Stephen Sackur Introduction:
Last month marked a watershed in the politics of Malaysia. The ruling national front recorded its worst election results in five decades. It’s still in power but seriously weakened. My guest today personifies the power of the ruling party for 22 years. He was Malaysia’s PM and one of the most outspoken leaders in the Muslim world. His critics called him a racist and a dictator. Has retirement mellowed Mahathir Mohamed?
Stephen Sackur: Dr Mohamad welcome to Hardtalk. Let’s start with that election result last month, has it marked the beginning of the end for Malaysia’s ruling party?
Mahathir Mohamad: Not necessarily, unless no action is taken, of course it may result in that. But if proper action is taken, including of course the present Prime Minister leaving his seat of power, it may be possible to bring back the Barisan Nasional Front in order to become again a very strong ruling party.
Stephen Sackur: You’re saying that PM Abdullah Badawi has to be kicked out for the ruling party to recover?
Mahathir Mohamad: Well not so strong as that. He can step down. I stepped down in my time. It’s about time that he steps down because the result of the election shows clearly that many of the former followers, supporters of the Nasional Front had decided that they would work, vote for the Opposition even if they didn’t like the Opposition. They voted for the Opposition to send a message to the present government.
Stephen Sackur: Prime Minister Abdullah says that you have been one of the curses that have brought him down, because you’ve been sniping from the sidelines for the last two or three years.
Mahathir Mohamad: That may be so. I don’t see why I should not criticise wrongdoings by him.
Stephen Sackur: What wrongdoings?
Mahathir Mohamad: Well in the first place, the government promises to remove corruption and things like that, but the government is found to be corrupt.
Stephen Sackur: You are tearing your own party apart though, that is the problem. And that is what many people inside your party believe.
Mahathir Mohamad: Well sometimes it may be necessary. I told people that I’m a doctor. If I find one leg becoming gangrenous I remove it.
Stephen Sackur: Now he has said Prime Minister Abdullah, that he will go eventually, but is your message to him that he has no time, he must go now?
Mahathir Mohamad: He must go now, because he will take time to revive the party for the next election.
Stephen Sackur: Isn’t the truth of what we see in Malaysia today that the real discontent isn’t so much with Prime Minister Abdullah, it is with the system and the ideology that you bequeathed to your country?
Mahathir Mohamad: Well the system and the ideology have been there for the last 50 years. It’s worked very well we had always won elections, people always supported us and the country has done very well during that 50 years with that system.
Stephen Sackur : But the indications are and the opposition succeeded by saying to the public, we no longer want this racially defined system inside Malaysia. And it was the racial defined system that was the platform upon which you succeeded in running Malaysia for 22 years.
Mahathir Mohamad: I think that’s wishful thinking on the part of foreign critics. But the fact is that this election result was due to disaffection on the part of the ruling party’s supporters, with the present leadership.
Stephen Sackur : Well let me just quote you the words of the new head of Penang State and let’s not forget that these results saw five very big and wealthy states go to the Opposition. The new head of Penang State Mr Lim Guan Eng, he says ‘we want a new state administration that is free from corruption and cronyism, we are here to build a Penang State for all.’ You didn’t build a Malaysia for all did you?
Mahathir Mohamad: I did. If you look at Malaysia today. Everybody is enjoying, has enjoyed, a very good life. They have become very prosperous. Malaysia was one of the fastest growing countries in the world. If you look at the different races, you can find that they all benefited from that government. So it is of course, necessary for Opposition parties to make remarks like that.
Stephen Sackur : But they are not making it up are they? Let’s look at your new economic policy which you pursued for so long. It favours ethnic Malays, in so many different ways, from public sector appointments to university places, to advantageous acquisition of stocks, discounts on housing, I don’t know where to stop. There are so many different ways in which you ran an unequal system.
Mahathir Mohamad: No this was a policy which was initiated by my predecessors, it was necessary to...
Stephen Sackur : But you ran it for 22 years, you had ample opportunity to change it.
Mahathir Mohamad: Yes I had ample opportunity to implement in a way that will correct imbalances that existed in Malaysia since the British days. And unless these imbalances are corrected there’s bound to be another race riot, as happened in 1969.
Stephen Sackur : But the point is that 80 thousand Indians for example, were on the streets protesting long and loud last November, because they are no longer prepared to live with the racial division that you set in the stone.
Mahathir Mohamad: Why now? Why not during my time? They were quite free to demonstrate. Many of the people who disagreed with me demonstrated...
Stephen Sackur : But many of the people who disagreed with you, I’m afraid ended up in prison.
Mahathir Mohamad: Who?
Stephen Sackur : Hundreds of them, read every Amnesty international and human rights watch report for the years in which you were in power..
Mahathir Mohamad: The western press, the problem is that you make up these stories and then you take this as the truth, it’s not the truth. Tell me who are the hundreds of people who ended up in prison.
Stephen Sackur: I’ll discuss human rights a little bit later. I just want before we get distracted from this question of racism in Malaysia, I just want to put to you this final point: Anwar Ibrahim says that he is going to push and of course he your long time friend who became, your political enemy, he is going to push for a colour blind Malaysia where affirmative action is open to all who need help.
Mahathir Mohamad: Well this opportunism for him, now that he is out of the government, he was in the government for a long time, he never made any complaints, he never did anything to.
Stephen Sackur : He certainly made a complaint when you locked him up.
Mahathir Mohamad: Well that was not the reason why he was locked up, he was accused of sodomy, he was accused of abuse of power, he was tried in court, nine months and he was defended by nine lawyers and he was found guilty...
Stephen Sackur : Trumped up charges.. trumped up charges.. says not just Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International but I’ve been looking through the record, the Canadian government, the White House, the International Commission of Jurists, all of them expressed grave and deep concern with the way in which your judicial system treated Anwar Ibrahim.
Mahathir Mohamad: Yes you’re free to say so but...
Stephen Sackur : I’m not saying it, I’m just quoting to you all the people who did say it.
Mahathir Mohamad: But what is the record of these countries? These people, these same countries arrested people without the law, and detained them in Guantanamo Bay and even in Britain here, you arrest people and detain them without any sanction by law.
Stephen Sackur : So does that make it okay that you did it for 22 years?
Mahathir Mohamad: We did it under the laws of the country, but it is not the way...
Stephen Sackur : You used the laws which went back to colonial times, the internal security act, emergency procedures, you feel satisfied to tell me that that was entirely legitimate?
Mahathir Mohamad: No we find that the situation in the country is very very fluid and it is very likely that there will be racial riots, unless we prevent precise people who are promoting racial hatred from talking about it.
Stephen Sackur : Put it this way, Dr Mahathir, you’ve had several years out of power now to consider your record and what you did, I wonder whether you are now ready to say that you regret what you did to Anwar Ibrahim?
Mahathir Mohamad: Why should I regret? He was arrested under the laws of the country, he was tried in the courts of the country and he was sentenced by the court. If he was not wrong, I don’t think, no matter what you think about our judiciary, I don’t think he would have been sentenced to prison.
Stephen Sackur : It damaged your reputation though didn’t it?
Mahathir Mohamad: Well that’s something I have to accept.
Stephen Sackur : You may also find it comes back to haunt you? Anwar Ibrahim is now leading the opposition coalition. We are led to believe that there are certain MPs in the ruling party who may defect to him, in which case he could very soon be running the government. And he’s made it plain that he wants to have you answer for all of the things you do while you were in power.
Mahathir Mohamad: Well he’s welcome to do that if he becomes the Prime Minister of Malaysia, but if he wins over members of the ruling party to his side, it is the prime minister, the present leader who should be blamed, because he couldn’t even get the loyalty of his own members.
Stephen Sackur : It wasn’t the current prime minister who was in power when Anwar Ibrahim was savagely beaten during his time in detention?
Mahathir Mohamad: Savagely beaten? I know he was slapped and he had a black eye which was very useful for election purpose...
Stephen Sackur : Why you think he hit himself maybe?
Mahathir Mohamad: Well I don’t know what happened..but the police the IGP admitted that he assaulted Anwar, but that wasn’t me that was the IGP.
Stephen Sackur : But how do you respond, if Anwar comes to power and he as he said on this programme and elsewhere, that he wants a full and thorough public inquiry into all of your, Dr Mahathir’s misdeeds, how will you respond to that?
Mahathir Mohamad: He is welcome to do so, but I hope that he finds people who are neutral, who are impartial, probably foreigners, because I don’t trust the people that they put after people they don’t like.
Stephen Sackur : Interesting that you say you don’t trust people who are currently or maybe in charge of any inquiry, do you trust the integrity of the Malaysian judiciary?
Mahathir Mohamad: I do, at times I do but...
Stephen Sackur : is that because you appointed the judges?
Mahathir Mohamad: I didn’t appoint the judges, the judges were recommended by the Chief Justice and my duty is to check whether he has any records or not and after that he is presented to the king who will then appoint the judge...
Stephen Sackur : Dr Mahathir, you know as well as I do, that the hottest political topic in Malaysia today, is the state of the judiciary, the integrity of the judiciary and that a video has been playing in Malaysia for a long time now which shows a top lawyer talking to a top judge going back to 2001, in which the lawyer says to the judge ‘believe me in the end all of the positions going all the way to the supreme court are fixed by the politicians’, i.e. by you who were the prime minister at the time Dr Mahathir?
Mahathir Mohamad: Did he say that? Did he mention my name?
Stephen Sackur : He didn’t mention your name he said this will be fixed, this goes through the political system. You ran the political system.
Mahathir Mohamad: I’m not so sure about that. But the fact is that this man had his video taken because they intended to blackmail him. He happens to be my lawyer, defending me at this moment for libel against Anwar and this tape came from Anwar. Anwar had these things recorded in order to blackmail the lawyer.
Stephen Sackur : But the point is the current government led by Prime Minister Abdullah who is nominally or despite what you have said on this programme, is of your party. Prime Minister Abdullah has now essentially apologised, he said both to the supreme court justice that you removed and to other judges that were suspended or removed during your time in power, he’s said sorry to them. He’s said that he wants to offer them monetary compensation
Mahathir Mohamad: Fine but it’s a political move. Something a man who is very unpopular at the moment, wanting to show that he’s going to do something right.
Stephen Sackur: And that Dr Mahathir is my point. The Malaysian people no longer want to live with the system you created. That’s why Prime Minister Abdullah is essentially dismantling the system that you created.
Mahathir Mohamad: No no no he’s not dismantling the system, he is making use of the system in a worse way. Nobody can say anything against him, he has newspapers which only reports about him and how great he is. And he was mislead by his own supporters, into believing that if he holds the election now, this is one and half years before the end of the term, he would win, he would have a clean sweep. If you look at the records, he made statements that he would win the election, with zero for the Opposition.
Stephen Sackur: The more I listen to you talking about Prime Minister Abdullah, the more I wonder why did you choose him to be your successor?
Mahathir Mohamad: Well these people are very smart in hiding their true character. He was known as Mr Clean and I thought I would appoint a clean person to succeed me. Although he was not the one with the highest votes in my party. But I thought that he was older and I appointed him thinking that he’s not going to do anything very wrong. But this man gives priority to his family rather than to the country.
