning the body of the terrorist, who was shot as he tried to flee the Ammunition Hill light rail station where he plowed his car into a group of pedestrians.

The group pointed out that there are two fallen IDF soldiers, Hadar Goldin and Oron Shaul hy"d, whose bodies are still being held by Hamas after the last operation, and being used to negotiate the release of hundreds of terrorists.

Meir Indor and Dr. Aryeh Bacharah, heads of Almagor, argued that Israel should have placed a condition on the return of Shaludi's body, demanding that the bodies of its fallen soldiers be returned in exchange for the body of the Hamas terrorist.

Thousands of Muslim children miss out on flu immunisation over PORK contamination fears

By Nick Lavigueur

Health officials confirm gelatine in nasal vaccine contains traces of pork – meaning it is against the religious rules of Muslims to allow their children to be immunised

A flu vaccine for children contains traces of PORK – and that could mean thousands of Muslim children could miss out on protection against the winter bug.

Health officials have admitted concerns after it emerged that the majority of Muslim parents would not accept the use of a new nasal vaccine called Fluenz.

The product is being used to vaccinate all children in England aged two, three and four.

And in some parts of the country all primary school children and pupils in years seven and eight of secondary school will also receive the jab, reports the Huddersfield Daily Examiner.

Health chiefs in the Kirklees area of West Yorkshire have confirmed there is a tiny amount of pork gelatine in the vaccine following concerns raised by Muslim parents.

But Islamic scholars in other parts of the UK and the world have declared it is halal, they say.

Lynn Batley, practice manager at Mount Pleasant Medical Centre in Batley, an area with a high Muslim population, said many parents were getting upset when they found out there was no alternative for their children.

"We’re having to do the explaining to parents and that’s not always good," she said.

"Some are getting quite angry because we're not allowed to give the normal injected vaccine to healthy children.

"We are allowed to give it to children at risk, such as ones with asthma, but well children are not allowed it. It's confusing for everyone.

"About 60% of our patients are Muslim so it's affecting a significant amount of people."

A report to the Kirklees Council’s Health and Wellbeing Board reveals public health officials consulted with Islamic scholars at Huddersfield and Dewsbury hospitals.

They discussed the matter “at length” and consulted the community before rejecting Fluenz.

The Kirklees Department of Public Health has now raised concerns with Public Health England (PHE) that a “significant proportion” of Kirklees’s children will not be immunised.

PHE says there is no alternative and traditional injectable vaccines are not effective or as long lasting in children.

A crisis meeting between Department for Health, NHS and Kirklees officials is now set to take place to consider what to do.

A source claims a change in policy to allow injections is being considered.

Akooji Badat, a committee member at Snowden Street mosque in Batley, said many considered the vaccine unnecessary and therefore would not break the religious rules of shunning pork content.

He explained: "If I was fasting and it was a life or death situation then I would break it.

“But a flu vaccine hasn’t been proved to be necessary – you can do without it. Gelatine is bad news as far as the Muslim community is concerned. If they could find an alternative we would go for it."

Who really is a Malaysian?

 

Now, who is and is not a Malaysian? Does Umno decide this? Worse still, does Perkasa, or its cousin, Isma, decide this? This question needs to be now be truthfully taught in Malaysian history so that everyone knows who, what, and how the value of Malaysian citizenship is protected and preserved by UN Human Rights Convention. But, that, too, is very different from whoever is a Melayusian; as, this, too, is defined by the federal constitution.

All human beings are ‘pendatangs’ of one form or another; according to human race development theories. In fact, we may all be part and parcel of the original African Race. Colour has little or nothing to do with it, as I understand it. It is all defined by genome science and its investigations about the structure of our genes.

But, is not the more relevant question: does it all really matter? Are we not all human beings, of the only human race; and with almost identical features and characteristics, with minor differences endowed by the Almighty?

And therefore, as boys at the Royal Military Colege (RMC), we said as we bathed naked; “semuanya lebih-kurang sahaja!”

What is Malaysia?

Malaysia is a gathering of English colonies that were historically ‘artificially created’ to make sense of some existing realities; like the Federation of Peninsular Malay States with their sultans, the Borneo States of Sabah and Sarawak, and Singapore being desirous of becoming a new modern nation-state, according the UN System of Global Governance.

Therefore, the UN actually moderated the plebiscite wherein the legitimate residents of two states voted for the Malaysia option. Brunei had a similar choice but they chose not to, whereas Singapore was part of the similar calculus of colonial history.

Therefore also, I have always argued that “the name Malaysia” is an English etymological word and not a Melayu word from Bahasa Melayu. What is the implication of this historically well recorded reality?

It is simply that we could have been ‘Melayusia’ if we had chosen a Bahasa Melayu word, or some other Sanskrit equivalent. But, when we opted for the English compound word; and the fact that it was agreed by all relevant stakeholders; my point is that: history was created such and can never be rewritten.

Today Malaysia has no choice but to follow international norms and traditions in all such matters, or otherwise, it is inevitable that these matters will land itself in the International Human Rights Court.

Who is my grandson?

For all young people, and for some of us, much later in life: the question of one’s identity becomes a big deal, usually between 15-21 years. It is usually within our college years, or post-secondary years (usually between ages 18-22). Very often, up till that point, we are merely our parents’ children, and whatever they said, or whatever the other authorities said, will be accepted as definition of one’s identity.

But the real challenge starts when we begin to learn to “question all assumptions made up till this point because of real college-level education”.

These questions are inevitable. I have therefore dedicated this column to this kind and quality of questions which my two-week old grandson will ask about 18 years from now.

He already has a clear enough biblical name: Mikhael  Elisha Isaacs. The name Mikhael means, ‘who is like god?’ His parents are known; with his grandfather and mother on the dad’s family residing in Terengganu state, and from a well-known family whose heritage includes even a road named after their family in Kuala Terengganu.

On his mother’s side, again the grandparents are from Kedah and Wisconsin in the US. The grandmother has a pure Germanic heritage with a family tree traceable to towns in Germany, even today, thanks to their incredible records and the search by Mikhael’s 91- year old great mother’s due diligence.

On the grandfather’s side, the KJ Siblings have recorded a book of their identity and heritage on the 90th birthday of their father entitled: The Legacy of a Father’s Love. This great grandfather is now 95 years old and fading rather quickly, although he has now seen his first great grandson last weekend. Their family heritage is visibly recorded at No 4, Jalan Ibrahim, Sungai Petani.

With such a genealogy and heritage, who then is Mikhael Elisha? First and foremost he is a Malaysian citizen; and there can be zero doubts about this. The federal constitution guarantees all of this.  The only issue of contention remains is “how should the parents fill out the column called ‘keturunan’ in the birth certificate?” This former column used to be called Bangsa.

If ‘keturunan’ is still used for his birth registration, the law, if I am not mistaken, states that the ethnicity of the father defines it. Now, within current human rights logic, does the mother not matter at all, in such a consideration? Worse still, if the mother’s parents were of mixed parentage; like in our case, of Malayalee and Germanic heritage, not ‘Indian and American as misnamed’, which are really nationalities and not ethnicities.

What then is the ethnicity of my grandson?

What they have done in Singapore is to allow the parents to record the one-quarter heritage in the selected order of preference, and not simply falsely or politically impose this definition of identity.

A way forward for Malaysia

All citizens are Malaysian by nationality. But if we think their ethnicity and heritage is needed for some strange reason, the most obvious thing would be to allow them to record their ethnic heritage. Therefore, for instance, I think in all the case of my kids, we recorded them as ‘Malayalees’ as the ethnic heritage of the father. So then, what is the great error or mistake if we have him recorded as of Malayalee-German heritage for ethnicity?

So, why could not my grandson be recorded as a Malaylee, as the heritage of the father, or even one-quarter German, if that is allowed, but what is not and never is correct is that their heritage is ‘Indian’. India is a nation-state and we are not Indians; although from Kerala by heritage. Indians only exist overseas; because of their nationality. Within India there are at least 14 nationally accepted languages and different ethnicities. But there are no Indians.