Stephen Sackur: So it was a fundamental lack of judgement on your part?
Mahathir Mohamad: Yes I’ll admit that. But we all make mistakes. The British people voted in people like Blair, who told lies, so did the Americans. Lots of people make mistakes.
Stephen Sackur: We all make mistakes you say, was it also a mistake for you to define
yourself so clearly, as anti-western and anti-democratic, in the sense that the West understands democracy?
Mahathir Mohamad: No that’s the problem, I am not anti-Western, I am against the bad things that were done by the Western countries.
Stephen Sackur: You’re not anti-western and yet in June 2003 before you left office, you said anglo-Saxon Europeans are essentially proponents and I’m quoting here: ‘proponents of war, sodomy and genocide.’
Mahathir Mohamad: Which is true, you must admit.
Stephen Sackur: But you’re not anti-western?
Mahathir Mohamad: I’m stating the fact. This is their character and I will continue to say so.
Stephen Sackur: So when you come here, you sit in the Hardtalk studio, in the heart of London, you regard yourself do you, as in one of the Headquarters of war, sodomy and genocide?
Mahathir Mohamad: Well I come here of course expecting to be lambasted by you, because that is the way you work.
Stephen Sackur: Well I’m not lambasting you at all. I’m trying to tease out whether you believe it was a mistake for you to use this sort of language. Because you clearly cut yourself off, from any sort of meaningful dialogue with the West when you use these words.
Mahathir Mohamad: Well the Europeans used to call us the lazy Malays, incompetent Malays, untrustworthy Malays, we couldn’t say a thing about you. So when I was in a position to say what we think about you, and I did and you don’t like it. When you said it to us you expect us to like it. We didn’t like it, but we had no way of making our voices heard.
Stephen Sackur: I am just wondering how you feel about democracy. Of course in the world since 9/11, the United States and the coalition of partners led by the United Kingdom, have talked a lot about spreading democracy, do you believe in democracy?
Mahathir Mohamad: If you look at the history of the west, they come up with all kinds of ideologies, they use it for sometime and then they found it defective and they dropped it and start on another. One day they are going to forget about democracy because in some countries democracy actually ended up with anarchy. And there were practically no governments. It’s not a system that can feed everybody. You must have a certain understanding of the limitations of democracy, in order to make it work.
Stephen Sackur: Is that why you were not a democrat, why you in the end did behave like a dictator?
Mahathir Mohamad: Well that is something that the West would like to say about me, I am a dictator.
Stephen Sackur: Well I’m just quoting your own words from 2002. You said it’s good governance people need, you said, feudal kings even dictators have provided and can provide good governments.
Mahathir Mohamad: Well that’s very true, that is very true. The great civilisations of the past did not have democracies. And yet they became great. It’s not necessary that the system will work for everybody. But if we have a bad leader, even the democratic system will fail.
We must remember that it is a democratic country which dropped atomic bombs, killing 200 thousand people.
Stephen Sackur: How do you think the Malaysian public will respond to you saying, look you know what democracy isn’t the best system and in fact dictatorship can often work better.
Mahathir Mohamad: I went through five elections and I won all the elections with a majority...
Stephen Sackur: Without a free press, locking up many of your opponents
Mahathir Mohamad: There you go again about locking up many of my opponents, who are they?
Stephen Sackur: I don’t know how many times I have to tell you, that I’ve studied the human rights watch reports, the Amnesty International reports, studies from the state department, from the Canadian government.
Mahathir Mohamad: These are biased reports, the first thing I did on becoming the prime minister in 1981, was to release political prisoners who were detained by my predecessors, 22 or them, including many members of the Opposition.
Stephen Sackur: Under the 1984 Press law which required newspapers to get a new licence every single year. It made it very easy for you to quieten them down, didn’t it?
Mahathir Mohamad: No it has always been there, the press law has been there...I didn’t do that...but the fact is that we have a multi-racial country and if we are not careful, there will be racial flare-ups. And you look at most of the countries with multi-racial population, they are never peaceful, even Northern Ireland, it took you such a long to stop the war in Northern Ireland.
Stephen Sackur: Talking of peace, you did worry about the stability of your country, didn’t you? That’s why you were very strong, very tough with Islamist extremism inside Malaysia.
Mahathir Mohamad: Yes it is necessary.
Stephen Sackur: Well I just wonder in that case then why just before you left office, in October 2003, why did you tell the Islamic Summit Conference that and I’m quoting again a very famous speech, it’s a little bit long but “1.3 billion Muslims cannot be defeated by a few million Jews,” you said. “We’re actually very strong. The Europeans killed six million Jews out of 12 million but today Jews rule this world by proxy. They get others to fight and die for them.” You went on to say: “But the Jews have become arrogant. And arrogant people like angry people will make mistakes and there may be a window of opportunity for us.”
Mahathir Mohamad: I’m stating facts, I am willing to say that again and again that this is what has happened.
Stephen Sackur: Anti-Semitic and racist that was called by many governments and people around the world.
Mahathir Mohamad: Anti-Semitism is created by the Jews themselves. We cannot say anything. In fact journalists have been arrested for saying something against the holocaust and jailed for three years. Where is the freedom of press?
Stephen Sackur: So those words I quoted in your view, are not anti-Semitic?
Mahathir Mohamad: No they are not anti-Semitic? I am just quoting facts. The fact is that the United States obeys what Israel wants it to do.
Stephen Sackur: You call them facts, let’s leave that aside for the moment. I am trying to understand your logic. Here you are a man who says that your own country is potentially destabilised by Islamic extremism and then you go out in an Islamic Conference and you use words which could have been used by Osama bin Laden.
Mahathir Mohamad: There’s no contradiction, no contradiction at all. I don’t want Islamic terrorism any more than I want Jewish attacks against Israel, or American bombs on Baghdad. It is not incompatible.
Stephen Sackur: Do you feel confident that people still listen to your message?
Mahathir Mohamad: I wouldn’t be able to say. Why should people worry about me?
Stephen Sackur: In Malaysia people say, and I’m talking about the Prime Minister, the leader of the Opposition: it’s time for you to be quiet.
Mahathir Mohamad: Why should I be quiet? You mean to say when they are doing something wrong, to my country and I should not say anything? I would be irresponsible if I were to do that.
Stephen Sackur: Dr Mahathir Mohamad thank you very much for being on Hardtalk.
Mahathir Mohamad: You’re welcome.
Thursday, April 24, 2008
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
1988 crisis : Salleh Shot Himself On The Foot? - By P Suppiah
The personalities involved in the entire episode are as follows:
The then Yang Di Pertuan Agong (the King), now the Sultan of Johor
Tun Salleh Abas, who was then the Lord President
The prime minister (Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad, who was then Datuk Seri Dr),
The then attorney-general, Tan Sri Abu Talib Othman, now Suhakam chief.
The whole episode started with Salleh writing a letter to the King dated March 26, 1988, copies of which were sent to the Malay rulers. On May 27, 1988 the prime minister in the presence of high-ranking government officials informed Salleh that the King wished him to step down (to retire as Lord President) because of the said letter.
Salleh on May 28, 1988 sent a letter of resignation: the next day he withdrew it and subsequently held a press conference. On June 9, 1988 the prime minister made a second representation to the King alleging further misconduct on the part of Salleh based on his undignified use of the press to vent his grievances – such as requesting for a public hearing of the tribunal and asking for persons of high judicial standing to sit on the tribunal.
On June 11, 1988, members of the tribunal were appointed pursuant to the Federal Constitution by the King. On June 14, 1988, Salleh was served with the list of charges against him. On June 17, 1988, Salleh was served with a set of rules to govern the tribunal procedure. On June 21, 1988, on the application of Salleh, a Queen’s Counsel was admitted for the purpose of defending him without any objection from the attorney-general.
Salleh was informed of the tribunal’s hearing on June 29, 1988 and was told he could be represented by his Queen’s Counsel. On June 29, 1988, counsel for Salleh appeared and informed the tribunal that Salleh would not participate in the proceedings. Salleh was making a series of press statements including an interview with the BBC showing unhappiness over the tribunal’s legality.
The tribunal held its proceedings in camera. Salleh was accorded the right to be defended by counsel. His counsel decided not to cross-examine any of the witnesses. The tribunal was made up of the following six persons:
Acting Lord President, Abdul Hamid Omar (tribunal chairman), who was appointed a High Court judge in September 1968. In 1980, he was appointed a Federal Court judge. On Feb 3, 1984, he was made the Chief Justice of Malaya taking over from Salleh.
TS Sinnathuray, a Singapore Supreme Court judge (tribunal member).
Abdul Aziz Mohamed Zain, a former Federal Court judge (tribunal member).
Mohamed Zahir Ismail, former High Court judge from 1975 to 1982 before assuming his post as a Dewan Rakyat speaker (tribunal member).
Sri Lankan Chief Justice, KAP Ranasinghe (tribunal member).
Chief Justice of Borneo, Lee Hun Hoe (tribunal member).
The allegations against Salleh were made known to him in writing (in respect of which the tribunal held its inquiry), and briefly they are:
First allegation: On the occasion of the conferment of the honarary degree of doctor of letters on him by Universiti Malaya on Aug 1, 1987 in his speech he made several statements criticising the government which displayed prejudice and bias against the government: and these statements were incompatible with his position as the Lord President of the Supreme Court.
Second allegation: At the launching of the book Malaysia Law and Law, Justice and the Judiciary: Transnational Trend on Jan 12, 1988 in his speech he made several statements discrediting the government and thereby sought to undermine public confidence in the government’s administration of this country in accordance with the law.
In the same speech he made special reference to the interpretative role of judges and advocated the acceptance of the Islamic legal system not only in the interpretation of the civil law of Malaysia but in its general application.
In particular he advocated thus: "This system consists mostly of the Quran and Hadith (tradition of Prophet Mohammad S.A.W.). The interpretation of these two sources of law is done according to the established and accepted methodology. Volumes of literature have been written as commentaries and exegesis of the Quaranic law the Prophet Mohammad’s Hadith or tradition. In this situation, not only is the judiciary bound by Islamic law as propounded by jurisconsult (muftis, who give legal rulings on particular matters), but as Parliament and the executive too are certainly bound by these rulings."
His attempt to restate the law generally along Islamic legal principles ignores the character of Malaysian society as one which is multi-religious and multi-racial with deep cultural differences. No responsible government can allow the postulation of such views by the head of the judiciary without causing fear and consternation among its non-Muslim population. Furthermore, his statement violates established principles of judicial interpretation widely accepted in the courts in Malaysia and in the Commonwealth.
Third allegation: He adjourned sine die the case of Teoh Eng Huat v Kadhi Pasir Mas, Kelantan and Another (Civil Appeal No 220 of 1986) which involved the issue of a minor’s choice of religion. It was adjourned six times in the Supreme Court – Aug 18, 1986, Aug 25, 1986, Dec 1, 1986, July 30, 1987, July 31, 1987 and Aug 3, 1987. It related to the conversion from Buddhism to the Islamic faith.