Moreover, now that the Dayak National Congress has finally publicly articulated that their ethnicity must be recorded in the birth certificates, maybe it is time for us to close down the generalised notions of ‘racial heritage’ and seek to expand their ethnic categories under the ‘lain lain’ to give all citizens a choice of declaring their ethnic heritage. Dear home affairs minister, please tell me why not?

---

KJ JOHN was in public service for 29 years. The views expressed here are his personal views and not those of any institution he is involved with. Write to him at kjjohn@ohmsi.net with any feedback or views.

Kenyataan Ibrahim Ali tetap berbaur hasutan, Khairy tak setuju dengan Peguam Negara

Khairy Jamaluddin Abu Bakar tidak bersetuju dengan Jabatan Peguam Negara yang tidak mengklasifikasikan kenyataan Datuk Ibrahim Ali menggesa Bible berbahasa Melayu dibakar sebagai mengasut.

Ketua Pemuda Umno itu berkata, jelas apa yang diperkatakan Ibrahim adalah menghasut kerana mahu membakar kitab suci agama lain.

"Saya dah buat pendirian berkenaan kes ini. Bagi saya ia berbaur hasutan. Saya tak setuju.

"Terpulang kepada Peguam Negara. Pandangan peribadi saya kalau buat kenyataan nak bakar kitab orang lain, itu adalah hasutan.

"Peguam Negara ada kebebasan untuk buat keputusan dari segi pendakwaan. Tetapi kalau ditanya saya adakah kenyataan itu menghasut? Sudah tentu," katanya pada satu sidang media di ibu pejabat Umno di Menara Dato' Onn hari ini.

Jabatan Peguam Negara hari ini memecah kebisuannya selama ini berhubung keputusan tiadanya tindakan terhadap Ibrahim yang menggesa Bible berbahasa Melayu dibakar.

Ia mengatakan, seruan presiden Perkasa itu mesti dilihat daripada keseluruhan konteks dan menambah kenyataannya waktu itu hanya ditujukan kepada kejadian di mana Bible tersebut diedarkan kepada pelajar Islam di SMK Jelutong, Pulau Pinang.

"Sebagaimana yang diputuskan oleh mahkamah, sebelum sesuatu kenyataan itu dikatakan mempunyai kecenderungan menghasut, kenyataan itu hendaklah dilihat secara keseluruhan dan tidak boleh dipisahkan daripada konteks di mana ia dibuat.

"Apabila dikaji di dalam konteksnya secara keseluruhan, kenyataan Ibrahim tidak tergolong sebagai kecenderungan menghasut.

"Jelas Ibrahim bukan berniat menimbulkan kekecohan keagamaan tetapi hanyalah mempertahankan kesucian agama Islam," menurut kenyataan itu hari ini.

Khairy berkata, kenyataan Ibrahim itu perlu dilihat dalam kerangka yang lebih luas dan bagaimana ia memberi kesan kepada penghinaan kepada kitab suci sesebuah agama.

"Bayangkan kalau ada orang cakap macam tu pasal Al-Quran. Sudah tentulah menghasut,” katanya.

Ketika ditanya kemungkinan pandangannya itu bercanggah dengan kebanyakan pemimpin Umno, Khairy menjawab ringkas, "Sebab itu saya KJ.”

Jabatan Peguam Negara hari ini turut menjelaskan kenyataan Ibrahim tersebut tidak terpakai kepada Seksyen 504 Kanun Keseksaan kerana tidak mempunyai niat memnghina atau mencetuskan provokasi yang mengancam orang awam.

“Beliau turut tidak melakukan kesalahan di bawah Seksyen 298 atau 298A Kanun Keseksaan kerana jelas beliau mempertahankan kesucian Islam,” kata Jabatan Peguam Negara.

Sebelum ini pelbagai pihak mahu Ibrahim didakwa mengikut Akta Hasutan atas kenyatannya yang mahu membakar Bible berbahasa Melayu.

Desakan tersebut bukan sahaja datang daripada pemimpin pembangkang malah ahli Parlimen Barisan Nasional (BN) turut membuat gesaan sama. – 27 Oktober, 2014.

- See more at: http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/bahasa/article/kenyataan-ibrahim-ali-tetap-berbaur-hasutan-khairy-tak-setuju-dengan-peguam#sthash.nwweOkfx.dpuf

Ambiga praises students for facing up to UM’s administration

Datuk Ambiga Sreenevasan tonight praises Universiti Malaya students for their courage in taking on the administration of the Malaysia's oldest university which allowed Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim to enter campus grounds.

The Negara-Ku co-chair said she was amazed by the fighting spirit displayed by the students, especially Universiti Malaya Undergraduates Assopciation (PMUM) president Fahmi Zainol, describing them as the agent of change in the country.

"What we see now is change happening, now we are seeing our youths rising up against oppression.

"I truly admire Fahmi, who was willing to face up to the autocratic attitude of the UM administration and I praise them (the students)," she said, in her speech during the Anti-Sedition Act dinner at Dewan Sivik in Petaling Jaya tonight.

Ambiga said with the latest development, the Umno-Barisan Nasional (BN) government could no longer duped the people and should be aware of it by now.

"This shows that you can't lie to everyone all the time," she said. – October 27, 2014.

- See more at: http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/malaysia/article/ambiga-praises-students-for-facing-up-to-ums-administration#sthash.MaLKBOSl.dpuf

The main actors in Anwar’s 16-year sodomy saga

The final chapter of Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim's sodomy saga will unfold today and tomorrow in the Federal Court, where he is seeking to overturn the conviction of sodomising his one-time aide, Mohamad Saiful Bukhari Azlan.

This is the opposition leader's second sodomy trial, and at age 67, it could spell the end of his political career if the apex court upholds the guilty verdict and earlier sentence of five years' jail.

His 16-year saga in and out of courts for sodomy charges has kept Malaysia on a political edge and shone the international spotlight on the judiciary and the executive.

One legacy Anwar's persecutors also probably did not anticipate was the rise of a strengthened federal opposition, as support for him coalesced into the Pakatan Rakyat (PR) alliance, which denied the ruling Barisan Nasional (BN) a two-thirds majority in Parliament since 2008.

The Malaysian Insider recalls some of the main actors in this saga.

Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad

The country's longest serving prime minister handpicked Anwar as his protégé and successor, before sacking him on September 2, 1998. In the run-up to the sacking, their relationship soured as both men diverged on how to run the country as it struggled under the Asian financial crisis, and how to run Umno, the lead party in the ruling BN.

Dr Mahathir repeatedly used Anwar’s sodomy charge as justification for sacking him. He also accused Anwar of wanting to "sell" Malaysia to the International Monetary Fund by agreeing to accept its financial reforms during the Asian financial crisis.

He stepped down from power in 2003, some years after the 1999 polls that saw BN lose Terengganu and urban votes due to Anwar's sacking, in favour of Tun Abdullah Badawi, who was seen as a counterbalance to Dr Mahathir's iron grip that was repugnant to younger voters.

But a retired Dr Mahathir continued to wield political influence in Umno, and led a campaign to dethrone his hand-picked successor before the 2008 polls, which culminated in Abdullah's resignation in 2009.

Dr Mahathir, who is patron of Malay rights group Perkasa, also withdrew support for current prime minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak, for ignoring the 89-year-old's views on how to run Malaysia.

Tan Sri Rahim Noor

Tan Sri Rahim Noor was the national police chief at the time of Anwar's fall and led the force against the "Reformasi" demonstrations held after Anwar's sacking.

Anwar was arrested on September 20, 1998, hours after he led a rally of tens of thousands in Kuala Lumpur to call for reforms in Dr Mahathir's government.

Rahim became infamous for assaulting Anwar while in police custody, giving Anwar a black eye that he visibly sustained when he appeared in court on September 29, 1998, to face charges of corruption and sodomy.

Anwar always claimed that Rahim's assault had also severely injured his back.

Reformasi protests grew more frequent and aggressive after Anwar appeared with the bruised eye. For a month, central Kuala Lumpur turned into a battleground as Light Strike Force police units chased protesters through the streets around Dataran Merdeka, the Jalan Tunku Abdul Rahman-Masjid Jamek area and Kampung Baru.

Rahim subsequently resigned in disgrace as inspector-general of police, and was tried in 2000 for the assault. He was found guilty of voluntarily causing hurt and was sentenced to two months in prison and fined RM2,000.