Fourth allegation: In his said letter dated March 26, 1988 to the King and the Malay rulers, he stated that it was written on behalf of the judges of this country. This is false as there was no prior consultation with nor approval of all the judges of the country on the content of the letter before he sent it.
Fifth allegation: He, after his suspension as Lord President, made various statements to the media for publication and broadcasting which contained untruths and which were calculated to politicise the issue between the government and himself and to further discredit the government.
The tribunal commenced its hearing on June 29, 1988. Salleh was absent. But his counsel, namely Raja Aziz Addruse, CV Das and Royan were present. The attorney-general presented his arguments to assist the tribunal and set out the facts. In his submission, the AG stated that there was more than ample evidence and justification to recommend Salleh’s removal from office.
In all four witnesses were called and much written material connected with the allegations was made available to the tribunal for its members to rely on. The four witnesses were Sallehudin Mohamed, Sharon Abdul Majid (director-general of Fisheries), Saedon Daud (deputy director of Budget) and Haidar Mohd Noor (chief registrar) who gave evidence with regard to the adjournments of the conversion case mentioned in the third allegation.
The tribunal completed its report on July 7, 1988. In it, it stated that the tribunal was appointed by the King under Article 125(3) and (4) of the Federal Constitution to investigate and submit a report to the King in regard to the representation made by the prime minister that Salleh be removed from office on the grounds of his misbehaviour which show that he is no longer able to discharge his duties and function as Lord President properly and justly.
The tribunal in its report set out the background facts and its findings and recommendations.
The tribunal under proof and findings inter alia stated that it endeavoured to follow the well-
known principle and applied and followed in such matters and also in regard to the burden of proof and the standard of proof by similar tribunals in other jurisdictions. It dealt with each of the allegations and stated briefly in respect thereof as follows:
Allegations 1 and 2: The tribunal was satisfied on a consideration of the documents containing the speech that had been made by Salleh on the occasion he was conferred the honourary degree of doctor of letters by Universiti Malaya on Aug 1, 1987 and also the speech made by him on Jan 12, 1988 on the occasion of the official launching ceremony of the book Malaysian Law and Law Justice and the Judiciary: Transnational Trends at the Shangri La Hotel Kuala Lumpur that the particulars set out in the said allegations have been established.
Allegation 2 (iv) and 3: In regard to allegation 3 the tribunal was satisfied in the absence of any explanation by Salleh that the adjournment was made upon improper and extraneous consideration when the case related to the conversion of a minor from the religion she professed (Buddhism) to the Islamic faith.
Allegation 2 (iv): The tribunal held:
i) that it was manifestly clear in the absence of an explanation from Salleh who made the speech that he was seeking to advocate in the guise of interpretation, the acceptance of the principles of Islamic law as propounded by the ‘muftis’ and to assert that such rulings bound not only the judiciary but also both the Parliament and the executive of the country
ii) that it must be borne in mind that Islam is the religion of the Federation, the Constitution of Malaysia by Articles 3 and 11 assures and guarantees to all persons complete freedom of religion by vesting in every person "the right to profess and practise his religion" in accordance with the law.
iii) that it must also be borne in mind that Malaysia is a multi-racial and multi-religious country. That being so, the assertion of principles as spelt out in the said speech by Salleh is likely to cause not only uneasiness but also fear and doubt in the minds of those who profess a religion other than Islam and do not subscribe to the tenets and principles advocated by Salleh in his speech.
iv) that it must also be borne in mind that the Constitution is the supreme law of the Federation and any law passed after Merdeka Day which is inconsistent with the Constitution shall be void to the extent of such inconsistency. Therefore, it was ill-advised for Salleh as head of the judiciary to make an authoritative statement that "Islamic laws bind not only the judiciary but Parliament and the executive also".
Allegation 4: The tribunal held that for Salleh to say that the letter to the King (copied to all the Malay rulers) was from "all of us" was an untruth and in the absence of any explanation the tribunal held that Salleh had done so in order to ensure that the said letter could carry greater authority and greater conviction than it would have had it been made only by a section of the judges.
Allegation 5: The tribunal was satisfied that in the absence of any explanation from Salleh that he used the media with the view to politicising the issue of his suspension and to gain public sympathy for himself.
The tribunal touched on the meaning of "misbehaviour": to mean unlawful conduct or immoral conduct such as bribery, corruption, acts done with improper motives relating to the office of a judge and which would affect the due administration of justice or which would shake the confidence of the public in a judge.
The tribunal concluded: "Having regard to the views we have already formed upon the material before us, we are of the opinion, in the absence of an explanation being made by or on behalf of Salleh that he has been guilty of not only "misbehaviour", but also of misconduct which falls within the ambit of "other cause", which renders him unfit to discharge properly the functions of his office, as Lord President, as set out in Article 125(3) of the Constitution."
Under recommendation, the tribunal said: "Salleh has been proved to have behaved himself in such a way as would destroy the public confidence in his impartiality, his honesty his integrity and in his ability to make decisions as a judge and unanimously recommended that he be removed from office, both as a judge and as the Lord President of the Supreme Court, which recommendation was accepted by the King."
It further stated: "We very much regret that the respondent chose not to appear before us, even though every reasonable opportunity was afforded to him by us. We have, as has been made clear in this report, come to the findings which we have arrived at only upon the unchallenged and uncontradicted material placed before us. Needless to say that had we had the benefit of a plausible explanation from the respondent in regard to the several issues which were presented to us for our consideration, our decision may well have been different."
Much later in a reply letter dated March 20, 1989 to the International Commission of Jurist, Hamid stated that though Salleh was the Lord President his judicial experience on the Superior Court bench was comparatively short having been appointed (when he was a solicitor-general) direct to the Federal Court (the predecessor of the present Supreme Court) as recently as 1979.
Salleh was never a Judge of the High Court and had no experience whatever of trial court work at that level. On the other hand, he (Hamid) was appointed High Court judge in 1968 (11 years earlier).
What prompted me to write this letter is because the topic of Salleh Abas has cropped up in the papers recently with the de facto law minister holding the view that the government should apologise to Salleh for his being sacked as Lord President.
The present prime minister has also advocated in his speech at the Bar dinner last week (nearly 20 years later) that the government would make "goodwill ex-gratia payment to Tun Salleh". I wonder whether it will be proper to use government’s money for such purpose.
It must be remembered that to this day no one knows what the defence would have been if Salleh had appeared before the tribunal and be subjected to cross-examination. Salleh did not do this as he said he ‘did not recognise’ the tribunal in his interviews. Even if one does not recognise a tribunal, one should appear before it and make the necessary submission and if the submission fails, one should still give evidence (under protest so to speak) setting out the defence.
His version, even if disbelieved by the tribunal, will always be there on the record for everyone to see. In fact the tribunal had stated categorically that if it had the benefit of a plausible explanation from Salleh in regard to the several issues which were presented to it for its consideration its decision may well have been different.
By his refusing to appear and give his version (especially in regard to his advocating the acceptance of the Islamic legal system in the interpretation of the laws as propounded by the ‘muftis’) he in fact had shot himself in the foot. It is no use crying foul when he did not exercise his right to be heard. What would he have done in a similar or other cases presided by him?
To my mind, it is still open to Salleh, for instance among other avenues, to ask for an appointment of another tribunal to review his case (whether there will be any objection to this from any quarters, I do not know) subject however to his agreeing to give evidence as to his defence. The record of the proceedings are still there. Even if this happened he will be running into difficulties because the four witnesses who gave evidence at the tribunal were never cross-examined by his counsel.
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
OUTSTANDING STUDENT FAILS TO OBAIN LOCAL SCHOLARSHIPS BUT OBTAINS OFFERS OF PRESTIGIOUS OVERSEAS SCHOLARSHIPS.
Lee Jia Hui (pic), 19 scored 11 1A’s in the SPM examination. The Sunday Star, April 20, reported that he had for the last six months applied for scholarship to pursue his studies oversea from various local agencies such as Public Services Department and Bank Negara. He was unsuccessful.
Interestingly and luckily, he has now obtained offers of scholarships from renowned institution such as Harvard University, Princeton, Darthmoth, Cornell, as well as Wesleyan Asian Freeman Scholarship. Imagine prestigious and renowned foreign institutions are falling over to offer scholarships and yet at home he is unable to obtain a scholarship.
Now that Lee has secured a multitude offers of scholarship, it can also be certain that Lee would be another talent lost by Malaysia. With a degree from a prestigious institution, he would surely receive offers of employment even before he finishes his studies. I just wonder what will be the motivation for him to return home. The lifestyle he would have become accustomed to, the employment opportunities, remuneration and perks may make him not to come back to Malaysia. Frankly, why would he want to.
Singapore government has for a long time offered Asean Scholarship to top students from Asean countries to study in Singapore. Now, Singapore has gone even further. It now offers scholarships even for for Primary and Secondary students. The multitudes of scholarships given are designed to lure top students from the region and particularly from Malaysia to study in Singapore. These students after having being used to the Singapore life- style and work ethics, more often than not would then stay on and work in Singapore. Many raise families and ultimately become Singapore citizens. The very least they become Singapore Permanent Residents while their children becoming Singapore citizens.
Singapore has found ways to entice and retain talent while Malaysia on the other hand seems to be indifferent to the loss of talents. After all the loss and brain drain can be replenished with Bangladeshis, Sudanese or even Myanmaris. Little wonder Singapore who once was on par with Malaysia has transformed into a first world and much of it is because of Malaysian talent who left our shores to help transform Singapore to become what it is today. Malaysia hardly made attempts to plug the brain drain or even ensure that our talents return. We just let them go and in the process lost them.
It is said that virtually all the students from the top class in Foon Yew Chinese school is headhunted by Singapore with offers of education scholarships. While the UEC examination certificate is not recognized for entry into local universities, yet it is recognized by Singapore (and many other countries) and students with good UEC results often receive offers of scholarship from Singapore. Has Petronas, Bank Negara or even Khazanah Nasional even provided a scholarship for a top student from Foon Yew Chinese School ?
The government is now considering sending a second man to space. Imagine the millions which is going to be spent when no one has a clue what benefit we have received from the first mission, apart from having the distinction of being the first Malay and Malaysian to go into space. The government even once was prepared to spend millions just to build a high performance sports centre in England. Luckily the local council rejected the application.
The point is this, the government readily finds money to spend on grandiose projects but find it difficult to provide scholarships for outstanding students. Why can’t the government, government linked agencies and companies find ways to help outstanding students with scholarship. What is even more sad, is that very often Non Malay students find it virtually impossible to obtain scholarship from government or government linked agencies and companies, yet are often receipients of scholarship from overseas universities. Importantly, it is to be noted that these scholarships are often secured on merit. I still remember how a couple of years ago government linked companies were falling over each other to provide scholarship for a British whiz kid whose only link to Malaysia was that her mother was born in Malaysia. Now the whiz kid is a 130 sterling pounds per hour whore.
Malaysia through the decades have lost thousands of outstanding students to other countries and we cannot continue to lose talent and let the brain drain go on. In a globalised world we must retain our outstanding students while at the same time source for outstanding foreign talents. We must make available scholarships for our top students and more importantly every top student irrespective of race must have an opportunity. We rely now on foreign doctors often from third rate countries and who can hardly speak the local language and some hardly look convincing nor confident as a doctor. Could we not have sent abroad on scholarship more Malaysian student of all races to study medicine. I know one Indian family whose child is studying medicine in Bandung, Indonesia. The poor parents are virtually begging from office to office for money to educate their child.
Let us be realistic, if the country treats a top student like a step-child and alienates him from opportunities, would he still be motivated to return and serve the country. This is what has happened and still happens. Many who has gone abroad still has family ties and feelings for the country but government policies and alienation of opportunities makes them not having any desire to return.
Malaysians pay tax, Petronas makes billions, government and government linked agencies and companies make money and government poor millions bailing out government linked companies. Yet, outstanding students and particularly non malay students cannot secure scholarships easily. What the government, government agencies and government linked companies must do is to provide scholarships for outstanding Malaysians and importantly irrespective of race. What has happened to Lee Jia Hui should not have happen and must never happen again.
Norman Fernandez
Vice Chairman
DAP Johor
Interestingly and luckily, he has now obtained offers of scholarships from renowned institution such as Harvard University, Princeton, Darthmoth, Cornell, as well as Wesleyan Asian Freeman Scholarship. Imagine prestigious and renowned foreign institutions are falling over to offer scholarships and yet at home he is unable to obtain a scholarship.
Now that Lee has secured a multitude offers of scholarship, it can also be certain that Lee would be another talent lost by Malaysia. With a degree from a prestigious institution, he would surely receive offers of employment even before he finishes his studies. I just wonder what will be the motivation for him to return home. The lifestyle he would have become accustomed to, the employment opportunities, remuneration and perks may make him not to come back to Malaysia. Frankly, why would he want to.
Singapore government has for a long time offered Asean Scholarship to top students from Asean countries to study in Singapore. Now, Singapore has gone even further. It now offers scholarships even for for Primary and Secondary students. The multitudes of scholarships given are designed to lure top students from the region and particularly from Malaysia to study in Singapore. These students after having being used to the Singapore life- style and work ethics, more often than not would then stay on and work in Singapore. Many raise families and ultimately become Singapore citizens. The very least they become Singapore Permanent Residents while their children becoming Singapore citizens.
Singapore has found ways to entice and retain talent while Malaysia on the other hand seems to be indifferent to the loss of talents. After all the loss and brain drain can be replenished with Bangladeshis, Sudanese or even Myanmaris. Little wonder Singapore who once was on par with Malaysia has transformed into a first world and much of it is because of Malaysian talent who left our shores to help transform Singapore to become what it is today. Malaysia hardly made attempts to plug the brain drain or even ensure that our talents return. We just let them go and in the process lost them.
It is said that virtually all the students from the top class in Foon Yew Chinese school is headhunted by Singapore with offers of education scholarships. While the UEC examination certificate is not recognized for entry into local universities, yet it is recognized by Singapore (and many other countries) and students with good UEC results often receive offers of scholarship from Singapore. Has Petronas, Bank Negara or even Khazanah Nasional even provided a scholarship for a top student from Foon Yew Chinese School ?
The government is now considering sending a second man to space. Imagine the millions which is going to be spent when no one has a clue what benefit we have received from the first mission, apart from having the distinction of being the first Malay and Malaysian to go into space. The government even once was prepared to spend millions just to build a high performance sports centre in England. Luckily the local council rejected the application.
The point is this, the government readily finds money to spend on grandiose projects but find it difficult to provide scholarships for outstanding students. Why can’t the government, government linked agencies and companies find ways to help outstanding students with scholarship. What is even more sad, is that very often Non Malay students find it virtually impossible to obtain scholarship from government or government linked agencies and companies, yet are often receipients of scholarship from overseas universities. Importantly, it is to be noted that these scholarships are often secured on merit. I still remember how a couple of years ago government linked companies were falling over each other to provide scholarship for a British whiz kid whose only link to Malaysia was that her mother was born in Malaysia. Now the whiz kid is a 130 sterling pounds per hour whore.
Malaysia through the decades have lost thousands of outstanding students to other countries and we cannot continue to lose talent and let the brain drain go on. In a globalised world we must retain our outstanding students while at the same time source for outstanding foreign talents. We must make available scholarships for our top students and more importantly every top student irrespective of race must have an opportunity. We rely now on foreign doctors often from third rate countries and who can hardly speak the local language and some hardly look convincing nor confident as a doctor. Could we not have sent abroad on scholarship more Malaysian student of all races to study medicine. I know one Indian family whose child is studying medicine in Bandung, Indonesia. The poor parents are virtually begging from office to office for money to educate their child.
Let us be realistic, if the country treats a top student like a step-child and alienates him from opportunities, would he still be motivated to return and serve the country. This is what has happened and still happens. Many who has gone abroad still has family ties and feelings for the country but government policies and alienation of opportunities makes them not having any desire to return.
Malaysians pay tax, Petronas makes billions, government and government linked agencies and companies make money and government poor millions bailing out government linked companies. Yet, outstanding students and particularly non malay students cannot secure scholarships easily. What the government, government agencies and government linked companies must do is to provide scholarships for outstanding Malaysians and importantly irrespective of race. What has happened to Lee Jia Hui should not have happen and must never happen again.
Norman Fernandez
Vice Chairman
DAP Johor
PRIME MINISTER, WHY DON’T YOU JUST APOLOGISE?
Last Thursday night, Prime Minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi addressing the Malaysian Bar Council dinner announced the governments’ decision to make “goodwill ex-gratia payments” to the six former judges and their families for the “pain and loss” as a result of the shameful events of 1988. The Judges are, the late Tan Sri Eusoffe Abdoolcader and Tan Sri Wan Suleiman Pawanteh and their families, Tun Salleh Abbas, Tan Sri Azmi Kamaruddin, Tan Sri Wan Hamzah Mohamed Salleh and Datuk George Seah.
It has taken twenty years for the government to acknowledge the wrong done to the said judges. Imagine, twenty years just to get an acknowledgement ! Many still remember the events of 1988 when Dr Mahathir convened a kangaroo tribunal to try the then Lord President Tun Salleh Abbas on charges of misconduct and for questioning the constitutional amendment designed by the government of Dr Mahathir to erode the powers of the judiciary. In the end Tun Salleh Abbas was sacked. Tan Sri Azmi Kamaruddin, Tan Sri Eusoffe Abdoolcader and Tan Sri Wan Hamzah was suspended while Datuk George Seah and Tan Sri Wan Suleiman Pawanteh were sacked by another tribunal.
While many may laud the governments’ decision, what is most regretted is the refusal of the government to acknowledge its wrong doing and unreservedly apologise to the judges and their families. Instead, the government offers ex-gratia payment, not as a sign of remorse and regret but as a recognition of the contribution by the six outstanding judges. Deputy Prime Minister Dato Seri Najib Tun Abdul Razak put the position of the government clearly when he said that the the payment by the government is not tantamount to any form of apology.
If that is so, then the decent thing the judges and their families ought to do is to reject the offer of ex-gratia payment, unless of cause if the judges or their families are in dire straits and do need the money the government is throwing at their feet.
It has taken twenty years for the government to acknowledge the wrong done to the said judges. Imagine, twenty years just to get an acknowledgement ! Many still remember the events of 1988 when Dr Mahathir convened a kangaroo tribunal to try the then Lord President Tun Salleh Abbas on charges of misconduct and for questioning the constitutional amendment designed by the government of Dr Mahathir to erode the powers of the judiciary. In the end Tun Salleh Abbas was sacked. Tan Sri Azmi Kamaruddin, Tan Sri Eusoffe Abdoolcader and Tan Sri Wan Hamzah was suspended while Datuk George Seah and Tan Sri Wan Suleiman Pawanteh were sacked by another tribunal.
While many may laud the governments’ decision, what is most regretted is the refusal of the government to acknowledge its wrong doing and unreservedly apologise to the judges and their families. Instead, the government offers ex-gratia payment, not as a sign of remorse and regret but as a recognition of the contribution by the six outstanding judges. Deputy Prime Minister Dato Seri Najib Tun Abdul Razak put the position of the government clearly when he said that the the payment by the government is not tantamount to any form of apology.
If that is so, then the decent thing the judges and their families ought to do is to reject the offer of ex-gratia payment, unless of cause if the judges or their families are in dire straits and do need the money the government is throwing at their feet.
After 20 years, what is needed is for the government to unreseverdly apologise. Simple as that - apology. Prime Minister had an opportunity to put it right but as usual fluffed the opportunity. Thus, so long as the government do not apologise and so long as it is not done, there will be no closure of the ugly chapter of 1988. Dinner and ex-gratia payment is simply not enough. Dignity cannot be bought with money.
Norman Fernandez.
Thursday, April 17, 2008
UNDER THREAT? WHAT THREAT?
Thursday, 17 April 2008 06:36am
©The Star (Used by permission)Brave New World by Azmi Sharom
Since the recent general election, voices have risen up in a shrill warning cry that the Malays are now ‘under threat’. But perhaps the real threat is the threat to Umno hegemony.
AND so it begins. Race-based rhetoric has raised its ugly little head in response to a democratic process. Over 49% of the people of Malaysia have voted for parties that have rejected race-based affirmative action in favour of a needs-based platform.
It did not take very long for voices, both common and royal, to rise up in a shrill warning cry that the Malays are now “under threat”.“Under threat” from what, may I ask? Let’s take a bit of time to look at this so-called “threat”.
Firstly, Malays are given special protection under Article 153 of the Constitution.Article 153 is titled “Reservation of quotas in respect of services, permits, etc, for Malays and natives of any of the States of Sabah and Sarawak”.
Article 152 states that Malay is the National Language. The Supreme Head of the Federation, according to Article 32, is the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, a Malay ruler. This is the foundation of Malay “special privileges”.
None of the Pakatan Rakyat component parties, including the DAP, have said anything about removing Articles 153, 152 and 32. They remain safe and secure with no sign whatsoever of any sort of threat. Besides, in order to change it, you would need a two-thirds majority in the lower and upper houses of Parliament plus the support of the Conference of Rulers. The last time I checked, no one has a two-thirds majority in the Dewan Rakyat.
Secondly, due to simple demographics, it is unlikely that a totally non-Malay party is ever going to win absolute control of the government.
Of the five state governments in the hands of the Pakatan, four are led by a Malay Mentri Besar. Penang is an exception, but Penang has been led by non-Malays since the 60s. Why was there was no outcry before this?
Thirdly, the proposed doing-away with the NEP (or whatever it is called nowadays), I suppose, can be seen as a threat to the Malays.But how it can be a threat is beyond me, because the replacement suggested by the Pakatan is not some sort of laissez-faire capitalist economy. Instead, it is an economic system with affirmative action promised to those in need.
If the Malays are the largest group of people in Malaysia who are in the most need, then they will get the most help. If they are not in the most need, then why on earth do they need help then?
This is the point where I will get angry letters about how the NEP is needed; because in the business world – the real world which I know nothing about because I am just a lowly-academic trapped in my ivory tower – Malays are discriminated against by the Chinese.