He publicly apologised for the incident. Rahim is now a member of Malay rights group Perkasa.

Tan Sri Musa Hassan

Musa was the senior investigating officer in Anwar’s first sodomy trial. He is best remembered for bringing into the courtroom a mattress on which Anwar allegedly sodomised former driver Azizan Abu Bakar.

Anwar accused Musa and the prosecutor at that time, Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail (now the Attorney-General), of fabricating evidence against him.

Musa (pic, left) became the federal police chief at the time of Anwar’s second sodomy charge in 2008, and retired in 2010 when Putrajaya did not extend his contract.

He is now with anti-crime group Malaysia Community Crime Care Association.

The judiciary

Tan Sri Arifin Jaka presided over Anwar's first sodomy trial in 1999 and sentenced him to nine years' jail.

A lawyer before his elevation to the bench, he retired as a Court of Appeal judge and died in 2011 at age 78.

In the appellate court, the judges who upheld the conviction were Datuk P.S. Gill, Tan Sri Richard Malanjum and Datuk Hashim Yusoff.

All three were later promoted to the federal court. Gill and Hashim have retired but Malanjum is still on the bench and is now the chief judge of Sabah and Sarawak.

Anwar was acquitted by a two-one ruling in the federal court. Datuk Abdul Hamid Mohamad and Tengku Baharuddin Tengku Mahmud were in the majority who allowed Anwar's appeal, while Datuk Rahmah Husin was the dissenting judge.

Tengku Baharuddin (who was co-opted to the federal court for Anwar's case) retired as court of appeal judge, while Hamid, now a Tun, was made chief justice of the federal Court in 2007 and retired the following year. Rahmah, too, retired in 2004.

The prosecutors

The prosecution team during the first sodomy trial was led by the then Attorney-General (A-G) Tan Sri Mohtar Abdullah. Upon retirement, he was made a federal court judge.

He died at age 59 in 2003 after nearly a year of being in a coma after an operation to remove a blood clot in his brain.

Also in the prosecution team for Sodomy I were current A-G Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail (pic, right), who was then a senior prosecutor, and Datuk Azahar Mohamad who is now a federal judge.

But, Mohtar and Gani did not prosecute in the federal court.

In the second sodomy trial, the prosecution was led by Datuk Mohd Yusof Zainal Abiden.

Yusof, who was also Solicitor-General 11, went on early retirement in February 2012. There was a furore when Yusof appeared for Anwar as counsel in another unrelated criminal case.

In Sodomy II trial, senior deputy public prosecutor Datuk Noordin Hassan, Datuk Mohamad Hanafiah Zakaria and Noorin Badaruddin appeared together with Yusof.

Noordin and Noorin have been made judicial commissioners while Hanafiah is part of the prosecution who will assist ad-hoc DPP Tan Sri Muhammad Shafee Abdullah in the federal vourt.

The defence

Prominent lawyer Raja Aziz Addruse lead Anwar's defence team during the first trial. Others included Karpal Singh (pic, left), Christopher Fernando, Datuk Sulaiman Abdullah and Datuk Zulkifli Noordin.

Raja Aziz was not in the team when Anwar's appeal was heard in the federal court.

Fernando died in early 2008 and Raja Aziz died in 2011, while Karpal was killed in a road accident in April this year.

Sulaiman will appear for Anwar in his Sodomy II appeal in the federal court.

Zulkifli joined PKR and became its MP for Kulim-Bandar Baru in 2008. He then turned independent and is now a strong critic of Anwar. He was also vice-president of right-wing group Perkasa. – October 28, 2014.


http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/malaysia/article/the-main-actors-in-anwars-16-year-sodomy-saga

When Malaysians flee to get justice

In the same week that Malaysia won a non-permanent seat in the United Nations Security Council, a Malaysian shockingly fled Malaysia to seek asylum and protection from what he called oppression from authorities and gangsters.

Activist Ali Abd Jalil is the second Malaysian in as many weeks who ran away, citing oppressive laws and lacking faith in the system to protect his rights.

Posting in his Facebook page, Ali said "Now I am in Sweden, looking for asylum… the Malaysian government and sultan treated me like rubbish.

"I have been threatened by gangsters and racist Malay groups in Malaysia. Malaysia is not safe for me, police and gangsters are following me all the time."

Ali faces three sedition charges for allegedly insulting the Johor royalty and the Sultan of Selangor in his Facebook postings.

He has been accused of posting seditious remarks on a Facebook page called "Kapitalis Bangsat" that allegedly belittled the Johor sultanate.

Another Malaysian, Alvin Tan, who is facing criminal charges under the Sedition Act as well as the Film Censorship Act for controversial online uploads, including a photo deemed insulting to Islam on Facebook, is seeking asylum in the United States.

Ordinarily, these two are facing criminal charges and that should be the end of that. But there has been a rise of vitriol and venom against those who allegedly cause offence to be taken by certain groups.

To say that the police have been quick to stem such toxicity in the bud as they are in looking for Ali and Alvin would be too naive.

Which is why, rightly or wrongly, these two men have left the coop because they believe they won't get justice in Malaysia.

This is a major embarrassment for the Najib government, which has been at pains to paint the country as a moderate nation, and that its election to the UNSC is due to its moderation and peace-loving values.

And no amount of speeches at the UN or in international events can wipe away this blemish – that two Malaysians do not believe they will get justice in Malaysia.

Perhaps we think we are, and perhaps we do that abroad but in Malaysia, what we can term moderation in the broadest of sense that does not appear to exist.

Malaysia has seen the rise of a few groups which use hate speech to run down and threaten people, to the extent that Muslims who touch dogs are deemed apostates and anything Western is seen as a conspiracy against the Malays and Islam.

What more for the likes of Ali and the case against him.

Not only is he facing a trial, he is facing groups that have threatened his life. And nothing much has been done about it. Hence, the decision to run away.

No one should condone Ali's alleged offence. But no one should also condone those who want to harm him for what he has done.

Malaysia is in the UNSC to promote peace and moderation. It must also be seen to do that in the country. If not, we are just a country that speaks from both sides of the mouth.

No one is going to listen, let alone respect Malaysia if we allow this hypocrisy to continue. – October 26, 2014.

- See more at: http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/malaysia/article/when-malaysians-flee-to-get-justice#sthash.k8qirku3.dpuf

Tan needs a lesson in history of Malays

DBP man says Gerakan’s Tan should study about the Malay Archipelago first before making baseless claims.

FMT

KUALA LUMPUR: The public is advised to conduct an in-depth study of Malaysian history first before making baseless claims.

Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka (DBP) board of directors chairman, Md Salleh Yaapar said the claim of Johor Gerakan delegate Tan Lai Soon recently that all Malaysians were migrants, except for the Orang Asli and Bumiputeras in Sabah and Sarawak, was untrue.

Tan’s statement clearly showed he lacked in-depth knowledge of Malaysian history, specifically on the Malay Archipelago, namely, the Malay island nations encompassing Malaysia, Indonesia, Brunei and the Philippines, he told Bernama here, today.

He was met after delivering a talk in the Ninth series of the Muslim Intellectual Discourse titled ‘About Malay Names, Origins and Identity, Towards Anticipated Enlightenment’ at DBP, here.

“Maybe Tan had a personal interest to garner the support of his party, but in the end the majority of the members of the party disagreed with his claim,” he said on the allegation by Tan made at the Gerakan National Delegates Conference on October 19.

In this regard, Md Salleh said DBP planned to organise more talks in future touching on the origins of the Malays, so that no quarters would issue erroneous and confusing statements which could affect racial harmony in the country.

“The names Melayu (Malay) and Tanah Melayu (Malay Land) are not new creations but had been known from time immemorial.

“The Malays were not from Taiwan, Yunnan or other Asian nations as claimed by certain quarters, but they came from the Malay Archipelago, he added.

- BERNAMA

Dare to differ, Zaid tells Muslims

“If we do not want this country to be controlled by fascists, then we must be prepared to go to jail.”

FMT

PETALING JAYA: Political commentator Zaid Ibrahim has made an impassioned plea to Malays to assert their right to differ with religious authorities on matters pertaining to Islam.