So we need a policy like the NEP to provide some balance.I disagree.If there are racist business policies being conducted against the Malays, then you face it head on with anti-discrimination laws.
If some person feels he is being discriminated against, no matter what his race, then let there be a law to help him, and let us punish the racists with a hefty fine or jail term.You do not meet racism with racism; you challenge it by destroying all traces of it.
The problem with the NEP, as I see it, is that it breeds a mentality of entitlement based on race and not merit. This mentality seeps into governance, and it creates an atmosphere of mediocrity. One example of this is how the Constitution has been disregarded in relation to employment issues.
The Federal Constitution states that you can set quotas at the entry points of government services, for example, the civil service and public universities. However, this is counter-balanced by Article 136 that says all federal employees must be treated fairly regardless of race.
This means that once inside a service, everyone is to be treated equally based on merit. In such a situation, only the cream will rise to the top.However, since the introduction of the NEP, the practice in government services has been to promote Malays mainly.
This has in turn led to a drop in the number of non-Malay actors in the service of the public. Taking my profession for example, the closeted unrealistic world of academia, I look down south and I see that 30% of the staff in the National University of Singapore Law School are Malaysians.
How come these clever fellows who are good enough to teach in a university that is among the top 20 in the world are not here in the land of their birth? Why are the blinking Singaporeans enjoying our talent? Is it because that talent is all non-Malay and they feel they have better opportunities there than here?
This is a complete waste, and in the end this loss of talent means a loss for the university, the country and the people of this country, including the Malay students who miss out on the best possible teachers.
Perhaps the real threat is the threat to Umno hegemony, in which case my answer to that is this: clean up your act, live up to your promises and listen to what the people are saying. Make yourself electable by proving that you can create good government.
That is called democracy.
Dr Azmi Sharom is a law teacher. The views expressed here are entirely his own.
©The Star (Used by permission)Brave New World by Azmi Sharom
Since the recent general election, voices have risen up in a shrill warning cry that the Malays are now ‘under threat’. But perhaps the real threat is the threat to Umno hegemony.
AND so it begins. Race-based rhetoric has raised its ugly little head in response to a democratic process. Over 49% of the people of Malaysia have voted for parties that have rejected race-based affirmative action in favour of a needs-based platform.
It did not take very long for voices, both common and royal, to rise up in a shrill warning cry that the Malays are now “under threat”.“Under threat” from what, may I ask? Let’s take a bit of time to look at this so-called “threat”.
Firstly, Malays are given special protection under Article 153 of the Constitution.Article 153 is titled “Reservation of quotas in respect of services, permits, etc, for Malays and natives of any of the States of Sabah and Sarawak”.
Article 152 states that Malay is the National Language. The Supreme Head of the Federation, according to Article 32, is the Yang di-Pertuan Agong, a Malay ruler. This is the foundation of Malay “special privileges”.
None of the Pakatan Rakyat component parties, including the DAP, have said anything about removing Articles 153, 152 and 32. They remain safe and secure with no sign whatsoever of any sort of threat. Besides, in order to change it, you would need a two-thirds majority in the lower and upper houses of Parliament plus the support of the Conference of Rulers. The last time I checked, no one has a two-thirds majority in the Dewan Rakyat.
Secondly, due to simple demographics, it is unlikely that a totally non-Malay party is ever going to win absolute control of the government.
Of the five state governments in the hands of the Pakatan, four are led by a Malay Mentri Besar. Penang is an exception, but Penang has been led by non-Malays since the 60s. Why was there was no outcry before this?
Thirdly, the proposed doing-away with the NEP (or whatever it is called nowadays), I suppose, can be seen as a threat to the Malays.But how it can be a threat is beyond me, because the replacement suggested by the Pakatan is not some sort of laissez-faire capitalist economy. Instead, it is an economic system with affirmative action promised to those in need.
If the Malays are the largest group of people in Malaysia who are in the most need, then they will get the most help. If they are not in the most need, then why on earth do they need help then?
This is the point where I will get angry letters about how the NEP is needed; because in the business world – the real world which I know nothing about because I am just a lowly-academic trapped in my ivory tower – Malays are discriminated against by the Chinese.
So we need a policy like the NEP to provide some balance.I disagree.If there are racist business policies being conducted against the Malays, then you face it head on with anti-discrimination laws.
If some person feels he is being discriminated against, no matter what his race, then let there be a law to help him, and let us punish the racists with a hefty fine or jail term.You do not meet racism with racism; you challenge it by destroying all traces of it.
The problem with the NEP, as I see it, is that it breeds a mentality of entitlement based on race and not merit. This mentality seeps into governance, and it creates an atmosphere of mediocrity. One example of this is how the Constitution has been disregarded in relation to employment issues.
The Federal Constitution states that you can set quotas at the entry points of government services, for example, the civil service and public universities. However, this is counter-balanced by Article 136 that says all federal employees must be treated fairly regardless of race.
This means that once inside a service, everyone is to be treated equally based on merit. In such a situation, only the cream will rise to the top.However, since the introduction of the NEP, the practice in government services has been to promote Malays mainly.
This has in turn led to a drop in the number of non-Malay actors in the service of the public. Taking my profession for example, the closeted unrealistic world of academia, I look down south and I see that 30% of the staff in the National University of Singapore Law School are Malaysians.
How come these clever fellows who are good enough to teach in a university that is among the top 20 in the world are not here in the land of their birth? Why are the blinking Singaporeans enjoying our talent? Is it because that talent is all non-Malay and they feel they have better opportunities there than here?
This is a complete waste, and in the end this loss of talent means a loss for the university, the country and the people of this country, including the Malay students who miss out on the best possible teachers.
Perhaps the real threat is the threat to Umno hegemony, in which case my answer to that is this: clean up your act, live up to your promises and listen to what the people are saying. Make yourself electable by proving that you can create good government.
That is called democracy.
Dr Azmi Sharom is a law teacher. The views expressed here are entirely his own.
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
Tamil daily Makkal Osai banned
The Home Ministry today rejected the renewal of Tamil daily Makkal Osai's publication permit, a move believed to be related to the widespread coverage given to the opposition.When contacted, Makkal Osai general manager SM Periasamy confirmed that the ministry issued the letter which stated that the daily's application 'will not be considered'.
Read more here
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
He's Back!
KUALA LUMPUR, April 15 — De facto opposition leader Anwar Ibrahim looked every inch the prime minister-in-waiting when he calmly announced that his Pakatan Rakyat has the numbers and is ready to form the federal government.
"Now I am saying for the first time that we are ready," Anwar told reporters after a 10,000-strong rally in the historic Sultan Sulaiman Club in central Kuala Lumpur celebrating his formal return to politics. He was barred from active politics until midnight April 14 after a corruption conviction in 1999.
Since 1993 when he won the Umno deputy presidency, veteran opposition leader and former nemesis-turned-ally Lim Kit Siang had tagged Anwar as a prime-minister-in-waiting – a tag he now assumes proudly as burly guards escorted him through the club after they led a convoy of big bikes to deliver him to the club premises in Kampung Baru.
He also said the Pakatan Rakyat (People's Alliance) could appoint his wife Wan Azizah Wan Ismail – the Parti Keadilan Rakyat president and Parliamentary Opposition leader – as Prime Minister, if he had yet to get a seat in parliament. However, he said the appointment would depend on consensus.
Asked if he would run for a parliament seat, Anwar replied that he would answer that question once the MPs are sworn in on April 28. "I want to build the coalition first. My personal interest comes later."Anwar disclosed that his coalition had spoken to lawmakers from both Sarawak and Sabah who had requested for more development and also increased royalties from commodities extracted from both states.
"We will only enter if the majority is complete," he said, also implying the coalition had the necessary numbers to form the federal government.
Anwar's coalition won 82 seats in the 222-seat parliament, delivering a huge and historic blow to Prime Minister Datuk Seri Abdullah Ahmad Badawi's Barisan Nasional coalition which won 140 seats, eight short of two-third majority which the BN had always assumed as its right. The BN also lost control of four states apart from Kelantan.
Anwar, whose one-hour speech to the crowd was halted by police at 10.35pm, also lashed out at former prime minister Mahathir Mohamad - his one-time-mentor-turned-nemesis.
"I've refrained for a long time from responding to Dr Mahathir's vicious and venomous personal attacks. I consider his views obsolete. Unfortunately, he's getting crazier, he's never consistent and has a particular personal agenda to promote Najib and free him from all scandals."
Ban lifted on Hindu and Sikh priests, temple workers
Source: Malaysian Insider
KUALA LUMPUR, April 15 – The Hindu and Sikh communities can now heave a huge sigh of relief. The ban on foreign workers from India who have been brought in to help build and run Hindu temples and gurdwaras has been lifted.
Human Resources Minister Datuk Dr S. Subramaniam today issued a statement that the government has decided to renew the working permits of temple priests, musicians and sculptors who were brought in from India to continue rendering their services in the country. However, the statement does not address the status of fresh applications.
Subramaniam, who is also secretary-general of the Malaysian Indian Congress (MIC), said he raised the issue at the last Cabinet meeting on April 9.
Datuk A. Vaithilingam who is the president of Hindu Sangam, the umbrella body for all Hindus in the country, said that it was good news but an unnecessary step in the first place. The ban was ordered by the Cabinet sometime late last year, he added.
“At the moment, they have accepted in principle. I'm told that there will be a meeting later with Home Minister, Datuk Syed Hamid Albar to discuss the details but I don't know when. I don't know why only the workers from India were affected,” he said.
In the meantime, the Hindu Sangam will continue to make new applications to bring in more priests, musicians and sculptors to fulfil the current shortage. There are roughly 180 priests for Hindu temples, which is not enough to meet the local demand.
According to MIC president Datuk Seri S. Samy Vellu, Hindu temples and Sikh gurdwaras are in dire need of some 500 and 300 priests respectively.
KUALA LUMPUR, April 15 – The Hindu and Sikh communities can now heave a huge sigh of relief. The ban on foreign workers from India who have been brought in to help build and run Hindu temples and gurdwaras has been lifted.
Human Resources Minister Datuk Dr S. Subramaniam today issued a statement that the government has decided to renew the working permits of temple priests, musicians and sculptors who were brought in from India to continue rendering their services in the country. However, the statement does not address the status of fresh applications.
Subramaniam, who is also secretary-general of the Malaysian Indian Congress (MIC), said he raised the issue at the last Cabinet meeting on April 9.
Datuk A. Vaithilingam who is the president of Hindu Sangam, the umbrella body for all Hindus in the country, said that it was good news but an unnecessary step in the first place. The ban was ordered by the Cabinet sometime late last year, he added.
“At the moment, they have accepted in principle. I'm told that there will be a meeting later with Home Minister, Datuk Syed Hamid Albar to discuss the details but I don't know when. I don't know why only the workers from India were affected,” he said.
In the meantime, the Hindu Sangam will continue to make new applications to bring in more priests, musicians and sculptors to fulfil the current shortage. There are roughly 180 priests for Hindu temples, which is not enough to meet the local demand.
According to MIC president Datuk Seri S. Samy Vellu, Hindu temples and Sikh gurdwaras are in dire need of some 500 and 300 priests respectively.
Sunday, April 13, 2008
Anwar : 'Umno, not Malays, under threat'
Parti Keadilan Rakyat de facto leader Anwar Ibrahim said the ‘Ketuanan Melayu' card increasing played up by Umno is to divert attention from the party's internal problems following its unprecedented setback in last month's general election.The former Umno deputy president said this today at a hotel in Shah Alam when he was asked to comment on Utusan Malaysia's ‘Ketuanan Melayu tercabar' front-page headlines in the Umno-owned newspaper.
At a gathering organised by newly formed Barisan B Tengku Faris Petra told the crowd that it was not appropriate for other ethnic groups to seek equality and privileges accorded to Malays."We didn't hear much about this (Malay rights) issue last month or before the elections. I believe their intentions are to divert the attention of everyone," said Anwar.He said that instead of the ‘Ketuanan Melayu' concept, the more important cause is ‘Ketuanan Rakyat'."And when we say 'rakyat', it includes the Malays...especially the downtrodden ones and not the rich ones," said Anwar, who is former finance minister.
Read more here
Wednesday, April 09, 2008
Excellent article by CityNadez on Khir Toyo - TheSun Newspaper
Check out this article by Citizen Nades where he writes about Khir Toyo's hypocricy, RM2 million flower contracts, the infamous Istana Z and about four teenagers receiving alienated land in the fully-developed state of Selangor. Here!
Tuesday, April 08, 2008
Hindu temples hit by 'cabinet ban'
Source : Malaysiakini
K Kabilan Apr 7, 08 12:02pm
Devotees of the Hanuman temple in Brickfields, Kuala Lumpur, have eagerly been anticipating a spanking new structure by year’s end. Construction work by specialist builders from India have been progressing smoothly, with about 40 percent of work completed on schedule to date.
But temple officials now foresee problems in completing the work as the immigration department has refused to extend the work-permits of the builders.
Worse, the department has given the workers one month to leave the country, and has refused to entertain applications to bring in new workers. “We are stuck. The temple is only half-built. If these workers go, who will finish the work?” asked temple treasurer M Suresh. “The department wants us to hire local workers. What they don’t realise, or choose to ignore, is that not everyone can build temples. You need skilled and specialist workers.”
He has another problem - what to tell the devotees who have donated huge sums of money for the temple construction.
This is not an isolated case. Across the nation, many Hindu temples face same problems with the immigration department refusing to renew work permits of builders, priests and musicians. Its reason is that locals can be hired to do these jobs, a claim that many temple officials reject.
Temple builder P Malairaju said about 10 of his projects are stuck as a result of this new policy.
“When we apply to bring in expert builders, we submit a huge dossier involving the work schedule and the need for these workers. Only after going through these documents, would the department approve a permit. “Each worker is given an initial six-month permit which can be renewed for up to five years. However now, at the end of the six months, these workers are being told to pack up and leave,” he told Malaysiakini.
He said the decision can be appealed and an extension could be granted for up to three months, but not in all cases.
He said that he has about nine expert workers at the Hanuman temple and about 90 more working at temples in other locations. “When we asked the department why the renewal applications have been rejected, we were merely told to hire locals. Why can’t they refer to our dossiers and see for themselves why we brought in these workers in the first place?”
He added that local workers still lacked the necessary skills to build temples and its intrinsic works.
“This is not like building an apartment or a building. You need to know the work,” he added.
He also said that the department has also refused to entertain new applications to bring in workers to continue the stalled projects. “What is going to happen is that there will be half-built temples all around the country. I pity the temple officials who have to face the wrath of devotees,” he said. Suresh agreed, saying that even now some of the devotee at the Hanuman temple were blaming the temple officials for “siphoning off the donation and slowing down the temple construction”.
Other temples have been caught by the denial of renewed work permits for priests from India, thus forcing prayers and weddings to be conducted without priests.
The Sri Ayyanar Temple in Jalan Genting Klang is among those in this quandary. Its priest and a musician have been told to leave soon. “How do we find replacements? Local priests are not interested in working full time. We don’t have enough qualified musicians as well. And this temple is fully booked for the coming wedding season,” said temple secretary A Gothandapaandi.
Similarly the Sri Subramaniam temple in Bandar Sunway is facing difficulty after its musicians were told to leave and applications for new musicians and priests were rejected.
“We are stuck. I fear for the future. We don’t have enough local priests or musicians. The government should have some sense in this matter,” said temple chairperson R Manivasagam.
Officials in other temple committees urged the government to end the ‘ban’.
“Is there an unwritten code to stop the growth of Hindu temples in this country?” asked a temple secretary from Ipoh. Sri Sivan temple secretary V Palani from Klang said: “Trained local musicians and priests prefer to work on freelance basis so that they can earn more. Temples need full time musicians and priests so that we can serve the needs of our devotees at all times.”
When contacted, an immigration official said this is a cabinet-level decision and that all questions should be directed to the home ministry.
Last week MIC president S Samy Vellu raised the matter with the minister concerned, Syed Hamid Albar, who said the matter would be discussed in the cabinet before a decision is made.
Malaysia Hindu Sangam is also worried about the trend and has asked the government to revoke the cabinet decision, which was made late last year.
Hindu Sangam president A Vaithilingam said that the affected temples were all big, popular and registered temples. “This sudden decision has caused a lot of unhappiness and had damaged the operations of especially larger temples,” he said. “We feel that the decision is very unfair especially when considering that there are two million foreign workers in the country, whereas the requirement of the temples for a few hundred foreign skilled workers is not being entertained,” he added.
He also said that it takes many years to train highly-skilled priests and temple musicians.
“Unfortunately, the temples are not able to find locals with suitably high qualifications and skills to work for the pay that the temples can afford,” he said. Vaithilingam also said the Hindu Sangam is making efforts to meet Syed Hamid to resolve this problem.
This issue first cropped up last December when then minister in charge of foreign workers Radzi Sheikh Ahmad said that there is no ban on foreign workers - including priests, musicians and sculptors - from India. He insisted that no applications from Indian priests, musicians or sculptors had been rejected, but admitted the government is trying to reduce foreign labour.
"Our policy is that we want locals to take up the jobs as priests, musicians and sculptors," he was reported as saying.
Temple officials, however, say that based on what’s happening now, it is clear that there is indeed a ban in place.
Monday, April 07, 2008
UNDO THE ACTS THAT HURT OTHERS
Sunday, 06 April 2008 08:39am
©New Sunday Times (Used by permission)by Roger Tan in a multi-religious country like ours, religion is one issue which always invokes and provokes strong passions and reactions if not handled carefully.
In the last general election, many non-Muslims turned away from Barisan Nasional and voted for the opposition.
In some cases, church leaders even openly encouraged their Christian congregations to vote for Pas - something hitherto unthinkable, especially when Pas has always been advocating the establishment of an Islamic state.But why had non-Muslims voted for the opposition so resoundingly this time?The reason is obvious. The non-Muslims' gravamens are essentially these:
• the authorities were trigger-happy in demolishing illegal places of worship.
• the government's inaction, especially by the non-Muslim component parties in BN, in resolving the conflicts of civil law and syariah arising out of Article 121(1A) of the Federal Constitution. The problem is compounded when non-Muslims could more or less predict the outcome of the decisions of civil courts whenever a remedy was sought there.
• religious polarisation caused by the rivalry between Umno and Pas, each wanting to outdo the other in being more Islamic.
• non-Muslims find it increasingly difficult to build their places of worship.
Of these, I would only like to deal with the last grievance.
Article 3 of the Federal Constitution declares that non-Muslims are entitled to practise their religions in peace and harmony while Islam is the religion of the federation.
This is reinforced by Article 11(1) which provides that every non-Muslim has the right to profess and practise his religion. Article 11(3) also states that every religious group has the right, inter alia, to establish and maintain institutions for religious purposes and to acquire and own property and hold and administer it in accordance with law.
Sadly, in practice, this is not the case. The time taken to obtain approvals to build non-Muslim places of worship is incredibly long. In almost every case, it takes years.
The application and approval process is most cumbersome. For a start, it is almost unheard of that state governments would alienate lands for erection of non-Muslim places of worship. Hence, the lands involved are usually private lands and so before it could be used for religious purposes, the land has to be first converted for religious use. So an application will have to be made to the state authority (which is the state executive council), and it will be processed by the land office.
However, because it involves the erection of non-Muslim places of worship, most states require the matter to be first referred to a district security committee. At the district security committee level, the district office will have to obtain comments from various government departments, including the police.
The least palatable aspect of it all is that views from the Religious Affairs Department will also be sought.
Even if the district security committee approves it, the matter would still have to be referred to the state security committee, which is chaired by either the chief minister or state secretary.
In most cases, the process of obtaining comments from the various government departments is repeated.
If the state security committee okays it, it does not mean the application has been approved. It then goes to another committee chaired by the state executive councillor in charge of land matters, a position usually held by the chief minister.If the committee approves it, the state executive council has to give its final approval.
As the process takes such a long time, it is no surprise that along the way, the file is either misplaced or goes missing. In addition, sometimes there is a delay in submitting the papers for deliberation by some over-zealous junior government officers, who are mono-religious and feel that it is against their religion to support it.
The story does not end there even when the land has been converted for religious use. The next thing is to put up the building.To do that, an application will now have to be submitted to the local authority for approval of the building plans.But because it involves a non-Muslim place of worship, the process of going through the district and state security committees has to be repeated.
Even if the final approval is obtained, it still takes a few years for the building to come up. The reason being the costs of financing the construction and completion of these places of worship have to be privately raised and borne. All in all, it is not uncommon for at least 10 years to pass by the time a project comes to fruition.It follows that because the approval process is so difficult, it is no wonder illegal places of worship mushroom here and there.What is most insulting to them is the erection of their places of worship is viewed as a security threat.
Often, it has to be referred to a security committee whose composition includes representatives from the Religious Affairs Department.On the other hand, the erection of mosques is efficiently co-ordinated by one body - the state Muslim Council (Majlis Agama Islam).Land is easily made available and whenever a new housing development is completed, a place will be reserved for the construction of either a mosque or surau. Financing its construction is not a problem either.
Some two years ago, I suggested in this column ("Religious freedom the keystone" - NST, Jan 8, 2006) that each state government should set up a non-Muslim religious department to look into the religious issues affecting non-Muslims and to co-ordinate applications and funding for non-Muslim places of worship.I repeat this call and it is hoped that all state governments, whether under BN or Pakatan Rakyat, will consider this.
I am confident that any step taken to expedite the approval process and provide funding for non-Muslim places of worship will, in turn, expedite the healing process among these Malaysians who certainly feel aggrieved by this course of events.
By allowing them to freely and easily exercise their constitutional right to establish their religious sanctuaries will go a long way towards winning their hearts and minds.
In this respect, the Selangor government's decision to waive quit rent and assessment rates for all registered places of worship and schools in the state is laudable.
They now only need to pay a token annual fee of RM1.Likewise, the statement from the Pahang state secretary that it will now adopt a more liberal approach to matters concerning religion and places of worship is most welcome.