“To the Malays who believe and support democracy and human rights, let us be brave even when we are labeled or accused of being deviant. If we do not want this country to be controlled by fascists, then we must be prepared to go to jail,” he said in his latest blog entry.

“Let’s point out to the authorities that even Muslims have rights, and that it’s not them we have to answer to, but God.”

He told Muslims not to be intimidated by those who would brand them as infidel, hypocrite or ignorant. “Let them,” he said. “They are the ones who are misguided.”

Zaid also criticised Prime Minister Najib Razak, Opposition Leader Anwar Ibrahim and “leaders in the Istana” for staying silent when “mullahs are destroying their own people”.

“Do they want Malays to threaten and fight each other, like the IS in Iraq and Syria? Do they want Malays to be mindless robots with no views of their own?” he asked.

“These leaders must bear the responsibilities of their offices and positions. They must not condone or support the persecution of Malays and any others in the name of God.

“Najib, Anwar and the Istana must put an end to the despotic behaviour of the ulama who freely and without care issue fatwas without thinking about the effects these edicts have on the people.”

He contrasted the liberal attitude of scholars in Islam’s classical period with the rigidity of religious authorities in contemporary Malaysia.

“In the Golden Age of Islamic legal theory and jurisprudence,” he said, “scholars and mujtahid (interpreters of Shariah law) issued fatwas or opinions regularly—sometimes a dozen fatwas on a particular subject. They relished differences in opinion. They regarded this diversity as a manifestation of the wonder of the human mind in the search of the Divine will.

“Scholars and jurists of that era recognised that fatwas were only relevant for a particular time and situation and could change with new facts and circumstances. They ended their fatwas with wallahu alam (God knows best) as a reminder to themselves that they were humans and therefore fallible. Fatwas were not laws, but were used by the rulers as guidance in the administration of the state.

“Our scholars in Jakim and the religious authorities, on the other hand, are apparently dead sure of their infallibility. They can do no wrong or be wrong in their fatwas.

“In the Golden Age, jurists and scholars accepted the distinction between the tenets of Shariah (God’s way) which are immutable and beyond question, and the human search and understanding of the Shariah by way of usul al fiqh (legal theory).

“The search through fiqh is a human activity that involves reason and a healthy mind. Fiqh is not fixed and immutable. It is changing, dynamic and fallible because it is human.

“This flexibility and tolerance of ideas is the true Islam. The scholars of the Golden Age never once believed they were infallible, for that would be to ascribe to oneself an attribute of God.”

AG explains why Ibrahim Ali gets off scot free

The law says Ibrahim Ali made the remark to burn Bibles only in the context of a particular incident.

FMT

KUALA LUMPUR: The Attorney-General’s Chambers has said it could not prosecute Perkasa chief Ibrahim Ali for sedition despite him threatening to burn Malay language Bibles simply because he acted within the confines of the law.

Ruling that the threat was made in the context of a particular incident, the AGC said, ”Ibrahim Ali made the statement in the context of the SMK Jelutong incident.”

“As decided by the courts, before a statement is deemed to have seditious tendencies, the statement must be seen as a whole and cannot be separated from the context.”

The AGC therefore ruled that Ibrahim’s statement did not fall into the category of having seditious tendencies as it was restricted to that one particular incident.

Another aspect of the ruling was that Ibrahim had clearly no intention to create religious discord but was only doing his part in defending the sanctity of Islam.

The statement read, ”The free distribution of the Bible outside the compound of SMK Jelutong could have potentially shaken the faith of Muslim students who lacked religious knowledge if they had read it because the holy books were printed in Jawi.”

On the issue of prosecution under Section 504, Section 298 and Section 298A of the Penal Code, the AGC explained that this law did not apply simply because Ibrahim was defending Islam.

According to the statement issued by the AGC, Section 504 refers to an insult with intent to provoke a breach of peace while Section 298 is on uttering words with deliberate intend to wound religious feelings. Section 298A on the other hand concerned causing disharmony, disunity, enmity, hatred or ill-will, all of which was not Ibrahim Ali’s intention.

The statement also said that the AGC decided to close the case not only on Ibrahim but the “three suspects” distributing the Bibles as well.

The statement read, ”Investigations showed the suspects did not have the intention to distribute them to Malay students only” leaving the AGC with no cause to prosecute any party involved in this case.

Final Appeal for Anwar to Begin in Malaysia

‘Sodomy II’ trial reaches final phase in politicized high court. Anwar’s political future at stake.

By John Berthelsen - Asia Sentinel

On Oct. 28 and 29, lawyers for Malaysia’s opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim are expected to go before the Federal Court, the country’s highest tribunal, to argue a final appeal on Anwar’s 2012 conviction in the so-called Sodomy II trial.

Anwar was ordered freed by a high court in 2011 only to be convicted by an appellate court after prosecutors appealed the case, in which he was accused of having consensual homosexual sex with a former aide, Mohd Saiful Bukhairy Azlan, in 2008.

The opposition leader, now 67, is said to be depressed and fully expecting to go to prison, which would finish his political career, even if freed early, since Malaysian electoral law prohibits those convicted of crimes for running for five years. The question is, if he is jailed, what would become of the three-party Pakatan Rakyat coalition, which was already badly damaged by political infighting earlier this year over the naming of a new chief minister for Selangor, Malaysia’s richest and most populous state.

Given the weakness in the coalition, there is some speculation that what is obviously an extremely politicized court could be ordered to free Anwar, given the international opprobrium the decision would earn the country and the fact that jailing him would give the coalition a potent symbol of martyrdom.

Although the case against Anwar is almost universally regarded by human rights organizations and foreign governments as a circus trumped up to get rid of him as a force to challenge the ruling Barisan Nasional, it has preoccupied the opposition leader for the past six years, cutting into his ability to lead Pakatan Rakyat, which won the popular vote in the 2013 general election only to be thwarted from a majority in parliament by gerrymandering and the country’s first-past-the-post electoral system.

It is hard to escape the conclusion that the entire episode, starting with Anwar’s arrest in 2008, has been organized to try to blunt the increasing effectiveness of the coalition at a time when the ruling Barisan Nasional is riddled with corruption and cronyism. The charges were filed against him not long after the coalition made a dramatic showing in the 2008 election, denying the Barisan its two-thirds majority in parliament for the first time.

“Malaysian authorities should drop their case against (Anwar) or risk making a travesty of the country’s criminal justice system,” said Phil Robertson, Deputy Asia director at Human Rights Watch, in a prepared release.. “This drawn-out political theater has long been exposed as an attempt by the government to take Malaysia’s most senior opposition leader out of political contention.”
As Robertson says, “the ordeal of Anwar Ibrahim in Sodomy II – Sodomy I having been even more disgracefully trumped up against him in 1998,” has already damaged the country’s reputation in international circles. It has been condemned by the Geneva-based Inter-Parliamentary Union, a majority of the Australian Parliament, Amnesty International and others in addition to Human Rights Watch.

It is a case that would have been laughed out of court in any rational justice system. Saiful admitted in court that he met with then-Deputy Prime Minister Najib Tun Razak, his wife Rosmah and Rosmah’s close friend and advisor, the former track star Mumtaz Jaafar, at Najib’s home two days before the sodomy charge was filed, calling into question Saiful’s veracity as a witness. Najib and Rosmah both were allowed to refuse to testify under oath about the meetings with Saiful.

Saiful also acknowledged meeting secretly twice with Rodwan Mohd Yusof, a senior assistant police commissioner, before the alleged offence took place. Rodwan became famous, or infamous, in Anwar's 1998 Sodomy I trial when he was proven to have illegally removed Anwar's DNA samples from forensic custody and planted them on a mattress allegedly used by Anwar for a homosexual dalliance. To protect the integrity of the prosecution's case, the presiding judge, Augustine Paul, was forced to expunge the entire DNA evidence.

Sodomy II, which began in February 2010, has been marred by the introduction of questionable evidence, egregious prosecutorial errors and a long series of prejudicial rulings and one controversial reversal by High Court Judge Mohamad Zabidin Mohamad Diah. It was botched even before it began when prosecutors, acting on a supposed complaint by Saiful, charged Anwar with homosexual rape, only to have to drop that charge and change it to consensual sex of an unnatural nature when it became clear that Saiful had gone to Anwar’s condominium with a tube of lubricant in his pocket, although there is no evidence that he actually was in Anwar’s presence.

Anwar said he was meeting in the condo at that time with a group of economists. The alibi was disallowed. The consensual sex charge has only been levied seven times in 76 years, according to Malaysia’s Women’s Candidacy Initiative. .

From the very beginning, when Saiful sought to get doctors to certify that he had been sodomized, doubts began to surface. Saiful first went to a private hospital, where a doctor found no evidence of penetration and told him to go to a government hospital. At the first government hospital, doctors also told him they had found no evidence of tearing or scarring that would have indicated his anus had been penetrated. He was forced to go to a third government hospital where he finally found a physician willing to say the act had taken place -- 56 hours after it supposedly happened, during which he said he had not gone to the toilet, which could have corrupted the sample...

Other testimony indicated that the samples taken from Saiful were kept unguarded in a police office for 43 hours without refrigeration before they were turned over to the laboratory for analysis. Chemists testified that as many as 10 different DNA samples had been found in Saiful’s rear, making the whole analysis process suspect.

That any samples could be taken from Anwar legally is also questionable. Under Malaysian law at the time, suspects could refuse to give DNA samples. However, the Dewan Rakyat, Malaysia’s parliament, passed a law repealing the consent requirement after Anwar’s arrest. In most courts, law cannot be applied retroactively.

Although Anwar refused to give a DNA sample, items issued to him during his overnight stay in jail were analyzed and a sample was found. Zabidin in March handed Anwar a major victory by throwing out the purported DNA evidence because it had been taken without his permission. However, a week later, after the prosecution demanded it, Zabidin reversed himself and said the evidence could after all be entered into the court despite the retroactive nature of the law.

There are numerous other discrepancies. Abdul Gani Patail, the main prosecutor in the 1998 sodomy proceedings that were thoroughly discredited, has been involved in the present case at a time when he was being investigated by the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Agency following allegations of fabricating evidence.

There was an “almost systematic rejection of all defense applications for disclosure of prosecution evidence, which it would need in order to mount the defense,” according to one report by an Australian investigator..

There was also the fact that Saiful was having a sexual liaison with Farah Azlina Latif, a female member of the prosecution team during the trial, which should have further disqualified him as a complaining witness.

Unfortunately, what the evidence has shown most clearly is not that Anwar was guilty or not guilty of having what the government termed “unnatural consensual sex” with his former aide. It is rather that the trial was skewed so badly in the government’s favor that the opposition leader demonstrably did not get a fair trial.

SUHAKAM calls for prison reforms in Malaysia — The Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (SUHAKAM)

 Malay Mail

The Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (SUHAKAM) wishes to refer to Mr P. Uthayakumar’s revelations of his imprisonment in Kajang Prison, and to state that, following a memorandum received from Persatuan Penasihat Pengguna-Pengguna Malaysia on 5 August 2013, concerning the alleged mistreatment of Mr. P. Uthayakumar in theKajang Prison, SUHAKAM investigated into the allegations and undertook several follow-up actions. These included a visit to Kajang Prison on 13 August 2013 to verify the complaints with relevant parties, an official letter to the Prison Department on 21 August 2013 concerning the issues highlighted in the memorandum, followed by a meeting with the Prison Department on 4 September 2013 to discuss among others, procedural issue related to written complaints received from inmates during SUHAKAM’s visits to prisons.

SUHAKAM has also taken a step further by undertaking a thematic study into the issue on the right to health in prison. The main objective of this study is to ensure that the conditions of prisons in the country are consistent with acceptable health and safety standards, and human dignity in order to achieve a criminal justice system that respects individual rights.

In undertaking this study, SUHAKAM has conducted special visits to prisons across the country to compile first hand data and information with regard to the issues faced by both inmates and prison staff. The methodology used in this study involved surveys through questionnaires and interviews with relevant respondents regarding access to medical care in prisons. SUHAKAM has visited thirteen (13) prisons - Kajang and Kajang Prison for Women, Sungai Buloh (Selangor), Taiping (Perak), Pengkalan Chepa (Kelantan), Tapah and Bentong (Pahang), Seremban (Negeri Sembilan), Kuching, Miri, Sibu and Limbang (Sarawak), as well as Kota Kinabalu (Sabah). To date, 4086 inmates, 646 staff and 37 medical assistants have been involved in the survey. The outcome report which contains findings and recommendations of this study will be submitted to the relevant authorities and the Government in accordance with SUHAKAM’s objective in this project, namely, to advocate for the improvement of the health standards in prisons across

Based on the periodic visits it has conducted in the past, SUHAKAM sees the need for further systematic and cohesive reforms to be instituted in our prisons in order to address various fundamental issues concerning medical care, including mental health care, for both staff and inmates, prison conditions, as well as working conditions of prison staff.

SUHAKAM is also pursuing with the Government further amendments to its founding legislation which, inter-alia, will empower it to conduct unscheduled visits to prisons and places of detention in Malaysia.

* This is the personal opinion of the writer and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail

Anwar: 16 tahun dia serang, saya nak jawab tak boleh?

Did Malaysia take the world for a ride and won the highest-ever 187 votes to be elected non-permanent member of UNSC under false pretences that we are a role model for moderation when moderation is under unprecedented attack?

By Lim Kit Siang Blog


(Speech on the 2015 Budget debate in Parliament on Monday, Oct. 27, 2014)

First, I want to commend Malaysia for being elected for the third time and with the highest-ever 187 votes to be a non-permanent member of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC).

Regrettably however, Malaysia is not living up to the high international standards of moderation which Najib has set for the world despite the Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak’s repeated statement that Malaysia’s election into the UNSC for the third time with such high votes was testimony of world recognition of Malaysia as a role model for other countries in the practice of moderation.

Have we taken the world for a ride and secured such high votes to be elected UNSC non-permanent member under false pretences that Malaysia is the very model of moderation against extremism, when in actual fact, Malaysia as a model of a peaceful, stable and harmonious multi-racial and multi-religious nation has never come under more intense unprecedented attack in the nation’s 57-year history resulting in moderation in retreat?

The volume, frequency and venom of hate speech on race and religion, promoting extremism and religious intolerance in the country in the past four years had outpaced all such hate speech in the country in the previous four decades.

The evidence of such immoderation and the rise of hate speech, extremism and intolerance posing unprecedented threat to moderation have been piling up relentlessly – in fact, in the ten days since Malaysia’s election as UNSC non-permanent member, there have been over a dozen examples of moderation under threat and attack by hate speech, extremism and intolerance.

The first most outstanding example is the current case of activist Ali Abdul Jalil, the victim of multiple sedition charges, who had to flee Malaysia and seek asylum and protection in Sweden because of oppression from authorities and gangsters.

Ali told Malaysiakini yesterday from Sweden via instant messenger that he feared for his life.

He said: “The police, gangsters, Perkasa, Malay right-wing groups, Umno groups are all looking for me, some of them have threatened to kill me and to beat me.

“Some even say that I am a traitor and I am not supposed to be treated like a person.

“Most of the Malay groups (such as) Perkasa are saying that I am rubbish and the police are not protecting me.”
Ali said it was this sense of helplessness that finally pushed him to leave.

He said that whether he is granted asylum or not, he will not give up his Malaysian citizenship.

He said: “I am still a Malaysian and I am so proud to be a Malaysian because Malaysia is my home and my parents, family, brothers and sisters are still in Malaysia”

The day he returns home, he said, would be the day the ruling coalition falls from power.

“Hopefully the current Umno will collapse and when the government in Malaysia changes, I wish I can go back.”
Which MP dare to say he is more Malaysian than Ali, that he would not flee the country for political asylum in another country if he cannot get justice in the country and is in fear for the safety of his life?

Last month another Malaysian, Alvin Tan, who faces criminal charges under the Sedition Act and the Film Censorship for controversial online uploads, announced that he was seeking asylum after fleeing to the United States

I do not condone the offences of Ali and Alvin if they had committed offences, but something is very wrong and sick with our nation when they have to flee the country to seek asylum in a foreign land because they won’t get justice in Malaysia and even more serious, in fear of their lives.