Similarly, the prime minister has pledged to improve the situation.But the most assuring of all came from the Sultan of Selangor, who said that although he is the head of Islam in Selangor, he will not hesitate to take action against any extremists and that it is important to ensure that religious freedom is defended by all.
It is hoped that everyone, be he a leader of BN or Pakatan, a Muslim or otherwise, will now take heed of the voice of the people expressed in the last general election.It is hoped, too, that politicians will be often reminded by what the regent of Perak Raja Dr Nazrin Shah said exactly a year ago at the Young Malaysians' Roundtable Discussion on National Unity and Development in Malaysia that Malaysia belongs to all Malaysians equally, and all have an equal right and responsibility to take ownership of their country and its future.
He added that the sine qua non of building a strong nation is when its citizens feel a sense of belonging and a common destiny and in our case, when Malaysians of all races, religions and origins are bound together in a common purpose.Therefore, history has always shown that suppression of a person's inherent right to freedom of religion is a recipe for disaster.
Consonantly, our leaders have also much to learn from the fair and just Muslim ruler in Sultan Abu Bakar, who ruled the state of Johor from 1886 to 1895.Though a Muslim, he was much loved by his non-Muslim subjects. Hailed as the Father of Modern Johor, he granted many plots of land for the erection of churches and temples throughout Johor.
The best testimony of his sense of fairness and justice is reflected in the Johor constitution promulgated during his reign, wherein it still contains an article proclaiming as follows:
"All the laws and customs of the country shall be carried out and exercised with justice and fairness by all the Courts of Justice and all Officers and Servants of the State between all the people of the country and the aliens who sojourn and reside under its protection, whether for a season or for a lengthened period, that is to say, without their entertaining in the least degree more sympathy or regard to partiality towards those who profess the religion of the country, namely the Muslim religion, or making any difference between those who are the subjects of the State and those who are not.
"Let us all Malaysians join hands as one people respecting each other's right to practise his religion in peace and harmony.Let us take pride rather than cringe with shame if this country is filled not only with mosques but also churches and temples.
If it is so, it is only because Malaysia is truly Asia.
May God bless us all.
*The writer is a member of the Malaysian Bar Council.
©New Sunday Times (Used by permission)by Roger Tan in a multi-religious country like ours, religion is one issue which always invokes and provokes strong passions and reactions if not handled carefully.
In the last general election, many non-Muslims turned away from Barisan Nasional and voted for the opposition.
In some cases, church leaders even openly encouraged their Christian congregations to vote for Pas - something hitherto unthinkable, especially when Pas has always been advocating the establishment of an Islamic state.But why had non-Muslims voted for the opposition so resoundingly this time?The reason is obvious. The non-Muslims' gravamens are essentially these:
• the authorities were trigger-happy in demolishing illegal places of worship.
• the government's inaction, especially by the non-Muslim component parties in BN, in resolving the conflicts of civil law and syariah arising out of Article 121(1A) of the Federal Constitution. The problem is compounded when non-Muslims could more or less predict the outcome of the decisions of civil courts whenever a remedy was sought there.
• religious polarisation caused by the rivalry between Umno and Pas, each wanting to outdo the other in being more Islamic.
• non-Muslims find it increasingly difficult to build their places of worship.
Of these, I would only like to deal with the last grievance.
Article 3 of the Federal Constitution declares that non-Muslims are entitled to practise their religions in peace and harmony while Islam is the religion of the federation.
This is reinforced by Article 11(1) which provides that every non-Muslim has the right to profess and practise his religion. Article 11(3) also states that every religious group has the right, inter alia, to establish and maintain institutions for religious purposes and to acquire and own property and hold and administer it in accordance with law.
Sadly, in practice, this is not the case. The time taken to obtain approvals to build non-Muslim places of worship is incredibly long. In almost every case, it takes years.
The application and approval process is most cumbersome. For a start, it is almost unheard of that state governments would alienate lands for erection of non-Muslim places of worship. Hence, the lands involved are usually private lands and so before it could be used for religious purposes, the land has to be first converted for religious use. So an application will have to be made to the state authority (which is the state executive council), and it will be processed by the land office.
However, because it involves the erection of non-Muslim places of worship, most states require the matter to be first referred to a district security committee. At the district security committee level, the district office will have to obtain comments from various government departments, including the police.
The least palatable aspect of it all is that views from the Religious Affairs Department will also be sought.
Even if the district security committee approves it, the matter would still have to be referred to the state security committee, which is chaired by either the chief minister or state secretary.
In most cases, the process of obtaining comments from the various government departments is repeated.
If the state security committee okays it, it does not mean the application has been approved. It then goes to another committee chaired by the state executive councillor in charge of land matters, a position usually held by the chief minister.If the committee approves it, the state executive council has to give its final approval.
As the process takes such a long time, it is no surprise that along the way, the file is either misplaced or goes missing. In addition, sometimes there is a delay in submitting the papers for deliberation by some over-zealous junior government officers, who are mono-religious and feel that it is against their religion to support it.
The story does not end there even when the land has been converted for religious use. The next thing is to put up the building.To do that, an application will now have to be submitted to the local authority for approval of the building plans.But because it involves a non-Muslim place of worship, the process of going through the district and state security committees has to be repeated.
Even if the final approval is obtained, it still takes a few years for the building to come up. The reason being the costs of financing the construction and completion of these places of worship have to be privately raised and borne. All in all, it is not uncommon for at least 10 years to pass by the time a project comes to fruition.It follows that because the approval process is so difficult, it is no wonder illegal places of worship mushroom here and there.What is most insulting to them is the erection of their places of worship is viewed as a security threat.
Often, it has to be referred to a security committee whose composition includes representatives from the Religious Affairs Department.On the other hand, the erection of mosques is efficiently co-ordinated by one body - the state Muslim Council (Majlis Agama Islam).Land is easily made available and whenever a new housing development is completed, a place will be reserved for the construction of either a mosque or surau. Financing its construction is not a problem either.
Some two years ago, I suggested in this column ("Religious freedom the keystone" - NST, Jan 8, 2006) that each state government should set up a non-Muslim religious department to look into the religious issues affecting non-Muslims and to co-ordinate applications and funding for non-Muslim places of worship.I repeat this call and it is hoped that all state governments, whether under BN or Pakatan Rakyat, will consider this.
I am confident that any step taken to expedite the approval process and provide funding for non-Muslim places of worship will, in turn, expedite the healing process among these Malaysians who certainly feel aggrieved by this course of events.
By allowing them to freely and easily exercise their constitutional right to establish their religious sanctuaries will go a long way towards winning their hearts and minds.
In this respect, the Selangor government's decision to waive quit rent and assessment rates for all registered places of worship and schools in the state is laudable.
They now only need to pay a token annual fee of RM1.Likewise, the statement from the Pahang state secretary that it will now adopt a more liberal approach to matters concerning religion and places of worship is most welcome.
Similarly, the prime minister has pledged to improve the situation.But the most assuring of all came from the Sultan of Selangor, who said that although he is the head of Islam in Selangor, he will not hesitate to take action against any extremists and that it is important to ensure that religious freedom is defended by all.
It is hoped that everyone, be he a leader of BN or Pakatan, a Muslim or otherwise, will now take heed of the voice of the people expressed in the last general election.It is hoped, too, that politicians will be often reminded by what the regent of Perak Raja Dr Nazrin Shah said exactly a year ago at the Young Malaysians' Roundtable Discussion on National Unity and Development in Malaysia that Malaysia belongs to all Malaysians equally, and all have an equal right and responsibility to take ownership of their country and its future.
He added that the sine qua non of building a strong nation is when its citizens feel a sense of belonging and a common destiny and in our case, when Malaysians of all races, religions and origins are bound together in a common purpose.Therefore, history has always shown that suppression of a person's inherent right to freedom of religion is a recipe for disaster.
Consonantly, our leaders have also much to learn from the fair and just Muslim ruler in Sultan Abu Bakar, who ruled the state of Johor from 1886 to 1895.Though a Muslim, he was much loved by his non-Muslim subjects. Hailed as the Father of Modern Johor, he granted many plots of land for the erection of churches and temples throughout Johor.
The best testimony of his sense of fairness and justice is reflected in the Johor constitution promulgated during his reign, wherein it still contains an article proclaiming as follows:
"All the laws and customs of the country shall be carried out and exercised with justice and fairness by all the Courts of Justice and all Officers and Servants of the State between all the people of the country and the aliens who sojourn and reside under its protection, whether for a season or for a lengthened period, that is to say, without their entertaining in the least degree more sympathy or regard to partiality towards those who profess the religion of the country, namely the Muslim religion, or making any difference between those who are the subjects of the State and those who are not.
"Let us all Malaysians join hands as one people respecting each other's right to practise his religion in peace and harmony.Let us take pride rather than cringe with shame if this country is filled not only with mosques but also churches and temples.
If it is so, it is only because Malaysia is truly Asia.
May God bless us all.
*The writer is a member of the Malaysian Bar Council.
Saturday, April 05, 2008
Umno infested with 'crocs and sharks'
Source : Malaysiakini
Former Umno vice-president Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah did not mince his words today in his all-out attack against the party leadership in his speech at his Gua Musang division's special meeting.
Former Umno vice-president Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah did not mince his words today in his all-out attack against the party leadership in his speech at his Gua Musang division's special meeting.
- it has become a party of 'Malay fanatics' and that its leaders are corrupt
- lack of commitment in Umno to defend the dignity and sovereignty of the Malay royal institution
- Umno is seen as a party made up of ‘Malay fanatics’ who, for unknown reasons, like to brandish the keris when scolding other races
- A party which is corrupt, infested with ‘buaya darat’ (land dwelling crocodiles) and ‘yu-yu laut’ (sharks) who have no qualms about sweeping up and swallowing projects and government contracts as well as the rights of the poor of all races
- This image is hated by all races, not only the Malays
- Why (did the Indians & Chinese supported PAS)? Have they been put under a spell or Islamicised by PAS people? No. They did it because they believe that PAS, based on Islamic principles, is fairer than Umno to non-Malays
Read the full text of Tengku Razaleigh's speech here
Tuesday, April 01, 2008
Dr M: The baffling thing is why Umno leaders so afraid of this kid
Following report appeared on Malaysiakini today. Below are some excerpts , you can read the full text here.
- Umno was thrashed in the general election because of poor selection of candidates by ‘Sultan’ Abdullah Ahmad Badawi and ‘Kid’ Khairy Jamaluddin
- Umno has been turned into a “family party” where power is concentrated in the hands of Abdullah and his son-in-law.
- “Of course, everyone knows that the list of candidates is chosen and submitted to 'Sultan' Abdullah (Ahmad Badawi) by state leaders but once it reached to the party president, somebody else takes over,” he said.
- Saying that this nexus is destroying Umno, Mahathir told his audience with trademark sarcasm: “But this is just a rumour, don’t listen to my bad mouth!”
- “The baffling thing is why Umno leaders so afraid of this kid. The ministers should have no problem to tenyeh (smash) this kid, but it seems that they are too afraid and I don’t know why,” Mahathir said.