Can any MP tell me of another Malaysian who had to flee Malaysia because he cannot get justice in the Malaysian courts, or even worse, in fear of his life because he was not safe in the country under anyone of the five previous Prime Ministers of Malaysia – Tunku, Tun Razak, Tun Hussein Onn, Tun Mahathir and Tun Abdullah?

If there was not a single citizen under the five previous Prime Ministers who had to flee the country either because he cannot get justice in the country or in fear of his life, this is a terrible indictment on the governance and the practice of moderation under the sixth Prime Minister of Malaysia!

The second example of the rise of hatred, extremism and intolerance is the case of the Organiser of the ‘I want to touch a dog’ event Syed Azmi Alhabshi, who had has been inundated with an avalanche of thousands of death threats and other hateful messages within hours of holding the controversial event, whether on his WhatsApp, phone or Facebook.

Wild and defamatory statements have also been leveled against Syed Azman and others involved in the event, which among others alleged that Syed Azmi is a Shiite or that he is a Christian or that he was trying to promote liberalism.

One can agree or disagree with the dog event organized by Syed Azmi, but what is completely impermissible are the deaths threats and the wild, baseless and defamatory allegations let loose against Syed Azmi on the social media.

Azmi has already lodged a report with the police and another with the Malaysian Communications Multi-Media Commission (MCMC) on Oct. 22.

It is shocking that the Minister for Communications and Multimedia, Datuk Seri Shabery Cheek could “wash” his hands and disclaim responsibility, stating that MCMC won’t be acting against the death and violent threats against Azmi as this was the job of the police.

But Shabery’s lame excuse had not stopped the MCMC from acting immediately when the Kedah Mentri Besar Datuk Seri Mukriz Mahathir received death threats online earlier this year, resulting in the arrest of the blogger concerned within 24 hours of the lodging of the police report.

Moderation does not mean double standards in the upholding of law and order which undermines public confidence in the system of governance and justice in the country.

The third example of the deviation from moderation is the Universiti of Malaya clampdown to ban Anwar Ibrahim from giving a talk in the university this evening and the issue of a show cause letter to the Universiti Malaya Students’ Association president Fahmi Zainol, over the programme entitled ’40 Years: From Universiti Malaya to Jail’.

The University of Malaya seems more concerned in violating the academic freedom of students and academicians in the campus than ensuring that it restore its previous international reputation for academic excellence.

Recently, for the fifth year in succession since the launching of the Times Higher Education (THE) World University Rankings in 2010, not a single university including the University of Malaya had made it into the THE Top 400 University Rankings.

Unfortunately, this did not even rate a mention in the 2015 Budget speech although the Najib had challenged the University of Malaya nine years ago to be among the world’s Top 50 universities by year 2020, which is only five years away.

Three weeks ago, Najib twittered congratulations to the five Malaysian universities which were ranked higher in the Top 400 of the QS World University Ranking 2014, namely University of Malaya (UM) ranked 167 last year to 151; University Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM) from 269 to 259; University Teknologi Malaysia (UTM) from 355 to 294; Universiti Sains Malaysia from 355 to 309; Universiti Putra Malaysia (UPM) from 411-420 to 376.

But there has been a deafening silence from Najib as well as from the DPM-cum- Education Minister, Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin this whole month over the exclusion of Malaysian universities in Top 400 in THE University Ranking 2014-2015.

Arguments which have been advanced to justify the boycott of UM and UKM in the THE Top 400 World University Rankings while continuing to participate in the QS World University Rankings are very weak and most untenable.

Would UM and UKM be excluded from the THE Top 400 altogether if they participate?

Four other Malaysian universities had participated in the THE World University Ranking 2014-5, but none made it into the Top 400 of the THE rankings.

It will be real shame to both UM and UKM if anyone of the four other Malaysian universities had succeeded in being ranked among the THE Top 400.

Although Najib challenged University of Malaya to be ranked among the Top 50 universities when he was Deputy Prime Minister in 2005, the former University of Malaya Vice Chancellor Tan Sri Professor Dr Ghauth Jasmon‎, had set a more realistic target when he was heading the university from 2008 to 2013 – to enter QS World University Ranking’s Top 100 by 2015.

Can UM achieve Ghauth’s target of entering Top 100 in QS World University Ranking next year?

This is an impossible mission, as UM’s best QS ranking is 151 this year.

University of Malaya should be more concerned why it has failed to achieve the much lower target set by Ghauth to be among the world’s Top 100 Universities (QS) by 2015, not to mention the Prime Minister’s superlative target to be among the Top 50 universities in the world by 2020, instead of trying to stop Anwar from returning as an alma mater to the University of Malaya this evening.

The fourth instance of the retreat of moderation in Malaysia is the deafening silence, whether from the Prime Minister or the Attorney-General, over the worst crisis of confidence in the nation’s history over the role and powers of the Attorney-General (AG).

This is the result of the escalating controversy over non-prosecution of Perkasa President Ibrahim Ali for his threat to burn the Malay-language Bible on the one hand and the sedition blitzkrieg against scores of Malaysians who had made inoffensive and non-incendiary statements to create a climate of fear on the other.

The continued absence of satisfactory accountability and acceptable explanation on the arbitrary abuse of the AG’s prosecutorial discretion not to prosecute Ibrahim Ali for the threat to burn the Malay-language Bible and the mass sedition blitzkrieg have raised serious questions whether the Attorney-General is committed to uphold the Rule of Law and to act as guardian of the public interest – the mark of a nation committed to the principles of wasatiyyah or moderation, in particular the qualities of balance, justice and excellence.

Clearly, there had been a change of prosecution policy on sedition cases, as this was rare before Najib’s premiership. Parliament and the nation is entitled to know and debate the reasons for such a fundamental change in the prosecution policy for sedition cases, but there has only been silence so far.

Gani’s predecessors as Attorney-General, Tan Sri Abu Talib from 1980 to 1993 and Tan Sri Mokhtar Abdullah (1994 – 2000) had their controversies when they served under the country’s most controversial Prime Minister, Tun Dr. Mahathir but Gani Patail had put both Talib and Mokhtar in the shade both in the volume and gravity of controversies since becoming AG in 2002.

Gani has gained another distinction of having been criticized by his predecessor, as last month Talib excoriated Gani Patail for undertaking to review the sedition cases against Pakatan Rakyat leaders, academicians and social activists like Prof Dr. Azmi Sharom after the charges were framed, as the barrage of sedition charges came across as “persecution” and not “prosecution”.

It is now seven weeks since Gani responded on Sept 9 to massive public outrage at the sedition blitzkrieg, announcing that the AG’s Chambers would review the sedition charges against Azmi and others, but nothing has been forthcoming on the outcome of this review, or whether such a review had taken place.

Do the Prime Minister or the de facto law Minister Nancy Shukri (Batang Sadong) know anything about this review of the sedition charges by the AG’s Chambers, or are they completely in the dark as they are unable to demand any accountability from the AG’s Chambers apart from reading their prepared answers in Parliament?

MPs and the Malaysian public are entitled to know whether in the exercise of the prosecutorial discretion on the basis of ‘public interest’, are these purely legal considerations or they also involve “political” considerations, and if so, the nature of these “political” considerations.

The recent letter by the Court of Appeal Judge, K.C.Vohrah on “Doubt in the administration of justice” (Star October 23, 2014) express the legitimate nagging concerns in many minds.

Vohrah, who had been with the AG’s Chambers for 16 years in the 70s and early 80s, said the AG’s prosecutorial discretion under Article 145(3) of the Constitution to institute, conduct or discontinue any proceedings for an offence is “an awesome power which has to be exercised bona fide and with great professionalism and care.”

He said: “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.”

Vohrah has joined in the call for the review and withdrawal of cases where persons have already been charged based on three considerations:

(1) The Sedition Act is an oppressive law and that many jurists and scholars consider sedition (based on common law seditious libel) as obsolete.

(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 – whether 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.

(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.

Will the Prime Minister and the Attorney-General heed the voice of reason and sanity of the overwhelming majority of thinking and reasoned Malaysians?

Fifth, the Gerakan President and Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Datuk Mah Siew Keong recently said the 1Malaysia campaign, which appears to have run out of steam since the last general election, needs Tongkat Ali to give it an urgent boost so that the campaign could be “long lasting”.

This applies not only to Najib’s 1Malaysia campaign, but to his “Global Movement of Moderates” movement in Malaysia.

In the latest survey finding by Pew Research Centre, nearly one-third of Malaysians see religious and ethnic hatred as posing the greatest danger to the world, a concern shared by Indonesia amid simmering religious tensions in both countries and the rise of violent militant Islamist groups.

The Washington-based research group’s Greatest Dangers in the World survey showed 32 per cent of Malaysians cited religious and ethnic hatred as the biggest global threat today.

In the global survey of 44 countries among 48,643 respondents, Malaysia is one of the 12 countries which see religious and ethnic hatred as posing the greatest danger to the world.

The Pew Research Centre study was conducted from March 17 to June 5. If it is conducted today, the saliency of religious and ethnic hatred as posing the greatest danger to the world would have risen to a higher pitch as a result of the continued upsurge of extremism and religious intolerance, to the extent that Najib’s brainchild, the Global Movement of Moderates and GMM operatives are regarded as subversive and “seditious”, gravely hampering their operations to promote moderation in Malaysia.

On Sept. 27, Najib made the most commendable speech at the United Nations General Assembly setting out the moderation agenda for the world, declaring: “The fight against extremism is not about Christians versus Muslims, or Muslims versus Jews, but moderates versus extremists of all religions. We therefore need to rally a coalition of moderates; those willing to reclaim their religion, and pursue the path to peace.”

I have no doubt that in international forums, where Najib had expounded his global cause of moderation, whether the Oxford Centre for Islamic Studies, the East-West Centre in Hawaii or at Asia-Europe (ASEM) conferences, had Najib been asked whether those who threatened to burn the sacred books of different religions are extremists, his answer would be a categorical and unqualified positive.

But back home in Malaysia, his government finds excuses for Ibrahim Ali’s threat to burn the Malay-language Bible on the completely unacceptable and outrageous grounds that Ibrahim Ali was protecting the sanctity of Islam and that his action is protected by Article 11(4) of the Malaysian Constitution.

What is the direction Malaysia is heading at the rate hate speech, extremism and intolerance are having a field day and allowed to operate with immunity and impunity despite their inflammatory and incendiary statements?

Would the Global Movement of Moderates one day go defunct, or be deregistered or simply be neutered and defanged?

Sixth – the recent “pendatang” furore is not only proof of failure of Najib’s 1Malaysia policy and Global Movement of Moderates initative, but the 57 years of UMNO/BN Malaysian nation-building.

Apart from Sabah, which is a special case by itself, the overwhelming majority of Malaysians, regardless of race or religion, are local-born and 100% Malaysians – a figure which can be as high as over 95 per cent for Malaysians in Peninsular Malaysia and Sarawak.

Whether the ancestors of Malays, Chinese or Indians are immigrants, there can be no cause or justification for any Malaysian to describe another Malaysians from different ethnicity as “pendatang”, especially when the term is loaded in a very derogatory, pejorative and even abusive sense.

This is in fact questioning the citizenship rights of Malaysians, which is entrenched as one of the four “sensitive” rights in the Malaysian Constitution in 197i, whereby it becomes an automatic sedition offence to call for the withdrawal of a Malaysian’s citizenship.

Since the 70s, there is a National Unity Department in the Prime Minister’s Department, but all the tens and even hundreds millions of ringgit of budget expenditures for over four decades for this department in the PM’s Office had been a total waste and loss when 57 years after Merdeka, extremists are hurling the “pendatang” label at ordinary, loyal and patriotic Malaysians in the latest upsurge of hate speech in the country.

Calling loyal, patriotic Malaysians born, bred and who will die in Malaysia as “pendatang” must be condemned as a form of extremism which Najib had denounced in the United Nations and international forms since becoming Prime Minister.

As questioning the citizenship rights of another Malaysian is a sedition offence under the four entrenched sensitive clauses in the Constitution Amendment Act of 1971, can the Prime Minister inform the House how many cases of sedition prosecutions had the Attorney-General initiated as the questioning of citizenship, including the hurling of “pendatang” labels, have become quite frequent in recent years.

Seventh, how can Malaysia claim to be a moderate country when we continue to be so low down in the annual Transparency International (TI) Corruption Perception Index (CPI) in the past two decades?

We are even losing out to Indonesia and China in the anti-corruption front.

In the first TI CPI in 1995, Malaysia was ranked No. 23 out of 41 countries with a middling CPI score of 5.28.

Nineteen years later, after numerous anti-corruption campaigns, two major anti-corruption legislation, the “elevation” of the former Anti-Corruption Agency (ACA) into Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC), the National Integrity Plan, the 1Malaysia Government Transformation Programme with massive infusion of public funds and increase of staffing, Malaysia has now fallen in the TI CPI 2013 to No. 53 out of 177 countries, struggling with CPI score of 50/100 – a ranking lower than ever recorded under the two previous Prime Ministers, Tun Mahathir and Tun Abdullah.

In comparison, Indonesia was ranked at the very bottom of No. 41 in 1995 with CPI score of 1.94 while China was ranked No. 40 with a CPI score of 2.16 in 1995. Now Indonesia is ranked No. 114 with a CPI score of 32/100 while China is ranked No. 80 with a score of 40/100.

At the annual average rate of Indonesia and China’s improvement on TI CPI ranking and score in the past five years, with Malaysia struggling to remain in the middling CPI score, Malaysia will be left behind by Indonesia and China in less than a decade, even well before 2020.

Is there a strategy by Najib and MACC to avert this disaster?

I had recently referred to the “day-and-night” difference in anti-corruption efforts between Malaysia and lndonesia.

Although anti-corruption in Malaysia was recently in the news, with arrests of custom officers and those involved in illegal logging activity in Sarawak, which made quite a splash in the local news media, they belong to the “flies” category going by China’s anti-corruption campaign against “tigers and flies”.

With the recent survey by Ernst & Young that Malaysia is ranked as one of the most corrupt nations and listed as a country which is most likely to take shortcuts to meet targets when economic times are tough, Malaysians are entitled to ask: Why the MACC is just catching “flies”, where are the “tigers”?

Or to use Malaysian lingo, where are the “sharks”, as the MACC and its predecessor the Anti-Corruption Agency (ACA) had not been able to send a single “shark” behind bars for the past 33 years under three Prime Ministers – Najib, Abdullah and Mahathir – when both jails in Indonesia and China are full of “sharks” or “tigers and flies”!

Indonesia recently made world headlines about its seriousness and commitment to fight corruption when its new President, Joko Widowo tasked Indonesia’s anti-graft agency, the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) with the assignment of assessing and clearing candidates for his Cabinet.

Jokowi, who was inaugurated President last Monday (Oct. 20), dropped eight of his candidates for the Cabinet after the KPK objected to their appointment. Jokowo announced his new Cabinet yesterday after submitting new names to KPK to replace the eight as he wants good and clean Ministers who can pass the screening by the Corruption Eradication Commission.

Will the Prime Minister, Datuk Seri Najib Razak, follow Jokowi’s example and submit new Cabinet appointments to a credible anti-corruption commission for clearance and drop those who fail to secure clearance?

I was in Sabah over the weekend, and I asked why the MACC is so quiet, inactive and impotent in Sabah, when Sabah tops the country as an administration which has one of the worst corruption problems.

Is the MACC, the Prime Minister and the Sabah Chief Minister prepared to make Sabah a model of corruption-free administration instead of topping the list of among the most corrupt administrations in Malaysia?

The gloom felt by Malaysians at the puny anti-corruption efforts are not relieved when they are inundated with disastrous, ambivalent or downright inane news headlines like “Malaysia one of the most corrupt nations, survey shows” (Sept. 27), “No plan to boost law to probe into ‘high-living’ civil servants” (Oct.8) and “Top cop looks to ordinary Malaysians to keep police in check” (Oct. 23).

There is not a single word of mention of anti-corruption efforts in Najib’s 2015 Budget speech.

Can he explain why Malaysia is losing out so badly to Indonesia and China in anti-corruption efforts and results, with not a single “big fish” or “tiger” landed in Malaysia so far whether under the present Prime Minister or the two previous Prime Ministers, covering 33 years since 1981 when the catching, prosecution and jailing of “big fishes” or “tigers” have become quite commonplace in Indonesia and China?