- “This leader is the country’s only prime minister to ever come from an opposition state (Penang)...,” said Mahathir.
Sunday, March 30, 2008
MIC branch dissolved, members become PAS supporters
News from The Star
TAIPING: The Kampung Jebong MIC branch in Simpang here was officially dissolved when 110 of its members quit the party to become members of "Kelab Penyokong PAS" (PAS Supporters Club).
Branch chairman M. Muninathan, accompanied by committee members, submitted their application forms to Bukit Gantang MP Roslan Shaharom at a village temple here on Saturday night.
Roslan said the welfare of the former MIC branch members and members of the Indian community would be taken care of.
"We will take care of you because any problems affecting the Indian community will also affect members of the other communities," he said.
Roslan said he was indebted to the Indian community here as more than 95% of Indian voters within the Bukit Gantang parliamentary constituency had voted for him in the recently-concluded general election.
He said members of the community had every reason to rejoice as two of the three state seats in the constituency had been won by Barisan Rakyat, and the victors -- Mohd Osman Mohd Jailu (Changkat Jering) and Tai Sing Ng (Kuala Sepetang) -- had been appointed exco members of the new Perak state government.
TAIPING: The Kampung Jebong MIC branch in Simpang here was officially dissolved when 110 of its members quit the party to become members of "Kelab Penyokong PAS" (PAS Supporters Club).
Branch chairman M. Muninathan, accompanied by committee members, submitted their application forms to Bukit Gantang MP Roslan Shaharom at a village temple here on Saturday night.
Roslan said the welfare of the former MIC branch members and members of the Indian community would be taken care of.
"We will take care of you because any problems affecting the Indian community will also affect members of the other communities," he said.
Roslan said he was indebted to the Indian community here as more than 95% of Indian voters within the Bukit Gantang parliamentary constituency had voted for him in the recently-concluded general election.
He said members of the community had every reason to rejoice as two of the three state seats in the constituency had been won by Barisan Rakyat, and the victors -- Mohd Osman Mohd Jailu (Changkat Jering) and Tai Sing Ng (Kuala Sepetang) -- had been appointed exco members of the new Perak state government.
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
Another coalition of NGOs?
A group of some 20 Perak Malay non-governmental organisations (NGOs) has voiced its concern over the fate of Malays under the new DAP-PKR-PAS government in the state, as reported by the star here.
A fellow blogger reveals they might not be real NGOs after all. Link here.
A fellow blogger reveals they might not be real NGOs after all. Link here.
Sunday, March 23, 2008
Friday, March 21, 2008
Monday, March 17, 2008
Saturday, March 15, 2008
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
Sunday, March 09, 2008
Rakyat Telah Bersuara!
Reactions to the political tsunami that struck most parts of Malaysia yesterday.
= = = = = =
Dr.M : "My view is he (Badawi) has destroyed Umno, destroyed the BN and he has been responsible for this."
= = = = = =
Anwar Ibrahim : "The people have voted decisively for a new era where the government must be truly inclusive and recognise that all Malaysians, regardless of race, culture or religion are a nation of one,"
= = = = = =
Koh Tsu Koon : “I will meet with the party leaders to convey my decision. As a captain of the ship, I take full responsibility of what has happened,”
= = = = = =
NST : "BN ROCKED"
= = = = = =
The Star : "Political Tsunami"
Friday, March 07, 2008
N.45 STULANG NORMAN FERNANDEZ.
My name is Norman Fernandez. I am the candidate for DAP. In 2004 I was the candidate for Stulang N.45. Although I did not succeed, I have continued to serve the people of Stulang. I am once again contesting in Stulang. The truth, is that I am the underdog in Stulang and I am taking the might of BN-MCA. Add to that is another candidate from PRM who has dropped by into Stulang to contest election.
I urge you the voters of Stulang to vote for DAP, a party which has for 40 years fought to ensure your culture, language, education, religion and your constitutional rights are not eroded. For more than 40 years DAP has committed to the service and struggle for Malaysians. It is for this reason DAP continue to have the trust of the people.
I urge you the voters of Stulang to vote for DAP, a party which has for 40 years fought to ensure your culture, language, education, religion and your constitutional rights are not eroded. For more than 40 years DAP has committed to the service and struggle for Malaysians. It is for this reason DAP continue to have the trust of the people.
You too can trust me when I say to you the voters of Stulang N.45 that :-
(i) I promise to use all my ability and resources to serve the people of Stulang.
(ii) I promise to voice out without fear the problems and concerns of the people of Stulang.
(iii) I promise to ensure that the all relevant authorities including the state government:-
(i) I promise to use all my ability and resources to serve the people of Stulang.
(ii) I promise to voice out without fear the problems and concerns of the people of Stulang.
(iii) I promise to ensure that the all relevant authorities including the state government:-
(a) make Stulang crime free and safe for the people.
(b) that the local authorities (MBJB) provide quality service and good infrastructure
and amenities for the people of Stulang.
My motto “Dedikasi, Amanah and Prihatin”. That is what I promise you the voters of Stulang. I am committed to serve and ready to serve. Your vote and each and every vote will be an encouragement for me to serve you even better. Please vote Norman Fernandez. Please vote DAP.
My motto “Dedikasi, Amanah and Prihatin”. That is what I promise you the voters of Stulang. I am committed to serve and ready to serve. Your vote and each and every vote will be an encouragement for me to serve you even better. Please vote Norman Fernandez. Please vote DAP.
Thursday, March 06, 2008
Tuesday, March 04, 2008
EC's Incredible Indelible-Ink Flip Flop
EC: Indelible ink will not be used
Tuesday, 04 March 2008
The Election Commission has cancelled the use of indelible ink for this general election, citing public order and security issues.
The stunning announcement was made at a press conference in Putrajaya this afternoon - four days before polling. The announcement was made by EC chairperson Abdul Rashid Abdul Rahman. Also present at the press conference were Attorney General Abdul Gani Patail dan Inspector General of Police Musa Hassan.
The indelible ink was to be introduced for the first time in Malaysia as part of efforts to enhance transparency.
In line with this, along with the introduction of the ink, the EC had also allowed for the casting of postal ballots to be observed by polling agents and the use of transparent ballot boxes.
The EC believed that the changes would quell some of the allegations that Malaysian elections are not free and fair.
In preparation for the use of the indelible ink, the EC had previously said that it would buy approximately 48,000 bottles of indelible ink worth RM2.4mil from India.
Women voters were also repeatedly reminded to remove their nail polish before going to the polls on March 8, as it would be difficult to apply the ink otherwise.
However even prior to today’s shocking EC back track, questions were being asked as to how the EC can compel voters to apply the ink as elections laws have not been amended to include the provision for the use of the indelible ink.
The EC overcame this burden by stating that voters who were against the use of indelible ink would have to fill out a form seeking to be excused before the cast their vote.
The opposition has two days ago ticked off the EC for appearing to have second thoughts on the introduction of the indelible ink.
R Sivarasa, the candidate for Selangor's Subang, said that the ink would stop possible incidences of multiple voting.
"They misled all Malaysians, not only yourselves, the voters of Malaysia and us, that they would implement the (use of) indelible ink - they also issued numerous statements about how much indelible ink would cost and they said they would buy it." - M'kini
Tuesday, 04 March 2008
The Election Commission has cancelled the use of indelible ink for this general election, citing public order and security issues.
The stunning announcement was made at a press conference in Putrajaya this afternoon - four days before polling. The announcement was made by EC chairperson Abdul Rashid Abdul Rahman. Also present at the press conference were Attorney General Abdul Gani Patail dan Inspector General of Police Musa Hassan.
The indelible ink was to be introduced for the first time in Malaysia as part of efforts to enhance transparency.
In line with this, along with the introduction of the ink, the EC had also allowed for the casting of postal ballots to be observed by polling agents and the use of transparent ballot boxes.
The EC believed that the changes would quell some of the allegations that Malaysian elections are not free and fair.
In preparation for the use of the indelible ink, the EC had previously said that it would buy approximately 48,000 bottles of indelible ink worth RM2.4mil from India.
Women voters were also repeatedly reminded to remove their nail polish before going to the polls on March 8, as it would be difficult to apply the ink otherwise.
However even prior to today’s shocking EC back track, questions were being asked as to how the EC can compel voters to apply the ink as elections laws have not been amended to include the provision for the use of the indelible ink.
The EC overcame this burden by stating that voters who were against the use of indelible ink would have to fill out a form seeking to be excused before the cast their vote.
The opposition has two days ago ticked off the EC for appearing to have second thoughts on the introduction of the indelible ink.
R Sivarasa, the candidate for Selangor's Subang, said that the ink would stop possible incidences of multiple voting.
"They misled all Malaysians, not only yourselves, the voters of Malaysia and us, that they would implement the (use of) indelible ink - they also issued numerous statements about how much indelible ink would cost and they said they would buy it." - M'kini
Monday, March 03, 2008
LIM KIT SIANG – Vote DAP in Stulang
Skudai, March 3, 08. Lim Kit Siang today during the “meet the Johor DAP candidates sessions” urged voters of STULANG to vote for DAP. DAP is fielding Norman Fernandez a 44 year old lawyer in Stulang state seat.
Norman Fernandez is engaged in a three corner fight with Barisan Nasional MCA Mok Chek Hou and the third candidate S.K Song.
According to Lim, in truth the contest in Stulang is between Barisan Nasional MCA and DAP. That should be the choice. To vote the third candidate would only mean to split the votes and give Barisan Nasional a victory by default.
- WARTA STULANG -
Norman Fernandez is engaged in a three corner fight with Barisan Nasional MCA Mok Chek Hou and the third candidate S.K Song.
According to Lim, in truth the contest in Stulang is between Barisan Nasional MCA and DAP. That should be the choice. To vote the third candidate would only mean to split the votes and give Barisan Nasional a victory by default.
- WARTA STULANG -
Friday, February 29, 2008
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
THE POWER OF TRUTH OF M.I.C VS THE REAL TRUTH OF REALITY
Newspapers today published M.I.C’s report card titled “The Power of Truth”, proudly claiming all the things it has done for the Indian community. Instead of telling us the actual truth and giving the true figures, M.I.C instead asks the voters questions.
M.I.C questions the community :-
WHO SAYS MIC HAS NOT DONE ENOUGH?
When has enough ever been enough, all requests for assistance have been entertained (be it for RM100 or RM10,000-00 or more).
· Do you know how many medical bills have been settled by MIC?
· Do you know how many underprivileged Indians today own houses, thanks to MIC?
· Do you know how many lawyers and doctors have been created by MIC or as a result of
MIC’s contribution?
· Do you know how much educational aids MIC has given to-date?
MIC claims that it had supposedly :-
MIC HAS NEVER SAID NO !
· We have never said NO to your problems.
· We have never said NO to your children’s education.
· We have never said NO to your financial difficulties.
· We have never said NO to your medical bills.
· We have never said NO when you want provisions for your family.
. We have never said NO when you need money to conduct a decent death rite(s) for your
loved one.
· We have never said NO to you approaching us at any time. That’s the plain truth.
Now here is the REAL TRUTH which M.I.C did not tell.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