How does Malaysia’s record of rampant corruption and poor anti-corruption efforts stand with Malaysia’s commitmernt to wasatiyyah or moderation agenda at home?

Eight, with Jokowi’s inauguration last Monday and the formation of his Cabinet yesterday after clearing the KPK’s screening, we are seeing a new face and fresh hope for Indonesian democracy.

In contrast, Malaysia stands on the brink of another political convulsion with Malaysians and the world awaiting the Federal Court decision in the next two days on the appeal of the Parliamentary Opposition Leader Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim against the Court of Appeal conviction and five-year jail sentence in the Sodomy II case.

I find it shocking, unbelievable and outrageous that the Attorney-General is counter-appealing against Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim’s five-year jail sentence in the Sodomy II case when the Federal Court sits to hear Anwar’s appeal against his Court of Appeal conviction and sentence on March 7.

It has been reported that the prosecution has counter-appealed and wants Anwar to be jailed for more than five years contending that the Court of Appeal’s five-year jail sentence is “manifestly inadequate”, “does not reflect the gravity of the offence” and “fails to serve the ends of justice from the perspective of public interest”.

There are forces among those in power who want to get rid of the Opposition, by “hook or by crook”, but I want to ask the Najib whether he is so cruel, callous and heartless as to want Anwar to be jailed for 20 years and not released until he is an octogenarian?

Is this in conformity with Najib’s preaching of wasatiyyah or moderation with its emphasis on the principles of justice, balance and excellence?

In Indonesia, it is become commonplace for the movers and shakers of the political elite, including Ministers, to be convicted and sent behind bars – not for the most far-fetched of offences, but for clear and specific violations of the law such as corrupt practices, like:

*the former Youth and Sports Minister Andi Mallarangeng sentenced to four years in jail in July for receiving Rp 4 billion ($330,000) and $550,000 in bribes connected to the construction of the Hambalang sports training centre in West Java and his appeal was rejected a few days ago;

*in early September, the former Energy and Mining Minister Jero Wacik named as a suspect in an alleged extortion case to raise nearly Rp 10 billion ($585,000) for his ministerial operational fund;

*and in late September, the former chairman of President Susilo Bambang Sudhoyono’s Democratic Party, Anas Urbaningrum sentenced by the Corruption Court to eight years in jail, fined Rp 300 million (US$25,200) demanded restitution payments of Rp 57.5 billion and $5.2 million after finding him guilty of corruption and money laundering.

Malaysians and Indonesians can understand the Indonesian authorities appealing against Anas’ sentence to eight years in jail, which was less than half of the 15-year prison term sought by the Indonesian prosecution.

But what could be the “public interest” in the Malaysian prosecution in appealing against Anwar’s five-year jail sentence, apart serving the ulterior political objective of the powers-that-be to kill off the Parliamentary Opposition Leader?

I hope that good sense and sanity can prevail, and the wasatiyyah or moderation agenda be the basis of the Najib government, guiding the policy directions of the Attorney-General and that the prosecution would withdraw their counter appeal at the Federal Court tomorrow

Defamatory to call dog event organiser Christian or Shiah Muslim, lawyer says

Malay Mail
by IDA LIM

KUALA LUMPUR, Oct 25 — Accusations claiming Syed Azmi Alhabshi is Christian or a follower of the Muslim Shiah sect, deemed as deviant by Putrajaya, are false and defamatory, his lawyer Syahredzan Johan said today.

 

Syahredzan dismissed the need for his client to prove that he was a Muslim but said those who have defamed the organiser of the “I Want to Touch a Dog” event should stop all their attacks.

“There is nothing in Islam (that says) we cannot criticise something, but what we are saddened with is the fact that there are death threats and there are defamatory comments about the organiser and the people who are involved — saying things like ‘he’s a Shiah, he’s Christian, he’s trying to spread all these things, this is a program of liberalism’,” he told reporters today.

Those who made the allegedly defamatory claims against Syed Azmi are the ones who need to prove their false accusations, Syahredzan added, pointing out that they were attacking his client casually on Facebook even though they hardly knew him.

“Only because we want to defend what we see as the sanctity (of the religion), we defame others, is that correct?” the lawyer asked.

He added, however, that Syed Azmi had not decided whether to take legal action and sue anyone for now.

 

Earlier, Syed Azmi read out a press release apologising for any discomfort sparked by the event, maintaining that the event was only meant to help the public overcome their fear of dogs, and not promote liberalism or distort Islamic teachings.

Although Syed Azmi is not the sole organiser of the “I Want to Touch a Dog” event, which was carried out with the aid of around 10 to 15 other individuals, the youth was unfortunately the “face” of the one-off event and has had to face the brunt of criticisms, Syahredzan said.

Since then, Syed Azmi has been the target of hate-filled messages threatening to injure or kill him, forcing him to turn to the police and online regulator Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission (MCMC) for assistance.

Detractors have also spread rumours and allegations claiming that Syed Azmi is a covert Christian or a Shiah Muslim out to spread liberalism or alternative teachings.

Norhayati Ismail, 40, another organiser of the event, told reporters today that she has known Syed Azmi for a long time and that he is like any other Muslim who faithfully performs his prayers.

She said she has collaborated closely with Syed Azmi on numerous charity projects and that he was always involved in “anything that is a good cause”.

“This is the first time that he’s doing it with animals and I’m a bit saddened he got a lot of criticisms when his intention is really good, if you know what he wants,” the social activist told reporters here, saying that the dog-touching event was an awareness project on dogs.

It was sparked off from local filmmaker Jason Lim’s short movie on how a blind man faced challenges when appearing with his guide dog in public areas — such as buses and shopping malls, she said.

Norhayati also trotted off a list of previous joint projects with Syed Azmi, including the collection of winter clothing for those living in Syria, the collection of over 400 boxes of food for the poor during Ramadhan and the handing out of over 1,000 packets of rice to various organisations.

“We collect funds and we execute the projects. We do projects with the street people, orphanage, anything that is a good cause,” she said.

Syahredzan pointed to the “I Want to Touch a Dog” event organisers’ past community projects as proof of their good intentions, saying that the uproar over this event would not prevent them from carrying out similar charity projects for the society.

“This is not an event that was done with any agenda. This was for education, he said.

The “I Want to Touch a Dog” event at the Central Park in Bandar Utama, Selangor last Sunday drew nearly 200 volunteers and dog owners and gave Malay-Muslims the opportunity to pet canines, an animal that many in the community regard as culturally taboo.

Youths Push Through Um Gates To Attend Anwar's Oratory Programme

KUALA LUMPUR, Oct 27 (Bernama) -- Approximately 300 youths, including university students pushed through the main gate of Universiti Malaya (UM) on Monday night in a bid to attend the opposition leader, Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim's oratory programme.

Bernama check found that a commotion began when the youth, who had waited in front of the gate since 8 pm, started to chant "open! open!" when they found that the main gate was padlocked.

Their calls for the gate to be opened were ignored by the security guards on duty, prompting them to push through the gate.

The security control at the main gate of the university was tightened after the clock struck six and the gate was closed to all traffic from 7.30 pm.

Anwar, who arrived at the UM at 9.40 pm for the oratory programme organised by the UM Students Association, rapped the UM management for not allowing him to deliver his speech, titled '40 Tahun Dari UM Ke Penjara' (40 Years from UM to Prison), during the programme, which was supposed to be held at Dewan Tunku Canselor.

Accompanied by his wife, Datin Seri Wan Azizah Wan Ismail, who is also PKR president, Anwar went on to deliver his 20-minute speech from a pickup truck parked in front of the hall.

Meanwhile, opposition leaders, including Selangor Menteri Besar Mohamed Azmin Ali, who is also PKR deputy president, Penang Chief Minister Lim Guan Eng, who is also DAP secretary-general, together with his father, Lim Kit Siang, who is also DAP advisor, patron of Negara-ku Datuk S. Ambiga, and PAS deputy president Mohamad Sabu attended the dinner to demonstrate protest against the Sedition Act organised by a non-government organisation at the Dewan Sivik of the Petaling Jaya City Council, near here tonight.